Compared to untenured but tenure-track academic faculty (most of who will later get tenure), tenured professors put in less effort, are less focused on doing big-win projects, and are less willing to change locations, research sub-fields, or classes taught. They publish less, and change their minds less. But they are also more pompous in their speech; they complain more in public about outcomes for they and their local groups, and are more willing to advocate radical changes in
This (inflexible entrenched interests) is basically the thesis of Mancur Olson’s The Rise and Decline of Nations in the 1980s, and in a more generalized way was also the basic mechanism of civilizational decline in Carroll Quigley’s Evolution of Civilizations from the 1960s. I think you are spot on, other than that this mechanism doesn’t have to depend on a population decline. I think Quigley would argue that population decline is a symptom of a civilizational already decaying in other ways.
"We talk bigger about how others shouldn’t tolerate the many many injustices we see, but we aren’t going to do much about it except via complainy mobs" - or via blog posts like this one?
It occurs to me that your previous "Why crypto" post has a directly contradicting narrative to this post.
In "Why crypto," you say that people who succeeded at becoming rich, despite the odds, then have a desire to prove their success wasn't a fluke but was due to the value of their perspective, which leads them to invest in long-shot bet projects that help the community.
In "Our tenured civ," you say that people who succeeded at becoming tenured, despite the odds, then *don't* have a desire to use their newfound power and security to work on long-shot bet projects to advance the field.
Why the difference? Either people who get power and security against the odds then have a motive to dream and invest big, proving their initial success wasn't a fluke - or they don't.
Yes, we—including me—are getting old, and rich/safe/comfortable. But as for changing my mind: I have laboriously assembled this wonderful set of true opinions; why should I change anything? (Occasionally I do add minor pieces of information.)
Do you have sources and firm numbers for your claims about tenured professors? It's plausible that tenured professors would put in less effort, but it's also plausible that they would use their job security and authority to tackle the *big* questions of their field (and perhaps publish less frequently because big successes happen less often than incremental ones). That's what tenure is nominally for, anyway.
This (inflexible entrenched interests) is basically the thesis of Mancur Olson’s The Rise and Decline of Nations in the 1980s, and in a more generalized way was also the basic mechanism of civilizational decline in Carroll Quigley’s Evolution of Civilizations from the 1960s. I think you are spot on, other than that this mechanism doesn’t have to depend on a population decline. I think Quigley would argue that population decline is a symptom of a civilizational already decaying in other ways.
typo: compliany -> complainy
Watch out for black swans!
"We talk bigger about how others shouldn’t tolerate the many many injustices we see, but we aren’t going to do much about it except via complainy mobs" - or via blog posts like this one?
This article concludes "no" -->
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/10/17/does-faculty-productivity-really-decline-age-new-study-says-no
It occurs to me that your previous "Why crypto" post has a directly contradicting narrative to this post.
In "Why crypto," you say that people who succeeded at becoming rich, despite the odds, then have a desire to prove their success wasn't a fluke but was due to the value of their perspective, which leads them to invest in long-shot bet projects that help the community.
In "Our tenured civ," you say that people who succeeded at becoming tenured, despite the odds, then *don't* have a desire to use their newfound power and security to work on long-shot bet projects to advance the field.
Why the difference? Either people who get power and security against the odds then have a motive to dream and invest big, proving their initial success wasn't a fluke - or they don't.
Yes, we—including me—are getting old, and rich/safe/comfortable. But as for changing my mind: I have laboriously assembled this wonderful set of true opinions; why should I change anything? (Occasionally I do add minor pieces of information.)
Do you have sources and firm numbers for your claims about tenured professors? It's plausible that tenured professors would put in less effort, but it's also plausible that they would use their job security and authority to tackle the *big* questions of their field (and perhaps publish less frequently because big successes happen less often than incremental ones). That's what tenure is nominally for, anyway.