@phillmv what’s intuitive vs what’s hard to explain is very socially determined. methodological individualism is, factually, bullshit, except in a weak sense. yet wealthy professionals take (wrongly) for granted that social outcomes are best understood as an aggregation of individual talents, with more talent yielding better outcomes (without much examining what “better” might mean under their own inadequate framework that emphasizes personal incentives). 1/

@phillmv it’s actually both intuitive and obvious that outcome quality is mostly a function of institution quality, and institution quality does not reduce only to domain-specific skills or talents of individuals who constitute institutions. domain-specific skill is necessary but not sufficient, and it’s far from obvious how frequently domain-specific skill is the scarce factor with respect to institution quality. 2/

@phillmv people who perceive themselves as deserving a good situation by virtue of individual merit tend not to love this sort of analysis. but i think it’s less because there’s anything inherently unintuitive about it, and more because of Upton Sinclair’s observation about it being hard to get people to understand what their salaries depend upon not understanding. /fin