202409301347 Status: #idea Tags: #politics #meritocracy # Mass democracy is incompatible with meritocracy Mass democracy (i.e. universal suffrage) is intended to provide a voice to the common people in political matters. Meritocracy is intended to reward those of the highest ability with the most responsibility in stewarding our nation and businesses. By definition, those of high ability are rare - 90.9% of the US population has an IQ below 120, which is the cutoff point between "high average" and "superior" in the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale IQ classifications. An IQ of 130 - the cutoff between "superior" and "gifted" - puts you above 97.7% of the US population. Lastly, an IQ of 140 - the cutoff between "gifted" and "very gifted" - puts you above 99.6% of the US population. Hence, in a meritocratic system, a very tiny proportion of the population (somewhere between 10% and ~0.4%) will take on most of the responsibility of maintaining and progressing society (and thereby reap most of the rewards). We see this in wealth disparities, where the top 10% of the population in the United States holds 77% of the wealth. ![[Pasted image 20240930135648.png]] Thus, the masses of the country (the bottom 90% who do not have the IQ to rise to the top in a meritocratic system) will *always* come to resent the top 10% unless there is some mechanism to justify the existence of the top 10%. In the past, this was achieved through a hereditary aristocracy. But now, in the era of mass democracy, the bottom 90% can impose its will and vote against the interests of the top 10%. This ultimately leads to the collapse of the meritocratic system, as we see today in the US. --- # References https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification