While Heinlein had a valid point in this authorial insert, he tiptoed around his own cognitive biases: if entertainers and athletes were inappropriate, WHO did he think deserved to be taken seriously? And why are entertainers and athletes disqualified? Consider President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, or President Vaclav Havel of Czecheslovakia—a comedian on one hand and a satirist on the other, both went on to be statesmen.

Hubert Figuière
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •HighlandLawyer
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
Charlie Stross
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •2/ Nobody is unidimensional, and merely excelling in popular entertainment doesn't mean one is incompetent in others. (Random example: Rosi Sexton, a Cambridge University maths PhD with a career as a mixed martial arts fighter and Green Party politician.)
The deficiency Heinlein was railing about didn't lie in the people he was talking about: it lay in the corporate entertainment media environment, and the capitalist system that focused it on delivering eyeballs to advertisers.
Charlie Stross
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •modulux
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •I'm amused even Heinlein drew a line on organ trade in The Cat Who Walked through Walls: