5 ms·

> This is due to the fact that the intelligence & character of the masses are incomparably lower than the intelligence and character of the few who produce some

> This is due to the fact that the intelligence & character of the masses are incomparably lower than the intelligence and character of the few who produce some thing valuable for the community. If he wrote this again today, I wonder what he would think about the relative "character" of those who produce things of value to the community. It's a mixed bag, from my point of view -- much like the rest of society.

Anotheroneagain 3y ago
If he wrote it today he would get banned from the platform.
- unsupp0rted 3y ago
  And the people banning him for stating facts would be no Einsteins
  - tralarpa 3y ago
    What facts?
    - unsupp0rted 3y ago
      That a curve of intelligence across human groups exists at all, and that it’s shaped pretty much like a bell.
      - polotics 3y ago
        Maybe you could consider a bit more dimensions than that. For example the problems-to-solve vs problems-to-find one, there are many.
      - tralarpa 3y ago
        What about the rest of the statement? Or is that too much facts for you?
- lostlogin 3y ago
  Twitter/X has been unbanning people, so if that’s your scene, you’re in luck.
- dudeinjapan 3y ago
  Hitler banned him.
kromem 3y ago
Well, the difficulty is in identifying just who the producers are. Modern society largely labels the financing and management arms of innovation as the producers. Perhaps Einstein envisioned the researchers and scientists as the producers. Thus it would not be Elon who was indicated as the intelligent producer, but rather the nameless researcher tied to a desk at one of his companies doing the work of producing. And that the "less intelligent masses" includes the management who take that production and mismanage its distribution in maximizing short term gains in exchange for long term losses. So the interpretation of his sentiment here would really depend on whether he'd buy into the self-branding of the rich and powerful as producers or not.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Perhaps Einstein envisioned the researchers and scientists as the producers. Anybody who spent any time in Academia knows that "researchers and scientists" can be as flawed as any other person, personality wise, and when it comes to professional conduct, jealousy, greed, backstabbing, etc. they're hardly better. They're also quite spineless, given all their privileges.
  - tetris11 3y ago
    You're talking about the ones who've made it to tenure, either by genuine academic merit or old-boys-networks (or both). But given the lack of permanent positions in Academia, one could make the case that a large portion of Academia genuinely do excel on merit alone (albeit in the short time window where they have to face the reality that they will never make tenure, and will have to find an industry job). Complacency and politics occurs at the professor-level, but that's rarely where the science is done.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      No, not referring to tenured spefically. Holds even at PhD student level. Just because you studied at PhD level and can "produce stuff" and invent, doesn't make you a better person. If you're a shitty person, you're now a shitty person in academia or research, whereas before you'd just be a shitty truck driver or secretary.
jvv75 3y ago
It's not a mixed bag. Info asymmetry keeps increasing. It never decreases. Getting a billion people to row in one direction constantly breaks down. Just like cells in the body. Forget about 8 billion.
mdp2021 3y ago
It was a communicational attempt based on a overly simple model dividing the set of the "swamped, idle, understriving" long Paretian tail and the "active, daring, inquisitive" "fewer" - without taking into account the actual real-world complexity (e.g. of relative continuity in more dimensions between the sets). In those paragraphs, within context, it just meant "some have achieved much for the benefit of the population, but the population as an aggregate does not show the same spirit and ability". To define the sets of the "well natured" vs "larvatic", the suggestive discriminator of being "benefactors to the whole" was picked. So, > It's a mixed bag... much like the rest of society Yes, the point was that some strive and achieve some progressive "status", "being", "nature", and many do not: it is a wish that such good condition will be largely shared in a future society. It is a wish that Paretian distribution is transformed into a widespread distribution of desirable «intelligence and character», as a condition for «pr[ide] and justified superiority».
INGELRII 3y ago
I would rewrite the sentence as: "Intelligence & character of the masses are incomparably lower than the intelligence and character of the individuals." During the lifetime of Einstein, successful and educated mimicked the values of upper classes, even if they just pretended. After the WWII the middle class values took over. Today even upper class pretends to be middle class. Try to appear busy and productive. The "character" and intelligence have little to do with each another.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
I think this can be easily read in two ways. On HN, the option to read it as an Ayn Rand style attack on the poor is likely to have more salience. But I think, given the preceding paragraphs about having lots of goods that are poorly distributed, and having technology that "could" improve human lives, he meant it as "humanity in general are pretty shitty to each other, but there's a few people trying to do better, which is both smart and morally correct, and he hopes they win out". This is in the context of 1939 when Adolph Hitler had wide appeal.
- gnfargbl 3y ago
  I read it as a form of something almost approaching a call for eugenics: "The common man is such an idiot! If only the intelligentsia could be put in charge of the world, everything would be better." Your point about putting the quote in the context of the times is well made.
dudeinjapan 3y ago
Tell old Al we’ve made progress. The producers are now of the same low character and in many cases low intelligence to rival the masses!
iw2rmb 3y ago
I second that and I came here to add that the few who rule the masses are responsible, and not the masses. Blaming masses for being not that clever is just arrogance and ignorance of the fact that intelligence is NOT required to live happily and be good to others. And while scientists will continue this very stupid narrative of high intelligence necessity rulers and ultra-rich will continue to exploit it.
- digging 3y ago
  As in all systems, the greatest blame (or responsibility) lies in those nodes with the greatest power to change the system. "Leaders" who aren't elevating others aren't really doing any leading, just self-serving.
rob74 3y ago
Maybe it's easier to understand the bitterness knowing that Einstein was a Jew forced to flee Germany after 1933 due to the "masses" which democratically (!) brought the Nazis to power. Although I think there is also something to be said about those who manipulate the "lower-intelligence masses" to their purpose...
- LargeTomato 3y ago
  The masses must be manipulated. The world is too complicated for most people to make a rational decision and they need guidance. This has always been the way it works. It's a symbiotic relationship. Everyone in society contributes and societies often rely on intelligent individuals for guidance. Take, for example, a hypothetical workers union in a coal mining town. Those people probably have union lawyers and decision makers staffed with the smarter people who make the decisions. It's literally a media trope: old, salty coal miner encourages his son to get educated and leave coal mining. Son gets educated, comes back, contributes to the miners in his own way.
- thadt 3y ago
  It is interesting to point out that that while the Nazis did come to power democratically, they didn’t actually have a majority of ‘the masses’. Turns out that a strong enough minority that is willing to change the laws and leverage fear can turn the herd.

