e

J
d
p
J
:
L
5
B
6
4
7
3
5
9

The average tyrant

Posted on April 18, 2014 by Heather Marsh
Part of a series, Autonomy, Diversity, Society. Posts about our roles, relationships and governance. No article in this section is
meant to stand alone, there will be a lot more coming soon that will clarify the current posts.

For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret
machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself as to the
faculties of the mind, I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. Thomas
Hobbes, Leviathan
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal United States
Declaration of Independence
The obviously false statements above have been used to design a social structure that does not and
will never meet the needs of a real society. The average is held up as not only an attainable goal but
also an ideal and the very existence of anything above or below average is frequently denied,
especially in the design of social structures. Anything more than two standard deviations from the
mean is considered either substandard or elite and great societal energy is expended in trying to
merge both of these back into the centre of the bell curve. Those that cannot be merged are
ostracized or treated as parasites.
The majority of society has seen nothing amiss with tying success and happiness to academic
excellence, in complete knowledge that this will ensure a life of misery and failure for those unable to
attain a neurotypical standard. It has been a comedy to see the same middle class who complacently
watched the subjection of generations of the bottom 1% roar with indignation when they find
themselves slipping to that level.

We are the 99%!

is the neatest summation of the tyranny of the bell

curve imaginable. Mass protests occurred in 2011 not because economic disparity affecting basic
human rights is occurring but because it is now happening to average people, the chosen ones. The
instant cry for direct democracy was meant not to ensure human rights for all but to ensure the
majority will once again dominate.
The continuing mistreatment of the less able is todays version of eugenics. Every politician appeals to
the middle class. If they intend to favour the economic top 1% they must convince the middle class it
will eventually benefit them. No politician campaigns on promises to the bottom 1% where human
rights disappear first. The 99% are finally suffering some of what they allowed to happen to the bottom
1% all these years. The bottom 1% has always filled jails and been denied basic essentials and the
opportunity to achieve their potential and pursue happiness. The majority are only horrified when they
start going as well.

All people are equivalent. All people are not equal. This is our strength not a weakness. The lie
that all people are equal has been used to deny people the right to be equivalent.
There is nothing in one level of ability that makes it inherently better than another. It is the artificial
valuation of jobs and the pressure for all to match the peak of the bell curve and attain the same goals
that makes average competence seem an unquestionable virtue. The myth of a straight line of
competence is also false. A person lower in a general cognition spectrum can still be higher in one
system than a specialist from another system. Interest can drive a person to a level of higher expertise
than someone with greater ability. Success in many areas requires no extraordinary ability. Many
abilities such as perceptiveness, ability to communicate and obsessive attention to detail can provide
great value to projects as can insight from diverse backgrounds.
If society refuses to acknowledge that some people are more capable in some areas than average,
children are raised with no alternative than to perceive others as either willfully ignorant or frauds. If
everyone thinks there is a level playing field, they play flat out and some get hurt and angry. If they
think everyone is equal, those who achieve more must have cheated in some way or are lying and
those who achieve less must not be trying hard enough. Anger, frustration and division must result
from forced equality and holding that which is natural for one to be the ultimate standard of
achievement for all.
Bullying by the average is easy as communication and empathy beyond two standard deviations of
cognitive ability is difficult, exhausting and slow. Those outside the majority cannot discuss the
communication difficulties. Anyone below average is given advice on how to become average, anyone
openly above is hated and shunned. Knowledge bridges are needed for communication in both cases
and in both cases those bridging will be loved and celebrated while those trying to communicate will
still be despised. Their voices will be controlled by others and their links to broader society will be at
the whim of those providing communication bridges.

Cognitive ability
Being outside the normative range of physical ability or beauty will bring hostility but not to nearly the
same degree as being outside the normative range of cognitive ability. This may be because even
though all can be tied to economic success, the range in cognitive ability is far greater and more
diverse. While a top athletes achievements may be unattainable by the majority of the population
they are at least able to comprehend them.
Normal is equated with ideal, abnormal is in some way defective or in need of a cure. It was not until
recently that those who deviated from the neurotypical by any great degree in either direction were
even considered the same species as neurotypical humans. This attitude can still be seen today as
failure is said to make a person more human and more deserving of human respect and empathy.

