We live surrounded by paradoxes.  One of them is so glaring that it's almost tragic.  Why do the most foolish, the most unprepared, the most empty end up leading? Why do these figures who can barely articulate a coherent idea end up with microphones in their hands, palaces under their feet, and crowds at their feet?

The answer isn't in chance it's in the game.  Human nature without romanticism he understood that people are not governed by reason but by fear that they don't seek the truth but a comfortable illusion that they don't want wise leaders.  They want leaders who speak their language, repeat their beliefs, and feed their most basic emotions.  That's why the fools win.  And when I say "fools," I'm not just talking about technical ignorance.  i'm talking about the absence of vision, moral superficiality, the inability to see beyond one's own ego.  Fools are those who surround themselves with psychopaths, reject wise advice, make impulsive decisions, and still receive standing ovations.  This is a logical consequence of the people themselves because at its core the people are fickle.  They fall in love quickly.  They get disappointed quickly and above all they settle for symbols:

• the symbol of the common man
• the symbol of the patriot
• the symbol of the anti-system. 

These foolish leaders, these crowned clowns, these figures who emerge as jokes and end as tyrants they are not aberrations.  They are reflections, reflections of a society that traded depth for memes that abandoned reflection, for reaction that no longer seeks leaders with vision.  With engagement we live in the era of spectacle and the spectacle demands caricaturured characters. 

• The more exaggerated, the more viral. 
• The more irresponsible the more talked about. 
• The more foolish the more sharable. 

Have you ever wondered why these leaders never touch the true privileges of the rich, why their promises are always directed at the people but their actions to the top of the pyramid? It's because they are not there to govern.  They are there to present to represent a false rebellion, a pseudo revolution, a theater of change that deep down keeps everything exactly the same.  That's why the smartest rarely win, because they threaten the status quo.  They have their own ideas.  They question.  They see beyond.  That to the system is dangerous.  The system needs domesticated fools, manipulable figures, smiling faces that hide rotten jeers. 

The leader who thinks too much becomes a problem.  The one who doesn't think becomes the perfect puppet and the people get lost between passion and frustration.  They applaud today and curse tomorrow because they were seduced by a leader who spoke like them, walked like them, suffered like them, but once in power revealed himself to be empty. 

The question isn't whether the fool is ill-intentioned.  It's whether he is incapable of resisting the intentions of others, and almost always he is.  Politics s made of difficult choices, sometimes cruel ones.  Iit requires calculation, coldness, vision.  Those who don't have it get swallowed and that's why those who govern with stupidity govern for a short time.  But the damage they cause can last for generations.  How many times have we seen this repeat? How many times has history shown people seduced by populists' ignoramis demagogues? How many times has the world turned around the same tragedy? Still we fall again. 

But you don't have to fall.  You can leave the herd.  You can start seeing the game.  You can stop being impressed by easy smiles, ready-made phrases, and emotional videos.  You can start demanding more preparation, more clarity, and more truth.  But that requires effort, and most people prefer the illusion. 

The figure of the fool in power is not just a mistake of the people.  It is in fact the final productof a meticulously engineered social construct.  The most brilliant or sinister thing is that this construction is invisible.  It disguises itself as democracy, as freedom of choice.  But it's control through distorted information, through alienating entertainment, through the constant repetition of empty narratives that are chewed up by the media and regurgitated on social media by millions of anesthetized minds. 

Have you ever looked at someone in a position of power and thought "How on earth did they get there?" We've all witnessed it people who seem thoroughly incompetent rising to positions of authority while more capable individuals remain stuck in the shadows.  We are seeking insights into why stupidity and power so often go hand in hand.  This isn't just ancient philosophy.  It's a psychological phenomenon that shapes our world today from corporate boardrooms to political offices the uncomfortable truth sometimes being smart is exactly what keeps you from gaining power.  Understanding this paradox might be the key to recognizing the manipulative forces perating in our society or even helping you navigate your own path to influence. 

