One thing I find interesting is that the type of elite you value — the musician, the scientist — this man has absolutely no desire whatsoever to govern anyone. What does the scientist want more than anything? To discover the absolute Truth of Everything! What does the musician (or any artist) want above all else? To discover the absolute Beauty of Everything! What does that mean? What are Truth and Beauty? Who knows? What matters most of all is that these men of learning, artist, scientist, and visionary, who are “of imagination all compact” (Theseus, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, final act, first scene, I think) undertake the journey and enlighten us all! Only with the rise of the the politician – the sophist par excellence, do we begin to see the sort of specious self-indulgence in which I have undertaken.

Nietzsche: The “virtues belonging among non-equals, devised by the superior, the individual; they are the virtues of bearing the sense: ‘I am sufficiently powerful to put up with a palpable loss, this is a proof of my power. ” Later on: “What are my parasites to me? May they live and prosper: I am strong enough for that!’” The mark of a strong society!

There is more in the passage therein that may well invoke more debate among us – you of genius intellect, and I of substandard analytical capacity – but let us agree on his point, at least until all my gin (forgive me, it was delicious; so sweet, and so cold*) runs its course.

I will go check out ‘The Fountain,’ but not any time soon; where I live now, I have no TV and the nearest rental place is a hike away.

*I’m kind of a literary bastard. Check out William Carlos Williams, if you don’t recognize the reference.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

How’s your weekend going?

‘I feel like I just got an IQ test from a gas station manager. Sorry, that was wrong; I couldn’t resist.’

What a deliciously old-fashioned elitist attitude; to presume that superlative intelligence correlates with a prestigious career. Social Darwinism at its mid 1890’s height. And all this from a LIBERAL who champions the brilliance and worth of every workingman? Utterly shocking…

Perhaps you would respect the words of a man with a much more distinguished career; let’s say a Clerk at the Swiss Patent Office. No, you are correct. A mere clerk could never be a genius or any kind of mind worth listening to. We should ignore Herr Einstein too for he is just a stupid as me. We need to find a truly smart person, like a Lawyer, Doctor, or even better would be an Accountant. Their mastery of Arithmetic makes my whole body positively tingle, and I am filled with awe as I imagine all those sums they tabulate each day. How do they do it?

‘But seriously, the thing is, there’s something that doesn’t feel right about your claims. Among the high IQ people I have known, none of them have ever responded to an argument by mentioning their IQ. An argument can be sound or unsound, no matter what authority the source claims. Countering an argument with “But my IQ is higher than yours, therefore your claims are invalid” is just not a sound basis for policy. In fact, most high-IQ people I’ve known would not even bring up IQ in any sort of debate, unless we are debating whose IQ is higher, and what sort of braggart actually does that?’

The basic premise of my philosophy and the new political system springing from it is:

The Common People, and Mankind in general, are best served by creating a ubiquitous respect for, and government by, superlatively intelligent people. No other people are capable of deciding public policy issues without an undue bias towards self-interest and short-term thinking, for no other people have the physical/biological structures in their very brains that enable this kind of thinking.

Unless power is wielded without an eye to self-interest, popularity/acclaim, and instant gratification in results; mankind will never follow an intelligent and humane course as a species.

Until power resides exclusively in the hands of geniuses, mankind will never be free of tyranny. The Common People are incapable of choosing rulers who will not either abuse power or make foolish/pandering decisions. Tyranny is avoided not by giving the people a voice; it is avoided by giving them a government that actually serves their interests. Giving a voice to the people harms their own interests because they (as a whole group) do not possess the intelligence to properly choose their government or monitor its behavior. Their ‘freedom’ and ‘voice’ is quickly overcome by the propaganda of those who seek to take advantage of their lack of intelligence.

If you let children choose what they will eat everyday without adult oversight they will grow up malnourished and fat. They do not possess the total view of the situation that would enable them to make wise food choices. This is the exact same thing as letting the masses govern themselves. In like manner, just because we don’t let our kids pick their own diet does not mean that we ‘hate’ them or are ‘abusing’ them by controlling them. It is for their own happiness and welfare that we control them. The exact parallel applies to rule of the masses. By their own innate characteristics (just like kids) they need oversight and control to prosper and thrive.

My ideas are centrally focused upon the nature of intelligence and the degree of variability of it among humans. Most people do not understand the enormous power found in comprehension, and so intelligence is relegated to a curiosity – not a vital and admirable force. Also, most people think that intelligence varies among humans far less than it truly does. Those among us with genius intelligence are so utterly different in their mental and emotional capacity from average people as to be almost rightly considered a totally different species. There is such a difference in their functional capacity and in their natural behavior as to validate this view.

