I already have a list of over 200 intellectuals for the Fantasy Intellectual Teams draft. Thanks for your suggestions. More are still welcome. You are not limited to any proposed team.
I should say that the way a fantasy draft works, owners take turns drafting players. You cannot just say “Tyler is on my team.” Somebody else could pick him first. So if there were 10 owners of these 18-intellectual teams, and there are 200 to choose from, then you can be sure to wind up in the last rounds drafting some folks that were put on the draft list by me or someone else but who you would not have intended to draft as of now.
One scoring issue that I am wrestling with is name recognition. The goal of FITs is to increase name recognition for intellectuals that deserve it. That might suggest downgrading anyone who has high name recognition among, say, Ivy League social science professors. So David Brooks, Jared Diamond, or Daniel Kahneman would not help your score, because they already have plenty of name recognition among Ivy League social science professors. Someone like Joe Rogan, who enjoys mass name recognition, does not lose points, because I guess he has low name recognition among Ivy League social science professors. And Rand Paul has name recognition among elites, but not as an intellectual, so he does not lose points for that. Note that I am not pushing Joe Rogan or Rand Paul for high draft choices.
But another possibility is to ignore that issue. I want my FITs to be people who are great role models as thinkers. I want my children to model their thought processes after my FITs team. If that means Steven Pinker or Joseph Henrich, so be it.
In fantasy sports, a “sleeper” is someone gets overlooked by other fantasy owners during the draft, so that you can pick the player up in a late round. As one commenter pointed out, in fantasy baseball you win the draft by picking good sleepers. In FITs, Jim Manzi is an outstanding sleeper.
But somebody who has a cult following in a particular realm is not necessarily a helpful sleeper. How to score Gary Taubes, for example? He gets credit for going against conventional wisdom in the field of diet, but otherwise I don’t think he has much value in the draft.
I am not inspired by FITs candidates that you like for “mood affiliation” reasons. I enjoy Victor Davis Hanson as a writer, but I know what one of his columns is going to say before I even read it. That is a bad sign. And he is too uncharitable to those with whom he disagrees.
One reason that my choices skew so far to the right is that I see those on the left relying much more heavily on mood affiliation. Few left intellectuals are charitable toward, or even aware of, important conservative arguments.
FITs who have influenced my view of the world are way up there in terms of draft choices. This can be true even though I reject important parts of their view of the world. Robin Hanson has never convinced me that uploading someone’s brain into a computer is going to be a big thing, but he has convinced me of all sorts of other important ideas.
Handle’s criteria are also on target.
Do you have Eli Dourado, formerly at the Mercatus Center in the draft pool? You should.
Also, Annie Duke
“Foxes know many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.”
Arnold has expressed a clear preference for foxes. Maybe in terms of fantasy sports, we should think of foxes as being happy with singles, whereas hedgehogs swing for the fences.
Thanks very much for creating this game, it is very entertaining to think about. The challenge of scoring criteria is formidable but worthwhile.
Some random thoughts:
“who has high name recognition among, say, Ivy League social science professors”
Not knowing a lot of Ivy League social science professors, it would indeed be a challenge to attempt to figure out who is most well known among them and who is not. Are they Marginal Revolution readers?
Other possible considerations, foreign versus domestic name recognition. Does someone famous in the U.K., infrequently mentioned in the USA, lose points for U.K. fame? How about really old timers still clinging to life but in danger of being forgotten?
Victor David Hanson is perhaps like Paul Krugman. Perhaps the columns detract from the books and scholarly work?
Scoring criteria on “great role models as thinkers.” You mention carefulness, charitability, “knowing what they are going to say before you read them., and Handle’s post. Changing your mind on important ideas.
“FITs who have influenced my view of the world are way up there in terms of draft choices. “ This kind of suggests a good draft strategy would be to search names on this blog or in your books and assess your reaction. For example, I searched James C. Scott and got a hit entitled “Seeing Like a State” so he might be a good pick, assuming he is in the pool ? (Am I correct in understanding that the pick pool will be closed? That is that you will be posting a list of eligible draftees?).
Anyway, thanks again. This has already been great as many of the names suggested so far were unfamiliar and it’s been a learning experience.
I think you would enjoy Thinking Like a State. Also his most recent, Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States, which I think is somewhat exaggerated but very interesting.
TY. I ave read both and was greatly influenced by the first but put off by the second. In both cases probably due to mood affiliation. For the offspring of hillbilly farmers, Scott is a mixed bag.
Are we going to do an actual draft? This is a fun game. Drawing from a long list at this point, so I would be intrigued to see what “sleepers” I can identify ahead of the group. A few I haven’t seen mentioned—Camille Paglia, Cal Newport, Eric Kaufmann, Bruno Maçães, Agnes Callard, Balaji Srinivasan, Naval Ravikant, Steven Landsburg, and Arthur Brooks.
