Academic disciplines structure research differently. Economics has thousands of niche topics, creating many lone experts. In contrast, fundamental physics concentrates most researchers on a few big problems, leading to a hyper-competitive, high-pressure environment.

Related Insights

A key measure of philosophy's historical success isn't solving its own problems, but rather birthing new academic fields. Disciplines like mathematics, physics, economics, and psychology all originated as branches of philosophical inquiry before developing into their own distinct areas of study, a point Bertrand Russell made.

Despite behavioral economics producing multiple Nobel laureates, undergraduate microeconomics textbooks remain fundamentally unchanged since the 1970s. This highlights a significant inertia within academia, where foundational curriculum often fails to incorporate revolutionary, field-altering discoveries even years after they are widely accepted.

The intense talent war in AI is hyper-concentrated. All major labs are competing for the same cohort of roughly 150-200 globally-known, elite researchers who are seen as capable of making fundamental breakthroughs, creating an extremely competitive and visible talent market.

Fields like economics become ineffective when they prioritize conforming to disciplinary norms—like mathematical modeling—over solving complex, real-world problems. This professionalization creates monocultures where researchers focus on what is publishable within their field's narrow framework, rather than collaborating across disciplines to generate useful knowledge for issues like prison reform.

While large pharmaceutical companies are filled with a wide breadth of smart people, smaller biotech firms offer a different kind of intellectual environment. They feature the same degree of brilliance, but it's concentrated in a much more focused organization, creating a unique depth of talent.

The AI industry is not a winner-take-all market. Instead, it's a dynamic "leapfrogging" race where competitors like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic constantly surpass each other with new models. This prevents a single monopoly and encourages specialization, with different models excelling in areas like coding or current events.

To avoid direct competition and establish a unique identity, siblings often subconsciously pursue excellence in different domains. If one child dominates academics, another may pivot to athletics or arts, even if they have overlapping talents. This evolutionary strategy, called "niche picking," fosters individual success.

Academic journals often reward highly specialized, siloed research. This creates a professional dilemma for economists wanting to tackle complex, real-world policy problems that require an interdisciplinary approach, as that work is less valued by traditional publishing gatekeepers.

The frenzied competition for the few thousand elite AI scientists has created a culture of constant job-hopping for higher pay, akin to a sports transfer season. This instability is slowing down major scientific progress, as significant breakthroughs require dedicated teams working together for extended periods, a rarity in the current environment.

For a period, a perverse norm developed in economics where the 'better' academic model was one whose theoretical agents were smarter and more rational. This created a competition to move further away from actual human behavior, valuing mathematical elegance and theoretical intelligence over practical, real-world applicability.