But there are billions of dollars to be made by convincing people of such things.

Network effects convey enormous benefits. People with resources mingling with people with resources (internal or external) is likelier to yield a lot more than random groupings.

▲

bell-cot a year ago | parent [-]

Yes-ish. That line of reasoning could be used to explain why hereditary nobles and royals are the best form of government. And quite a few other counter-factuals.

OTOH, arguing that anyway might give you a far better shot at getting your hands on a few of those $billions than I'll ever have. GO FOR IT.

▲

lotsofpulp a year ago | parent [-]

Not really, the argument would be that most successful group would consist of people with various resources, whether it be innate intelligence, motivation, discipline, or inherited wealth/social network.

A group of people whose sole value is social network/wealth is probably not sufficient.

Humans have a limited amount of time and energy to work with, so some mechanism of filtering who or what to place bets on would presumably increase desirable results.

Not too dissimilar from seeking recommendations for a plumber or electrician or romantic partner from a trusted neighbor or family or friend.

	▲	bell-cot a year ago \| parent [-]
		Back in the day, the royals and nobles had all those other things. Whether within themselves (as their sycophants proclaimed) or right at hand - because the wealth, power, and prestige of their courts could easily attract the best and brightest talents within their realms. As the article somewhat points out, "network effect" is - at most - a means. Not an end. And the narcissistic group-think and badly limited worldview that the article describes at Ivy League schools sounds very much like the worst failings of those old noble and royal courts.