[bugglebeetle]

I wouldn’t presume that the smartest brains are gaming the system. Most likely, it’s mediocre hucksters who have bullied and networked their way into a position of authority. Being good at social engineering != to being the best researcher.

[NeuroCoder]

I've seen some situations where smart people did bad research because of deadlines related to work visas. Science doesn't care how smart you are or if you could end up without a home. It will take as many logical iterations over an experiment design before being fruitful.

[P_I_Staker]

I would. Lots of "the smartest brains" are mediocre hucksters who have bullied and networked their way into a position of authority. This doesn't mean they aren't "the smartest brains".

IME some of the more effective engineers I've worked with have gravitated towards politics, not "raw technical skill". It's not because they prefer it. They use their "smartness" to win.

The problem is that being good at social engineering >> anything else. Intelligent people often look at the system and say: "What's the point in naively following this when no one successful unless they game the system?"

What's the point of putting one of your great, well considered idea into the fold. It's far more effective the be a mediocre huckster. You don't have to deal with the uncertainty, giving your idea to someone else, etc. Better to work the social game and phone in the rest.

It works better and you don't have to deal with the crushing disappointment that goes with fighting for an idea in a horrifying bureaucracy.

[patmorgan23]

Being smarter doesn't make you more moral either.

[waterhouse]

It may enable you to do sufficiently well without resorting to immoral methods. Interesting how these things can go.

[hobomatic]

It may, but it doesn't provide the motivation to bother, especially if you only ever get caught at the end of your career.

[P_I_Staker]

I've seen this more often go in the other direction, but I think it can be either way.