I have often gone on a deep dive in a thought process on why research in medicine doesn’t often yield the dividends that we are hoping for.
Experimentation in medicine would progress in AI/technology and adapting to it. There are a number of reasons why a group of “stakeholders” would discuss about a topic to death without moving ahead on it- their relevance is only because of the status quo.
Remove the obstacles to research, for example, by getting new ideas and a different approach and they would cease. If everyone had equitable access, will the “minority managers” ever exist?
Overconfidence of failure perhaps maybe a better virtue than that for success. Do read up this fascinating lead, as well as the links therein.
In my experience, rationalists* are far more likely to look at that crazy idea and say: “Well, my inside view says that’s dumb. But my outside view says that brilliant ideas often look dumb at first, so the fact that it seems dumb isn’t great evidence about whether it will pan out. And when I think about the EV here [expected value] it seems clearly worth the cost of someone trying it, even if the probability of success is low.”
I think the first group — the vast majority of society — is being very overconfident. Remember, “overconfidence” doesn’t just mean being too confident that something’s going to succeed, it also means being too confident that something’s going to fail!