As such, it is essential that if I am to communicate my ideas that I discuss intelligence and IQ in a frank, unabashed manner. Most of us have learned a measure of modesty about our intelligence both out of decorum and also to deflect attention away from ourselves. Highly intelligent people are often very private people who do not seek the acclaim of other people. This is often a defense mechanism so that we neither draw moronic abuse to ourselves nor become a public spectacle to people who really have no comprehension of what they are viewing.

But as I have said, I must discuss this private and often ‘rude’ subject totally openly because it lies at the very heart of the conclusions I have reached and the changes I suggest.

One of the first tasks I seek to accomplish is to have others like myself come to a clearer and thoroughly thought out assessment of themselves and also of the average people around them. Most highly intelligent people do not really evaluate this subject, and sometimes gloss-over it to such a degree that they fail to understand hugely important facts which are needed to understand if we are to hope to improve human society. They know they are ‘bright’ but fail to analyze what that actually means and all the ramifications thereof. They also fail to consider what it means if we then consider the great mass of humanity ‘not as bright’ and how this would effect world history and the proper formation of systems of government. Their focus tends to be on how they can best fit into and thrive in the society created by the others. And it is dangerous to truly plumb the depths of the issue of intelligence because it leads to logical conclusions which tend to overturn this whole structure. It also creates friction between them and the average people, who are truly fearful of visible manifestations of high-intelligence. If you think about this carefully, you can see that the average people view the full glory of a genius doing genius things much as they view a god who possesses powers they neither have nor comprehend. This causes both awe and primal fear within them. And as soon as they also discover that this ‘god’ is still totally mortal, and often far less brutal than themselves; they then proceed to pick up their ‘club’ and bash this god in the head until it stops doing these scary things – or until it goes away or dies.

And so, often because of the echoes of childhood fears and subtle societal intimidation, the highly-intelligent tend to avoid open discussion and frank appraisals of intelligence because it opens a whole can of worms whose logical outcome is a conclusion that SOCIETY IS BACKWARDS. The geniuses should lead everything, for the benefit of all; not serve as unempowered specialists/advisors (geek scientists/helpers) to those in power who are not innately equipped to know what to do for the benefit of all. The geniuses create all the new means of wielding power, and then give these very abilities to people who neither know how to invent them nor have the wisdom to use them for the benefit of all.

Other than my angry outbursts to you, I have always addressed the issue of intelligence according to these parameters. My comments about my own IQ are necessary because it is biologically impossible to truly understand these concepts without having a certain critical mass of intelligence. And so I am not seeking to brag about anything. Rather I am just indicating that I have the basic equipment that makes it possible to comprehend the subject I speak of. I know what my intelligence is and what it means. I am just validating to you the possibility that my conclusions might be right, even though you may presently think differently.

Also, is it not logical to say “Hello there. I am a genius, so could you please give my ideas a little more thought and benefit of the doubt than you would for somebody else?” Unless we are so squeamish and prudish about intelligence, what is the harm in that? If Michael Jordan tells you something about basketball, do you not give his ideas more credence because he is a basketball genius? Even if they are ‘controversial’ ideas? Would it be ‘immodest’ of him to point out that you might want to listen to him because of his unique and superlative abilities? Is it in any way demeaning to you for him to do so?

I am a genius, by any standard that term is defined, past or present. My IQ is far above any of the numbers we have so far mentioned. And I hope, quite honestly, that you are also a genius. When I tell you these things, it does not mean “I am the Lord Infallible, for my IQ is so high” nor do I want you to feel inferior and just shut up and believe me. I could be wrong, and have been so many times before. But what I do want is for you to give my ideas additional consideration because they spring from a source that is capable of creating truly good ideas far more often than most. It is a matter of simple probability. It is just far more probable that a weird idea from me will, upon further review, be found to have merit that those weird ideas emanating from others.

As for whether you believe me or not, it is of no consequence to me. I hope to find others like myself who can join me in constructive dialog. If you are not one of them, I will regret this loss but certainly it won’t affect my self-image one iota. I am seeking a community of peers, not cheering fans to boost my ego.

