[Tarrosion]

A small point only tangential to the main point of this post, but something I've noticed about Sam's writing before:

Is anyone else offput by the phrase "best people"? I get (or at least hope) it's a shorthand for "best at their respective job of researcher/founder," but it really seems to reduce people's innate worth and goodness to this single dimension in a somewhat unnerving way.

[allenu]

My issue with it is that a hand-wavy qualification that communicates only what you want it to mean.

How does one define "best" at all in this context? If you devote all your efforts to researching a problem no one is looking at and still come up with nothing, are you still considered one of the "best people"? What if you are researching a problem many others are investigating and then do find something new? It feels very much like hindsight bias to apply such a moniker.

[indymike]

People are emotionally affected by exclusion. The phrase "the best people are ___" is exclusionary if you don't match the fill in the blank. I don't think Altman is trying to offend anyone. He's trying to contrast the behavior of top researchers/founders with everyone else...

[thrawnaway]

Social status is maybe the most important thing to people after their basic needs are met. Having someone publicly lower your social status is therefore extremely painful.

And it's a one-dimensional quantity, to a first approximation.

[netcan]

It's an expression, generally used to convey exactly what you said.

[arikr]

No. It seems clear to me he's talking about the best people in those groups from the perspective of their work output.

[jononor]

Work output as in financial success/reward, prestige or impact, or something else?