The One Per Cent (1%) - Is it a Phenomenon of Nature itself? Is it Fair? Is it our enemy?

by Terry 25 Replies latest jw friends

  • Terry

    Open Discussion

    The Rich and Powerful VS the struggling poor.

    The 1% we all hear about...

    Is it FAIR that a tiny minority has more and wins more often than the rest of us?

    (Let's make a survey)

    Humans are physically among the most vulnerable species and yet people

    and human society is at the apex of the food chain.


    Human ingenuity throughout history has produced discoveries and technologies

    made by a tiny minority: (GENIUS minority) by which the rest (non-genius) have benefited.

    Brace yourself for a shocking fact statistic:

    Only approximately 1% of the people in the world have an IQ of 135 or over.

    Genius or near-genius IQ is considered to begin around 140 to 145. Less than 1/4 of 1 percent falls into this category. (Average I.Q. is 100).

    Is College the answer?

    Note: Being formally educated is quite different from being a genius!
    739 out of the total 2,473 billionaires in the world didn’t go to college.

    Genius is born and not made. Stop and take a deep breath.
    What chance do the rest of us have?


    Genius is not FAIR in terms of the rest of the population.

    It just "IS"what it IS.


    Michael Faraday

    Faraday worked in a London bookshop, with no formal education.

    And yet --

    He was a genuine experimental genius and is considered one of the most influential scientists of all time for his experiments and discoveries regarding electricity and magnetism.

    Faraday approached London's best scientist at the time, Humphrey Davies, and asked to work with him as an assistant. Davy kicked him out.

    Faraday returned again and again until - well - you guessed it. He was given a chance.

    The result?

    Faraday invented the electric motor, the electric generator, the Bunsen burner, electrolysis and electroplating. He discovered electromagnetic induction; he discovered benzene;
    he figured out the shape of magnetic fields, discovered metallic nano-particles
    (thought to be the birth of nano-science) and something complicated about chlorine.

    Basically, he was a natural born science machine.

    Year later, Humphrey Davy was asked what his greatest discovery had been.

    He replied: "Michael Faraday!"


    William Hershel was only educated as a cello player and organist.

    He didn't own a telescope.

    He had no training as an astronomer. And yet - ?

    He taught himself to grind lenses and built a magnificent telescope and began studying the heavens. On his own, he discovered a tiny shift in the path of a teeny light in the sky. A new planet.
    How odd!
    He simply willed himself to succeed at astronomy.


    Srinivasa Ramanujan

    An uneducated, poverty-stricken boy in India, Ramanujan was a real-life Good Will Hunting.

    He taught himself math, and turned out to be one of the greatest math geniuses to come along in the last few centuries.

    His parents gave him a math textbook on advanced trigonometry around age 11.

    "Ya think yer so smart? Well, take this and don't come back until ..."

    Ramanujan entered college at age 13 and flunked out. Yeah. FLUNKED.

    You see, he was only interested in MATH. (Forget that other stuff.)

    College would have hindered the boy! Conformity is the enemy of genius.

    He was busy inventing new theorems which he mailed off to various famous heads of Math departments around the world. They ignored him because - well -- this kid is a teenager.

    Finally, Thomas Hardy at Cambridge invited him to come work at the University. Ramanujan refused. Today, his formulas have found uses in everything from string theory to crystallography.

    Ramanujan died at age 32.


    GENIUS just isn’t fair. It just HAPPENS...and happens naturally.
    A "freak of nature."

    Sort of X-Men style weirdness - eh? Freaks of nature.


    The 1% may not be FAIR - but it is a fact of Nature itself

    Go out in any schoolyard. Let the kids select who they want on their team as team mates.
    Will it be fair?

    In Baseball, Football, Soccer, Basketball we insist that the BEST players be hired rather than the lesser talents. Is this FAIR??

    Maybe not - but it is MOST EFFECTIVE to take advantage of it.

    No one would argue that short players with fewer skills be put on the Celtics basketball team just to be "Fair".