If you are interested in correcting the right wing skew, some leftists I would consider include Dean Baker, Freddie de Boer, Steve Randy Waldman, and Noah Smith.
I’ve long been looking for Leftist folk who don’t make me so angry as I read them. Funny that Andrew Sullivan is often like that, and had a review of Freddie’s book The Cult of Smart
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250200389
“Everyone agrees that education is the key to creating a more just and equal world, and that our schools are broken and failing. Proposed reforms variously target incompetent teachers, corrupt union practices, or outdated curricula, but no one acknowledges a scientifically-proven fact that we all understand intuitively: Academic potential varies between individuals, and cannot be dramatically improved. In The Cult of Smart, educator and outspoken leftist Fredrik deBoer exposes this omission as the central flaw of our entire society, which has created and perpetuated an unjust class structure based on intellectual ability.”
He is speaking Truth about reality – academic potential varies between individuals and cannot be dramatically improved. Like many of Marx’s critiques of capitalism were true.
The truth of describing reality doesn’t mean that the prescription for change will be better.
Haven’t and probably won’t read the book, but it’s important to support Truth.
Where are the women?
Could you suggest some?
While they are under represented so far, there are several in the pool. I nominated Theresa Fallon, Helen Pluckrose & Deirdre McCloskey.
and I’ll throw Amy Myers Jaffe into the mix as well
http://www.amymyersjaffe.com/
Some additional female nominees:
– Utility scientist Florence Wambugu for courageous support of biotechnology in the face of elite superstitions
– Utility Economist and author Dambisa Moyo, IMO great sleeper pick: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dambisa_Moyo
– Utility Nobelist Shirin Ebadi for reconciling Islam with democracy
– Utility player Hungary’s State Secretary for Family and Youth Affairs Katalin Novák oversees a highly successful family support program
– Non-economist Academic Susan Blackmore for The Meme Machine
– Non-economist academic Susan Greenfield for her visionary work on the toxicity of social media
– Columnist Melanie Phillips for her courageous opposition to elite bigotries
– Utility player Julia Kristeva for critiques of various feminist schools of thought
– Utility player Sunita Narain for highlighting the malignant effects of eco-imperialism
– Non-economist academic Elaine Scarry for Resisting Representation
How could I forget Sarah Palin? “Drill, baby, drill” is the intellectual work that has contributed the most to human flourishing this century and perhaps the single wisest utterance in human history.
Would she have done better or worse than Trump? I’m thinking better. I ask this because I’m still trying figure out who can fill the shoes to promote Trumpism 2.0. She is probably not the right choice, but I’m still lost for a satisfying answer.
If you wanna have some fun, do a quick search to see what Arnold was saying about her over at econlog back in 2008-2010. I think he was much more charitable than the rather unfair treatment she received from the MSM.
Separately, why don’t I see Jeff Miron (Harvard) on any of the libertarian FIT draft sheets? Just a little surprised.
Lastly, not a fan of adding politicians to the list, but has Ben Sasse proved his intellectual worth outside of his Senate seat? Love Nebraska btw.
+1
Tho the Truth of “Drill, baby, drill!” doesn’t quite make me think “intellectual”. What ARE the criteria?
Melanie Philips for “Beware of the politician who propounds and propagates duty-less rights.” That’s a paraphrase. From _Londonistan_.
Just thinking off the top of my head
Farhad Khosrokhavar (Afghani/French sociologist)
Martin van Creveld (Israeli military historian)
Jocko Willink (podcaster)
James Lindsay (blogger)
Martin Seligman (academic psychologist)
Chris Rock (entertainer)
Denzel Washington (entertainer)
Eric Greitens (probably disqualified–already served in politics)
Gerard Prunier (French historian)
Martin Jacques (British historian)
Michela Wrong (British Journalist)
Bruce Charlton (British physician / blogger)
James Thompson (British psychologist)
Emil Kirkegaard (Danish Psychologist)
David Goldman (Spengler)
= – = – = – =
The paucity of women is an interesting factor here. Worth reviewing is Steven Pinker’s list of which fields tend to have men and women represented equally. Mathematics is male dominated–but anthropology is not, for example. He provides lists somewhere in _Blank Slate_.
The collapse in fertility rates in OECD countries is an important topic. It would be ridiculous to have Fantasy Teams solely of men discussing it.
“The collapse in fertility rates in OECD countries is an important topic. It would be ridiculous to have Fantasy Teams solely of men discussing it.”
There are things that are true about men that you will only hear from women. And vice versa.
