Idiot Savants

(November 17, 2008) Today’s piece is a response to a deliciously funny article by my good friend Ami Givertz. In “Speaking In Tongues“, Ami compares charismatic snake charmers and healers with the current crop of celebrities in the Recruiting Industry.

Josh Kahn makes similar points in his article “Caveat Lector“. Josh is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the one Ami describes. Josh prefers to teach people to be effective and then move on. He has little interest in the limelight from what I can tell. Each time  I meet him, my appreciation for his approach grows.

Here’s my response to Ami’s piece:

Ami, I’ve been slow to catch up on my reading and was blessed with your article this morning. You always keep things fresh and I appreciate that. The more you write, the better you get.

An expert is someone who used to be a spurt, right?

Celebrity and talent have very little to do with each other. You can easily see that in the big media arena. It’s just harder to discern that in the narrow confines of our tiny little industry. Well, actually, it’s not so tiny. It’s just that the trade shows and exhibitions are small. There’s a lot of jostling for a few slots in the limelight.

Typically, merit is not the fundamental reason that someone gets chosen. Merit is not the reason someone loses their slot. Merit has very little to do with it.

That said, I have disagree with your choices of people to disparage.

Maybe that’s exactly the point. You like Brad Pitt. I prefer Tom Cruise. I think Brad is an idiot. You suspect that Tom is doing a special weird dance in the towers of Scientology.

I found Jason’s post disturbing but, like Simon, swerved to avoid the pothole and continued driving. In retrospect, it’s a symptom of the very problem he’s concerned about. Suggesting that “Star Wars is better than Star Trek” is the sort of argument that any ardent fan makes. The question of utility, which you so lovingly cover, is never a part of the “better or worse” diatribe.

(The “better or worse” story line has sold lots of newspapers. Unfortunately, the world is not that simple. There are way more than two choices at work.)

At a primitive level, I wonder why anyone would have a “Recruiting Idol” in the first place. Permanent “teacher-student” relationships are damaging to both. Beyond that, we’re really talking about branding and packaging, aren’t we?

Boolean search logic has been a part of computing since I was in college! Sadly, it’s been nearly 30 years since my training in programming. Boolean logic was a fundamental part of the process. It’s dry, boring and unforgiving. Kudos to anyone, regardless of their relative fame, who makes the material fun and digestible.

The continuous creation of online content requires a vast store of motivation and targets. That makes for lots of tempests in lots of teapots. After a while the formula of “I’m outraged at your outrage” wears thin.

Slowly, we are learning that attention is the commodity that matters. When you or I (in the most general sense) give something attention, we give it power. It has no power outside of our attention.

This is why the battle to modify a habit (or character flaw) is so challenging. As long as you are fighting something, it will defeat you. One stops smoking by not smoking anymore, not by trying to quit.

The point is that the rapid emergence of online commentary in our industry (and every other) has given rise to voices that have never been heard before. That’s the good news. The bad news is that many of them shouldn’t have been heard from in the first place. (Of course, each new voice will most likely point to some of the other new voices as “not worthy”)

The fact that any, all or some of them achieve a form of celebrity is an accident of our attention. As time progresses, we will all learn to use our attention more wisely. Meanwhile, I am enjoying the passionate arguments about whether Brad or Tom really deserve to be idolized.