What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The “Extraordinary Man” theory (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
I was thinking over the weekend about a theory I’ve questioned and pondered about over many years. It seems to me that how one feels about this theory goes a long way in determining how one looks at the world in general. There’s probably a formal name for it, but since I don’t know it I came up with one of my own: the “extraordinary man” theory. 

Basically this theory holds that there are exceptional individuals out there who are capable of changing the world for good or evil, and without them history takes a different direction. For example, Winston Churchill alone saved England in 1940. If there was no Churchill England would have capitulated to Nazi Germany. Likewise, Adolf Hitler was necessary for the rise of Nazi Germany and World War II. Albert Einstein was vital to the creation of nuclear technology; if Einstein is not born, the nuclear age is delayed by decades or longer or maybe doesn’t happen at all. 

This theory obviously places great value on individuals and affects decision making. During World War II we assassinated the architect of Pearl Harbor, Yamamoto, because Admiral Halsey stated that his mind was the equivalent of a squadron of battleships. Similarly, if the north had known the consequences and been capable of it, they would have no doubt begun the Civil War by assassinating Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson, believing that this act alone would have shortened the war by 2-3 years and saved countless lives. Or would it? 

There is an opposing argument. It is best expressed in Leo Tolstoy’s masterpiece War and Peace. In that book, the protagonist, Pierre, regards Napoleon as a great historic figure, only to discover that Napoleon is simply in his position by happenstance and luck, and is no greater than anybody else. Tolstoy believed that history moved in inevitable waves and that individuals make very little difference. Another version of this argument can be found in the film The Battle of Algiers. In that movie French counterterrorists expertly infiltrate the FALN (Algerian terrorist group), discover who it’s most charismatic and capable leaders are, and kill them one by one, only to discover that by the end of the film all their efforts are wasted as the FALN is more powerful than ever. Again the message: when there is a wave of a movement, individuals don’t make any significant impact. 

What are your thoughts on this? 

 
I think it's a spin on evolution. A species doesn't change without a mutated gene being fit for survival. These "extraordinary people" are kind of like mutants, for lack of a better term, advancing society rather than the species itself, perhaps.

 
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” — Stephen Jay Gould
I was going to make a joke about starting a thread about me but this quote really hits home.   Thanks.

 
It's been decades since I read them, but wasn't a version of this idea part of Isaac Asimov's Foundation books?  Something along the lines of history generally following a predictable path that could be forecasted scientifically, except that certain rare individuals were 'mutants' who could alter/influence the path of history in unpredictable ways?

 
It's been decades since I read them, but wasn't a version of this idea part of Isaac Asimov's Foundation books?  Something along the lines of history generally following a predictable path that could be forecasted scientifically, except that certain rare individuals were 'mutants' who could alter/influence the path of history in unpredictable ways?
😰😰😰😰😰

 
You might enjoy this book "Upheaval: Turning points for nations in crisis"

I read it recently and I believe the author cites a study where folks took great leaders in history and using comparative analyses, tried to determine how much of an impact they had on the future of the country versus what a baseline leader would have.  It's been a bit since I've read it so I forget the particulars, but the book was an interesting read.

 
We are gods or we are bugs.

About the 40th time i've said that on these boards. Since we are killing God, it becomes ever more important that we find, develop & encourage the gods among us. It is not hard to say that humanity is little more than a medium for the creation of those who spark progress and hinge societal evolution. A pretty damned rapacious species without it, no matter how exceptional

On history, put me on the side which believes that the exceptionalism which goes with tech & mass media will defeat a lot of historical trends. We are presently in a fitful transition from our old myths -  inspired by the desire for personal liberty made possible by tech & media - to a young adulthood where we will be forced to realize that the animal side of human personality will have to be bypassed for the species not to destroy itself. We will not learn that lesson happily. If we're lucky, we'll all be dead before any of that comes to a head. Consider your options as you will to best purpose your part in this ugly adolescence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The fact that you're unironically calling it the extraordinary man theory suggests that a lot of extraordinary women have been disregarded 
This is true. Or more likely that throughout history that Stephen Jay Gould quote applies to a lot of them. 

 
We are gods or we are bugs.

About the 40th time i've said that on these boards. Since we are killing God, it becomes ever more important that we find, develop & encourage the gods among us. It is not hard to say that humanity is little more than a medium for the creation of those who spark progress and hinge societal evolution. A pretty damned rapacious species without it, no matter how exceptional

On history, put me on the side which believes that the exceptionalism which goes with tech & mass media will defeat a lot of historical trends. We are presently in a fitful transition from our old myths -  inspired by the desire for personal liberty made possible by tech & media - to a young adulthood where we will be forced to realize that the animal side of human personality will have to be bypassed for the species not to destroy itself. We will not learn that lesson happily. If we're lucky, we'll all be dead before any of that comes to a head. Consider your options as you will to best purpose your part in this ugly adolescence.
How do we best develop and encourage “gods” among us? 