Anotheroneagain 3y ago

If he wrote it today he would get banned from the platform.

unsupp0rted 3y ago
And the people banning him for stating facts would be no Einsteins
- tralarpa 3y ago
  What facts?
  - unsupp0rted 3y ago
    That a curve of intelligence across human groups exists at all, and that it’s shaped pretty much like a bell.
    - polotics 3y ago
      Maybe you could consider a bit more dimensions than that. For example the problems-to-solve vs problems-to-find one, there are many.
    - tralarpa 3y ago
      What about the rest of the statement? Or is that too much facts for you?
lostlogin 3y ago
Twitter/X has been unbanning people, so if that’s your scene, you’re in luck.
dudeinjapan 3y ago
Hitler banned him.

kromem 3y ago

Well, the difficulty is in identifying just who the producers are. Modern society largely labels the financing and management arms of innovation as the producers. Perhaps Einstein envisioned the researchers and scientists as the producers. Thus it would not be Elon who was indicated as the intelligent producer, but rather the nameless researcher tied to a desk at one of his companies doing the work of producing. And that the "less intelligent masses" includes the management who take that production and mismanage its distribution in maximizing short term gains in exchange for long term losses. So the interpretation of his sentiment here would really depend on whether he'd buy into the self-branding of the rich and powerful as producers or not.

coldtea 3y ago
>Perhaps Einstein envisioned the researchers and scientists as the producers. Anybody who spent any time in Academia knows that "researchers and scientists" can be as flawed as any other person, personality wise, and when it comes to professional conduct, jealousy, greed, backstabbing, etc. they're hardly better. They're also quite spineless, given all their privileges.
- tetris11 3y ago
  You're talking about the ones who've made it to tenure, either by genuine academic merit or old-boys-networks (or both). But given the lack of permanent positions in Academia, one could make the case that a large portion of Academia genuinely do excel on merit alone (albeit in the short time window where they have to face the reality that they will never make tenure, and will have to find an industry job). Complacency and politics occurs at the professor-level, but that's rarely where the science is done.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    No, not referring to tenured spefically. Holds even at PhD student level. Just because you studied at PhD level and can "produce stuff" and invent, doesn't make you a better person. If you're a shitty person, you're now a shitty person in academia or research, whereas before you'd just be a shitty truck driver or secretary.