Speaking of the toxicity of social media.
This is the poet and novelist Patricia Lockwood: “Every day their attention must turn, like the shine on a school of fish, all at once, toward a new person to hate. Sometimes the subject was a war criminal, but other times it was someone who made a heinous substitution in guacamole.”
Lorrie Moore: “Twitter’s feeding frenzies seem a display of people with obscene amounts of time on their hands, yet a disinclination to read in any real way.”
Or Michaela Coel. Watch the amazing ninth episode of I May Destroy You.
Even Lena Dunham. Season six, episode three of Girls.
And Margaret Atwood. And Lionel Shriver. And Laura Kipnis. And Katie Roiphe. And Emily Nussbaum: “Decent people sometimes create bad art. Amoral people can and have created transcendent works. A cruel and selfish person–a criminal, even–might make something that was generous, life-giving, and humane. Or alternatively, they might create something that was grotesque in a way that you couldn’t tear your eyes away from it, full of contradictions that were themselves magnetic.”
Zadie Smith: “In writing schools, in reading groups, in universities, various general reading systems are offered–the post-colonial, the gendered, the postmodern, the state-of-the-nation and so on. They are like the instructions that come with furniture at IKEA. All one need do is seek out the flatpack novels that most closely resemble the blueprints already to hand.”
Alice Munro: “Are there people who actually believe that a woman can’t write from the point of view of a man? I would have thought it was the intensity and colour of perception and the quality of writing that mattered.”
Izabella Tabarovsky: “Those of us who came out of the collectivist Soviet culture understand these dynamics instinctively. You invoked the ‘didn’t read, but disapprove’ mantra not only to protect yourself from suspicions about your reading choices but also to communicate an eagerness to be part of the kollektiv–no matter what destructive action was next on the kollektiv’s agenda. You pre-emptively surrendered your personal agency in order to be in unison with the group. And this is understandable in a way: Merging with the crowd feels much better than standing alone.”
I’ve noticed this as well. I added Ayan Hirsi Ali to my team, and have a list of several others who I think would be great. My thought about this draft would be not choosing from a pre-screened list – even though one could be available. I didn’t intentionally hold women off my list, but when I noticed the disparity here, I expected those to be my “sleepers” who brought value above their draft rank.
I listed a couple higher in the thread. Agnes Callard and Camille Paglia. Heather Heyring is another one. Christina Hoff Sommers.
Amy Wax, Justice Barrett, Claire Lehman, Heather Mac Donald, Nicole Gelinas, Veronique de Rugy, Kay Hymowitz, Katja Grace, Julia Galef, Megan McArdle, Jillian York, Ilana Mercer, Ann Coulter*.
*I have sometimes been very disappointed by some of these suggestions, however, even though I can almost always predict what they are going to say, and that sometimes they can be quite harsh and acerbic toward their opponents, I actually don’t mind either of those, and don’t think it should count against them. Indeed, sometimes insulting people with wit, literary flair, and panache is a true art form and I prefer it to more overly diplomatic or dry-as-dust style.
My test is “Would I feel I was up against quite a hard challenge if I found myself on the other side of an argument with this individual?” If the answer is yes, then all is forgiven, all’s fair in love and war.
Gail Heriot too.
Can we please run the same exercise but this time for LGBQ+?
Let’s officially launch the FIT office for diversity and inclusion. Equity > ideas.
I’ll go first with Andrew Sullivan and Dave Rubin.
Hank Green of Vlogbrothers!
Team Canada:
(p) podcaster and/or blogger (2)
David Herle
Alex Usher
(b) from the world of business (1)
Thomas D. Madden
(e) academic economist (4)
Mike P. Moffatt
Kevin Milligan
Lindsay Tedds
Frances Woolley
(o) academic other than economist (4)
Joseph Heath
Cindy Blackstock
Geoffrey Hinton
Michael Geist
(c) regular columnist for newspaper or magazine (can be an online magazine)
Chantal Hébert
Some fantasy football leagues do auctions instead of drafts. Everyone gets 200 fake dollars and bids on who they want (rosters are usually ~15 people). The top players will go for 50+ dollars.
One nice thing about auctions is prices are more informative than the rank order selections. It’d be interesting to see how much someone like Scott Alexander goes for vs not as recognized intellectual. If there were multiple leagues (i.e. groups of 10 picking from the the same groups of intellectuals) you could look at average prices and get some measure of “status”.
In theory, you could avoid a scoring system altogether: just have annual FIT auctions, and see how people’s prices change year to year. If there were enough leagues, and people were generally on the same page about the criteria, I could see prices being someone indicative of rises/falls in status. (Though, in theory, you could also do this with drafts instead of auctions, you’d just be measuring people’s average draft position instead of price.)
