Why Do Idiot Savants Run Things?

Proof that idiot savants run things?

First, shouldn’t we ask do idiot savants run things? Certainly not, according to the first definition of idiot savant. However, the second definition is another matter: “a person who is highly knowledgeable about one subject but knows little about anything else”.  Of course, “knowledgeable about one subject” and “knows little about anything else” are matters of degree. Even so, someone highly knowledgeable in an area is by definition an expert.

Next, aren’t experts (whatever the field) generally in charge of leading the way in society? Experts in war become generals, experts in politics become presidents, experts in business become CEO’s, experts in religion become preachers and Popes, and so on down the line. So without question, highly knowledgeable experts run things.  The question remains, do such people also know little about anything else?

From a purely biological standpoint, highly knowledgeable and knowing little about anything else are directly connected. Focus ranges from narrow to wide; more of one means less of the other. The narrower the focus the less you can see the forest for the trees; the wider the view the less of any tree you can see. There is only so much time in a day, and days in a life time. To truly be highly knowledgeable in an area means you must focus more there, and thus by necessity focus less everywhere else. It is simply unavoidable⁽¹⁾.

Clearly then, a kind of ‘idiot savant’ does run things. Who do we follow when we want leadership? The expert! Certainly, how little they know about anything else varies person to person. Nevertheless, it is always a factor. The interesting thing about our reliance on experts is that we often feel they know a lot about everything else as well, or at least they know as much as any common person. As a result we invest more trust in experts than warranted. It just boggles my mind why we are so willing to let idiot savants run things. A boggled mind seeks answers…

As far as I can see, social instinct drives us to follow leaders with the expertise we value. Alas, this blinds us to their ‘idiot savant’ secret. We are not drawn to listen, let alone follow, anyone who ‘knows less about more, and more about less’. Heck, that pretty much describes everyone in the long run, and not the vision of perfection we seek.

Interestingly, this makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. I see it as nature’s way of balancing the evolutionary process. The advantage of sharp focus experts have is counter balanced by the handicap of narrow vision. Evolutionary speaking, a species groping its way successfully through such a field of advantages and pitfalls enhances fitness (i.e., those who manage to survive are fit). Don’t you just love how justly nature deals the cards?

I am always tempted to say this is a case of the blind leading the blind, but it may well be a case of the more blind leading the less blind. So why might the less blind, us the common folk, still follow the more blind ‘idiot savant’? Ironically, it takes being an ‘idiot savant’ to become a leader, and most of us instinctively need to follow leaders! They may be more blind than us, but at least they will decide and lead. The only thing worse than blind leadership is no leadership, for then chaos ensues. Chapter 17 describes the range of leadership. The best, “shadowy presence”, happens when a leader is aware of his blind spot. From there, it descends downward toward chaos when leadership wanes and the people “take liberties”.

The best of all rulers is but a shadowy presence to his subjects.
Next comes the ruler they love and praise;
Next comes one they fear;
Next comes one with whom they take liberties.

⁽¹⁾ They say the leaders in ancient China would have a ‘taoist world view generalist’ to offer countervailing perspective.  I suspect this was the ideal rather than actual practice. History would indicate that, or that expert higher-ups never listen to the generalist.