It’s not even an unwillingness to admit ignorance: it’s the lack of awareness that there’s already a conversation.
This is the take-home point. They aren’t unaware there’s already a conversation. Their hubris compels them to believe they can answer these questions better than whatever the liberal establishment has come up with.
From my experience, a big contributor to their financial success is their unwillingness to recognize any of that.
You don’t have to run fast, just faster than the bear. They just need to be smarter than the investors who aren’t generally all that smart.
While an even smarter person could respond to nuance, then that person loses the investors who cannot follow. So at some point it becomes a liability to be thoughtful and nuanced.
Yup. I also liked this, but I’m trying hard not to just quote the whole thing back, because it’s all good.
Their wealth insulates them from friction so effectively there’s no incentive or pressure for them to develop an imagination, or diversify their knowledge to the point where an imagination might emerge on its own. I can’t think of a better argument for a humanities requirement than a billionaire being asked “how do we know what is real?” and responding with “cryptographic signatures.”
This is the take-home point. They aren’t unaware there’s already a conversation. Their hubris compels them to believe they can answer these questions better than whatever the liberal establishment has come up with.
From my experience, a big contributor to their financial success is their unwillingness to recognize any of that.
You don’t have to run fast, just faster than the bear. They just need to be smarter than the investors who aren’t generally all that smart.
While an even smarter person could respond to nuance, then that person loses the investors who cannot follow. So at some point it becomes a liability to be thoughtful and nuanced.
Yup. I also liked this, but I’m trying hard not to just quote the whole thing back, because it’s all good.