Perception often matters more than reality when it comes to acquiring and maintaining power and herein lies the first clue to our paradox.  Appearing competent is often more important than actually being competent.  Rulers who display too much intelligence often create problems for themselves.  Why? Because intelligence usually comes with certain traits that can be liabilities in power struggles, traits like nuanced thinking ethical considerations and self-awareness. 

Consider what happens when a genuinely intelligent person enters a power structure.  They tend to see complexity where others see simplicity.  They acknowledge limitations where others make sweeping promises they question themselves.  Where others project absolute confidence in ettings where bold assertion trumps thoughtful deliberation, these intellectual traits become handicaps look at the contrast between someone like Socrates who questioned everything.  He was ultimately sentenced to death by the Athenian Democracy versus populist leaders who rose to power by offering simple absolute certainties. 

Socrates' famous "I know that I know nothing" wisdom made him a philosophical giant but a political failure.  Meanwhile, countless leaders have risen by claiming they alone have all the answers.  A controversial 2017 study from the Journal of Management suggested something that might make you uncomfortable.  Intelligence correlates positively with leadership effectiveness only up to an IQ of about 120.  Beyond that point additional intelligence actually becomes a hindrance to leadership emergence.  The researchers suggested that exceptionally intelligent people struggle to connect with and influence others who can't follow their complex thinking patterns.  Think about that being too smart might actually prevent you from gaining leadership positions in the first place.  Whether or not you buy into that study, it challenges us to rethink what kind of intelligence actually helps someone gain power.  But raw intelligence isn't the only factor at play.  If intelligence can sometimes be a liability in power games, what qualities actually help people climb the ladder? This brings us to a psychological principle that explains why we so often follow the wrong people.  Have you ever noticed how the loudest voice in the room often becomes the most influential regardless of what that voice is actually saying.  This phenomenon has deep roots in our psychological makeup.  In the 1990s, psychologists David Dunning and Justin Krueger identified what we now know as the Dunning Krueger effect, the cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge dramatically overestimate their competence while genuine experts tend to underestimate theirs.  Aware of how much they don't know, the fool does think he is wise but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.  Shakespeare captured this principle centuries before psychology gave it a name.  It is a fundamental truth about power dynamics.  Modern research confirms how this bias operates in leadership contexts.  A 2020 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that individuals who displayed overconfidence were more likely to be perceived as leaders by their peers regardless of their actual competence.  The appearance of certainty was more persuasive than demonstrated expertise.  Consider figures like George Armstrong Custer, whose supreme confidence led to catastrophic military decisions yet earned him rapid promotions and devoted followers.  Or look at the tech industry where founders who speak in absolute visionary terms often secure massive funding over more measured experienced entrepreneurs. 

The pattern repeats globally.  Masayoshi Son is the founder, CEO and largest shareholder of SoftBank.  As of December 2022, he had a 34. 2% stake in the company.  But. Japan's Masayoshi Son lost $70 billion on failed investments while maintaining investor confidence through sheer force of personality.  Russia's oligarchs rose not through competence but through connections and confidence during the post Soviet privatization.  Singapore by contrast built safeguards specifically designed to prevent confidence from trumping competence in leadership selection in 2012.  Researchers from Stanford and the University of Houston found that narcissism, not competence, may be the strongest predictor of who emerges as a leader.  In unstructured groups, the groups led by narcissists didn't perform better.  They just thought they did.  Why does this happen? Our brains use mental shortcuts when evaluating others' competence.  Decisiveness suggests clarity of thought.  These shortcuts served our ancestors well in straightforward environments but become problematic in our complex modern world where genuine expertise often involves acknowledging uncertainty.  This confidence illusion explains how incompetent individuals might initially rise to power, but there's something even more insidious at play.  A mechanism that helps them entrench their position throughout entire organizations.  It has been observed, something crucial about power structures.  Iincompetent leaders tend to surround themselves with even less competent subordinates.  The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.  Weak leaders deliberately select weaker subordinates to ensure they never face threats to their authority.  This creates a cascading effect where incompetence becomes institutionalized.  Competence threatens insecure leaders.  They feel threatened by competent team members who might expose their limitations or eventually replace them.  Instead of selecting for talent, they select for loyalty and non-hreatening personalities.  Think of it as a competence drought that spreads outward from central leadership . 

