The RAND corporation

[AlsoTapered]

Last week I met one of the technical people behind the ArmsControlWonk podcast. He informed me that almost nobody at the RAND corporation ever paid into a pension scheme. Why? Because they all truly believed that they would never live to collect their pension.

Now in contrast, the team at Sandinista ALL paid in. Because they sought to make the world safer. The concept of 'wooden bombs' is still amazing. Fire resistant pits, a digital activator (so a stray voltage could not set of a nuke) and many other things gave them the confidence to feel 'well, at least WE have done our best to make it all safe'. Do you know, the US military was not interested... they saw safety as a problem for them to LAUNCH.

So I'm keen to know if Soviet scientists (and their are some amazing names) also considered making the NEVER of the always/never a reality. You get no medals for NOT starting a war and under the regime the would be seen as meddlers... and yet I PRESUME that such people saw the risks and acted to save themselves and others.

I'm old enough to have chosen not to have kids BECAUSE of the risk of nuclear destrucction.

So call me an idiot for my beliefs, but those Sandinista people seem solid. They ALL seem to have beards (as do their Soviet counterparts). Was this some subtle signal?

 

[gordonliddy]

He informed me that almost nobody at the RAND corporation ever paid into a pension scheme. Why? Because they all truly believed that they would never live to collect their pension.

This sounds like an urban legend.

 

[AlsoTapered]

This sounds like an urban legend.

I KNOW it does. But just look at how RAND is now having to help out ex-employees who are in straitened circumstances. People whose name is just to significant to allow them to starve.

Believe me, while their is no direct evidence, I did take a close look before posting.

Wasn't it John Hughes who said 'if it's a choice between printing the truth and the legend - print the legend'. But these people were well informed, in their late 20s and of course met ex-RAND staff. So yeah, those ex-RAND people might have simply lied... but if they complained, wouldn't RAND respond? That might explain WHY suddenly these ex-staff find lecture work even in their 80s?

Whatever the case, interesting. Given how RAND workers appear to think, possible.

 

[gordonliddy]

I KNOW it does. But just look at how RAND is now having to help out ex-employees who are in straitened circumstances. People whose name is just to significant to allow them to starve.

Oh, I agree that your particular finding (rumor?) is interesting. I just don't see this as prima facie proof that RAND is run by nihilists. Actual nihilists are rare. What I find more likely is the possiblity that RAND is run by nerds and men children.

Wasn't hugged enough as a child.

Wasn't it John Hughes who said 'if it's a choice between printing the truth and the legend - print the legend'. But these people were well informed, in their late 20s and of course met ex-RAND staff. So yeah, those ex-RAND people might have simply lied...

...or exaggerated. Other contemporary conspiracy theories point out that certain of world leaders (e.g. Merkel?) don't have children. But I see that more as a result of changing social expectations as opposed to outright nihilism.

Most people plan poorly for retirement.

but if they complained, wouldn't RAND respond?

I don't know, have you socialised with these people? I'd look closer for signs of self benefit, or also possible (and more insidious) self-dealing.

That might explain WHY suddenly these ex-staff find lecture work even in their 80s?

Whatever the case, interesting. Given how RAND workers appear to think, possible.

Sure, but I think that what's far more insidious is the possiblity (probability) that RAND functions as an echo chamber for the Pentagon. Don't get me wrong, IMHO the Pentagon is terrific and is one of few remaining functional elements in American society.

The smart people in the Pentagon are generally not concerned about the current war (or what is referred to as the Continual War) so much as they are concerned about preparing for the next war. Which is more important, God Bless the grunts and the field marshals.

Let's say that you and I were Pentagon brass and we were put in charge of deciding whether America should be dumping money into (a tendency they have trouble resisting) improvements to our bomber jet arsenal vis-a-vis improvements to our fighter jet arsenal. Which is kind of important, if you think about it. Lives depend upon getting this right.

So given that you and I aren't self-important dbags, we're not going to consult a magic 8-ball, are we? We're going to seek out independent advice. Now here's where the problem comes in. All of our buddies with grey hair are going to be telling us that RAND is the go-to place for this. And they couldn't be more wrong. Because during our intial sales meeting with the RAND sales team, what they're going to be trying to do is assess what bias and direction you and I are going to be leaning in, fighter vs. bomber.

Then they're going to coach their assessment team to come up with data and an answer that tells us what they think we want to hear, even though you and I are specifically telling them that all options are on the table. Echo chamber.

I define the problem as a lack of objective advice available to decision makers. How to fix this? I don't know, and I'm going to play video games in a few minutes. But the fact that your buddy didn't explain any of it to you this way is itself concerning. I could give him lessons if he's interested, but I'd have to charge.

 

[AlsoTapered]

It was an aside - he wished to define the views of the RAND corporation in a pithy manner. It's mentioned in more detail ON the ArmsControlWonk. About how Scott learned about the fact and was, to be fair, not too happy with that position.

But the fact that mandatory retirement was dropped suggests that either they were ALL the best, that the military wanted the people holding such views to be retained and/or because these people just spent all presuming no future. I don't think it's a trilema because the first cannot be true... the other 2 options would feed off each other. RAND workers saying what the military wants to keep the jobs they need.

 

[Brendan12]

A think tank for thinkers with merit.