Ben SouthwoodVerified account

Fundamental flaw I see is trying to measure scientific progress as an economic activity (nearly all econ do this and it is a literal case of apples vs orgsnes) , thus the "per capita basis". This could lead to wild conclusions. The aggregate vs. individual insight is interesting

Another way I see it is that scientific progress is like venture capital and thus has power law dynamics. So only a few breakthroughs at any given time (or portfolio) but they more than "return the portfolio". This may explain aggregate argument you proposed. Ofc I may be wrong

Many have observed falling IQs in the general population. Is there anyway to see if that is somehow related or correlated with the decline in scientific progress? Obviously our scientist population is concentrated in the right tail of intelligence, but just hypothesizing.