The Myth of Heroes, Superstars and Geniuses
Cheng argues that skepticism and loyalty become dangerous when no realistic evidence or behavior could change them. She asks what would justify revising a belief or withdrawing support, especially when admiration shields powerful people from accountability.
THE IDEA
THE MYTH OF HEROES, SUPERSTARS AND GENIUSES
Scepticism is an important part of rationality, and loyalty is an important part of humanity, but both become dangerous when taken to extremes. Blind scepticism and blind loyalty arise when there are no conditions under which someone will change their mind – or that the conditions are so extreme that they might as well not exist.
For example, a climate change denier might say they’ll believe in global warming if the average temperature on earth rises by 10°C in one year. That hardly counts as being “open” to changing one’s mind because it’s a bit like saying “OK I’ll believe in that if hell freezes over”. Deniers of evolution will probably not change their minds no matter what quantity of evidence is produced supporting it, so scientists should probably stop using evidence as a way of trying to persuade them, and try using emotions.
Blind loyalty can be dangerous in another way. When people support a person regardless of anything at all, it can lead to that person gaining a sort of cult status as a superstar or “genius”. Unconditional support sounds like a noble thing, but really should be in some kind of grey area like so many other things. How badly does someone have to behave for you to stop supporting them? Parents are often thought to show unconditional love for their children, but this might be pushed close to or beyond its limits if the child grows up to be a mass murderer.
That is an extreme case, but we see less extreme cases around us all the time in the form of people who exploit their power. When someone starts feeling like they have unconditional support of people who revere them as some kind of “genius”, they might start behaving badly, knowing that they can count on the blind loyalty of their followers. This can happen in all fields, including science and academia, music, TV and film, and the restaurant industry. It contributes to a culture in which exploitation and harassment are widespread, and so I think we should stop it. Of course this is not a simple issue. At what point should we withdraw our support for someone? It comes back to the difference between “minor” issues and “major” issues and is yet another grey area.
When to use it
When evaluating a leader, politician, or celebrity, be aware of the tendency to give them uncritical support—set clear boundaries for acceptable behavior.
In scientific debates, recognize when opponents set impossibly high bars for evidence as a form of blind skepticism.
In personal relationships, establish conditions for loyalty to prevent enabling harmful behavior.
In organizational culture, avoid creating a 'genius' or 'star' system that discourages accountability and enables exploitation.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Climate Change Denier
A climate change denier demands the average global temperature rise by 10°C in one year as a condition to believe in global warming – an impossible threshold that masks unwillingness to change their mind.
Unconditional Parental Love
Parents may show unconditional love for their child, but this loyalty is tested (or should be) if the child becomes a mass murderer, illustrating the grey area of support.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a person or belief you support unconditionally. Under what specific conditions might you withdraw that support?
Are there any beliefs you hold that you would not change regardless of evidence? How can you avoid blind skepticism?
How can you balance loyalty to a leader or idea with critical thinking and ethical boundaries?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Art of Logic How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn’t (Eugenia Cheng)