{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025612472160356347, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008908685968819599, 'mean_word_length': 5.243055555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On Being Right versus Being Bright

Historically, intellectuals have occupied privileged positions in their societies. Coser (1970) has described the various roles assumed by intellectuals; most notable are the positions they have held as advisors or policy-makers. Znaniecki (1940) has characterized these men of social knowledge as members of the social vanguard in the sense that they are stimulators of change. Such positions enable intellectuals, knowledgeable of social events past and present, to guide or influence the development of their societies. However, at times, difficulties arise: different intellectuals advocate competing courses of action. Given that these competing policies come from "knowledgeable" sources, whose advice is to be chosen? It is argued here that advice to policy makers or advocacy of a cause implies a prediction of how the world will be in the future. There-