Regarding mockery; I love it if it is truly apropos. Monty Python & The Holy Grail is a classic. My nature is one that tends to biting sly sarcasm. But I have felt that your use of it before was becoming tedious by overshadowing the actual communication factor in our debate and just created an unprofitably hostile climate. Also, you tended to automatically lump me into groups of creeps who say and believe things that I do not. And so your mockery of them was just wasting time and showing how little you understood me. You are so taken with your own wit, that you often don’t LISTEN and simply just look for an opportunity to make a smartass comment – even if it actually is a non sequitur.

You must decide: Do you want to have a discussion, or do you want to find a target for your scorn.

“My view is instead of hamstringing every leader that comes along, making them either useless or retaliatory, why don’t we just use a better selection process for choosing whom we would empower?” — Bingo! I also think accountability should be a factor, preventing the opportunity for a powerful elite to become evil and wipe out the other elites who would oppose him. I’m sorry if that sounds like the plot of an X-Men comic, but I used to read an awful lot of those.

I am glad we have agreement here. I am constructing a new form of government that does precisely what you indicate. We must make it very hard, almost impossible, for one of the ruling elite to get out of line and harm the people. My new government has safeguards that prevent any one leader from ever amassing enough power as to become a threat. Also, the leaders serve for a randomly-decided, completely unknown duration. Every six months, some of these leaders will be randomly retired and others will have their job responsibilities shifted. Hand-picking successors become impossible. Dynasties become impossible. Hereditary succession is impossible. Murder as a tool of political ascendancy becomes impossible. I have details for all of this we can discuss at another time.

‘What you’ve put forth sounds awfully close to tyranny. By shutting commoners out of the decision-making process, you ensure that elites remain distant, paternal, insular, beholden to themselves and no one else.’

Let us review: Tyranny exists when the government does not serve the interests of the people. It is not dependant upon whether they participate in the government or not. The outcome determines tyranny, not the process.

The people, by contributing in their own government, always cause tyranny to befall themselves. Popular participation in government never prevents tyranny. Just because tyranny can also exist without their participation does nothing to change the equation. In those instances where democracy exists and tyranny is not overwhelmingly visible, it is only because those who secretly hold all the power are to a great extent using this power for the common good. And the greater the influence of the people, that harder it is for these ‘good tyrants’ to hold sway over the desires of demagogues who would use the mass stupidity to empower their more menacing degree of tyranny.

‘In a population of 6.6 billion, is it responsible for one-tenth of that to just shut themselves off from the rest, claim the lions’ share of the resources that the masses themselves play a significant part in producing?’

This depends upon whether you consider your brain to be a parasite in your body or whether it is the ‘god’ of your body. Physical force and capacity to work is utterly useless without an organizing, directing, and leading force to make this all work together for a worthwhile aim. Therefore, who really ‘produced’ these resources? The labor is useless without the leadership. The leadership is useless without the labor. You need to stop thinking of the brain a a parasite – it is actually a symbiotic partner to the brawn.

Also, this example above reflects a class system which is closer to the current situation than it applies to my proposals. In my government, those who rule do not live in opulance, nor are there very many of them. In fact, my government prohibits the accumulation of material wealth beyond a standard, constitutionally-mandated level of basic abundance and security for all its members. Wealthy in a kind of bland and austere manner, like a monk who has perhaps $500,000 – $1,000,000 in assets to last him his whole life without any means of earning more is what I envision. And, they cannot violate these principles once they leave office. And, there are fewer than 1,000 people worldwide who would ever receive such support at one time.

And your theme of an insular leadership is not accurate either. My view of leadership is one of a battlefield general leading his troops from the front. Not some wuss ‘commander’ miles behind the lines, totally oblivious to the realities of the battle and the condition of the men under his command. Shared struggle and shared glory, but with totally different jobs to do and stations in life. Symbiosis.

‘Sure, elites may claim to espouse the highest ethics, but if the ethics originate with them, then they’re creating the standards by which they are judged, in which case all their social philosophy would be skewed against dissenting claims and standards because they have no checks and balances.’

Elites are the only people who can possibly construct moral codes of any kind. Excluding the masses from this process would not diminish the diversity of thought about proper ethics. The elites are full of people from every corner of the ethical spectrum because these are the only origins of every such mode of thought now and into the past. The masses have never created any philosophy or ethical perspective. So as for checks and balances, these are in no way diminished by excluding the masses.

Believe me, in a world where the masses are silent, there will still be plenty of people like you and me who would loudly protest anybody’s plan to run roughshod over their rights and their humanity. Would you just shut up because your own self-interest would better be served by staying mum? Of course not! And so why do you imagine the elites as being so monolithical in thought? A Jefferson would be there to argue for the rights of even the lowest of men.