 
Since God never existed as constituted, we shouldn't and, eventually, can't. I understand the sentiment, though. I really do.
If “raising our kids scientifically” leads to making bold, unverifiable statements such as the above, I don’t think your solution will change anything.  

 
Great topic Tim.  In our modern world, Trump shows that one man can be a force for major change.  If Ted Cruz had won the election, while the left would still dislike him greatly, the world would be a much different place.  Your examples are great as well.  I started War and Peace twice and never finished.  This has me wanting to finish that journey 

 
Agree with your premise Tim, I just dont see an extraordinary human at the moment.

I do see extraordinary AI's in the near future.

 
Agree with your premise Tim, I just dont see an extraordinary human at the moment.

I do see extraordinary AI's in the near future.
Trump has the potential to be one of the most extraordinary people of the last half century if he sticks around long enough.  
 

Obviously  extraordinary in this sense doesn’t necessarily mean positive, but how long has it been since  one man been so impactful?  If he sticks around who knows what will happen.

 
Trump has the potential to be one of the most extraordinary people of the last half century if he sticks around long enough.  
 

Obviously  extraordinary in this sense doesn’t necessarily mean positive, but how long has it been since  one man been so impactful?  If he sticks around who knows what will happen.
I agreed with your thought that Trump can cause major change. But probably not in the way you think.

Trump has done major damage to this country and if we don't make major changes, I seriously doubt America can recover

 
I agreed with your thought that Trump can cause major change. But probably not in the way you think.

Trump has done major damage to this country and if we don't make major changes, I seriously doubt America can recover
I’m not a Trump supporter or fan.  But his opponents and his supporters both think he’s extraordinary. He’s worshipped by 30% and it seems like there are 40% that absolutely hate him.  As a man who holds a position that is possibly more powerful than many dictators throughout history, he could really cause massive change.....

 
I agreed with your thought that Trump can cause major change. But probably not in the way you think.

Trump has done major damage to this country and if we don't make major changes, I seriously doubt America can recover
I really wasn't thinking of Trump when I started this thread. I was, at least in part, thinking of the man whom Trump ordered the death of yesterday- I don't want to discuss that here, but the question rose in my mind whether or not killing that terrorist would ultimately be significant, or if he would simply be replaced with another one just as brutal and just as effective. That question in turn led to this greater one.

So far as Trump goes, I'm skeptical that he fits into my mode. He strikes me as a very cautious person, not the sort of guy that I would associate with the "extraordinary man." I'm not sure we've had an extraordinary man as President since Ronald Reagan. But the other aspect is that, as powerful as the American President is, our form of government limits him from too much change for good or ill.

 
I’m not a Trump supporter or fan.  But his opponents and his supporters both think he’s extraordinary. He’s worshipped by 30% and it seems like there are 40% that absolutely hate him.  As a man who holds a position that is possibly more powerful than many dictators throughout history, he could really cause massive change.....
Give me some concrete examples of how Trump could cause massive change, because I'm having trouble seeing it. I suppose he could start a nuclear war- though even that I have my doubts about because I'm not sure he would be obeyed. But  what big changes can he make?

 
Trump has the potential to be one of the most extraordinary people of the last half century if he sticks around long enough.  
 

Obviously  extraordinary in this sense doesn’t necessarily mean positive, but how long has it been since  one man been so impactful?  If he sticks around who knows what will happen.
Curious indeed how these things happen. The political office chooses the person... remember...I think we must expect great things from future Presidents... After all, Trump did great things — terrible, yes, but great.

 
Curious indeed how these things happen. The political office chooses the person... remember...I think we must expect great things from future Presidents... After all, Trump did great things — terrible, yes, but great.
I'm working a slow lizard people angle in here. Take your wizard people angle somewhere else!

 
Give me some concrete examples of how Trump could cause massive change, because I'm having trouble seeing it. I suppose he could start a nuclear war- though even that I have my doubts about because I'm not sure he would be obeyed. But  what big changes can he make?


I don't know if it's possible to give a "concrete" example of how he "could" cause massive change.  I mean if we're speculating, it's not concrete.  But he has a massive amount of power.  In a sense he's exposed a big flaw in the US govt.  No other democracies have a president with as much power as the USA.  Which isn't surprising as the constitution was written in a time of kings and queens with real power.  

Trump can by himself twist and shape US foreign policy.  Out of respect for both sides, he could use that power for good or to undo decades of progress. He could theoretically start a nuclear war.  He could start a real war.  He could start a civil war.   He could refuse to leave office.  All the things that his detractors are worried about could come to fruition.  