in Emperor Commodus' court, capable administrators were systematically replaced by flatterers and entertainers accelerating Rome's decline.  In contemporary Brazil, the political system institutionalizes this dynamic where incompetent political appointees secure positions through personal connections rather than merit.  African nations like Zimbabwe under Mugabe saw systematic replacement of capable administrators with partisan loyalists with devastating economic consequences.  Following this creates what organizational scientists call "homophily", the tendency of individuals to associate with similar others in power structures.  This means incompetent leaders create islands of incompetence around themselves insulated from conflicting viewpoints and constructive criticism.  Ask yourself, have you ever worked in an organization where asking questions was discouraged, where raising concerns was labeled as not being a team player? These are symptoms of this network effect in action.  Yet even knowing all this we still find ourselves drawn to leaders who offer simplistic answers.  This vulnerability helps explain why incompetence continues to thrive despite our best intentions.  Why do we often choose leaders who offer simple answers to complex problems? The answer lies in cognitive psychology and our fundamental need for certainty in an uncertain world. 

Genuine expertise is almost always accompanied by nuance.  Real experts understand the limitations of their knowledge.  They recognize complexity.  They acknowledge tradeoffs but these intellectual virtues can be profoundly unsatisfying to our psychological needs.  For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. 

Humans crave certainty even when certainty isn't possible or realistic.  Consider what happens in times of crisis or uncertainty.  People rarely rally behind the leader who says this is a complex situation with no easy answers that will require careful thought and inevitable trade-offs.  Instead, they follow the person confidently proclaiming "I alone can fix this. " The solution is simple.  Look at how actual environmental scientists speak about climate change with careful caveats ranges of possibilities and nuanced policy recommendations versus how popular figures on both sides frame the issue with absolute certainty.  The scientific approach, while intellectually honest, struggles to compete with the psychological comfort of simple narratives.  Or consider healthcare debates.  Actual medical experts acknowledge complex trade-offs in any system while political figures offer simplistic solutions that promise everything with no downsides.  Which approach typically wins public support? The simple certain one, regardless of feasibility? In a particularly jarring 2017 experiment Yale researchers discovered something disturbing about how we process political information.  When subjects were presented with mathematically complex policy problems and solutions, their ability to correctly interpret the data was directly affected by whether the results aligned with their political beliefs.  Even more striking, the most mathematically skilled participants showed the strongest bias using their intelligence not to reach the correct answer but to justify their preferred conclusion.  Cognitive psychologists call this "cognitive closure," our desire for definite answers rather than continued ambiguity.  Studies show that when people feel threatened or uncertain their need for cognitive closure increases dramatically.  They become more receptive to black and white thinking and more willing to follow authoritarian leaders who project absolute certainty.  This creates a dangerous dynamic.  The more complex and rightening our world becomes, the more susceptible we become to simplistic thinking and the leaders who pedal it.  It's like a psychological immune system failure.  Precisely when we most need nuanced thinking, we become most vulnerable to intellectual 6shortcuts.  Ask yourself, have you ever found yourself drawn to an explanation precisely because it was simple and definitive even when part of you suspected the reality was more complex? Tthat's this principle at work in your own mind while our psychological comfort with simplicity explains part of this dynamic.  There's an even more troubling dimension to consider, one that reveals why intelligence alone doesn't guarantee effective resistance to manipulative power.  Moral considerations often handicap intelligent people in power struggles.  It is necessary for some leaders who wish to maintain their position to learn how not to be good and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity.  While intelligent people typically develop more complex moral reasoning, this can actually impede their ability to compete for power against those unbburdened by such considerations.  In any competitive environment, the person willing to cross ethical lines has access to strategies that morally constrained competitors do not.  They can make promises they have no intention of keeping.  They can undermine rivals through deception.  They can exploit fears and prejudices that others refuse to touch.  Consider the contrasting fates of Cicero versus Julius Caesar in ancient Rome.  Cicero, brilliant and principled, ultimately lost the power struggle to Caesar who had no qualms about crossing the Rubicon literally and figuratively, breaking norms his opponents felt bound to respect.  In modern contexts we see ethical candidates struggling against opponents willing to employ deception and character assassination in organizational contexts.  University of British Columbia researchers found that psychopathic traits like lack of empathy were positively associated with rapid advancement when combined with social charm.  This pattern appears cross-culturally from Shenan Chuang, a Chinese businesswoman who was once reported to be worth $50 billions.  From a Shenan ruthless businesswoman archetype to Nordic companies where studies show that despite cultural emphasis on collaboration, manipulative leaders often outpace their more ethical peers in advancement speed.  This creates what game theorists call a race to the bottom when unethical tactics prove successful.  Others face pressure to adopt similar approaches or be left behind over time.  This can transform entire systems, making unethical behavior the norm rather than the exception.  Understanding these dark dynamics might make the situation seem hopeless, but not all environments equally reward incompetence and unethical behavior.  By recognizing which conditions favor stupidity and power, we can begin to design systems that select for genuine merit instead.  Different environments reward different qualities.  Some contexts naturally select for competence while others create fertile ground for incompetence to flourish.  What determines which type of environment develops several structural factors. 

