"knowledge can be found at all ages, and in all places. And ethics has nothing to do with degrees or pedigrees."

Victor Davis Hanson writes in part in PJ Media,

after 22 months and $32 million worth of investigation, Mueller's team found no Russian collusion and no evidence of actionable Trump obstruction during the investigation of that non-crime. All the constant media reports that "bombshell" Mueller team disclosures were imminent and that the "walls are closing in" on Trump proved false.

Mueller himself testified before Congress, only to appear befuddled and almost clueless at times about his own investigation. Many of his supposedly brightest all-stars, such as Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and Kevin Clinesmith, had to leave his dream team due to unethical behavior.

In contrast, Trump's widely derided chief lawyers -- 69-year-old Ty Cobb, 78-year-old John Dowd, and 63-year-old radio and TV host Jay Sekulow -- stayed out of the headlines. They advised Trump to cooperate with the Mueller team and systematically offered evidence and analyses to prove that Trump did not collude with the Russian to warp the 2016 election. In the end, Mueller's "hunter-killer team" was forced to agree.

When the supposed clueless Trump was elected, a number of elites pronounced his economic plans to be absurd. We were told that Trump was bound to destroy the U.S. economy.

Former Princeton professor and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman insisted that Trump would crash the stock market. He even suggested that stocks might never recover.

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said Trump would bring on a recession within a year and a half.

The former head of the National Economic Council, Steven Rattner, predicted a market crash of "historic proportions."

In contrast, many of Trump's economic advisers during his campaign and administration, including outsider Peter Navarro, pundit Steven Moore, former TV host Larry Kudlow and octogenarian Wilbur Ross, were caricatured.

Yet three years later, in terms of the stock market, unemployment, energy production and workers' wages, the economy has been doing superbly.

The point of these sharp contrasts is not that an Ivy League degree or a Washington reputation is of little value, or that prestigious prizes and honors account for nothing, or even that supposed experts are always unethical and silly.

Instead, one lesson is that conventional wisdom and groupthink tend to mislead, especially in the age of online echo chambers and often sheltered and blinkered elite lives.

We forget that knowledge can be found at all ages, and in all places. And ethics has nothing to do with degrees or pedigrees.

Read more here.

Groupthink and Sowing Division

Mark Steyn has some thoughts about groupthink and sowing division here.

Talking diversity, but practicing groupthink!

Thomas Sowell writes at The American Spectator,

So long as academia talks demographic “diversity” and practices groupthink when it comes to ideas, we have little reason to expect better of student mobs that riot with impunity.

Read more here.

"Don't be a jerk!"

Kristina Cook writes,

What is political correctness? Have you ever really thought about the social processes and motivations at play? We on the right tend to think that PC only exists on the left - we are somehow exempt from it. But that is patently untrue.

PC is, at its base, a desire for groupthink. For everyone to think like you, react like you, have the same level of outrage as you have. It is an immature, narcissistic view of the world that demands conformity to your own worldview. There are some on the right who have this same toddler-like demand for conformity, and exhibit the same temper tantrums we see from the left when that conformity is violated. (And note - the telling characteristic is most definitely NOT whether or not the person supports Trump. Both camps show this same behavior.)

The social processes of PC are the same on the right and the left - shaming, insults, threats, bullying. When those engaging in this behavior feel threatened that their position is not shared, they determine (and loudly shout) that the person not sharing their views is unprincipled, has no integrity, is unintelligent, etc.

Over the last few days, I've been subjected to some of this. Yes, it makes me angry. I have spent a large part of my life over the last several years demonstrating my devotion to the principles of liberty and to saving our beloved Republic. But because I failed to exhibit the requisite amount of outrage over a comment from our President (in large part because I've been focused on real-world solutions for Colorado instead of scouring the news for reasons to criticize him), my integrity and my principles have been called into question. Yeah, that kinda pisses me off.

In my world, political correctness - an insistence on groupthink - is unacceptable. We are all going to have slightly different views, and different areas of focus. I believe that is not only acceptable, but desirable. No one person has all the answers, and that diversity of opinion can be beneficial when engaged in a respectful and open manner. Anyone who threatens that diversity of opinion through the use of shaming and insults, through threats and bullying, through an insistence on groupthink and the right's version of political correctness, will be excised. I hope that is clear.

Short version: Don't be a jerk.