Also, you are forgetting who the elite truly are. They are not the RICH! They are scientists and artists, and highly intelligent people of all kinds. These people are far more likely to care about overstepping their bounds than even the common man. The truly elite would be hard pressed to find a majority of their number who sought advantage by persecution just because they could get away with it.

Remember our definition of ELITE, and try to disconnect this word from Plutocracy which I do not support. It is causing you to mix your arguments up a bit.

‘ In such a world, the slightest display of mockery becomes an expression of true courage.’

Actually, I bet the truly elite all really like Monty Python. At least most of us do…

‘The elites need those masses. Without their labor, there would be no society at all.’

As I have indicated, the proper relationship between the leadership and the masses is symbiosis. Just like the Brain and the Brawn. This can be accomplished if each contributes their unique abilities so that they may reach their combined goal. Prosperity and peace is this goal. The biceps has no business yelling at the brain saying ‘that lazy bastard never does any work’ and the brain has no business using the biceps on any tasks that don’t benefit the whole body.

‘ How is it possible to manage them without being able to walk among them freely, unthreatened by the surging fury of the underclass, perhaps because you are one of them?’

If you were led by a man who made changes in your nation that helped everybody become more prosperous, and made you feel the country was improving and your lives were becoming better; would you still have this ‘surging fury’? I doubt it. Most people would admire or adore this good leader. Remember that the point of government is to organize everybody so that we ALL move forward. As long as the leader is doing his job, whence cometh the anger?

If you put a genius in charge, he will execute plans that others have not done (because they aren’t as smart). This will cause REAL IMPROVEMENT for the nation and its people. This is all the people want. They want to see that the rulers care about them and are using their exalted position to get things done to help their lives.

‘And how else to motivate them, to get more labor and better labor out of them, except with the promise that with enough hard work or education or whatever it is society needs, one of the commoners can actually transcend his stratum and move into society’s elite echelons, refine himself, enjoy the fruits of prosperity and the responsibilities of leadership, and even strike down run-on sentences like this one? This mobility keeps all levels of society fresh, keeps ideas and knowledge and art and skill flowing continuously from top to bottom so that everyone has a chance to specialize and excel and contribute.’

OK remember the definition of elite. With my definition, ANYBODY can be elite by either 1) doing something that only an elite does (art/science) or 2) showing that their intelligence is high enough to enable them to do such things if they had the time/money. There is no exclusion of the poor just because they are poor. If you got the goods, you are welcome to the top. There is no value in excluding anybody who has anything valid to contribute.

Also, you should understand that the rule of the elite would improve the lot of people without working them harder because:

1) Their labors will not go in such a high proportion to the gluttony of the rich
2) They will be led more efficiently, so that less redundancy occurs, creating better surpluses for all to draw from.

“Thus far, it seems as though your plan is to persist in an unshakable cynicism, and do everything possible to undercut the power of WHOMEVER may be the leader.” — The only way to make sure things get done is to hold people accountable. It’s a dirty job, but someone’s gotta do it, and it’s even better if it can be done with style and grace. To me, that the elites would resent this is the surest evidence of its necessity.’

1) The elites don’t resent this. You are once again confusing terms. Plutocrats are not elites.

2) The problem here is not one of resentment, but of inefficiency. Let us suppose that the world were a blank slate and you and I and some others got together to decide how the government would work. Let us suppose that we all unanimously agreed on a basic form, and we also agreed on who should hold what particular offices and wield what powers.

In this situation, of what value is it if you then say
‘Ok the government looks fair and workable. But I am going to impede and undercut the power of the leaders with my constant cynical badgering’.

Everybody else would say ‘What for?’

You reply ‘because they hold power and they need to be undercut’.

‘But we just put these people into power to protect everybody. Why do you want to undercut them?’

‘Well they have power, so they could harm the people’

‘But you yourself just empowered these leaders! We have to empower the leaders or they cannot do their job to protect the people!’

‘But they hold power so they must be undercut…’

I hope you won’t take offense here, but this is what you seem like. Don’t you see that if we simply put the RIGHT PEOPLE into power that you don’t need to undercut anything, and that doing so is counterproductive and stupid?

Instead of constantly throwing spit-wads at the dumb/evil king, why don’t we just pick a better king who would work for our interests? And if we pick this better king, what’s with you continuing with the spit-wads? What’s the point? Are you fighting the Good Fight – or just fighting for the sake of fighting?