First are feedback loops and accountability structures in environments with clear immediate feedback about decisions.  Incompetence is quickly exposed.  Think of a surgeon whose patients consistently die or a bridge engineer whose structures collapse.  These fields tend to select for genuine competence because failure is obvious and consequential.  But in environments where feedback is delayed indirect or easily manipulated, incompetence can thrive indefinitely .  Political systems, where outcomes can be blamed on predecessors or external factors, corporate hierarchies where results can be obscured through creative accounting, or media landscapes where being entertaining matters more than being accurate... these are all fertile grounds for the incompetent to rise.  Second, institutional design and power distribution centralized power systems with weak checks and balances create conditions where incompetence flourishes.  The Soviet Union's collapse was accelerated by a system that concentrated decision-making and unaccountable hands.  Conversely, Germany's dual board corporate governance structure which separates management from oversight provides structural resistance to incompetent leadership, third information asymmetry and complexity where success is easily measured and compared merit tends to win.  But when goals are ambiguous or success is subjectively evaluated, style often trumps substance.  Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand because it belongs to everybody to see you, not toofew to come in touch with you .  Most people evaluate others based on surface impressions rather than deep understanding, especially in complex domains where few have the expertise to make informed judgments.  Third, economic incentive structures systems that reward short-term performance over long-term outcomes create fertile ground for incompetent leadership with superficial charm.  The 2008 financial crisis exemplified how incentive structures rewarding immediate profits regardless of risk fostered leadership that prioritized appearance over substance.  Ask yourself, in your own life which environmental factors promote competence and which enable incompetence to thrive.  Understanding these structural forces can help you navigate your own path and recognize when systems are vulnerable to manipulation.  Even in well-designed systems, incompetent leaders can still rise by employing specific psychological tactics that allow them to manipulate perception and neutralize opposition.  Incompetent leaders don't maintain power by accident.  They deploy specific psychological tactics to solidify their position tactics. 

First, they exploit tribalism and identity politics by creating clear in-groups and out-groups.  They transform substantive criticism into perceived attacks from enemies.  This shields them from accountability while strengthening their supporters emotional investment.  Psychologists call this "identity fusion" when a leader successfully links their personal identity to followers group identity.  Once this fusion occurs, challenging the leader feels like an attack on the group itself and by extension on followers own identities.  Consider how cult leaders like Jim Jones or authoritarian figures throughout history cultivated us versus them mentalities.  In Malaysia, former Prime Minister Najib Razak exploited ethnic divisions to maintain power.  Despite corruption scandals, Brazil's polarization under Jair Bolsonaro demonstrated how tribal identity can override factual reality. 

