The second installment of Bill Whittle’s explanation of the Tea Parties is up.
20 thoughts on “The Problem With Elitism”
That was cool. I agree with the commenter that a planned economy has too many limitations and that we have too many people who take their position for granted and think they deserve some kind of special treatment.
I would only add that there is another issue besides intelligence in trying to run such a large system top-down. Communications. This is explained in the software engineering book ‘The Mythical Man-Month’. Which I highly recommend for anyone to read.
Well done indeed. That was substantially better than the first installment.
To paraphrase one of my favorite books – to end the star chamber, to hand life and death back to the people who do the living and dying…
Elitism is far more than just a practical consideration. Who decides who lives and dies?
An elite in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The military has many elite forces. For example, in the US Army, you have the paratroopers, Rangers, Special Forces and Delta Force. Even within those units, you have people who’ve received specialized training to set them apart, such as snipers. For these soldiers, becoming a member of an elite unit required a lot of hard work. Staying a member once accepted is harder still and they’re judged not only by their peers but by the harshness of battle. The consequences of failing to meet the requirements are harsh – you can get not only yourself killed but also your teammates.
Contrast that with the so-called governing elite. What qualified them for membership other than going to the “right schools” or having the right parents? More to the point, what are the consequences when they fail? Most of the time, they suffer no consequences at all for their failures because we taxpayers end up paying to for their messes.
Don’t expect me to kowtow before you just because you went to an Ivy League college or have political connections based on your family. Show me what you can do to earn my respect. Words are cheap.
Well, and Larry, if you’re an elite sharpshooter, you’re given respect when issues of shooting at great distances are involved. But nobody asks your opinion with reverence on, say, good diet or the right kindergarten. Elitism within a narrowly circumscribed field makes perfect sense. I will listen humbly to someone with a Nobel Prize in physics opine about physics — but his opinion on poitics or public policy means approximately squat.
I think what Whittle inveighs against is the notion of a generalized sense of superiority, an attitude that suggests that person X can just “think better” than Y, and so is more competent than Y at absolutely anything, including that in which only Y has any relevant practical experience.
I would also note that even an elite sniper is ultimately evaluated by and answerable to the voter. No one gets to appoint themselves king of their elite specialty.
Larry J Says:
Contrast that with the so-called governing elite. What qualified them for membership other than going to the “right schools” or having the right parents? More to the point, what are the consequences when they fail? Most of the time, they suffer no consequences at all for their failures because we taxpayers end up paying to for their messes.
Not only taxpayers, but sometimes also the aforementioned members of the military. And they pay with their blood.
By successfully explaining a concept as complex as the socialist calculation problem with the proper blend of ordinary language and erudition, Bill once again demonstrates that he is, in fact, The Man.
Chuck Norris makes Bill Whittle jokes.
Excellent, except he’s speaking to the choir. Will his point make a dent in those that support the elites? It’s so much more fun to ridicule the personal struggles of a candidate for the senate in DE than to consider how all candidates will vote on pending legislation.
He does make a point clear, doesn’t he?
Mr Pham – Are you really trying to say that the opinions (on an unrelated subject) of a physics Nobel laureate are no more likely to be relevant than the opinions of someone randomly taken from the street?
Nobel-laureate physicists pretty well have to be generally more intelligent than average. In general as well as in their field.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. Sorry, but this is BS.
Nobel-laureate physicists pretty well have to be generally more intelligent than average. In general as well as in their field.
As Will Rogers pointed out about 80 years ago, everyone is ignorant only on different subjects. A Nobel prize winner in physics can be more ignorant about many things such as running a business) than a high school graduate who actually runs a business. Being intelligent in one area does not in any way mean that person is intelligent in other areas unrelated to his specialty. In fact, the opposite may be true. That person may well have so dedicated his life to his specialty as to be completely uninformed about the rest of the world.
Nobel-laureate physicists pretty well have to be generally more intelligent than average.
Mr Fletcher – Are you really trying to say that you want a Nobel-laureate physicists to make your decisions for you? Cereal or eggs for breakfast? Sorry, we have to ask the physicists.
Are you really trying to say that you want a Nobel-laureate physicists to make your decisions for you?
Of course not — we’ve discussed this before. The collectivist always fantasized his anointed will being enforced, not the other way around.
Remember: pool boy, not cuckold at the office.
Or, in more technical terms, a small group of people guiding the economy from afar comprise a non-colocated feedback system. The non-minimum phase zeros dictate that the closed loop will either be unstable or, for stability, the bandwidth must be significantly attenuated below the lowest frequency mode, i.e., sluggish and unresponsive.
It’s a mathematical equation reflecting unalterable reality. That type of system sucks. It has always sucked. It will always suck, according to the insurmountable laws which govern this universe.
Laws which govern this universe? What are you, some right wing wacko that believes in reality?
“Laws which govern this universe? What are you, some right wing wacko that believes in reality?”
Sadly, no. Belief implies faith. I have lost all the youthful faith I had in God and my fellow man, the last spark having been snuffed when we elected an inexperienced, incompetent, and insufferable twit to the highest office in the land. Reality, on the other hand, doesn’t care a whit about faith.
On the question of the intelligence of the leaders, this is merely a characteristic of the feedback sensors, and does not change the feedback dynamics one jot. The smartest and most benevolent leaders in the world still cannot surmount the fundamental limitations of the system.
twit to the highest office
My snuffing came a bit before, when the choice was McCain or said twit.
Well, Bart, we got the instability choice, didn’t we? Of course, the people making the decisions weren’t elected. They were appointed by Wall Street.