OK.

Enjoy the weekend and check out ‘The Fountain’ when you can.

Mr. Nicol: IQ-wise, The threshold of 120 came from your prior comment:
“High Intelligence is not just an ability, it is a completely different mindset that makes those endowed think and behave in ways that often contradict societal norms – because the society is built by less-intelligent (IQ 100-120) people.”

“All of the problems I have ever faced have been the result of profound differences between me and others – differences caused by the huge gulf that exists between our IQs.” — I get this. The thing to do is to find a bunch of people with high IQs (some of them might be Socialists) and hang out with them. It does present its own special types of problems, but birds of a feather flock together, so they say.

As for this: “Let’s just say that your >120 remark indicates to me that either you are full of shit and you are right around 110 – or that you are a hell of a lot higher than 120.” — I feel like I just got an IQ test from a gas station manager. Sorry, that was wrong; I couldn’t resist.

But seriously, the thing is, there’s something that doesn’t feel right about your claims. Here’s what it is – of course, this is just idle thought-vomit on my part, and you are under no obligation to respond to it:

Among the high IQ people I have known, none of them have ever responded to an argument by mentioning their IQ. An argument can be sound or unsound, no matter what authority the source claims. Countering an argument with “But my IQ is higher than yours, therefore your claims are invalid” is just not a sound basis for policy. In fact, most high-IQ people I’ve known would not even bring up IQ in any sort of debate, unless we are debating whose IQ is higher, and what sort of braggart actually does that? The high-IQ people I’ve known just use logic, analogy, pathos, and humor to make their points. Whether the person is intelligent or not comes across by virtue of their claims, and not the other way around. Mockery, by the way, is the favorite tool of smartasses. It’s a way of saying “I have so much intelligence that I can be playful and frivolous with it. There is plenty more argument where mine came from, because I’m so smart I’m like a debate machine and I can get all the energy I need from consuming YOUR arguments” or something like that. High-IQ people don’t reject mockery; they understand the nuances of sarcasm and parody, even embracing them, and exploiting it as one of the highest expressions of free speech. Of course, I could be waaaay off; it may be that in the highest echelons of smartiness, one has to offer one’s IQ as though it’s an ID card, but that’s not my experience.

“My view is instead of hamstringing every leader that comes along, making them either useless or retaliatory, why don’t we just use a better selection process for choosing whom we would empower?” — Bingo! I also think accountability should be a factor, preventing the opportunity for a powerful elite to become evil and wipe out the other elites who would oppose him. I’m sorry if that sounds like the plot of an X-Men comic, but I used to read an awful lot of those.

What you’ve put forth sounds awfully close to tyranny. By shutting commoners out of the decision-making process, you ensure that elites remain distant, paternal, insular, beholden to themselves and no one else. In a population of 6.6 billion, is it responsible for one-tenth of that to just shut themselves off from the rest, claim the lions’ share of the resources that the masses themselves play a significant part in producing? Sure, elites may claim to espouse the highest ethics, but if the ethics originate with them, then they’re creating the standards by which they are judged, in which case all their social philosophy would be skewed against dissenting claims and standards because they have no checks and balances. In such a world, the slightest display of mockery becomes an expression of true courage.

The elites need those masses. Without their labor, there would be no society at all. How is it possible to manage them without being able to walk among them freely, unthreatened by the surging fury of the underclass, perhaps because you are one of them? And how else to motivate them, to get more labor and better labor out of them, except with the promise that with enough hard work or education or whatever it is society needs, one of the commoners can actually transcend his stratum and move into society’s elite echelons, refine himself, enjoy the fruits of prosperity and the responsibilities of leadership, and even strike down run-on sentences like this one? This mobility keeps all levels of society fresh, keeps ideas and knowledge and art and skill flowing continuously from top to bottom so that everyone has a chance to specialize and excel and contribute.

“Thus far, it seems as though your plan is to persist in an unshakable cynicism, and do everything possible to undercut the power of WHOMEVER may be the leader.” — The only way to make sure things get done is to hold people accountable. It’s a dirty job, but someone’s gotta do it, and it’s even better if it can be done with style and grace. To me, that the elites would resent this is the surest evidence of its necessity.

