I want to revisit my 2024 post, “Optimality“. The idea is that everyone is, in some sense, optimized for their roles. Additionally, the kinds of people who end up in certain roles are more or less what you’d expect based on a combination of attributes–physical appearance, temperament, intellect, attractiveness, and so on.
Consider physiognomy. It’s uncanny how often people seem to “look” their roles. Pete Hegseth, for example, has the stereotypical square “Chad” face physiognomy that is befitting of being Secretary of Defense–a position culturally associated with masculinity. And indeed, he acts the part too, in a recent viral video purportedly bench pressing 315lbs. The same goes for Donald Trump, whose head also has a similar squarish appearance, especially when viewed from the side–again concomitant with his temperament and role.
This becomes even more noticeable when you contrast Hegseth and Trump with “tech” figures like Mark Zuckerberg, Dario Amodei, or Sam Altman. It would be incongruous if Trump and Sam Altman swapped roles. Or Dario Amodei and Trump. Based on superficial attributes alone, ignoring qualifications, you won’t expect someone who looks and acts like Trump to run a tech company.
Alex Carp, Elon muck, and Marc Andersen are all over 6ft tall, so they command a presence, which is expected or appropriate for their leadership roles. These individuals are constantly in the public eye, so being tall helps to stand out in a room. This is contrasted with founders, who tend to be much shorter (e.g. Peter Theil or Mark Zuckerberg). This is again suggests a sort of tradeoff where being smart comes at the cost of conveying a presence, which is where having a tall spokesperson is useful.
Tim Cook has a more slender and athletic build, and as the head of Apple Inc., a company where image and branding are uniquely important, it makes sense that he also physically embodies the sleekness and form of the products he’s trying to sell. Apple places design above features, so having a CEO who public image is equally well manicured, is optimal.
Conversely, Elon Musk, who is often seen with something of a protruding stomach and is not as well dressed, is associated with Tesla cars and SpaceX rockets that, unlike the slim iPhone, tend to be bulky or curvy–especially the Tesla Cybertruck. Tesla and Space-X produce physically large products, so having a physically large CEO fits neatly into this framework. Even the Tesla Diner–a huge dome-shaped monstrosity of sorts that sells fast-food–fits in agreement with this theme. The Apple Stores are the opposite: minimalistic, like the products Apple sells. If the Apple Store offered food, it would probably be kale.
Beyond the superficial, it’s also hard to think of individuals more appropriate or optimized for their roles than Sam Altman running Open AI, a leading tech company, or Mark Zuckerberg running Facebook–a different type of tech company–but with a similar culture. Their dispassionate personalities and assiduousness are expected or optimal or expected for those roles. Same for Dario Amodei. This is an example of ‘optimality’. Human capital is being allocated optimally.
Or politics. Sure, despite Trump’s flaws, when you look at the people he surrounds himself with or the candidates he defeated during the primaries, it’s possible he truly is the optimal person for the role of commander in chief. Trump is perhaps not the smartest, the most collected, or the best listener, but he’s at the perfect intersection of the qualities necessary to fit the role he has assumed.
Marco Rubio, for example, doesn’t project the same kind of aura or presence–he comes across as more physically slight and subdued. JD Vance is competent, but doesn’t quite carry the same level of gravitas. Go down the list and you’re left with Trump as the optimal choice. Trump was perhaps too reactive against Iran, but if there is an actual threat you don’t want someone who will wait until it’s too late or not do anything. So again, Trump is at the ideal balance of overreaction and inaction.
Suboptimal choices can in hindsight be the optimal ones. Almost everyone would agree that DEI is suboptimal, as merit should matter over more superficial attributes, but in certain contexts, it may make sense if it means tech companies protecting themselves from bad press, lawsuits, or from lawmakers, so they can focus on optimizing shareholder value and creating new products. Some token DEI employees or to placate critics is possibly a worthy tradeoff in this context. Indeed, the high share prices of Google, Meta and other tech companies would seem to indicate that this has worked.
A common argument is that “we need to put the smartest and most competent people in charge,” compared to the ‘system’ we have today. Why can’t the same be true of politics, as seen in tech or finance, where the smartest of people run things (e.g. Jane Street)? There are limits to competence. Promoting the smartest or the most experienced doesn’t necessarily mean the best outcomes when it comes to geopolitical matters, where the stakes are larger and there are more secondary consequences to bad decisions, compared to the more insulated world of business.
An optimal leader is someone who is assertive, but at the same time capable of showing restraint or to weigh the evidence before acting. Experts, by possibly being overconfident in their abilities, may misjudge situations where said experience doesn’t fully apply or with incomplete information. Trump has backtracked so often that it has become a meme “TACO”, but this is what also makes him effective as a leader, because he adjusts as the situation develops, instead of being inflexible.
Here are two historical examples of the 20th century: On April 11, 1951, President Harry Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur for insubordination. By any objective metric, MacArthur was qualified given his success during the Second World War, but invading China would have been a disaster, possibly leading to another world war involving Russia. Restraint was needed in this situation, which he lacked.
As a second example, John von Neuman, recognized for his brilliance and success at the Manhattan Project, in 1950s chaired several Defense Department committees. There was arguably no one more qualified, at least going by smarts or accomplishments. At some point he was consulted for his advice on the nuclear threat of Russia, and his suggestion was to preemptively bomb the U.S.S.R.–a suggestion that thankfully was never followed up on. As smart as he was at developing bombs, policy was best left to the experts.