I mean, when i read your stuff, it's like, so often i'll read this uble i was going to write this exact same it was the exact point, and we are so inaccordn hen you say, labor theory of value and academi i had literally the exact same thought. But i thought about writing this at one pointi

w yo ask, in

the context of trusting the experts, writ this person has a ph d.

Jo

byden has a ph d, or whatever they the pe shead education, she must know more about fixing the schools than, you know, elon musculars or somebody like that. Ind really is, somebody did the work, therefore we have to get respected. It's a ye. And you're right. That's, that's the way, a,

that's the way academics

think about this. It's right. You know, i think, obviously it's true that they're they're probably goingto be careers. And most people are careerist. But why? Why does being a careerist take this form? Why is hierarchy based on this, rather than like, having the most awesome and revolutionary and important ideas, which, as you know, maybe naively, you would think academia should be about. It's a tough question. Think the the answer is that most human personalities do not like that kind of thing. It's the kind of thing that is repellent to most people. Most people are looking for a safer, sure path, and to really to avoid, to keep people from overstepping the limits of what's acceptable. So leaning it, like i it is hard to really nail it down as to quite what it is. But mean, the main thing that i notice is that sometimes he'll talk to other academics and i'll say, like this guy, like robin hanson, he's just a genius. And i t academic say, wion, what that mattershat no matteres a genius. It's's so important to be a genius. And yet, o this attitude is actually fairly common. It's not that important to be a genius. Which really matters is that you just hunker down and do really solid work. I guess the main way that i would try to understand it is just to say, even the most nominally revolutionary hierarchies in the world actually become inbred and stagnant in a short amount of time. So the bolshevik party, they have a couple of years of weird stuff going on where the withis o free love, and then pretty soon they get rid of all that stuff, and they no no wer, just going to have communist rule and things are goingto be orderly. And then before you know it, there's a really strict doctrine that everyone has to hold. And there's even though they start off saying the revolutionaries want to burn the whole world down and build it anew, pretty soon they're some of the most cautious people in the world, in a certain strange sense. So i would say that this really is pretty much a human universal, that whenever you have a intellectual group that, even if they start off officially committed to being very curious, normally, this much deeper human urge for conformity takes over. See, i guess that if i had to really stick my neck out and say, what's going on, i jut say that the human desire for conformity is very high, which means that it's just hard to put, to assign too much status to revolutionary thinking, because it's not conformist.

Ye.