A few points there we have agreement on. For example, I define elite/common not by the origins of a person but by the accumulated works of PERMANENT value to the state of human culture, science, and history. Thus, any individual at all may be either elite or common. It all depends on what they accomplish, or by their inherent capacity to accomplish if they were free to live their lives according to their own designs.

But you surely can see that when we look at groups of individuals, that we tend to find accumulations of similarity. That is, in a group of ‘underperforming’ (not making as much science/art/etc..) people we are more likely to find a greater preponderance of individuals who are either not intelligent enough or otherwise uninterested in accomplishing those deeds which we both agree mainfest real FUNCTIONAL VALUE in a human life. All people, even those who are not so ‘functional’ still have an innate value as human beings, and so lack of functionality is not a justification to kill or oppress such people. But we must acknowlege the duality of reality here – People have BOTH an innate and a functional value. Those who are more functionally valuable are those I define as ELITE.

Elites, because they create/contribute things of permanent value to all of humanity, are the only people on earth who actually earn all the resources they consume in their lives. And while this is never a justification to harm the others (ALL humans have an unshakable INNATE value) it does provide a logical and ethical basis for putting those who thus earn all they take into more materially advantaged conditions SO THAT MERE MATERIAL ISSUES WILL NOT IMPEDE THEM IN THEIR FURTHER WORK. Great composers should not have to worry about working 40 hours at an office – they should be wealthy enough to be free of material concerns. Great Scientists should be free to work on their most beneficial project – not just the ones that show signs of profitability.

In addition, you and I both recognize the tremendous harm that can come to people through evil or faulty leadership and power. And yet we both understand that we must have some kind of government and control structures. Thus far, it seems as though your plan is to persist in an unshakable cynicism, and do everything possible to undercut the power of WHOMEVER may be the leader. By doing so, you hope to restrain the leaders from weilding unfettered power, and so your plan of cynicism and heckling is a defense mechanism. Please don’t get upset if I am mistaken about you here – this is what you APPEAR to operate and think like.

My view is instead of hamstringing every leader that comes along, making them either useless or retaliatory, why don’t we just use a better selection process for choosing whom we would empower? I do not beleive that every person is dangerously corruptable by power. Indeed, the reason we think so is because we only get leaders whose whole lives have been spent on a pathway of corruption, deception, and greed. When you put a politician into power, he WILL become more corrupt because that is the type of person he is. But if we were to take any random JPL/NASA scientist or random musician from the Philadelphia Orchestra, and make them our leader; I gurantee that such a person would be far more resistant to corruption and far more likely to enact policies that promote humane agendas.

To me, only the ELITE have a right to lead or even participate in a consensus because they are the only ones who have a view beyond their own immediate self-interest. Everybody else will push for whatever agenda is most materially or religiously beneficial to them. To me this is barbaric. Civilization and true leadership resides in seeing the big picture, the future outcomes, and the pathway that leads to goodness for ALL – not in the mob forming their stupid factions all fighting over their immediate material advantage. Fixing our world can be accomplished by simply taking power away from demagogues, dictators, and populists, and putting it into the hands of highly-intelligent people who are well versed in ACTUAL HUMAN ACCOMPLISHEMENTS such as arts and sciences. These people can be taught all they need to know to govern wisely, and by making sure that they spend enough time in their formative years out in the world with the people, we can establish their respect and love for the common people which they MUST have to rule wisely.

OK. Adressing your classification question about elite/common. I don’t look at it like a balance sheet. ‘Two symphonies we add to the good but we also have to subtract these other heinous acts.’ To me, just by being CAPABLE of doing ANYTHING of permanent positive functional value to humanity makes you elite. This is usually not known to all until such a deed is actually accomplished. But the person did not transform into a new creation when the deed was done. He was just as elite while he was a nobody working on the deed as he is after the work is completed. Elites are not MADE by their works, they are REVEALED by them.

In my view, almost all elites (except for those in the most horribly oppressive conditions) are almost constantly working on something that could eventually result in some great accomplishment. This work can be the most innocuous thing. In my research for poker and for the other investments I do, I have studied graduate-level mathematics and computer science texts for untold hours. For years, I appeared as that guy in the college library who looked a bit too old even to be a grad student. But my efforts have resulted in me discovering certain proprietary techniques that would have broad applications from geophysics to communications if I were to publish them. Other elites, by their own natural curiousity, are driven to do SOMETHING of value that on occasion explodes into the public arena. Curiousity is the single most effective marker of those who are elite.