YES to auctions over drafts. Far more “market informative”, faster.
I think.
(Prove me wrong???)
Perhaps some additional Latin American nominees would help balance?
Possible candidates:
– Business, Guatemalan Luis von Ahn for Duolingo, Recapcha, crowdsourcing
– Utility/columnist Argentine Andres Neumann. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrés_Neuman. Perhaps my favorite young living novelist.
– Utility/columnist Argentine, Fernando Iglesias for great courage in addressing the Falklands/Malvinas issue
– Utility, Mexican novelist Laura Esquivel, whose Like WAter For Chocolate centered life in the kitchen, perhaps setting off the foodie boom?
– Utility Nobelist Mario Vargas Llosa for “for his cartography of structures of power and his trenchant images of the individual’s resistance, revolt, and defeat.” And his son (columnist) Álvaro Vargas Llosa “author of the book Liberty for Latin America, which obtained the 2005 Antony Fisher International Memorial Award for its contribution to the cause of freedom. He was recently appointed Young Global Leader 2007.”
– Academic economist “Marilda Sotomayor specializes in game theory, matching markets, and market design. She is the only expert in both game theory and matching markets in Brazil”
– Academic Economist Brazilian Zélia Cardoso de Mello “was responsible for the implementation of the Plano Collor, which combined fiscal and trade liberalization with radical inflation stabilization measures” also apparently wrote a hot autobiography
– Utility, Bolivian coca farmer that made it big Evo Morales, and fascinatingly has actually did pretty well for Bolivia’s economy.
– Business, Mexican Ricardo Salinas Plies “formed the nonprofit Fundación Azteca in 1997 to address a broad range of social problems with ongoing campaigns in healthcare and nutrition, education, and the
I’m just going to put some names down here:
Zohar Atkins
Robert Putnam
Slavoj Žižek
Stephen Hicks
Mike Nayna
James Lindsay
Peter Boghossian
Alan Sokal
Hubert Dreyfus (if he weren’t dead)
“Public intellectual” conflicts with “sleeper”. The former contains a high proportion of high-visibility blowhards.
Here’s a real sleeper: Larry Arnhart.
This concept isn’t looking for the best engineers or mathematicians or scientists; it’s looking for the best political pundits or public policy types.
I’d give a +1 to Scott Alexander and Peter Thiel and Whole Food’s Mackey. I can’t find recent articles by Jim Manzi; maybe Kling can link some?
I’d also like to suggest a few that I don’t see mentioned:
Casey Mulligan
https://caseymulligan.blogspot.com/
Avik Roy
https://freopp.org/
Angelo Codevilla
Kling introduced him to me by linking an interview that I found surprisingly perceptive.
https://amgreatness.com/author/angelo-codevilla/
Erik Kaufmann
https://unherd.com/author/eric-kaufmann/
Lee Smith
https://www.tabletmag.com/contributors/lee-smith
David Brooks.
He’s so charitable to the other side that he’s joined the other side.
Echoing underweighted picks (at least to readers of this blog it seems?) like: Eric Kaufmann, Bruno Maçães, Balaji Srinivasan.
I would add in 2 others:
1) Michael Lind: seems to channel some important thinkers like Lasch, Rorty, etc.
2) Antonio Garcia Martinez (@antoniogm).
Probably the biggest underrated person I can think of currently (with a healthy dose of recency bias). Author of Chaos Monkeys, which is a very under-rated book. He’s been part of a lot of the important cultural institutions of the past 2 decades: Berkeley Physics PhD, Goldman Sachs quant during the crisis, Y combinator with a successful exit to Twitter, Facebook Ads team Product Manger.
His blog has done great takes on favourites like Bruna Macaes, Martin Gurri, etc. Also very insightfult analysis on race relations (particularly Hispanics in the US).
Son of Cuban exiles who grew up in Miami. He claims he immigrated to the US (from Miami) to go to college.
Can you nominate someone with a terrible record and give them a negative weight, on the assumption that they will continue to miss the bus brilliantly in the future? I’m thinking for instance of myself. I predicted vocally that Greece would leave the Euro, that Bitcoin would tank, that Hillary would win the election, that Trump wouldn’t last four years, that COVID would blow over in a few months, etc. I was able to explain with signs and wonders why I was attaching the most reasonable Bayesian weights to all the relevant outcomes. Perhaps I am doing something very right, even exploitably right, in identifying the key factors that affect event probability, but weighting them improperly.
I forgot to mention that Eli Dourado would be eligible at either (o) or (t).
Adding Philip Tetlock – non-economics academic – to the draft pool.
Also David Rubenstein (business)
It will be interesting to see the scoring system.