by Higgenbotham » Sun May 31, 2026 2:34 pm
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.
AI has tremendous difficulty with this question. Adding or subtracting just one or a few words will change the answer, often flipping it to the opposite.
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.
[quote=Higgenbotham post_id=43651 time=1547686892 user_id=100]
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.[/quote]
AI has tremendous difficulty with this question. Adding or subtracting just one or a few words will change the answer, often flipping it to the opposite.
[quote]
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.[/quote]