    Winning is the result that is sought. The ability to win is the paramount standard----not FAIRNESS.

    Should we be angry at the nature of Nature that survival and competition is really all about (not equality but) achievement? Ability? Talent?

    Business is competition. Business is often a Zero Sum Game of "I win -You Lose."

    UNFAIR competition is what galls all of us. But then, wouldn't you expect clever geniuses to seek every possible advantage? How about the Sociopath Genius? Eh?

    Fascination with predatory Capitalism may well be fascination with Nature itself disguised as a scourge.
    Why should the Lion get to be the King of the Jungle?
    Should the animals complain, riot, petition?

    Actually ...Nature itself is a battleground of constant complaint, petition, struggle and survival by wit, talent, instinct, and natural insight.
    Any collective (human or lesser beasts) clusters around WINNERS so the weak have a chance for survival.
    What are "HEROES" anyway?
    What are "CELEBRITIES" anyway?
    Isn't this our animal instincts creeping into everyday life in a twisted expression of "ADMIRATION of THE WINNERS" as Apex 1%?


    Everybody begins life at the starting line in a race to success.

    Question: Should we HOLD BACK the swift, the talented, the genius?

    Shouldn't we give a 'head start" to minorities, under-achievers, people of color, females, physically challenged, and different-gendered?

    IT WOULD BE MORE FAIR - right?
    Of course!

    BUT ...

    DOES IT DO ANY GOOD as to "equality" of outcome?

    I watched an interview with one of the Poker Geniuses of all time, Doyle Brunson.

    He was asked how much "luck" there was in his game.

    He smiled and replied, "None, luck is for suckers! It is a skill. The best players will---time after time--end up with the money. Look at the tournaments.

    Everybody starts with the exact same amount of money. Within a day or two it is no coincidence the better players remain."



    Making an enemy of the 1% is making an enemy of talent, an enemy of genius, and the producers of discovery, invention, and technological advancement.

    Maybe ...just maybe ... tampering with Nature is a sign of good intention but a self-inflicted wound!

    EFFECTIVE people always seem to win out over ineffective people.
    Do I hear a loud “DUH!” ??

    Arguing “Fairness” may be a stupid argument.
    Or - it may not. Should we refocus on changing something else instead?

    Here's what I think.
    I think Political Correctness is how the rest of us are gamed by those who would
    disunite society for their own agenda.
    If we are made to see the "other" side as our enemy - we are too emotional to get smart and be effective.
    I believe our Political Systems have been gamed by sociopath geniuses and the corruption is down to the root. Lackeys get elected by an uniformed and manipulated electorate who keep believing the same old slogans, lies, promises, while being inflamed against some STRAW MAN enemy.

    Politicians have NO solutions and even if they did - there is no functioning / non-corrupt conduit to deliver such solutions.

    The Powerful are the 1% because Nature won't have it any other way.
    We may as well get angry at circles for not having square edges.

    WHAT DO YOU think?

  • LoveUniHateExams

    Only approximately 1% of the people in the world have an IQ of 135 or over - and most of these geniuses are men.

    I don't know what the actual gender ratio is - it might be something like 12:1.

    Males dominate both ends of the IQ distribution (the dumb end and the genius end).

    Edit - good OP, Terry.

    There's no point whinging about things 'not being fair'. That's what children do. In fact, it could be argued that the top 1% geniuses being successful is completely fair. IQ is a pretty good indicator of success.

  • Terry

    Those who are effective have little time to spend simply complaining. Since they generally have the money to do so - they resort to Lawsuits to redress grievances.
    Lawsuits are the fangs and claws of today's species of apex 1%.

    The "great masses of unwashed" non-geniuses are manipulated into whining, playing victim Ineffectively. They are "steered" toward fake community leaders with hidden agendas.

