On Midwits: Average is the New Poor
Resisting the avalanche of exceptionalism
Funny I don’t fit,
Where have all the average people gone?
—Dennis Linde. Where Have All the Average People Gone. Recorded by Roger Miller, Smash Records.
Regarding the term “midwit.” First the Wiktionary definition:
Noun. midwit (plural midwits) (neologism, chiefly Internet slang, mildly derogatory) A person of middling intellect; someone who is neither particularly dumb nor notably intelligent, especially if they act as if they are smarter than they are.
No doubt you’ve encountered Substack writers using this term quite a bit. It first appeared in online forums like the great LessWrong about 15-20 years ago but still seems to be going around school. For the purpose of this discussion we’ll call the unusually educated mental acrobats who favor it, the litwits.
Before you roll your eyes: this isn’t another rant against “elites.” If we define exceptional people as elites, then I love elites. We absolutely need them and they can no more help their exceptionalism than I can help my unmistakable sex appeal. I just object to exceptional people who mock average people for being statistically inevitabile.
The adoption of midwit as a term reflects a growing contempt for averageness in general. It’s taken root in our vernacular. “Mid” itself has become one of the most memetic adjectives in years (Q: “How was the show? The food? The party?” A: “Pretty mid.”). It allows the term’s user to designate something average as less than in such a way that the user can, if faced with blowback, plausibly deny it was even a slur. This latest meaning of mid gave rise to mid-lord, midbrain, etc.
Why is average the new poor? I think it mostly has to do with how technology has normalized exceptionalism. In 1866, if you were, say, the second best of the three piano players in town, you were still a fine musician. Now anyone can hear the very best musicians of the past 150 years anytime, anywhere. Overfamiliarity with greatness can make average look dismal by comparison.
But in addition to mediocrity, the midwit in particular is ridiculed for committing every person’s mistake of thinking they know more than they actually do. We used to call the worst offenders of this error a “know it all” but litwit’s don’t say that, maybe because that term’s been used against them to some effect.
If the midwit is criticized for thinking he knows more than he actually does, what about the litwit? Does the litwit somehow know precisely how much he knows? Probably not. Plus the litwit, unlike the midwit, has no greater wit to check himself against. So if the litwit is at least as vulnerable to overconfidence, what exactly is he making fun of the midwit for?