Are the defective a separate species? It Was

Formerly Assumed as a Matter of Course that the Feeble-Minded Belonged to a Distinct Mental
Species. Herbarts theory advanced so long ago, that the feeble-minded form simply the opposite
extreme from genius, and differ from the normal only in degree, made relatively little impression upon
current thought. It was supposed generally that the feebleminded were divided from the normal by a
sharp line of demarcation, on the one side of which stood all who were not feeble-minded, while on the
other side stood all who were so afflicted, the so-called idiots. According to this view, there was also
another line of demarcation, separating the normal people from the geniuses, who like the feebleminded formed a separate species.
As recently as 1920 Leta Hollingworth had to ask

It is obvious that those considered not even human were also left out of the Lockean notion of equality
along with women, children, slaves, etc. The importance that we see attached to iq today, in particular
in the endless debate over whether it can be tied to ethnicity, sex or gender, lies in the societal
acceptance which inclusion in the normative range still brings. Inclusion programs focus on kindly
teaching those at the ends of the bell curve how to be average. Utopias and futuristic societies nearly
always show everyone equal as an ideal we have somehow attained, something only possible by
eugenics.
The smug arrogance and condescending simper of most neurotypicals explaining something to a
person with relative cognitive difficulties would be deemed a socialization problem if it were directed at
a neurotypical. Usually neurotypicals dont even attempt to communicate outside their comfort zone
and it is left to those at the ends to have their attempts at communication judged and found wanting.
The ease of communication awarded as a birthright to neurotypicals is promoted as a virtue, as being
a good team player, communicator, socially adept or simply popular.
It is completely unacceptable to call a person relative terms such as ugly, fat or stupid. It is acceptable
to point out that they are, relatively speaking, disfigured, obese or learning disabled. It is only within
the average ranges that relative insults are verboten. The handicapped are called handicapped despite
the obvious relative meaning to the term. Neurotypicals are also handicapped compared to some but
they would not tolerate the term directed at them. Even calling them average or common is deemed
insulting. Average must be presented as the ideal, a normal way of being.
The self-appointed normal in society once debated eugenics to dispose of those they labeled
gradations of idiots, imbeciles and morons and condemned them to childhoods facing a corner with a
dunce cap on. These days are not in the past as debates over whether those at one end should be
allowed to vote or reproduce continue and people are classified as having a mental age of a number
correlating to neurotypical development. Neurotypicals are comparatively mentally incompetent too
but they are still allowed to vote on subjects far outside their comprehension. A society concerned
about equal rights for all would consider that for everyone neurotypicals consider a relative imbecile
there are equivalent numbers of people who feel the same about them.

Diversity and collaboration

Neurotypicals are raised with a deep belief in their right to participate in all aspects of society at every
level. It is a very common neurotypical reaction when they feel excluded from a group or activity by
lack of knowledge to assume there was some sort of invitation, initiation or training which they did not
receive. They then demand to be appraised of all work and discussion, through meetings, minutes,
memos etc. and to have everything explained to them. Their work methods are presented as superior
as there is always plenty of evidence to show that the majority of workers prefer them. They are
permitted to derail working environments on the basis of inclusiveness even while they are excluding
those who work better at a faster or slower level. They are convinced they have an inherent right to be
included as an equal in every working or decision making forum through the democratic principle of

always right implies some quota on the number of times it is

socially acceptable to be right. Know-it-all is used as an insult, implying that knowing too much is an
equal votes. The sneer that a person is
antisocial act.
If people wish to truly promote a fully egalitarian society then everyone must be made to converse at
a level easily understood by the lowest level of cognitive ability. When parents are willing to allow their
neurotypical children to be educated at a level two or four standard deviations below their own, the
quest for equality will have some moral ground to stand on. Until then, collaborative environments
must allow discussion at all levels to provide equivalent fulfillment. Not doing so simply drives
epistemic communities into back rooms and secret groups where they are not obliged to communicate
with the public and their work is not transparent for everyones benefit.
The

conceit of individual genius is condemned by proponents of the far more unlikely conceit of

