Why being smart isn't always a good thing.

46 points•speckx•3 days ago•54 comments•

54 comments

ZeroGravitas3 days ago
Under a picture of "Just Stop Oil" protestors:

>Do you think this is really about climate change? No, these are empty human beings, desperate for their lives to mean something. And their apocalyptic climate change model has done that for them. It has nothing to do with science. They probably don’t realize that the marginal rate of energy cost is fast approaching zero. That technological innovation is exponential and carbon capture can likely be made economical relatively soon. Hell, they probably aren’t even pro-nuclear.

From a BBC explainer of what these protestors want:

"Just Stop Oil (JSO) wants the UK to stop approving new fossil fuel projects, which are a major cause of climate change."

That's a narrow goal and they stopped when they thought they'd achieved it.

So their allegedly "apocalyptic" climate change model doesn't even stretch as far as stopping producing from existing oil fields, just new ones before they become sunk costs. Which makes sense because as this rant says, we have new and better tech to replace it.

They are advocating the reasonsable compromise position. This guy is the "intellectual" who isn't letting facts get in the way of his rant about smart people.

I'm guessing he's also missed the irony of citing Pol Pot killing all the educated folk as the intro to his "smart people are the problem" rant.

tuesdaynight3 days ago
The article is full of irony. In the end, he talks about "social media intellectuals" trying to capture people's attention instead of being correct, while doing the same in this post.

I dare to say that "intellectuals" are easy to be hated, so this post is not doing something new or groundbreaking as it believes it does. As you said, dictators are prone to kill them

oulipo2 days ago
Indeed they are a militant group trying to get to one goal, which, if reached, is already quite big. So of course they don't solve everything, but it's already a huge goal

Meanwhile the author of the post says that "capture carbon technology is around the corner" while 99.9% of scientists say it won't work... so I let readers figure out who the clown is

docdeek3 days ago
The Just Stop Oil website’s FAQ suggests their goals are far more ambitious than now new projects:

WHAT DOES JUST STOP OIL WANT?

We demand that the UK government commits to working with other nations to establish a legally binding treaty to stop extracting and burning oil, gas and coal by 2030 as well as supporting and financing poorer countries to make a fast, fair, and just transition.

https://juststopoil.org/faqs-updated/

ZeroGravitas3 days ago
I think that's just poor wording:

As the "non-proliferation" treaty they link to makes clear in it's very name and in the full explanation, they want to first limit unnecessary expansion.

https://www.fossilfueltreaty.org/about#about

> Develop the plan that would allow governments to stop building out the problem by ending the expansion of coal, oil and gas production

greenavocado2 days ago

  THE POWER PROCESS

  33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the “power process.” This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).

  34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one’s power.
Huarache12 days ago
Pol Pot's ideology was essentially led by educated people, Communism historically spread through academia riling up the poor masses, in the most direct version of Peter Turchin's theory of Elite Overproduction.

I don't believe in anti-intellectualism, but it's arguably the Elite Aspirants which are well educated, who often have the most to gain against Intellectuals.

See Stewart Rhodes, the Yale Law School Grad who started the Oath Keepers. Pol Pot himself studied at Elite schools in Cambodia, and even went on an academic trip to Paris to study radio electronics.

Huarache12 days ago
In a nutshell, behind every anti-intellectual movement, is a group of people who are often well educated.
ElProlactin3 days ago
Intelligent people can be wrong. Massive revelation here.

What's interesting is that the author apparently never considers the possibility that some of the people he holds up as case studies didn't actually believe their "models" were right but had other motivations for their actions.

McNamara is the perfect example of this. It's pretty well established now that he knew the US was never going to "win" in Vietnam but he kept going for other reasons, such as a deep sense of loyalty to President Johnson.

From this perspective, the numbers (picking the "right" ones and manipulating them) were used to support a narrative. They weren't evidence that McNamara actually believed his "model" was working.

Applying this to Blue Zones: intellectuals can be opportunists. They might realize the data is bad and the conclusion is not as well supported by it, but that there's a story ("model") that is appealing and can be packaged and sold.

Edit: I should also add that there's a semantic dimension to this post. Robert McNamara was not an "intellectual"; he was a technocrat. So it seems like the author is defining "intellectual" as any person who is considered "intelligent", but I guess "Intelligent People Are Fucking Idiots" wasn't as good a headline.

