guided by the highest moral imperative, which for every human being should be care for the safety, well-being, and prosperous development of all humanity, individual societies, and all individuals comprising those societies;

drawing from the traditions, experiences, and historical achievements of human thought;

respecting values common to the entire human race, universally recognized human rights, and principles of ethics;

sharing the view of those intellectuals who consider the crisis of human thought to be the source of all other crises, including global and local military conflicts;

recognizing that natural intelligence, as an innate cognitive faculty unique to humans, has enabled them to become the most powerful species on Earth and to begin the exploration of Space;

considering that the greatest civilizational progress occurred in times when exceptionally intelligent and talented individuals formed intellectual elites enjoying the respect and trust of both rulers and the ruled;

noting the historical causes and socio-political conditions of the progressive devaluation of natural intelligence, the consequence of which is the social and professional marginalization of individuals endowed with the highest intelligence in the world and extraordinary talent, as well as the violation of basic human rights in relation to these individuals;

identifying the stigmatization, harassment, and ultimate exclusion of exceptionally intelligent individuals from social and professional life as the most serious yet unnoticed civilizational problem, even though it directly affects only a fraction of a percentile of the human population;

anticipating the tragic consequences for the development of humanity resulting from the systematic and systemic deprivation of exceptionally intelligent and talented individuals of opportunities to participate in social and professional life, while they are the fundamental condition and creators of all progress, especially scientific and technological;

considering that exceptionally intelligent and talented individuals constitute a common good of all humanity, whose intellectual potential cannot be wasted and should be subject to supranational care and special protection;

stating the urgent existential need to establish, through a declaratory commitment by the authorities of individual states, a document that compiles in a systematized whole the entirety of the rights of exceptionally intelligent and talented individuals, and restores to them their special role as creators of progress—

hereby present the Charter of Rights of Exceptionally Intelligent and Talented Individuals.

The Charter is intended to serve as an inspiration primarily for the United Nations Organization, due to its statutory tasks, as well as for political leaders, governments of individual states, institutions and governmental and non-governmental organizations, and for all forums and natural persons interested in the development of humanity and the civilization it has created. Any initiative undertaken for the adoption of the Charter is not only evidence of the obvious conviction that no one and nothing can replace the most intelligent and talented individuals as generators of progress and creators of humanity’s development. It is above all an expression of care for the quality of life of present and future generations, and in the face of the numerous current and future crises afflicting our civilization, it is also a necessary tool conditioning the survival of humanity.

Charter of Rights of Exceptionally Intelligent and Talented Individuals

For submission to all persons, organizations, institutions, and authorities interested in the development of humanity and civilization.

INTRODUCTION

We are currently experiencing an increasingly evident slowdown in the progress of science, technology, and civilization[1], [2], which is beginning to pose a threat to the survival of the human species [3], [4]. Various authors unsuccessfully attempt to discern the reasons for this phenomenon [5], [6].

As early as the second half of the 20th century, the Polish writer, philosopher, and visionary Stanisław Lem presented the following rationally obvious cause of this state of affairs:

“ Humanity owes its progress to geniuses. Above all, its progress of thought, because collectively one might hit upon a way of hewing flint, but one cannot through joint effort invent the zero. He who conceived it was the first genius in history. “Could the zero—is it likely—have been thought up by four individuals together, each contributing a quarter?” […].

Humanity is not wont to deal kindly with its geniuses. “Es ist schlecht Geschäft, einer Genius zu sein!” […]. Geniuses have a rough time of it. Some more than others, because geniuses are not all equal. […]. First come your run-of-the-mill and middling geniuses, that is, of the third order, whose minds are unable to go much beyond the horizon of their times. These, relatively speaking, are threatened the least; they are often recognized and even come into money and fame. The genuises of the second order are already too difficult for their contemporaries and therefore fare worse. In antiquity they were mainly stoned, in the Middle Ages burned at the stake; later, in keeping with the temporary amelioration of customs, they were allowed to die a natural death by starvation, and sometimes even were maintained at the community’s expense in madhouses. A few were given poison by the local authorities, and many went into exile. Meanwhile, the powers that be, both secular and ecclesiastical, competed for first prize in ‘geniocide’ […]. Nonetheless, recognition awaits the geniuses of the second order, in the form of a triumph beyond the grave. By way of compensation, libraries and public squares are named after them, fountains and monuments are raised to them, and historians shed decorous tears over such lapses of the past. In addition […] there exist, for there must exist, geniuses of the highest category. The intermediate types are discovered either by the succeeding generation or by some later one; the geniuses of the first order are never known—not by anyone, not in life, not after death. For they are creators of truths so unprecedented, purveyors of proposals so revolutionary, that not a soul is capable of making head or tail of them. Therefore, permanent obscurity constitutes the normal lot of the Geniuses of the Highest Class. But even their colleagues of weaker intellect are discovered usually as a result of pure accident. For example, on scrawled-over sheets of paper that fishwives use at the market to wrap the herring, you will make out theorems of some sort, or poems, and as soon as these see print, there is a moment of general enthusiasm, then everything goes on as before. Such a state of affairs should not be allowed to continue. At stake, surely, are irretrievable losses to civilization. One must create a Society for the Preservation of Geniuses of the First Order and from it appoint an Exploration Committee that will take up the task of systematic searches” [7].

This 20th-century text by Lem provokes discussions and interest with its iron logic and visionary character [8], [9]. It follows that individuals who could generate incredible scientific and technological progress, capable among other things of preventing the starvation deaths of millions of people dying annually from hunger, including children, are themselves condemned by society to death from starvation [10].

I. The Crisis of the Development in the Contemporary World

Agreeing with the logical and factual obviousness of Lem’s arguments, we observe that it is precisely as a result of the social, professional, and economic exclusion of the most outstanding individuals that we are living today in times of an unprecedented crisis [11]. Science, technology, culture, and even the evolution of human consciousness itself [12] are coming to a halt in various areas, and sometimes even undergoing progressive regression [13]. As noted by many well-known authors [14], progress in the key field of physics has never been as slow in modern times as it has been over the past several decades [15]. Currently, its development (especially in the theoretical sphere, but recently also in the area of applications) consists largely of simulating progress [16], [17].

As the renowned German physicist and scientific dissident Sabine Hossenfelder recently observed:

“We are today making more investments into the foundations of physics than ever before. And yet nothing is coming out of it” [18].

Progress in research in another key field—medicine—has also recently slowed down and has become, to a significant extent, merely apparent progress [19]. Moreover, a recent study [20] published in the leading journal Nature, which analyzed data from 45 million articles and 3.9 million patents over six decades, indicates that both scientific papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time, meaning they are less likely to fundamentally change existing knowledge or push science in new directions [21].

All this results in the fact that—as many authors also note—technological progress outside of informatics came to a halt at the end of the 1960s [22]. In turn, Artificial Intelligence seemed to offer hope for the continuation of progress in informatics, but in this field as well, voices are increasingly heard suggesting that it is already approaching the limits of its capabilities [23]. Among other things, attention is drawn to the fact that further progress in developing and using AI would require us to significantly increase electricity production [24], [25]. This effectively places us once again in the position of needing new progress in physics and the acquisition of new energy sources [26], [27].

Of course, as a consequence of this lack of innovation and creativity, we have stopped traveling to the Moon, despite successive grand announcements we no longer fly passenger supersonic aircraft across the Atlantic, we have not invented a cure for cancer, and humanity has not—contrary to earlier hopes—been freed from the necessity of heavy physical labor [28].

As the well-known German-American entrepreneur Peter Thiel wrote about this:

“We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters” [29].

This famous quote summarizes the increasingly evident trend in the contemporary world, which consists of replacing genuine progress with the pursuit of novelties and the drive to make any changes whatsoever in order to mask stagnation and the deepening lack of creativity. Of course, as Benjamin Franklin already noted in a letter to his son, novelty cannot be equated with progress [30]. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that progress does not consist in changing everything around us, but in a profound transformation of the heart and spirit [31]. He also believed that value does not lie in external novelty, but in developing what is true and deeply rooted in humanity [32]. Meanwhile, Ralph Waldo Emerson argued that not everything new is better than the old—sometimes it is the opposite [33]. Finally, Isaiah Berlin stated:

“Often what is modern and innovative is merely a simple inversion of an old idea; true progress requires critical reflection” [34].

