Central planning apologists

Rough idea is those who 'succeed' in controlled environments, such as academia tend to lean towards central planning in the economy since to them, they map their journey in academia to the real world. In the real world things are more dynamic and there are definite winners and losers with no outlined way in which to succeed (since its entirely based on serving others).
Academia in contrast is simplistic and has step by step processes in which the apologist does not have to think for themselves and follow what they are told. This is fine on its own but they see the success from this as something one can impart to the wider economy and man as a whole, aka be told what to do from some central authority. This appeals to them greatly since in markets there is no clear cut way in which to achieve success like in academia — do this course, pick this elective, get a GPA over 3.7 etc etc.
The are like a goldfish on carpet, they dislike the idea flailing around until they figure out how to be useful to society, so they are drawn to the more 'intellectual' political side where some energy minister or bureaucrat gets to declare onto the oil and gas sector what and how to produce oil despite never working in the oil and gas sector. They equate their academics for knowing how to serve others which is obviously false

— AI Refined

The Curious Case of Central Planning Apologists

Those who thrive in structured environments like academia often develop an affinity for centralized "economic" planning. They unconsciously project their experiences in academia—where success follows clear guidelines—onto their vision for how the broader economy should function.

The Academic Path vs. Market Reality

In academia, success has well-defined parameters:

The real economy operates differently—it's dynamic, unpredictable, and success stems from discovering ways to create value for others with no predetermined formula.

The Psychological Appeal

This divergence creates cognitive dissonance for those accustomed to structured environments. They're like goldfish suddenly placed on carpet—uncomfortable with the uncertainty of determining how to be valuable to society through trial and error.

Consequently, they gravitate toward "intellectual" political frameworks where centralized authorities (like energy ministers or bureaucrats) dictate production methods to sectors they've never personally operated in. They mistake academic credentials and theoretical knowledge for practical wisdom about serving others' needs.

The Fundamental Misconception

The central planning apologist conflates intellectual understanding with practical knowledge of market dynamics. They believe that because they excelled in controlled academic settings, similar control mechanisms should govern economic activities—overlooking the complex, emergent nature of markets that no central authority can fully comprehend or direct effectively.