    The answer to inequality by political means is a one-step-forward two-steps-backward deal with the devil.
    Political parties seek to "own" underprivileged groups by promising things and making boogeymen scarecrows appear in the alternative camp.
    ELITES on both sides have grudging contempt for the underclass while pretending to love them and have their best interests at heart.
    This is where sociopath leadership shines. The charisma of "Great" religious and Political figures is legendary.

    "He's no saint, but he's our hero."
    I've lived 72 years from Truman to Trump and I've watched how this game is played.
    When has it ever not been a choice between the "Lesser of two evils"?
    When you choose - you get exactly this: evil.

    Smiling, charming, empathetic sociopath evil beset on all sides by the other side.

    We are chumps. Our only genuine choice is either Revolution (which fills the streets with blood) or dropping out and fending for ourselves.

    We are those hominids at the start of Kubrick's 2001.
    The bone of contention is grappled, gnawed and bludgeoning us to this very moment.

  • peacefulpete

    Influence and luck are as good of predictors of financial success as raw intelligence. Timing and opportunity have to preexist. Then there is the question of what type of intelligence, self awareness, social awareness, problem solving? How about the role that having the "right" look i.e. physical appearance of competency? So many factors. But the general thesis asks do some have less potential than others...Of course.

    This is where a social contract is necessary. We all live in society, not all have the potential to prosper, some not even to survive. Can those with more potential ignore that reality? should they? For pragmatic reasons every civilization has seen the need to ensure basic necessities for everyone, at least philosophically. The debates rage regarding just what those basic necessities consist of and what is a reasonable cost to those with greater potential to ensure that?

  • Billzfan23

    It's not only fair, it's critical for future life and economic balance. For example, the socialist left bitches about the Walton family making 4 million bucks per hour. Well, they employ 2.2 million people globally (directly or indirectly). So, when a bleeding heart liberal whines about how rich the rich are, they need to be reminded of the fact that the very existence of the ultra rich keeps the masses OUT of poverty.

  • peacefulpete

    Damn Terry, you are pretty jaded. lol. Perspective. More of the world has a good quality of life than ever before. That is the direct result of individuals working hard for the interests of others. Not all politicians are sociopaths, some are idealists, some just want to do their part to make society function. Not all promises are lies. Not every new thing is a ploy or a scam.

  • Terry

    I can't begin to tell you what I witnessed with my eyes!
    In fact, in London and France and Spain, I saw gorgeous parks, monuments, buildings of impossible genius which exist with incredible beauty - BUT - only because tyrants, dictators, self-indulged egos decreed they must be built.

    Talk about mixed feelings!

    It is an utter waste of time to scream nasty adjectives at the OTHER GUYS and ignore the facts about a corrupt system of good-old-boys (and gals) with cash sewn into their mattresses by lobbyists.

    I'm saying there is NO WAY OUT of corruption in politics. Not now. Not ever.
    They are much better at this than we are.
    They made the rules. They own the power.
    Who are "they?"

    Exactly who you think they are.
    Replace them with a better and more noble savage reformer?

    Oh PLEASE!!

  • LoveUniHateExams

    Influence and luck are as good of predictors of financial success as raw intelligence - no, I don't think so.

    IQ is a great indicator of financial success.

    Mean IQ varies between ethnic groups. The pattern of this is echoed in the so-called 'achievement gap'.

    Chinese and Jewish Americans have the highest mean salaries. They also happen to top the IQ chart (these two groups have the highest mean IQ figures).

  • peacefulpete

  • sir82

    The Rich and Powerful VS the struggling poor.

    The 1% we all hear about...

    Your opening statement is about the economic "1%" - the wealthiest.

    The rest of your post is about the intellectual "1%" - the smartest.

    I don't see why there is necessarily a correlation between the two.

    A whole hell of a lot of the "wealthiest" 1% inherited their wealth and are as dumb as gravel.

    A whole hell of a lot of the "smartest" 1% have never had the opportunity, or the inclination, to turn that intelligence into massive wealth.

    Seems like you are conflating two different groups. The overlap of the Venn diagram, I suspect, is quite small.

Share this