False Geniuses And Not Idiots

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

My friend Serdar had another banger post “Maybe we need fewer not-idiots.” He discusses many things, from how we keep the worst out of power to our weird worship of so-called geniuses. It’s worth reading on it’s own, but I want to zero in on something – America’s worship of supposed “geniuses” and treating them like divinely-appointed rulers. I find this strange because America also has a strongly anti-intellectual streak that you’d think would make people wary about such “geniuses”

Thing is, the worship of “genius” in America isn’t about intelligence.

Let’s take a look at the “lauded genius” of the last few years. Inevitably a “move fast and break things” person. Iconoclastic yet somehow worshipped by those who are supposedly “conservative.” Also, inevitably, kind of an a-hole. Also, sometimes dumb and clueless and even self-destructive, with an unsurprising side of drug abuse. Also on top of that, why do they have a business major yet talk science and so on?

Those following these supposedly superior humans sound suspiciously like the “cult of the auteur,” where someone is a creative genius, supposedly above us all, and thus not bound by our rules. It’s often been applied to artists and writers, excusing bad or even horrific behavior. “What would we do without them,” is what said cult essentially says, while the truth is such people’s destruction destroys more than it creates – if said creation was even worth it.

Yet this praise of geniuses (and thus auteurs) exists alongside anti-intellectualism. We are in an age where science and education is under attack by people who will them praise ketamine-fueled techbros and their supposedly brilliant ideas. Scientists who raise valid concerns on health or the environment are sidelined, while a business major who spends a family’s inheritance to buy a company is considered our intellectual better. The love of the genius and the hatred of intellectualism seem to go hand in hand.

I think this is obvious when you look how the cult of the “genius” and the cult of the auteur are similar – they praise someone for being an asshole. It’s not about brains, it’s about cruelty

These cultists do not want someone civil or functional, but someone brutal and uncaring. They want something “muscular” in the most insulting way, someone who is about force not thought, someone to hurt the other and rally the us. Saying such people are “geniuses” is a way to provide the veneer of intelligence while valorizing behavior that should land someone in therapy, rehab, or jail – or all three.

Such people see actual intelligence as weak, you know all beholden to facts, understanding, and – horrors – empathy that helps them understand how people work. Those worshiping the faux geniuses don’t want actual knowledge or wisdom, but a regressed-adolescent image of strength. Which is why so many lauded geniuses turn out to be both not that smart but remarkably weak as they are performers first and foremost.

We don’t need these “geniuses.” We need real intelligence of all kinds, from the understanding of math to the understanding of people. We also need the maturity to step outside of the games of the emotionally arrested who want a “genius” to worship.

And that, to go back to my good friend Serdar, is why we need less not-idiots.

Steven Savage

Geek As Citizen: Omnicompetence And It’s Discontents

Heroic Rider

(Note, an earlier draft of this essay was published inappropriately.  This is the edited version.  Enjoy the irony of an essay on competence having mistakes in it 😉 )

I first heard the term “Omnicompetence” in reference to Elon Musk of Tesla and his proposal for the Hyperloop, back when it made a splash in the news. The term was applied to how some people viewed Mr. Musk; being successful, smart, and moving electric cars forward, there were those that imbued him with an aura of Omnicompetence – that his successes in one area meant he would be successful in other areas or indeed all areas. This of course is not to single out Mr. Musk because I’m sure we’ve all seen similar breathless assumptions, and I rather like what he’s done with Tesla.

I love the term “Omnicompetence” because it defines something I see way too often; the idea that a person good at one thing must be good in other things or many things. We often see it, where people who are famous are asked their opinions on medicine, politicians opine on theology, and writers of fiction are asked about technology. In a way we’re quite used to it.

Yet, when we look at the idea of Omnicopmetence logically, it falls apart. Few people are truly good at a broad swatch of things, many are good at only a few things, and some just aren’t that hot anything but got lucky. We also know that some people’s “success” is really irrelevant to who they are; rich due to inheritance, famous due to a sex tape, and so forth.

Read more