It seems that there haven’t been that many major insights in macrostrategy/global priorities research recently.
One potential negative conclusion from that, that might seem natural, is that recent macrostrategy/global priorities research has been lacking in quality.
But a more positive conclusion is that early macrostrategy/global priorities research had high quality, and that most of the major insights were therefore quickly identified.
On this view, the recent lack of insights isn’t a sign of recent lack of research quality, but rather a sign of early high research quality.
In my view, the positive conclusion is more warranted than the negative conclusion.
It seems that there haven’t been that many major insights in macrostrategy/global priorities research recently.
One potential negative conclusion from that, that might seem natural, is that recent macrostrategy/global priorities research has been lacking in quality.
But a more positive conclusion is that early macrostrategy/global priorities research had high quality, and that most of the major insights were therefore quickly identified.
On this view, the recent lack of insights isn’t a sign of recent lack of research quality, but rather a sign of early high research quality.
In my view, the positive conclusion is more warranted than the negative conclusion.