jvv75 3y ago

It's not a mixed bag. Info asymmetry keeps increasing. It never decreases. Getting a billion people to row in one direction constantly breaks down. Just like cells in the body. Forget about 8 billion.

mdp2021 3y ago

It was a communicational attempt based on a overly simple model dividing the set of the "swamped, idle, understriving" long Paretian tail and the "active, daring, inquisitive" "fewer" - without taking into account the actual real-world complexity (e.g. of relative continuity in more dimensions between the sets). In those paragraphs, within context, it just meant "some have achieved much for the benefit of the population, but the population as an aggregate does not show the same spirit and ability". To define the sets of the "well natured" vs "larvatic", the suggestive discriminator of being "benefactors to the whole" was picked. So, > It's a mixed bag... much like the rest of society Yes, the point was that some strive and achieve some progressive "status", "being", "nature", and many do not: it is a wish that such good condition will be largely shared in a future society. It is a wish that Paretian distribution is transformed into a widespread distribution of desirable «intelligence and character», as a condition for «pr[ide] and justified superiority».

INGELRII 3y ago

I would rewrite the sentence as: "Intelligence & character of the masses are incomparably lower than the intelligence and character of the individuals." During the lifetime of Einstein, successful and educated mimicked the values of upper classes, even if they just pretended. After the WWII the middle class values took over. Today even upper class pretends to be middle class. Try to appear busy and productive. The "character" and intelligence have little to do with each another.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

I think this can be easily read in two ways. On HN, the option to read it as an Ayn Rand style attack on the poor is likely to have more salience. But I think, given the preceding paragraphs about having lots of goods that are poorly distributed, and having technology that "could" improve human lives, he meant it as "humanity in general are pretty shitty to each other, but there's a few people trying to do better, which is both smart and morally correct, and he hopes they win out". This is in the context of 1939 when Adolph Hitler had wide appeal.

gnfargbl 3y ago
I read it as a form of something almost approaching a call for eugenics: "The common man is such an idiot! If only the intelligentsia could be put in charge of the world, everything would be better." Your point about putting the quote in the context of the times is well made.

dudeinjapan 3y ago

Tell old Al we’ve made progress. The producers are now of the same low character and in many cases low intelligence to rival the masses!

iw2rmb 3y ago

I second that and I came here to add that the few who rule the masses are responsible, and not the masses. Blaming masses for being not that clever is just arrogance and ignorance of the fact that intelligence is NOT required to live happily and be good to others. And while scientists will continue this very stupid narrative of high intelligence necessity rulers and ultra-rich will continue to exploit it.

digging 3y ago
As in all systems, the greatest blame (or responsibility) lies in those nodes with the greatest power to change the system. "Leaders" who aren't elevating others aren't really doing any leading, just self-serving.

rob74 3y ago

Maybe it's easier to understand the bitterness knowing that Einstein was a Jew forced to flee Germany after 1933 due to the "masses" which democratically (!) brought the Nazis to power. Although I think there is also something to be said about those who manipulate the "lower-intelligence masses" to their purpose...

LargeTomato 3y ago
The masses must be manipulated. The world is too complicated for most people to make a rational decision and they need guidance. This has always been the way it works. It's a symbiotic relationship. Everyone in society contributes and societies often rely on intelligent individuals for guidance. Take, for example, a hypothetical workers union in a coal mining town. Those people probably have union lawyers and decision makers staffed with the smarter people who make the decisions. It's literally a media trope: old, salty coal miner encourages his son to get educated and leave coal mining. Son gets educated, comes back, contributes to the miners in his own way.
thadt 3y ago
It is interesting to point out that that while the Nazis did come to power democratically, they didn’t actually have a majority of ‘the masses’. Turns out that a strong enough minority that is willing to change the laws and leverage fear can turn the herd.