The Fox in a Box Effect

In his book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell argues that IQ isn't as important as we think. Specifically, data suggests that - contribution-wise -  you need to have sufficient intelligence, but beyond a certain point it won't do you much good.

The 'Fox in a Box' effect is how I describe this phenomenon. It occurs when someone who is smart (the 'Fox') is nevertheless limited by conventional thinking (the 'Box').

It could hardly be argued that Descartes was a failure - but it is remarkable how much time and attention he devoted to proving the existence of God. In the end, he comes up with something quite silly: 'God is by definition perfect, non-existence is an imperfection, therefore God exists.'

Daniel Dennett is a modern day example - a smart, lively thinker who has spent a lifetime turning in a small circle - exploring the very conventional idea that the mind is a computer.

Wittgenstein is an interesting case. A fiercely bright man - but his legacy? Most people know him only for 'the limits of my language are the limits of my world.' Unlike the others though, he realises his predicament later in his career. At the outset his writing is perishingly declarative - the tone of the Tractatus is 'here is my world, it has four walls, a ceiling and a floor'. But something happens - he realises his limitations, and a shift occurs. He writes about his uncertainty. He realises he has been snared by his assumptions.

The moral of the tale I suppose, is that it is our assumptions that limit us, not our intelligence. We have come to idolise the smart, forgetting that it is to the diverse that we owe the greatest debt.