There’s an interesting philosophical theme emerging from my subconscious with each additional explanation of why polymathy is good: those with little vision, if able to succeed at everything they try, will find themselves becoming more and more entrenched within the system; bound to servitude. They wish nothing more than to have others decide for them, and so they are bound to that fate! Conversely, those with greater degrees of vision, if successful at their goals, will not only find themselves uplifted to a state of personal freedom, but will lift others to new heights, with the scope of the group determined by the extent of the vision.

It starts with the self, extends to other individuals, then to larger and larger groups, and finally culminates in a universal sense of… a sort of benevolent paternity, I suppose… for society itself. The only pitfall for those who have attained such heights is to ensure that benevolent paternity does not become outright responsibility for the direction society heads in.

I sort of hit at this in “In Defense of Arrogance”, but I just discussed self-efficacy there, which I am now thinking may only be part of a larger set of true leadership traits. A desire for individual freedom and a strong moral system predicated on the existence of universal ethical principles seems important too (you can’t be truly free unless you can appreciate what “freedom” means independent of social norms). Self-efficacy is important for persistence during the “doing” stage, but for successful leadership, “seeing” must accompany “doing”!

A corollary of this “propagation” from vision to freedom is that a system with high social mobility is desirable – otherwise, visionaries may never achieve the freedom to realize their visions. For leadership to develop to its fullest potential, people should stay out of the way.