TSiege3 days ago
Agreed. Ehlrich as well. He was a butterfly specialist and applied population theories he used in his own research onto humans. His book was a surprise best seller and made him an intellectual celebrity.

His article is heavy cherry picking and shows little curiosity beyond “you’re dumb I’m smart.”

semiquaver3 days ago

  > He also had a very large family despite his protests about overpopulation.
As far as I can tell this is false. He had one daughter and then immediately and publicly had a vasectomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

trilogic3 days ago
>Intelligent people can be wrong. Massive revelation here.

Nope, megalomaniacs are wrong prepotently loud, most of the time just because they can (a piece of paper allows them to). Which makes them all but intelligent.

ElProlactin3 days ago
So "intellectuals" are all megalomaniacs now?
sgjohnson3 days ago
> Or consider the fact that over 91% of hedge fund managers can’t beat the market, despite the fact that the entire purpose of hedge funds is to explicitly create better returns than the market.

This isn't strictly speaking true. While some hedge funds have the goal of beating the market, most of them have different investment philosophy. Not that long ago most of them were meant for what the name implies - hedging. The idea being that hedge funds optimized for consistency, not higher returns. Market up 20%? Your hedge fund might yield something like a 10% return. Market down 20%? Your hedge fund might be down only like 5%.

graemep3 days ago
Fund managers in general cannot beat the market because beating the market is a zero sum game.
lesuorac3 days ago
Sure but thats an apples-oranges comparison.

The goal of a hedge fund is definitionally to hedge some risk. If you work in say AI then they should invest very little of your funds into AI (to hedge against a blow-up in AI eliminating your income and if you invested in ai also your savings). In the current environment they’d almost certainly have below market returns. It doesn’t make the hedge fund bad; the hedge is meant to counteract losses not double down on gains.

Thats said, a lot of hedge funds now operate as pod shops and that goal is to beat the market.

motionlessveloc3 days ago
This is written by the author of "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck", so gratuitous cursing is his schtick.

The book is actually more interesting than you'd think from the title, but (IMHO) the profanity still distracts from the message, and like most self-improvement books you could probably condense the 200+ pages into 10.

9999000009993 days ago
He's also a white guy from a rich family.

Born on 3rd and thinks he hit a triple. He wrote a rant once saying that your shouldn't worry about STDs/STIs because he doesn't know anyone with one.

His own book falls apart if you think too much. He's insecure that not everyone agrees with his advice.

He never stops to think that most people can't up and quit the only job they've ever had after 6 weeks.

burnt-resistor2 days ago
"Let them eat cake" Ezra Klein "Abundance" neoliberalism affluenza.
tuesdaynight3 days ago
>and like most self-improvement books you could probably condense the 200+ pages into 10.

And if you read one, you read at least 80% of all the content of the others. Some are good and you get 20% of novelty, but that's rare

nottorp3 days ago
Believable statements with an anti climate change statement squeezed in the middle :)
yvdriess3 days ago
I found it an apt demonstration of his own thesis.
jagged-chisel3 days ago
Is the author an "intellectual"?
fransje263 days ago
Savour the irony.
graemep3 days ago
He is calling Just Stop Oil idiots. He is saying its idiotic to vandalise paintings.

That is very different from a claim that climate change is not happening or not anthropogenic.

nottorp3 days ago
You're missing this part:

"They probably don’t realize that the marginal rate of energy cost is fast approaching zero. That technological innovation is exponential and carbon capture can likely be made economical relatively soon."

Two wildly optimistic statements that can be characterized as "the model" he's criticizing in the rest of the article.

yvdriess3 days ago
> They probably don’t realize that the marginal rate of energy cost is fast approaching zero. That technological innovation is exponential and carbon capture can likely be made economical relatively soon.

By adding that, he is implying "Don't need to act, keep burning fossils, tech will fix it". That is in itself asserting a simplified model assumption about a (human) world that is much more complex; something he was railing against in the previous parts of his text. Either it's a cheeky joke, he himself is an intellectual or both.

someonebaggy3 days ago
What could one individual do to reduce climate change by more than their own contribution?
vovavili3 days ago
It's more of a statement about excessive alarmism.

Read the full thread on Hacker News →

Related stories