"To me, it seems as though the formal methods for cultivating talent have become corrupted. The selection systems have been gamed, and our cultural institutions reward conformity rather than excellence. "
I disagree. Our institutions are still selecting for excellence, but their criteria for what they select for based on excellence has changed. They select excellent ideological devotees. The selection systems have not been gamed, but those doing the selection have simply changed what they select for.
If we lived in a world with competition and death among institutions that wouldn't necessarily be a problem. If some private universities wanted to select for ideology A, others for ideology B, and others for, say, actually teaching students something useful, we could let the market figure that out as people pick what they want. As it stands, universities are funded both by the state directly and indirectly through heavily subsidized tuition, while supply via entry is limited, all while many jobs legally require a college degree, and as such we have no real market because there can be no failure that causes colleges to go out of business. Colleges could select for excellence in speaking Klingon and it wouldn't affect their position so long as the state supports stay in place.
indicate a growth of informal networks of very divergent people, which can be very productive. Probably few of these people have ever meet in real life and knowing just a couple and reputations of others about the only thing in common is they are all very numerate.
"To me, it seems as though the formal methods for cultivating talent have become corrupted. The selection systems have been gamed, and our cultural institutions reward conformity rather than excellence. "
I disagree. Our institutions are still selecting for excellence, but their criteria for what they select for based on excellence has changed. They select excellent ideological devotees. The selection systems have not been gamed, but those doing the selection have simply changed what they select for.
If we lived in a world with competition and death among institutions that wouldn't necessarily be a problem. If some private universities wanted to select for ideology A, others for ideology B, and others for, say, actually teaching students something useful, we could let the market figure that out as people pick what they want. As it stands, universities are funded both by the state directly and indirectly through heavily subsidized tuition, while supply via entry is limited, all while many jobs legally require a college degree, and as such we have no real market because there can be no failure that causes colleges to go out of business. Colleges could select for excellence in speaking Klingon and it wouldn't affect their position so long as the state supports stay in place.
Articles like:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/06/03/crypto-skeptics-growing/
indicate a growth of informal networks of very divergent people, which can be very productive. Probably few of these people have ever meet in real life and knowing just a couple and reputations of others about the only thing in common is they are all very numerate.
Since it is so much easier to break things than to fix them, perhaps the null hypothesis should be applied asymmetrically.