My point is that he's not an ordinary president and I think everyone knows that.  Now he might be out of office in 3 months with his tail between his legs and in two years it will just be a distant memory.  But I think my point was that he currently has the power to completely change the world as we know it.

 
I was thinking over the weekend about a theory I’ve questioned and pondered about over many years. It seems to me that how one feels about this theory goes a long way in determining how one looks at the world in general. There’s probably a formal name for it, but since I don’t know it I came up with one of my own: the “extraordinary man” theory. 

Basically this theory holds that there are exceptional individuals out there who are capable of changing the world for good or evil, and without them history takes a different direction. For example, Winston Churchill alone saved England in 1940. If there was no Churchill England would have capitulated to Nazi Germany. Likewise, Adolf Hitler was necessary for the rise of Nazi Germany and World War II. Albert Einstein was vital to the creation of nuclear technology; if Einstein is not born, the nuclear age is delayed by decades or longer or maybe doesn’t happen at all. 

This theory obviously places great value on individuals and affects decision making. During World War II we assassinated the architect of Pearl Harbor, Yamamoto, because Admiral Halsey stated that his mind was the equivalent of a squadron of battleships. Similarly, if the north had known the consequences and been capable of it, they would have no doubt begun the Civil War by assassinating Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson, believing that this act alone would have shortened the war by 2-3 years and saved countless lives. Or would it? 

There is an opposing argument. It is best expressed in Leo Tolstoy’s masterpiece War and Peace. In that book, the protagonist, Pierre, regards Napoleon as a great historic figure, only to discover that Napoleon is simply in his position by happenstance and luck, and is no greater than anybody else. Tolstoy believed that history moved in inevitable waves and that individuals make very little difference. Another version of this argument can be found in the film The Battle of Algiers. In that movie French counterterrorists expertly infiltrate the FALN (Algerian terrorist group), discover who it’s most charismatic and capable leaders are, and kill them one by one, only to discover that by the end of the film all their efforts are wasted as the FALN is more powerful than ever. Again the message: when there is a wave of a movement, individuals don’t make any significant impact. 

What are your thoughts on this? 
I'm not sure the theory holds water. Usually whenever something is invented, someone else was moments behind the inventor in getting there themselves. Pretty sure it was something like the telephone where the patent applications were on the same day or something. My memory sucks, but without Einstein, we'd still have split atoms, maybe just a year or two later.

Unsure if the same applies to political leaders, but maybe. Having met many famous folks who are considered extraordinary, for the most part, they're just people like everyone else is.

ETA: We mythologize it a LOT, but I don't think that's really the best way to view the world.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think your "Extraordinary Person" conundrum is certainly a debate in how to view history that has been specifically hashed out in academia on a grand scale (as grand a scale as academia could have.) It is manifest in how we view or write about history and how much weight to give individuals vs. forces of society.

I remember dealing with this a long time ago and people trying to make sense of just how much to emphasize individual, personal traits or whether we're just sort of moving along with the masses who get their ideas from a teleological dialectic.

I forget the name of this debate, too, but it's been had for a while now in the History departments within academia. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think your "Extraordinary Person" conundrum is certainly a debate in how to view history that has been specifically hashed out in academia on a grand scale (as grand a scale as academia could have.) It is manifest in how we view or write about history and how much weight to give individuals vs. forces of society.

I remember dealing with this a long time ago and people trying to make sense of just how much to emphasize individual, personal traits or whether we're just sort of moving along with the masses who get their ideas from a teleological dialectic.

I forget the name of this debate, too, but it's been had for a while now in the History departments within academia. 
and that's why we're discussing it now - to give it an honest hearing...

 
and that's why we're discussing it now - to give it an honest hearing...
Sure. Got no beef with that. I think I was just sort of actually edifying tim's assertions by posting that this is a real debate and does indeed have a name or falls under some sort of rubric within history departments. 

Oh wait, that took me a minute. That was dry. Well done.

Which side do you think the history departments have been on in the past fifty years or so? 

 
Sure. Got no beef with that. I think I was just sort of actually edifying tim's assertions by posting that this is a real debate and does indeed have a name or falls under some sort of rubric within history departments. 

Oh wait, that took me a minute. That was dry. Well done.

Which side do you think the history departments have been on in the past fifty years or so? 
i am not fluent in Academic, but i would guess from my passing knowledge of the landmark case, Post-modern v. Peterson, that all exceptionalism is considered an invitation to fascism in our ivy-walled, hallowed halls these days.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i am not fluent in Academic, but i would guess from my passing knowledge of the landmark case, Post-modern v. Peterson, that all exceptionalism is considered an invitation to fascism in our ivy-walled, hallowed halls these days.
Ding!

Yet there are still holdouts. As an aside, I haven't been fluid in Acadamese since '01, so...it's been a while. I just take the stuff that was furthest out back then and simply substitute that for today's center-left program and I've got today's debates still covered, by and large.

