> The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards.
Regression to the mean guarantees this effect regardless of what goes on at the Institute for Advanced Study.
Stupid comment. The quality of work of a very good scientist is not a random variable with an average being the same as the population average. Some scientists are actually better than average. Stop trying to sound smart.
Now you could argue that IAS scientists were actually average, and they were just lucky enough to hit upon quality results before they went to IAS. In this case your comment could logically make sense. If that is what you believe, I will just assume that you know nothing about the world of research in the past 40 or so years (at least not in an area where IAS is world's best, like theoretical physics) during which the IAS produced some of the world's best research, as opposed to just having the scientists with the world's biggest reputations.
You have soundly demonstrated that you don't understand regression to the mean. The quality of work of a very good scientist is not a random variable with the average being the same as the population average. It is, however, a random variable with an idiosyncratic average, and that is sufficient to observe regression to the (individual) mean.
The line of reasoning only attempts to make sense if you're talking about population mean. If you're talking about individual mean, it could still be a win to hire such individual of he's still above population average.
Regression to the mean guarantees this effect regardless of what goes on at the Institute for Advanced Study.