[what-the-grump]

But this is in itself selfish right?

You dislike them because they don’t benefit you indirectly by benefiting society at large.

The incentive structure is wrong, incentivizing things that benefit society would be the solution not judging those that exist in the current system by pretending altruism is somehow not part of the same game.

[smokel]

I agree that the system itself is dysfunctional, and I understand the argument that individuals are shaped or even constrained by it. However, in this case, we are talking about people who are both exceptionally intelligent and materially secure. I think it's reasonable to expect such individuals to feel some moral responsibility to use their abilities for broader good.

As for whether that expectation is "selfish" on my part, I think that question has been debated for centuries in ethics, and I'm quite comfortable landing on the side that says not all disapproval is self-interest. In my own case, I'm not benefiting much either :)

[what-the-grump]

I just don't think so, these exceptionally intelligent people are masters at pattern recognition, logic, hyper-focus, task completion in a field. Every single thing will tell them don't go against the flow, don't stick your neck out, don't be a hero, don't take on risk. Or you will end up nailed to a cross.

To me this is an insane position to take or to expect from anyone, its some just world fallacy thing perpetuated by too much Hollywood.

I am going to flip the script for a minute. I am a killer, driver, pilot, mechanic one the best ones out there, I beat the game, I won. So let me just stop and change the world, for what?

[godelski]

  > Every single thing will tell them don't go against the flow, don't stick your neck out, don't be a hero, don't take on risk. Or you will end up nailed to a cross.

Except the situation is more like monkeys and a ladder. The ones "nailing them to the cross" are the same ones in those positions. This is the same logic as "life was tough for me, so life should be tough for you." It's idiotic!

  > So let me just stop and change the world, for what?

This is some real "fuck you, I got mine" attitude. Pulling the ladder up behind you.

We have a long history in science of seeing that sticking your neck out, taking risks, and being different are successful tools to progressing science[0]. Why? Because you can't make paradigm shifts by maintaining the current paradigm. We've also seen that this behavior is frequently combated by established players. Why? Because of the same attitude, ego.

So we've created this weird system where we tell people to think different and then punish them for doing so. Yeah, people are upset about it. I find that unsurprising. So yeah, fuck you, stop pulling the ladder up behind you. You're talking as if they just leave the ladder alone, but these are the same people who end up reviewing papers, grants, and are thus the gatekeepers of progress. Their success gives them control of the ladders and they make the rules.

[0] Galileo, Darwin, Gauss, Kepler, Einstein, and Turing are not the only members of this large club. Even more recently we have Karikó who ended up getting the 2023 Nobel prize in Medicine and Akerlof, Spence, Stiglitz who got the 2001 Nobel prize in economics for their rejected work. This seems to even be more common among Nobel laureates!

[Eisenstein]

There is a difference between being selfish in the sense that you want others to contribute back to the society that we are all part of, and being selfish in the sense that you want to compete for exclusive rewards.

You can call this difference whatever you want, don't pretend that they are morally or effectively equivalent.

[esafak]

Reciprocal altruism, and inclusive fitness.

[kakacik]

Selfish for the long term future and prosperity of mankind? Thats some good selfishness all right.