originality from the hive mind. It is a physical impossibility for a group to have an original idea as it has
no mind. The hive does have a shared memory bank and simultaneous thought can occur if an
environmental stimulus triggers a shared memory but simultaneous thought is, by definition, not
original. If an idea is new, not only must it come from one mind, it must be patiently taught and
debated by the originator. If it is to be generally accepted it must also be presented as coming from
the hive mind, the voice of the people or whatever the euphemism of the day is. If an idea must be
explained to a broad section of the public it must come from a knowledge bridge in the form of a not
too intelligent western man.
The economic elite, those holding the power in the world, play to this conceit by propping up folksy
politicians such as the little guy from Shawnigan Jean Chretien or the definitely-not-smarter-than-you
Sarah Palin, while the majority of the Davos Group have no public profiles. The economic elite are
those who by luck and privilege find themselves in positions of power and influence. Elite intelligence
and ability did not bring us the problems in the world today, it was greed and sociopathy across all
levels of society. Neurotypical intolerance of others has prevented any transparency between
epistemic communities and the general public and allowed sociopaths to stand between the two and
control society.

The path from elite, specialized knowledge to broad acceptance is extremely difficult to traverse. Some
people enjoy being knowledge bridges and appreciate the challenge, others find it frustrating and a
waste of time. Right now everyone who is not at the top of the bell curve is expected to spend huge
amounts of unacknowledged time and energy communicating with the neurotypical elite and their
effort is never appreciated. It is usually punished. Ideas that are important for the public to understand
and accept but are undesirable to those in power are easily intercepted and replaced with more
convenient truths. The majority of ideas that could benefit the public simply never arrive as the source
cannot find the way to communicate their idea or a way to receive the support needed to develop it.

All humans have the equal right to attain their full potential
We do not have human dignity when we are kept in a state below what we are capable of achieving or
in a system which fails to recognize where we naturally excel. We do not have the right to associate or
to refuse to associate when we are made to converse always at a level far below or above where we
are comfortable. We do not have societal acceptance when we are given an impossible ideal to attain
to be part of society. We do not have our basic rights when they are contingent on our meeting an
ideal which is impossible for us. We are not accepted as part of society if our needs must be met by
charity.
Anyone within two standard deviations of the mean cognitive ability is able to travel through life in full
expectation of being able to have a conversation at precisely their level with everyone. Most people

are capable of connecting with others on a topic such as the weather but societal acceptance implies
occasionally being able to have connections on deeper topics. Feeling always guarded against ridicule
and misunderstanding and never having a real conversation contributes to a life of extreme loneliness
and frustration. This is true not just for extreme ends of cognitive ability but for atypical thinkers of all
kinds, even extreme introverts.

Hollingworth also noted the acute social problems of children with IQs over 160. Moderately gifted
children, those whose IQs measure between 125 and 155, were ones she found to be emotionally well
balanced. These children had what she called a socially optimal IQ level and had no problem making
friends. But those with IQs over 160 typically suffered from social isolation. (Winner 226).
Terman studied a population of lower iq than Hollingworth (average 150) and also selected people
whose ability was recognized by their family and school and who were already in a track to achieve
their potential. This population cannot be compared with those who have no hope of ever achieving
their potential and are surrounded by a social group hostile to what they see as an enemy elite.

And yet Even Terman admitted that children with very high IQs faced acute social problems.
Termans subjects who scored 170 or higher on IQ tests were said to have one of the most difficult
problems of social adjustment that any human being is ever called upon to meet.At age fourteen, 60
percent of the boys with such high IQs and 73 percent of the girls were described by their teachers as
solitary and as poor mixers. (Winner 225)
Note that these talented children and adolescents seem to have problems not because of any inherent
social and emotional difficulties but rather because they are so different from others. They are out of
synch. If they could find others like themselves, their social problems might well disappear.
Academically gifted children often underperform, not only because they are underchallenged but also
because they work below their level to win social acceptance. (Winner 230)
Without the ability to communicate directly with society it is impossible to achieve the recognition or
approval needed to survive.
The Psychology of Subnormal Children. Contributors: Leta S. Hollingworth Author. Publisher: Macmillan. Place of
publication: New York. Publication year: 1920.
Gifted Children: Myths and Realities. Contributors: Ellen Winner
Publisher: BasicBooks Place of publication: New York Publication year: 1996

To read more check out, Binding Chaos: mass collaboration global scale by Heather Marsh.
http://www.amazon.com/Binding-Chaos-collaboration-global-scale/dp/1489527680