Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Higgenbotham wrote: Sun May 31, 2026 11:46 am It wouldn't surprise me if an insurrection starts out on the periphery within the next year. If so, it'll come out of nowhere and be a total surprise. Most were shocked when the Soviet Union fell, as it was thought their control system was bulletproof. Reference - Ceausescu.

Were most shocked when the Soviet Union fell, as it was thought their control system was bulletproof?

AI Overview

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was one of the most surprising geopolitical events of the 20th century. Because the Soviet regime’s totalitarian control and security apparatus seemed bulletproof, the sudden dissolution caught virtually everyone off guard.

Who Was Shocked?

Western Experts and the CIA: The most notable figures caught off guard were Western Sovietologists and U.S. intelligence agencies. They widely believed the Soviet system was far too entrenched and stable to simply disappear. Prominent Cold War strategist George F. Kennan famously called the sudden disintegration "the most strange and startling, and at first glance inexplicable" event in modern international affairs.

Soviet Citizens: The average Soviet citizen was largely stunned. The population had been used to trusting official state media, and the rapid dismantling of their country happened with surprising speed, even going against the results of a 1991 referendum where the majority voted to preserve the Union.

The Communist Hardliners: Ironically, even the hardline Soviet leaders who attempted a coup in August 1991 to save the regime were shocked when their actions backfired. Their clumsy power grab only accelerated the independence movements and the ultimate demise of the USSR.

Why Did It Fall Despite Its "Bulletproof" Control?

The control mechanisms of the USSR ultimately failed because the system was secretly suffering from profound decay. Rather than being toppled by an outside military force, the collapse was a result of:

Economic Bankruptcy: The Soviet leadership, particularly under Mikhail Gorbachev, lost control over their own currency and ran out of money to run both their massive military-industrial complex and their domestic civil economy.

Reforms Backfiring: Gorbachev's attempts to reform and open the system through Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring) destroyed the state’s media monopoly and unleashed pent-up grievances.

Rise of Nationalism: Instead of rallying the country, the political loosening allowed suppressed nationalist and separatist movements to blossom in the Baltic states and other republics.

Higgenbotham wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:01 pm Always remember that the world runs at approximately the 97th percentile (in terms of ability).

Yes, the smartest people on average are at the centers of power. But just on average.

The absolute ablest individuals always exist on the periphery. Attila the Hun for example. Some of these individuals will rise to the top when the center collapses and the bailouts are no longer possible.

Historically speaking, are the absolute ablest individuals always distributed to the centers of political and economic power or to the periphery?

AI Overview

Historically, the "ablest" individuals—measured by metrics like innovation, intellectual output, and exceptional talent—have not always centralized in the seats of ultimate political or economic power. Instead, the distribution of peak talent depends heavily on whether the era favors centralized conformity or decentralized competition.

Here is how the distribution of exceptional ability has shifted throughout history:

1. The Periphery as an Incubator of Ability

Historically, periods of major paradigm shifts and radical innovation frequently saw the ablest individuals thrive outside or on the fringes of centralized power.

Institutional Constraints: Rigid, centralized bureaucracies (such as imperial courts or highly regulated guilds) often prioritize conformity and tradition over merit and disruption. As a result, radical thinkers and innovators are frequently marginalized or forced to the periphery.

Historical Examples: During the European Scientific Revolution, figures like Galileo Galilei and Johannes Copernicus operated far from the absolute centers of papal power. Similarly, during the Industrial Revolution, many of the most transformative inventions were developed by provincial tinkerers (e.g., James Watt in Scotland) rather than established elites in London.

2. The Center as a Magnet for Execution and Scale

While the periphery is often the breeding ground for radical innovation, the center historically attracts the ablest individuals in execution, organization, and statecraft.

Resource Allocation: Capital, infrastructure, and political patronage are concentrated in urban and administrative hubs. Highly capable administrators, military leaders, and financiers migrate to these centers to scale their impact.

Historical Examples: The Roman Empire pulled the most capable engineers, administrators, and orators to Rome to manage its vast bureaucracy. In the modern era, global financial centers like New York and London, or tech hubs like Silicon Valley, act as magnets for top-tier operational and entrepreneurial talent.