And also, elites can cause damage and even be evil. But this does not negate who they are – elite. A Lion is a Lion, even if it becomes a dangerous man-eater. Under these circumstances, it is ESSENTIAL that the other elites step up to oppose an evil elite in their midst. This is the single biggest problem with the past aristocrats and monarchies – failure to suppress evil in their midst. But this is because these people were only part of the time truly elite a I define. The rest of the time they were a bunch of self-indulgent thugs pretending to possess that which they could not even comprehend.

Ok. More points…

You are not a commoner. Seeing through some of your hyperbole, I perceive ability and potential in you. I think that you are likely about half my age – and I remember my own mockery at that time – I was quite the bastard. I just have to do a better job in biting my tongue when I am talking to you. It may sound arrogant of me (again!) but I really do think you have some elite characteristics, even though I suspect that would be the LAST thing you would accept at this time.

Let’s make a test:

I just saw ‘The Fountain’ on HBO yesterday for the first time since the theatre. This film met with some horrible reviews (the masses don’t understand it) but I found it to be one of the most moving and philosophically profound works of art that I have ever seen anywhere. It is in a word, astonishing.

I suggest that you take some time and watch it when it comes on again, and then let me know what you think about it.

If you do indeed like it, I would suggest to you that this indicates both a greater comprehension of complex subjects, and a greater attraction to philosophical/abstract thought than is commonly found in the masses. If you are also moved emotionally by this film, let me suggest that this is further proof that neither you mind nor your heart operates as similary to the masses as you presume. If it did, how can you logically explain the huge disparity between their negative/boring reaction to the movie and yours?

I suspect that you will indeed like it, so if for no other reason than this, try it out.

IQ. We are not going to get into that too much because I think it would be conter-productive at this time. This is why I changed gears. Let’s just say that your >120 remark indicates to me that either you are full of shit and you are right around 110 – or that you are a hell of a lot higher than 120. 120 was a nice, innocuous number for you to pick. I suspect the latter case, and that you are some undetermined number above this. IQ is important to me because it has been the defining characteristic that has definied my life. All of the good things I have, even emotional things, have been the result of my unusually high IQ. All of the problems I have ever faced have been the result of profound differences between me and others – differences caused by the huge gulf that exists between our IQs. There is a far greater gulf between Normal people and me than exists between Normal people and Retarded people.

As you indicated, this is indeed a source of fear. Until one learns how to handle things, one does indeed fear the masses. The masses are capable of at any time bursting out into all kinds of unforseen and incomprehensible barbaric behavior. It is like living among a troup of baboons, who are usually peaceful and friendly with you. But from time to time, something will happen that will enrage all these baboons around you and whip them into doing something to others or you.

In time, I have learned that these people are just reacting to fear, either within themselves or projected from myself. And so by exhibiting more courage and leadership traits to those around me, they will both not attack me and also will follow my instructions.

This is the difference between elite and the masses. The masses NEVER outgrow their fears. Elites (once they acknowledge they ARE elite) will fear the masses, but with the application of courage will overcome these fears in time. Elites who can do this very successfully will become strong leaders, because the masses crave leadership and will follow the courageous man who cares about the people.

I have also had leadership positions both in my past church affiliations and also during the years that I managed 3 gas stations. In both cases, I had more than a dozen people under my leadership, and I have never ever insulted anybody. In my view, the leader needs to get people to voluntarily comply with his wishes, so that they will not feel oppressed by the commands. Also, the leader should protect those beneath him from BS from above. It is a two-way street. I have not been this respectful to you because I didn’t owe you the respect that I owed my employees. They worked their butts off for me every day – what have you done for me? They counted on me to keep their workplace secure and livable, without threats of firing from above or with a bunch of chickenshit/pointless work to accomplish just because the boss wants to flex nuts. These people have earned my respect. You are still a pending matter.

Anyway, I think I still should stay focused on what I am doing here – brain mining on the net. Getting rude and/or pissy will not help me much.

Have a look at ‘The Fountain’. And see if you understand where I am coming from on the elite/common classifaction.

Moving on….as someone who has a lot of experience directly managing people, I have had to explain complex ideas and processes – even to people that do not have as high an IQ as mine – and I can do it WITHOUT insulting their intelligence. That’s how smart I am. IQ, by the way, is not the only way to measure intelligence. Often it’s not even a relevant measure, because it does not take social intelligence into account (yes, sorry, I just introduced another term), which is critical to leadership ability.

