Have all the thoughts round this and like many of the concepts you’ve suggested. Creating more tangible opportunities for bright minds to contribute is a great idea. The Nordic model is interesting. Also creating volunteering opportunities or apprenticeships for social enterprise could work:
I’ve had different experiences for pockets of time during my 25+ career.. launching a social enterprise for youth employability entrepreneurs in the Middle East in my 20s and now efforts in my 40s are more local community focused. And hope I get a chance to give more focus to this in the future when kids are older and have more capacity again.
Thanks for sharing, am enjoying your Substack writing and reflections.
I like what you have proposed. However, part of the problem in implementing such a model is identifying those who would serve as the bright or the talented. Your definition might be different than mine. Smart people is a relative term. It also depends on the task that a person is given.
As a former educator, I believe it’s important to identify and cultivate bright and creative talent from an early age. However, this is not a popular view. Americans live in an egalitarian society (for better or worse) both in principle and practice where everyone is seen as equally capable, equally bright, and equally creative. While letting any interested party have an opportunity to be part of a team or think tank might seem only fair, it’s not possible in practical terms when there are limited resources (for example: access to laboratory facilities or equipment or funding). Discernment and discrimination are necessary parts of the decision making process because otherwise you might be forced to contend with individuals ill suited to solve the problem they’ve been assigned. This is where universities might help in the identification process.
I can envision a lot of delusional, narcissistic types thrown in the mix with the humble geniuses in whatever working group is formed. (Maybe I’m projecting my own negative experiences here. 😂 )
A leader or charismatic figure, inevitably, emerges from any innovative team. So, there’s that to consider. Those who want to leave an indelible mark on the face of the planet (Elon Musk, anyone?) are not always the most morally upstanding and magnanimous of figures. Elisabeth Holmes succeeded in convincing others of her brilliant solution through ‘fake it till you make it ’ posturing with Theranos. Bill Gates has had some wild and crazy ideas related to water filtration systems. People can be bright with creative solutions even with a good heart. It doesn’t mean that they can pull it off. This is where it could be argued that Holmes was a brilliant marketer more than a brilliant social entrepreneur. She sold investors and the general public on the idea of simple, relatively pain free highly sophisticated way of doing blood testing. But, she never delivered the goods.
Elon Musk will solve the problem of an inhabitable planet by shooting us to Mars? Is that what we want? Is that the will of the people? Oppenheimer delivered the atomic bomb. It makes me wonder if the technological solutions that bright people come up with to solve huge problems are ever really very good solutions. Or are we rather sold on the idea of solutions to keep are minds at ease.
Bill Gates is also an interesting story. (If you haven’t watched the documentary, it’s worth a view.). Gates is obviously bright, but he also came from privilege, but also a mother who was a philanthropist. This gave Bill Gates an early socialization around the importance of giving back which is unusual among the wealthy and talented.
So, for me, it’s not only encouraging and providing incentives for young people to focus on solving important problems. It’s equally important to teach bright, talented, creative young people the right values. Children need to be taught virtues such as compassionate and humanitarianism. This can be difficult when your children are surrounded by wealth and conspicuous consumption. I’m a firm believer that volunteerism and humanitarianism are values that must be cultivated from within. You cannot force kindness or care or the desire to do good. Bright people need to believe in doing goodness for goodness sake alone. You can try to encourage this kind of behavior by offering programs or incentives, but if individuals are not highly motivated, intrinsically, by the desire to improve society, I’m not sure it can work. It’s how children are raised from a young age that makes a world of difference.
Have all the thoughts round this and like many of the concepts you’ve suggested. Creating more tangible opportunities for bright minds to contribute is a great idea. The Nordic model is interesting. Also creating volunteering opportunities or apprenticeships for social enterprise could work:
I’ve had different experiences for pockets of time during my 25+ career.. launching a social enterprise for youth employability entrepreneurs in the Middle East in my 20s and now efforts in my 40s are more local community focused. And hope I get a chance to give more focus to this in the future when kids are older and have more capacity again.
Thanks for sharing, am enjoying your Substack writing and reflections.
I like what you have proposed. However, part of the problem in implementing such a model is identifying those who would serve as the bright or the talented. Your definition might be different than mine. Smart people is a relative term. It also depends on the task that a person is given.
As a former educator, I believe it’s important to identify and cultivate bright and creative talent from an early age. However, this is not a popular view. Americans live in an egalitarian society (for better or worse) both in principle and practice where everyone is seen as equally capable, equally bright, and equally creative. While letting any interested party have an opportunity to be part of a team or think tank might seem only fair, it’s not possible in practical terms when there are limited resources (for example: access to laboratory facilities or equipment or funding). Discernment and discrimination are necessary parts of the decision making process because otherwise you might be forced to contend with individuals ill suited to solve the problem they’ve been assigned. This is where universities might help in the identification process.
I can envision a lot of delusional, narcissistic types thrown in the mix with the humble geniuses in whatever working group is formed. (Maybe I’m projecting my own negative experiences here. 😂 )
A leader or charismatic figure, inevitably, emerges from any innovative team. So, there’s that to consider. Those who want to leave an indelible mark on the face of the planet (Elon Musk, anyone?) are not always the most morally upstanding and magnanimous of figures. Elisabeth Holmes succeeded in convincing others of her brilliant solution through ‘fake it till you make it ’ posturing with Theranos. Bill Gates has had some wild and crazy ideas related to water filtration systems. People can be bright with creative solutions even with a good heart. It doesn’t mean that they can pull it off. This is where it could be argued that Holmes was a brilliant marketer more than a brilliant social entrepreneur. She sold investors and the general public on the idea of simple, relatively pain free highly sophisticated way of doing blood testing. But, she never delivered the goods.
Elon Musk will solve the problem of an inhabitable planet by shooting us to Mars? Is that what we want? Is that the will of the people? Oppenheimer delivered the atomic bomb. It makes me wonder if the technological solutions that bright people come up with to solve huge problems are ever really very good solutions. Or are we rather sold on the idea of solutions to keep are minds at ease.
Bill Gates is also an interesting story. (If you haven’t watched the documentary, it’s worth a view.). Gates is obviously bright, but he also came from privilege, but also a mother who was a philanthropist. This gave Bill Gates an early socialization around the importance of giving back which is unusual among the wealthy and talented.
So, for me, it’s not only encouraging and providing incentives for young people to focus on solving important problems. It’s equally important to teach bright, talented, creative young people the right values. Children need to be taught virtues such as compassionate and humanitarianism. This can be difficult when your children are surrounded by wealth and conspicuous consumption. I’m a firm believer that volunteerism and humanitarianism are values that must be cultivated from within. You cannot force kindness or care or the desire to do good. Bright people need to believe in doing goodness for goodness sake alone. You can try to encourage this kind of behavior by offering programs or incentives, but if individuals are not highly motivated, intrinsically, by the desire to improve society, I’m not sure it can work. It’s how children are raised from a young age that makes a world of difference.