Which is why, intellectually, it's kind of good to take radicalism seriously, especially if it has its own logic. You can float for twenty years or so. Bellwethers and all that...

 
I think your "Extraordinary Person" conundrum is certainly a debate in how to view history that has been specifically hashed out in academia on a grand scale (as grand a scale as academia could have.) It is manifest in how we view or write about history and how much weight to give individuals vs. forces of society.

I remember dealing with this a long time ago and people trying to make sense of just how much to emphasize individual, personal traits or whether we're just sort of moving along with the masses who get their ideas from a teleological dialectic.

I forget the name of this debate, too, but it's been had for a while now in the History departments within academia. 
I know that.

I went to college 30 years ago, UC Irvine, as a poly sci Major. If I had to do it over again purely for pleasure I would have been a history major as those were always my favorite classes. 

But it remains for me an interesting debate and I’ve come in recent years to think that it’s a pretty vital one as well. It’s kind of central to how one looks at the world overall IMO. 

 
I know that.

I went to college 30 years ago, UC Irvine, as a poly sci Major. If I had to do it over again purely for pleasure I would have been a history major as those were always my favorite classes. 

But it remains for me an interesting debate and I’ve come in recent years to think that it’s a pretty vital one as well. It’s kind of central to how one looks at the world overall IMO.
Sure. I was more just backing you up about this being a real debate that deals with perspectives and outlooks regarding the individual and societal forces. I think you'd find it central to how one looks at the world but not politically predictive. IOW, those who believe in "extraordinary men" do not necessarily find themselves in one political camp more than the other; or at least, that's what I would posit. "Great men" have moved history in all sorts of political directions.  

 
Sure. I was more just backing you up about this being a real debate that deals with perspectives and outlooks regarding the individual and societal forces. I think you'd find it central to how one looks at the world but not politically predictive. IOW, those who believe in "extraordinary men" do not necessarily find themselves in one political camp more than the other; or at least, that's what I would posit. "Great men" have moved history in all sorts of political directions.  
That is correct. I used to think that those who didn’t believe in great men were leftist and I still think it’s generally true but there are exceptions depending on the issue. They are certainly collectivist but right wingers can be collectivist as well, depending. 

 
Interesting topic.

Maybe I am approaching this from an angle unintended, but I think exceptionalism is very alive and well on a local scale. Sure, the personalities that are known by all can make large impacts across societies, but when I view my own life and the people that have really shaped me the most, it is mostly on a local scale.

I have had friends, family, mentors, counselors, bosses, etc that I consider as extraordinary as Einstein. They may not create an initial wave as large as a Churchill-type, but the wave(s) they do initiate propagate across a human-field wider than most suspect - imo. Of course, they are shaped and impacted by the larger waves of the Churchills - like everyone - but I think their "spin" and personal touch result in a bigger impact on the individual.

 
Ding!

Yet there are still holdouts. As an aside, I haven't been fluid in Acadamese since '01, so...it's been a while. I just take the stuff that was furthest out back then and simply substitute that for today's center-left program and I've got today's debates still covered, by and large.

Which is why, intellectually, it's kind of good to take radicalism seriously, especially if it has its own logic. You can float for twenty years or so. Bellwethers and all that...
Thankfully, my need for truth to out wherever it lives keeps me from collegiality with most groups. I'm a much better friend than member - several women have told me that...

 
Being extraordinary for a positive reason is significantly more difficult to achieve than for a negative reason, and the latter should be essentially ignored. 

 
Being extraordinary for a positive reason is significantly more difficult to achieve than for a negative reason, and the latter should be essentially ignored. 
But for studying historical disasters and their circumstances and causes, how would we learn to avoid future missteps?

 
Being extraordinary for a positive reason is significantly more difficult to achieve than for a negative reason, and the latter should be essentially ignored. 
This is a major diversion, but it won't be once the human race resolves the animalism in its personalities. In 500 years, we will laugh at our current mental health the same way we now laugh at our medical health practices of 500 years ago.

There's a joke: Why, when they lose control of what they say, do people with Tourette's Syndrome shout obscenity & insult? Why is it never "You look FABulous" or "I love you more than i can say". Because our personalities are rage-based, with our attack instincts more instant & compelling than any other. They don't have to be. One doesn't punch someone every time one's hand tenses into a fist. One realizes that's instinctual and lets it pass. My assertion is that, eventually, we'll realize how much of us is animal instinct and let all of it pass while we formulate responses that are best for ourselves, others and situations. We will let all our old myths & mandates fall away and be sociopaths - detached from the effect of our impulses - for good, because that simply is the ultimate use of our equipment and an organism which gets the chance to act on its greatest behalf always will. See you in five hundred yea....YOU LOOK INCREDIBLE, btw!!!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top