Yes, Mr. Christian, we did. And, why is that? Who was making the decisions about who were to be considered economically viable borrowers? I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t Wall Street.
That was cool. I agree with the commenter that a planned economy has too many limitations and that we have too many people who take their position for granted and think they deserve some kind of special treatment.
I would only add that there is another issue besides intelligence in trying to run such a large system top-down. Communications. This is explained in the software engineering book ‘The Mythical Man-Month’. Which I highly recommend for anyone to read.
Well done indeed. That was substantially better than the first installment.
To paraphrase one of my favorite books – to end the star chamber, to hand life and death back to the people who do the living and dying…
Elitism is far more than just a practical consideration. Who decides who lives and dies?
An elite in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The military has many elite forces. For example, in the US Army, you have the paratroopers, Rangers, Special Forces and Delta Force. Even within those units, you have people who’ve received specialized training to set them apart, such as snipers. For these soldiers, becoming a member of an elite unit required a lot of hard work. Staying a member once accepted is harder still and they’re judged not only by their peers but by the harshness of battle. The consequences of failing to meet the requirements are harsh – you can get not only yourself killed but also your teammates.
Contrast that with the so-called governing elite. What qualified them for membership other than going to the “right schools” or having the right parents? More to the point, what are the consequences when they fail? Most of the time, they suffer no consequences at all for their failures because we taxpayers end up paying to for their messes.
Don’t expect me to kowtow before you just because you went to an Ivy League college or have political connections based on your family. Show me what you can do to earn my respect. Words are cheap.
Well, and Larry, if you’re an elite sharpshooter, you’re given respect when issues of shooting at great distances are involved. But nobody asks your opinion with reverence on, say, good diet or the right kindergarten. Elitism within a narrowly circumscribed field makes perfect sense. I will listen humbly to someone with a Nobel Prize in physics opine about physics — but his opinion on poitics or public policy means approximately squat.
I think what Whittle inveighs against is the notion of a generalized sense of superiority, an attitude that suggests that person X can just “think better” than Y, and so is more competent than Y at absolutely anything, including that in which only Y has any relevant practical experience.
I would also note that even an elite sniper is ultimately evaluated by and answerable to the voter. No one gets to appoint themselves king of their elite specialty.
Larry J Says:
Contrast that with the so-called governing elite. What qualified them for membership other than going to the “right schools” or having the right parents? More to the point, what are the consequences when they fail? Most of the time, they suffer no consequences at all for their failures because we taxpayers end up paying to for their messes.
Not only taxpayers, but sometimes also the aforementioned members of the military. And they pay with their blood.
By successfully explaining a concept as complex as the socialist calculation problem with the proper blend of ordinary language and erudition, Bill once again demonstrates that he is, in fact, The Man.
Chuck Norris makes Bill Whittle jokes.
Excellent, except he’s speaking to the choir. Will his point make a dent in those that support the elites? It’s so much more fun to ridicule the personal struggles of a candidate for the senate in DE than to consider how all candidates will vote on pending legislation.
He does make a point clear, doesn’t he?
Mr Pham – Are you really trying to say that the opinions (on an unrelated subject) of a physics Nobel laureate are no more likely to be relevant than the opinions of someone randomly taken from the street?
Nobel-laureate physicists pretty well have to be generally more intelligent than average. In general as well as in their field.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. Sorry, but this is BS.
Nobel-laureate physicists pretty well have to be generally more intelligent than average. In general as well as in their field.
As Will Rogers pointed out about 80 years ago, everyone is ignorant only on different subjects. A Nobel prize winner in physics can be more ignorant about many things such as running a business) than a high school graduate who actually runs a business. Being intelligent in one area does not in any way mean that person is intelligent in other areas unrelated to his specialty. In fact, the opposite may be true. That person may well have so dedicated his life to his specialty as to be completely uninformed about the rest of the world.
Nobel-laureate physicists pretty well have to be generally more intelligent than average.
But there’s still that nasty bell curve.
Mr Fletcher – Are you really trying to say that you want a Nobel-laureate physicists to make your decisions for you? Cereal or eggs for breakfast? Sorry, we have to ask the physicists.
Of course not — we’ve discussed this before. The collectivist always fantasized his anointed will being enforced, not the other way around.
Remember: pool boy, not cuckold at the office.
Or, in more technical terms, a small group of people guiding the economy from afar comprise a non-colocated feedback system. The non-minimum phase zeros dictate that the closed loop will either be unstable or, for stability, the bandwidth must be significantly attenuated below the lowest frequency mode, i.e., sluggish and unresponsive.
It’s a mathematical equation reflecting unalterable reality. That type of system sucks. It has always sucked. It will always suck, according to the insurmountable laws which govern this universe.
Laws which govern this universe? What are you, some right wing wacko that believes in reality?
“Laws which govern this universe? What are you, some right wing wacko that believes in reality?”
Sadly, no. Belief implies faith. I have lost all the youthful faith I had in God and my fellow man, the last spark having been snuffed when we elected an inexperienced, incompetent, and insufferable twit to the highest office in the land. Reality, on the other hand, doesn’t care a whit about faith.
On the question of the intelligence of the leaders, this is merely a characteristic of the feedback sensors, and does not change the feedback dynamics one jot. The smartest and most benevolent leaders in the world still cannot surmount the fundamental limitations of the system.
twit to the highest office
My snuffing came a bit before, when the choice was McCain or said twit.
Well, Bart, we got the instability choice, didn’t we? Of course, the people making the decisions weren’t elected. They were appointed by Wall Street.
Yes, Mr. Christian, we did. And, why is that? Who was making the decisions about who were to be considered economically viable borrowers? I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t Wall Street.