3. Decentralized Competition vs. Centralized Stagnation

The distribution of top talent is cyclical, depending on the openness of the society in question:

Decentralized Eras: Periods featuring decentralized competition (e.g., Renaissance Italy, the fractured German states prior to unification, or the modern globalized internet) tend to disperse top talent widely. Competition between city-states or nations forces rulers to welcome and reward able individuals, regardless of their background.

Centralized Eras: In contrast, highly centralized empires often experience a "brain drain" from the periphery to the capital, which can eventually lead to stagnation. When all power and resources are hoarded at the center, political loyalty often eclipses raw ability, driving independent thinkers to the fringes.

In summary, the ablest individuals are not exclusively distributed to either. Radical innovators and iconoclasts frequently thrive on the periphery, while those capable of organizing, funding, and scaling massive systems are drawn to the centers of power.

Higgenbotham wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2024 7:58 pm Last weekend, I had a wide ranging 2 hour conversation with a young woman (age 18) who is the daughter of immigrants to the US. I've noticed many immigrants don't think this is the land of milk and honey once they've been here for awhile, but some of the things this young woman said were quite surprising to me.

I don't use the words "dark age" when talking to people in real life, but several topics that have been discussed in this virtual dark age hovel came up. She asked me what I thought of AI. I said the first thing that comes to mind with regard to any new technology is whether you believe the civilization is on the ascent or the decline. If you believe the civilization is on the ascent, and you are right about that, then AI will probably on net be a positive and force for good. However, if you believe that the civilization is on the decline...at which point she interjected, "Oh, definitely!"...and then I finished my thought.

She is a bright girl and has been accepted to The University of Texas at Austin to study Chemical Engineering. However, her plan is to attend community college for 2 years to save money, then transfer. She also told me she plans to leave the United States.

Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, but looking in someone's eyes and seeing their conviction might be a little different than reading about a poll.

I mean, there's no limit to how much you can fine-tune and control. Oh, they don't have so much power. They can't control, you know, millions of people. Well, this is what the drive to build all these hundreds, in fact, thousands of data centers is about. It is an organizational challenge to micromanage the world's population through the new um financial world order. Yes, but they're working on solving that. AI is really about that. If AI was about helping us to be more productive, the principle of decentralization would be applied because any human organization and any use and any anything where humans are involved. If you introduce the principle of decentralization, subsidiarity, it will be more productive. No doubt more efficient, more productive. That's been demonstrated in many contexts. I mentioned the the warfare military but and businesses and so on. It's true for everything. But that's not what they're doing. They're creating highly centralized structures which proves that it's not about actual productivity. It's about control controlling us. That's why they need these huge resources.

Higgenbotham wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:01 pm Always remember that the world runs at approximately the 97th percentile (in terms of ability).

Yes, the smartest people on average are at the centers of power. But just on average.

The absolute ablest individuals always exist on the periphery. Attila the Hun for example. Some of these individuals will rise to the top when the center collapses and the bailouts are no longer possible.

Realize who has the built in advantages, what those advantages are, and that they are "in charge" for the time being. Being clever isn't everything.

Higgenbotham wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2026 2:29 pm This post will pull together a lot of separate discussions and it's almost inevitable I will forget something.

There was something Arthur Demarest said, paraphrasing, that at the peak of a civilization great projects will be seen just before the collapse. Marc Widdowson said, paraphrasing, that when a particular type of civilization develops for the first time (agricultural, industrial, etc.) the collapse into the dark age will be especially bad. I'm not looking for the exact quotes and hope this is accurate.