Second, they leverage cognitive load and information overwhelm by constantly generating chaos crises and controversies.  Incompetent leaders overwhelm our cognitive resources.  When we're busy processing an endless stream of outrages we have little mental energy left for critical nalysis or organized resistance. 

Third, they employ what George Orwell called "double think", the ability to hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously.  By constantly shifting positions and rewriting history, they create an environment where truth feels subjective and accountability becomes impossible. 

Fourth, they exploit economic precarity and systemic vulnerabilities.  When people are struggling economically or feel insecure about their future, they become more susceptible to leaders who promise simple solutions to complex structural problems.  In post-industrial regions worldwide economic anxiety creates fertile ground for incompetent leadership that offers easy scapegoats rather than honest analysis.  Consider your own media consumption.  How often do you find yourself chasing the latest outrage rather than focusing on deeper more consequential issues? It's this principle at work.  Recognizing these dark patterns is essential but not enough.  We need concrete strategies to protect ourselves and our communities from their influence.  At the individual level awareness is our first line of defense by understanding the hidden forces that shape thought.  We become less susceptible to them.  This defence rests on three essential practices. 

First, we must cultivate intellectual humility, the ability to recognize the limits of what we know.  Research shows that intellectually humble people are better at evaluating ideas based on evidence, not confidence.  Intellectual humility functions like a cognitive immune system it helps us resist manipulation and false certainty, just as our physical immune system protects us from infection. 

Second, we need to develop media literacy, the skill of discerning depth from spectacle.  This means deliberately choosing information sources, questioning presentation, and filtering for quality over quantity.  Warren Buffett once said "Really successful people say no to almost Everything. " Apply that to information-wise thinkers.  Reject most noise and focus on clarity and insight. 

Third, we should embrace philosophical reflection, the practice of stepping back from the daily storm to examine deeper principles.  Ancient Stoics recommended daily reflection to guard against emotional reactivity.  In Nathaniel Bacon's words, the wise man will make more opportunities than he finds.  Reflection empowers us to become active agents in shaping our mental environment, not just passive consumers of it at the collective level.  Iinstitutional design in critical systems can be structured to reduce bias, deception, and incompetence here too. 

Three pillars emerge. 

First, we need robust accountability mechanisms, structures that deliver honest feedback regardless of a leader's charm or persuasive power.  Contrast a company with an independent board to one where the board rubber stamps executive decisions.  The Boeing 737 Max crisis revealed what happens when engineers' concerns are ignored in favor of profits.  Accountability was absent and tragedy followed. 

Second, institutions must foster cognitive diversity the inclusion of differing perspectives in Decisions.  Diverse teams aren't just socially desirable.  They're empirically more accurate.  They challenge assumptions and reduce blind spots that homogeneous groups tend to miss. 

Third, we must enforce transparency rules that prevent complexity from becoming a shield for incompetence.  Sunshine laws in government or conflict-of-interest disclosures in medicine make it harder to hide behind jargon or secrecy.  Education ties these threads together.  It's not enough to teach technical skills.  We must prioritize critical thinking and ethical reasoning.  Athens created the academy.  Florence nurtured the humanists great civilizations.  Don't just teach, they cultivate wisdom.  So ask yourself in your community which of these protections are present, which are absent, and if we redesigned our systems around competence, humility, and truth what kind of world might we create?

Understand how power actually works rather than how we wish it worked.  We could create better systems of governance.  It is not titles that honor men but men that honor titles.  This profound observation reminds us that authority itself deserves no inherent respect.  Power must be earned through worthy use regardless of who holds it. 

-oOo-