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.
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.”
>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.
ElProlactin · · focus · HN ↗
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.
TSiege · · focus · HN ↗
His article is heavy cherry picking and shows little curiosity beyond “you’re dumb I’m smart.”
semiquaver · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich
TSiege · · focus · HN ↗
trilogic · · focus · HN ↗
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.
ElProlactin · · focus · HN ↗