Another thing that's come to my mind regarding bubbles is that the shorter the time to the fulfillment of the promise of the bubble, the shorter and less severe the preceding collapse. Looking at 1929, the high flyers were RCA (televisions) and GM (automobiles). RCA started developing the television in 1929. By the time the 1960s rolled around, there was a television in almost every living room and the interstate highway system covered the nation. The promise of the 1920s bubble was quite realistic; nonetheless, the Dow lost 89% from its peak in 1929 to its 1932 low. Going back to 1720, the promise of the South Sea Bubble was goods from every corner of the world. They got quite ahead of themselves and that bubble collapsed something like 98% and there was a long depression. Then there were the Romans. They had an industrial civilization coming into form as has been discussed. More and more evidence of this is being found. They were about 14 centuries ahead of themselves and everything collapsed to essentially zero. That seems to be the category we are in now with the promise of artificial intelligence and the Internet. I think most would say that it's not a promise, that we are doing it now. That's probably what the Romans were saying too.

The Austrian economists might say the longer interest rates stay down and the longer and more money printing takes place, the further the entrepreneurs have to reach into the future to find projects to work on. It's greater manipulation and fraud in the present context but in a few hundred years it may become a new reality as a new information age gets its footing somewhere in the world. At which point, people will probably have forgotten about what happened here and Nvidia will not even be a historical footnote.

19:22
Keep in mind these individuals the job of the CEO now is it
19:29
used to be to underpromise and over deliver. Now it's to overpromise and underdeliver and create a vision that
19:34
creates cheap capital so you can pull the future forward.

19:46
So their job is to predict a very exciting future.

20:43
The key attribute of an innovator right now is storytelling. And that is to make sure the promise is way
20:50
ahead of the performance such you can access cheap capital and pull the future forward.

Intelligentsia
Human Intelligence Sharply Declining
The benchmarks are not looking good, folks.
By Noor Al-Sibai

Published Mar 16, 2025 6:45 AM EDT

No, it's not just you — people really are, per a number of surveys, way less intelligent than they used to be.

No, it’s not just you — people really are less smart than they used to be.

As the Financial Times reports, assessments show that people across age groups are having trouble concentrating and losing reasoning, problem-solving, and information-processing skills — all facets of the hard-to-pin-down metric that “intelligence” is supposed to measure.

These results, the FT reports, are gleaned from benchmarking tests that track cognitive skills in teens and young adults. From the University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future study documenting concentration difficulties of 18-year-old Americans to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) that measures the learning skills of 15-year-olds around the world, years of research suggest that young people are struggling with reduced attention spans and weakening critical thinking skills.

Australia sues US giant 3M over 'forever chemicals' in firefighting foam

Australia is suing 3M over its alleged use of 'forever chemicals' in firefighting foam

The Australian government is suing US manufacturing giant 3M for AU$2bn in damages (US$1.4bn; £1.1bn) over its alleged use of toxic "forever chemicals" in firefighting foam that contaminated dozens of defence bases across the country.

It is the largest legal claim ever brought by the government, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said, as it seeks to recoup the "substantial costs" in dealing with the chemicals - known as PFAS - at 28 locations.

It claims 3M withheld and misrepresented details about the foam and its environmental impact, assuring them it was safe, despite knowing otherwise.

In response, 3M said it has never made PFAS in Australia and stopped selling the foam there 20 years ago.

In announcing the legal action on Thursday, Rowland said the government was committed to holding 3M and 3M Australia to account "for the economic and environmental harms associated with PFAS contamination".

institutional downspiral
malign merit, circle the drain

the simple fact is that aptitude tests work. IQ tests work. they measure real, meaningful variables that are highly predictive of success at a great many tasks. people are, of course, free to dislike this fact to the fullest content of their hearts, but a fact it will remain.

and being increasingly stupid about it is not helping anyone, least of all those it was intended to.

back in 2020, the university of california system decided to phase out the SAT/ACT and in 2021, a lawsuit made it permanent.




this certainly increased the “diversity” of students, but perhaps not in the manner that had been hoped. i cannot speak to whatever they were aiming at, but “massive diversity of preparedness and capability” is what they got. in these days of grade inflation, AI, and social promotion, it (entirely predictably) filled the UC system with kids who had no business being there and we, flattly, unprepared for and unable to catch up to the work.

it’s so bad the faculty are revolting because STEM students cannot manage middle school math. here’s the letter signed by 686 faculty as of this writing: LINK

it does not mince words: