What is the deal with these people who are super-successful offline (e.g. Chamath, Marc Andreessen, Elon Musk), but on social media have such mediocre, cringe, or bad opinions, getting easily-verifiable facts wrong or just repeating sale or boring stuff, or digging in when wrong? Why is there such a large disconnect between being so successful in one domain (e.g. creating companies) and the ability to produce good, well-informed opinions online?
My answer: People who are really successful offline tend to be specialists--they find something that works, and then scale or repeat it. People who have "good opinions about a broad range of topics" are generalists, but this does not necesailty lead to large wealth, which typically requires specialization.
Generalists tend to be higher IQ and get bored more easily, seeking novelty, but this comes at the cost mastery at a skill to become wealthy. Becoming a billionaire at running restaurants means knowing everything about the restaurant industry--perhaps not exactly intellectually simulating work--but necessary for success. Specialists can be really smart, but I would say generalists are smarter in the aggregate. There is no "industry person" who is as broadly read about history and other humanists topics as Moldbug, for example, as the ultimate generalist.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In your post, and in some replies here, you're constantly sliding between different implied definitions of good/bad opinion. I think it'd help if you were more explicit.
"Person has factually incorrect beliefs about the world" is different from "person's claim about morality is unpersuasive to me" is different from "person articulated this thought poorly" is different from "person says things I find aesthetically distasteful" is different from "person's post got ratioed on twitter".
If you mean all of them, what do they have to do with each other? If you mean specific ones, which and why?
It's more about how the opinion is received, not the morality per se. Goebbels was immoral but was an effective propogandist. The "ratio score" is a clear and visible indicator of this. When something is "ratioed" it typically signifies a misfire (unless it's a poll/question), meaning misreading the value system of the audience. Getting basic facts wrong also tends to result in ratios. This makes for a bad opinion. Getting generally negative feedback without trying (e.g. trolling) is another indication.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link