The expert fails because he knows more than the wise – he has a complete grasp on the theory and all its particulars, and assumes that alone should be good enough.
The assumption is reinforced with a presupposition: if the “theory*” doesn’t work, something is wrong with everyone and everything else. Finding that wrongness is a practical matter, one that involves lots and lots of blame upon everyone except himself.
People hold different, valid views about what is best. Working with them is a joy when they are flexible about their view. Do take note that this can mean they are biased in awful ways, still, but just able to make enough room for what one has to say.
It isn’t prejudice that’s the problem.
The problem is who gets to rule. Someone who is thoughtful and insightful under another’s command might not be able to replicate such conditions if he were in charge. And we haven’t even gotten to those hold invalid views about what is best. They need to be placated in base ways, speech is too good for them and they, justly, will not heed it. That last group needs to be allowed to indulge until they break the rules, and then subjected to a penalty they understand.
You don’t make leaders. They make themselves. You need to go look for them. Typically, they’re people who’ve taken on the challenge of trying to make the people around them better and get everyone a lasting good. Some people don’t run for office or aim for promotion because they’re already leading – to find them is really to be willing to be subordinate, and yes, that’s a good thing.
*as some of you are aware, there is a theoretical/practical distinction classically that keeps expertise squarely within the realm of the practical.
Powered by ScribeFire.