Regarding the wordcel-shape-rotator dichotomy, due to skill transference, I have observed that the latter are well-above average at the former (e.g. Curtis Yarvin, Marc Andreessen), but the opposite is not necessarily true. It’s not like one is better than the other, but I think the wordcels have a slight edge.
Sure, shape-rotators make more money, but their careers may also be threatened due to AI, and wordcels have the advantage of possibly having more influence in the public/policy ‘sphere’ (e.g. academia, government, law, culture) in which having ‘more money’ is not good enough. Money alone is insufficient to create new institutions or change power structures. This is why Peter Thiel has faced such a huge uphill battle trying to go from tech guru to policy wonk, compared to career-politicians with legal backgrounds who walz right in.
Also, observe how many tech/business people try to pivot to punditry, like David Sacks or Mark Cuban. This suggests in terms of revealed preferences that having a big megaphone is possibly preferable or equal to a big bank account. They don’t just want to be wealthy, but also seen as having insightful opinions about society, too. Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, wants the same job as someone like Noah Smith or Matthew Yglesias. Marc Andreessen writes the occasional think piece, which is not much different from what an intern or staff writer does at The New Yorker or Wired for little money.
Success at the pundit game likely has higher intellectual barriers to entry compared to business, which is more dependent on luck, persistence, or networking, than raw merit and intellect. Someone who gets in early on Uber in 2010 or sells his dotcom company in 2000 at the peak of the greatest asset bubble ever, is lauded as genius, when it was also mostly luck/timing. This works at conveying credibility to other business/VC people who are impressed by this, but it does not work as well when transitioning from the world of money to the world of ideas, as the audiences and gatekeepers are different.
On podcasts they talk about “equality of opportunity, not outcomes” as if this is some profound insight, or ‘DEI’ as if it’s a new concept. Or are way too late to certain issues. So this may win over the audience who have similar IQs and backgrounds and are unfamiliar with these concepts or easily swayed by simple appeals to tribalism, but success at punditry means having to win over a much smarter, more discriminating audience. This can explain how the smartest people in tech are able to make this leap (e.g. Moldbug, Beff Jezos), but most come off as just parroting or repackaging old talking points.