It’s a race between the Foxes, who know many things, and the Hedgehogs, who know “one important thing.” Of course, the problem is that foxes are terrible at long-range analysis, and Hedgehogs frequently know one WRONG thing.
And the Hedgehogs seem to predominate. For example, as one commenter provides, the political liberal who sees everything military through one particular view of the Vietnam War. Or, on the conservative side, the dude who sees a black helicopter behind each and every new use of federal power. (Yes, I know: currently, the liberals are showcasing, rather than being embarrassed by, their nutjobs. This is a temporary phenomenon suggesting that there’s a move afoot for a political realignment.)
It’s not simply one’s “lens,” or inherent bias, but how one derives one’s worldview as well.
The trick, of course, is to be a “fodgehog,” constantly DERIVING (not “supporting!” Bad! That’s hedgehog thinking!) one’s big notions via an array of widely-collected facts.
Which raises another question: is that my bias as a particular kind of historian speaking? I have an excellent predictive track record (to the point that I tend to be the go-to guy for folks trying to make sense of things). But the “fodgehog” idea suggests a strong methodological bias towards synthesis. As my twin can vouch, synthesis is really good for what I do… not so good for learning calculus.