PP is (probably) a market maximalist. Many rationalists end up there. Strangely, there are market maximalists who try to answer all your questions.. E.g. Buter

PP is (probably) a market maximalist. Many rationalists end up there. Strangely, there are market maximalists who try to answer all your questions.. E.g. Buterin, Weyl, Friedman. How we started talking in the first place, remember? It was rather regrettable that we stopped asking each other questions.. In place of that, I'd like to see you, jdw64, try to debate with these high-ranked people (in their own community, anyway) :) To everyone: How can market reward advantageous situation-dependent temperaments in the long term, is I think my question. That sounds like climate (or weather) manipulation, but somehow I sense both theory and practise are much simpler. In fact, I think I can even eliminate jdw64's ingredient of "temperament".., framing the issue of conflicting temperanents as one between "generalists" & "specialists". Note that you can (probably) use "Marxist theory" to defeat PP without calling it that. (I think this is more complex than the debate between "wise" and "clever"?? The gap is itself interesting) This last one, even all of YC would be interested in, I'd argue. In VC lingo, that'd be "T-shape". see also the thread "Felix & I [& D]". That's either like a person who is like both Jobs and Wozniak, depending on situation, or a Wozniak (/Jony Ive) who has the ability to become Jobs, thus sidestepping the situation-dependence-dependence. Side-quest one is to redefine both "making a billion dollars" and "writing good prompts" as specialities, so that markets as they are imagined now don't necessarily reward these Side-quest two is make the chameleon skill teachable (or at the very least into an _identity_ ;)