the elite
By definition the “elite” are those who are socially perceived to possess those unique talents or abilities that are vital to the success of society. The “mediocrities” are those who are socially perceived to be devoid of such unique talents and abilities.
In stable modern societies these categories are determined largely on the basis of an intuitive response to the social landscape. It is intuitively assumed that the accumulation of material goods is solely a function of skill and, therefore, merit. Consequently, society can exploit that circumstance for its general improvement by granting the “skillful and meritorious” social power. Of course, the socially powerful must also enjoy celebrity, since it is necessary that the mediocrities be able to recognize those to whom they are expected to defer. The elite are, therefore, defined on the basis of wealth and celebrity. Incidentally, for our purposes the term is restricted to those wielding social power. Extreme wealth always exercises social power. The case is less certain with celebrity. There are particular instances of persons with a high level of celebrity who have little or no social power – for example, someone like Einstein. But the generality is that wealth and celebrity define the elite. The lack of wealth and celebrity would, therefore, be an intuitive confirmation of “mediocrity”.
However, we also understand that the ultimate human goal has to be the survivability and success of the human species, and our progressive access to the truth is essential to increasing the probability of attaining that goal. So two questions arise. Are the elites the most effective truth-producers? If not, do they use their social power to produce an environment in which all truth-producers flourish?
With regard to the first question, to achieve and maintain status as a member of the elite does require a considerable level of skill. But we must also consider whether or not the exercising of such skill is also conducive to “merit” - and merit can only refer to one circumstance, and that is the achievement of the ultimate human goal.
As previously determined, truth arises from the progressive discovery of some new understanding of the fundamental nature of things. I know of no instance in which a member the socially powerful has ever accomplished this. Why this should be so becomes clear if we analyze the mentality required for the attainment of social power.
By way of example, let us consider the distinction between the concepts of an “engineer’s truth” and a “lawyer’s truth”. First, with regard to an “engineer’s truth”, consider the situation of a new building that collapses. In the wake of such a tragedy, engineers will conduct a forensic review. That is, they will analyze the design, materials, manner of construction, etc to determine the precise cause of the collapse. Once that has occurred, they change their practice. That is, whatever assumptions were being made that produce the collapse will be not be made again. With regard to a “lawyer’s truth”, consider the situation in which DNA evidence has exonerated someone previously convicted of a crime. But in this case, I know of no instance in which a forensic examination has been made of the assumptions and procedures used in the original trial that produced the wrongful conviction. In this circumstance there has been no change in practice.
In both instances we have objective evidence (a collapsed building and DNA exoneration) that tells us something is wrong with current practice. In the first example we have a change in practice, which produces an improvement in the human condition (fewer collapsed buildings). However, in the second instance, in the absence of corrective DNA evidence, whatever the faulty assumptions were that produced the wrongful conviction will continue to be used, producing more wrongful convictions. In this example, with no change in practice, there is no improvement in the human condition (no reduction in the conviction of the innocent).
We can discern the dynamic in the human condition that produces this unhappy result, if we reduce our focus from the human condition in general to the dynamics in the legal profession specifically. First, we recognize that as is the case of culture in general, such is the case with particular social institutions within a culture. That is, the primary purpose of any social institution is its own replication. The “established body of juris prudence” (adherence to which defines the legal profession - a social institution) is the functional equivalent in legal terms of a “conventional wisdom”. And as is the case with the standard “conventional wisdom”, the legal “conventional wisdom” contains many assumptions that are at variance with what cognitive research has revealed about the human condition – such as the evaluation of eyewitness testimony, standards for judging the credibility of witnesses, etc.
An “engineer’s truth” is a contention solely reliant on objectified information and, therefore, truth. In consequence, all other adequately informed people would corroborate that contention. A “lawyer’s truth” relies on the manipulation of the values of the conventional wisdom in such a manner as to support a particular contention. But conventional wisdom is of unknown value in the determination of truth. Therefore, there is no certainty that all other adequately informed people would corroborate that contention. Indeed, we know that reliance on conventional wisdom can be the source of deception on the issue of fairness in social arrangements. In other words, a “lawyer’s truth” is simply sophistry.
Since the status of the elite can only be sustained by the broad acceptance of the conventional wisdom, the critical “skill” required is the ability to manipulate other people into that acceptance, with other considerations (such as truth-production) being of secondary interest.
The elite are not truth-producers because truth-production is irrelevant to the maintenance of their status.
With regard the second question, whether or not truth-producers are allowed to flourish depends on the type of truth that’s being produced.
If the truth produced is the regularities of nature that prevail under the theory of quantum mechanics, there is no problem. This theory has no direct implications to the values of the conventional wisdom and, thus, does not challenge the status of the elite. Indeed, such truths have the potential to improve technology, which could further improve the condition of the elite so long as the advantages produced by the improvements are constrained by the values of the conventional wisdom.
If the truth produced is that poverty reduces “IQ”s of the poor, that is a problem. The conventional wisdom is that low “IQ”s produce poverty, which would then be a natural consequence of the human condition. However, if the reverse were shown to be true – that is, it is not low “IQ”s which cause poverty but rather that poverty causes low “IQ”s - that finding would present a serious challenge the values of the conventional wisdom, and, thus, to undermine the status of the elite. Therefore, allowing such truth- producers to flourish would be in conflict with their interests.
The elite have no interest in allowing all truth-producers to flourish because certain types of truth have the potential to challenge their status.
In summary, the elite are focused on the maintenance of their power. They are power predators. The mentality required in this quest is that of the hunter/gather brain – the reliance on intuitive responses.
This conclusion does not assume that the elite are always engaged in a conscious effort at deception. Quite to the contrary, it is highly likely that the elite actually believe they possess those unique talents or abilities that are vital to the success of the human species. But as Richard Feynman has pointed out, the first requirement in our quest to find things out is not to fool ourselves.
All mass societies need some sort of hierarchical structure for social coordination, which necessarily requires that the individuals who fill those hierarchical “niches” be granted social authority. But we also understand that those in social authority can have a vested interest in compromising the ultimate human goal. Therefore, the social deference granted to the “power predators” is badly misplaced, since the mentality governing them can compromise our ability to get to the truth. Consequently, the attitude of the mediocrities toward the elite should never be one of deference but rather of scrutiny. That is, they must have the capacity to judge whether or not the exercise of social authority violates any of the principles enumerated in the section on Human Decency.
“Legitimate” social authority (that is, social authority that promotes the ultimate human goal) must be based on transparency, not trust. Granting un-scrutinized social control to the socially perceived elite can seriously compromise our ability to get to the truth and, therefore, reduces the probability for the long-term survivability and success of the human species – the ultimate human goal.
- Home
- Introduction
- Part 1
- Truth
- Insights
- The Human Condition
- Education
- Human Decency
- Enlightenment
- Part 2
- Culture Demystified
- The Elite
- Mediocrities
- Self-regard
- Self and Society
- Part 3
- Morals, Ethics, and Virtue
- The Concept of Evil is a Bad Idea
- Religion
- Patriotism
- Freedom
- Market Capitalism
- Wealth Distribution