You may recall that the key distinguishing feature between geniuses and superbureaucrats is their uncompromising attitude of spreading the idea at the expense of making a reasonable living off of it.
The easiest way to discern a superbureaucrat from a genius is to ask them their opinions on intellectual property. Geniuses are notoriously antimaterialistic, and would have no qualms about illegally downloading a pdf if they think it has information they need to feed their obsession. Their concern, generally, is not whether they’ll be compensated for their ideas but whether the ideas will be understood, adopted, and used. Money, status, and women tend to be afterthoughts at best, as often as not leading to the genius’s demise.https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2020/06/16/superbureaucrats-vs-geniuses/
Here’s an example I ran across down one of Patrick’s rabbitholes:
Much of this work, it should be noted, was done in the 1980s and early 1990s, well before the ‘download age.’ There was no Internet and no Google. Computerized databases were limited and costly. They demanded considerable programming expertise that we had to acquire. Print sources were highly heterogeneous and had to be standardized. It was an enormously difficult and thankless process, carried out with no research assistance and no research budgets.
When we eventually managed to get some of this research published in journal articles, we insisted on including a special data appendix. This appendix consisted of some of our raw time series – including sales, net profits, owners’ equity and defence contracts – data that we collated for the leading oil and armament corporations.
This insistence may seem puzzling. In an era of intellectual property rights, giving your data away is considered unusual, not to say silly. We think otherwise. We believe that knowledge is social, not private. We think it should not be protected and should not be made exclusive. And we consider empirical research crucial – and, unfortunately, at risk of extinction. Providing the raw data, along with explanations of how they were conceived and collated, was our modest contribution toward reversing that trend. For the Retort authors all of these layers are trivial stuff. They simply engross the final text en masse, including the words we quote from other creative researchers. Unfortunately, they try to decorate the pasted material, and in the process introduce some embarrassing mistakes.-Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler
The Scientist and the Church