I’ve spoken to people with IQs greater than 160. I’ve been taught by them. I’ve lived with them. I’ve read some of their work, and when appropriate, I’ve challenged them. I don’t assess peoples’ logic or rhetorical style based on their IQ. It works the other way around.

I find that, for the most part, these people do indeed appear significantly smarter. But I am completely capable of understanding what they say. How smart can someone really be if he’s incapable of clearly articulating an argument? I am fully capable of distinguishing between high intelligence and the pretense to high intelligence.

Not to nitpick, but you said “You average/normal people are ruled by fear, and you fear that which you do not understand.” To take this apart:
a) “You fear that which you do not understand” sounds to me like another unwarranted generalization. In general, when I find something I don’t understand, I try to understand it. Argument, dialectic, and critique are also ways of understanding new ideas. Have you ever talked to a journalist? They often take an aggressive, hostile point of view in order to get their subjects to be specific about iffy claims.
b) Would it not also be true that the marginalization of “commoners” is also, to some extent, a product of fear of the masses? If so, wouldn’t it be the case that aristocrats/elites are ruled by fear? And if so, who really rules whom?

“Mockery and unwarranted assumptions:” what I’m aiming for is the very spirit of Aristotle’s “reducto ad absurdum.” But, if you insist, I will make every effort to avoid overdoing it. In the past I have written for a living and acquired certain rhetorical flourishes. Bad habits, if you will. Please understand that my writing often just takes a sarcastic tone. I’m just gonna go ahead and apologize in advance for it. If it happens again, please forgive, but if you’re keeping score, you’ll have to award me extra points for style.

Likewise, I do not demand that you avoid the condescension and arrogant tone. In all seriousness, if you need to use condescension and arrogance to make your point, then by all means, go for it. Just understand – again, in all seriousness – that I’ll know exactly what you’re doing, because I know how to spot the difference between arrogance and a logical progression of ideas. Even though I’m a commoner.

With that, on to the meat and potatoes. Here is one issue I have with your definition of “the masses / the common people / the average man” – it’s not really a problem; I just need clarification on this.

If being common or elite depends on measure of what you contribute to knowledge and culture, a man can not be called “common” or “elite” until after he is dead and the full extent of his artistic/cultural/social/scientific contributions can be itemized. Until then, even a common man is capable of contributing, and might very well do so. Likewise, until then, even an aristocrat might do something to injure society at large or even undermine his own accomplishments. Therefore, everybody living has the capacity to become common or elite, and no man living – including you and I – can properly be labeled as common or elite. Does that make sense?

Like I said, not really a problem; more of a question, really. For the sake of argument, I will accept your definition of “the masses / the common people / the average man.”

1) You will make every effort to restrain mockery, and unwarranted extrapolations from what I say.

2) I will make every effort to avoid condescension and arrogant tone.

3) We will restrict our comments to very brief, single-topic discussions, so that we can build up a mutual understanding one step at a time without firing a whole shotgun of stuff at each other.

4) We will work first on definitions of terms, so that we don’t waste time talking past each other.

If these are agreeable, let us start by defining what these terms are:

THE MASSES / THE COMMON PEOPLE / THE AVERAGE MAN

My view is that most individuals belong to this group. They do not demonstrate any tangible leadership over others. They tend to consume more resources than they produce. They do not create any new artistic or scientific advancements to mankind’s body of knowlege and culture. They are neither good nor evil – individuals can be either.

The main thing that you fail to understand is that people who actually ARE significantly smarter (IQ>160) almost never appear that way to average people because average people are incapable of comprehending an ability which they truly lack. High Intelligence is not just an ability, it is a completely different mindset that makes those endowed think and behave in ways that often contradict societal norms – because the society is built by less-intelligent (IQ 100-120) people. And so they just look like they are arrogant, ‘Zeus-like’, misanthropic, and dangerously deluded. Or the ones who have been beaten down by the world look like geeks; timid and quirky. That is the way the world wants them to look – not strong and a creative, forceful presence in the world.

In reality, they are the only people who actually are capable of real altruistic leadership. Everybody else just wants power for its own sake. High Intelligence is usually accompanied by High Empathy and a tremendous innate revulsion to barbarism. They are born Wise Leaders, people who would rather die than harm the people through evil use of power.

But you average/normal people are ruled by fear, and you fear that which you do not understand…

My apologies for my angry words. I was hopeful that you could begin to understand me, and my frustration overflowed. I am sorry for this, and I bear you no ill will. I suspect that my enthusiasm got the best of me, and I have expected too much from you too quickly.