The point of these notes, born out of this list https://www.lit.salon/lists/anaca/VTwE18cFAwnG4zErJT2M/idiots, was to determine what type of idiot I was being in a specific situation and if this idiocy was worth pursuing. I am keeping the results to myself, but it might be useful to someone else.

Literary idiots

The idiot who doesn't know he's an idiot: The Idiot 's Prince Myshkin is an idiot because he doesn't see the bad guys, is kind to them, and doesn't see the mockery either. Even though his ability to follow his own north manages to charm some who are receptive to his approach, he is so blind that he ends up alienating them.
The idiot who (probably) knows he's an idiot: Don Quixote is another Prince Myshkin, but more successful in his foolish career. His higher ambitions place him so far apart that he stands out from the crowd.
The idiot by lack of skill: Of Mice and Men 's Lennie is just an idiot; I don't know why I put him on this list. Perhaps his naiveté allows George to maintain some sort of hope until an opportunity materializes but requires him to let go of Lennie.
The failed idiot: Cyrano de Bergerac fails because he has everything except beauty and decides to renounce everything and give it away to his rival. Cyrano knows that, even if Roxanne loved him, they would be ridiculous, so he abdicates and obeys the unsaid social rules that condemn large noses.

The successful idiot : La joie de vivre's Pauline is a successful idiot through perseverance. She faces adversity with joy, and her way of being eventually offers consolation to those around her.

What is an idiot?

The idiot, the sucker or the easy mark, is so because he is kind to the wicked, and one shouldn't be, according to a primitive principle that dictates one should only be bad to the wicked and good to the good. This is what idiocy represents: the inability to recognize a "villain" (malicious person) and the act of lavishing kindness upon them.
Note: idiocy doesn't arise solely from the encounter between an idiot and a cleverer one; an audience is necessary, and in the case of literary idiots, we, the readers, are also the audience.

Why is the idiot condemned?

The idiot is then perceived as a gullible fool who doesn't guess the other person's bad intentions. This attitude is deemed culpable: he should know, and it is his failing not to know; we place the blame on the idiot. “We” because there is a social consensus regarding the known signs of wickedness that his benefactor has failed to recognize. Ignorance cannot excuse wrongdoing.
The idiot’s fault can also be assessed by what is “lost” in this gift to the wicked (are pearls to swine truly lost?).

The idiot as an economic deviant

He is the victim of a transaction marked by asymmetric information. He gives something of value to someone who doesn’t deserve it and/or is given something of value that he doesn’t know how to appreciate.
The idiot allows himself to be deceived because he has assigned an invisible value to things that, to the world, have none. As if the prevailing morality were to seek optimization, and to exploit or abuse the lower value that others mistakenly or ignorantly assign to things: there is a perfect market, and we should all do our best to rise to the level of this perfection. The idiot doesn't, and not seeking to mitigate information asymmetry is not only foolish but also encourages cunning. The opposite of foolishness is cunning (in its pathological form: George Costanza, who is always searching for a winning strategy that relies on information asymmetry).

Functions of the identification of the idiot: distinction, stigmatization

Condemning the idiot through mockery (Prince Myshkin, Don Quixote) or ostracism (Lennie) is 1/a way of distinguishing oneself from them and signaling to the world that one is smarter than that, 2/a way of setting a counter-example and by doing so, projecting a fear of being wronged in an asymmetrical information exchange, the fear of being the idiot who fails to recognize the value of what is being exchanged, or even of what is being exchanged.
Ultimately, it is the fear of breaking with the group and its values, the loss of a shared, imagined frame of reference. It is the teenager who takes the t-shirt his parent is about to get rid of. “What do you want to do with this old thing?” he asks, beginning to regret his desire to part with it.

The danger of the idiot-deviant

Yet the idiot still fascinates because he is obeying an invisible value. The fear of failing to recognize a hidden value the idiot sees explain why he is such a trouble maker : he creates doubt for everyone else.

The Benefits and Disadvantages of Idiocy

Disadvantages of idiocy: the social cost incurred by the general disrepute that comes with it. The idiot is never far from the scapegoat. On top of that, the social recognition of the idiot makes him a target: he becomes a notorious mark and attracts the cunning. The individual cost is probably that of being misunderstood and of renouncing ever being understood.
Benefits of idiocy: being blind to one's own idiocy has advantages, since being too aware of it makes also aware of the push towards conformity. With no awareness of it, one remains unperturbed on one's path, even if it is guided by an exotic star that points to a strange north. Another advantage: if one does not see the mockery, one offers grace to the mocker by ignoring their contempt (Prince Myshkin who disarms the villains with his naivety). Villains are often villains because they believe they must be; meeting someone who doesn't react to their cruelty proves them wrong, and sometimes they even get the idea that they might not be inherently cruel themselves.

Other idiocies to consider: the holy fool, the wise fool, King Henry IV: A tragedy. In five acts's Fallstaff, Foolishness for Christ, Atisha's cook (The book of wisdom) etc.