If, therefore, we socially exclude individuals inclined toward critical reflection—that is, people with high intelligence who are ready to bear the burden of developing self-awareness—then society ceases to be capable of generating genuine progress [35].

II. The Mental Crisis

So-called developed societies have been plagued for years by an epidemic of suicides and an unprecedented epidemic of mental illnesses in the history of the world, which continues to grow. “According to statistical data from the World Health Organization (WHO), 800,000 people worldwide take their own lives each year. WHO reports emphasize that someone commits suicide every 40 seconds, while someone attempts suicide every 3 seconds” [36]. [37]

As predicted by WHO, by 2030, depression will be the most common disease in the world. The WHO report indicates that mental disorders are widespread, affecting 1 in 8 people, which means approximately 970 million people worldwide. Detailed data from the WHO report:

• Prevalence of mental disorders: 1 in 8 people experience mental disorders. Estimates: Approximately 970 million people worldwide suffer from mental disorders.

• Increase in anxiety and depression: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant increase in anxiety and depression, by 26% and 28% respectively.

• Depression: 280 million people worldwide suffer from depression.

• Anxiety disorders: 301 million people worldwide experience anxiety disorders.

• Schizophrenia: Approximately 24 million people worldwide suffer from schizophrenia.

• Bipolar affective disorders: Approximately 40 million people worldwide suffer from bipolar disorders.

Impact on life: People with severe mental illnesses die on average 10 to 20 years earlier than those without such disorders.

The situation is significantly worse in Western countries. Studies show that each year, 164.8 million residents of the European Union (38.2%) suffered from mental health disorders.

According to research results, the most common mental health disorders were: anxiety disorders (14%), insomnia (7%), depression (6.9%), somatic disorders (6.3%), disorders caused by alcohol and psychoactive substance use (>4%), ADHD in children and adolescents (5%), dementia (1-30% depending on age). The WHO report diagnoses that mental disorders have become the greatest health challenge in Europe in the 21st century [38]. [39]

As noted by David Nutt, a psychopharmacologist from Imperial College London, if nothing changes, mental disorders and brain diseases will be the most serious health problem for humanity in the coming centuries [40].

III. The Information and Spiritual Crisis

This testifies to a profound crisis in both culture and human consciousness as a whole, which, instead of developing, has entered a phase of regression. In this context, digitization and the influence of technology are significant (although access to cultural content is now easier, it is accompanied by scattered attention and a lack of understanding of the content), as well as the erosion of values that become too difficult for the mass recipient [41].

An important factor is also information overload: the enormous amount of available information and final content makes it increasingly difficult to separate what is valuable from superficial or irrelevant content [42].

The contemporary mental crisis is a multi-aspect process, primarily of degenerative changes, which adversely affects both individuals and entire societies.

This crisis is undoubtedly caused by the undervaluation of reason, which is programmatically displaced from contemporary culture and spirituality [43]. Evidence of this displacement is the abandonment by contemporary literature, art, and science of the search for absolute truth and its replacement with satisfaction in conventional post-truth [44]. As the renowned cultural historian Felipe Fernández-Armesto writes:

“Undertaking the search for truth with deep conviction has always been a source of inspiration and a call to action. Thanks to it, progress was made and civilization developed. By abandoning it, we have no certainty whether we will move even a step further or whether we will survive as a species at all” [45].

The undervaluation of reason is accompanied by a progressive crisis of mentality, one of the key aspects of which is the commercialization of culture, manifesting itself in the growing importance of mass culture, which limits artistic and intellectual diversity and depth [46]. [47]

IV. The Crisis of Science

The decline in standards and quality of science is evident, among other things, in phenomena such as the pressure to publish and the drive toward obtaining quick results. The term “publish or perish” refers to the (often informal) mandate to publish large quantities of papers in a short time, which leads to superficial research [48]. Funding for scientific research depends today on short-term and specific results, which encourages scientists to choose projects that can yield quick outcomes at the expense of more long-term and innovative research [49]. This also results in the fragmentation of research: to publish quickly, scientists must divide larger projects into smaller parts, which in turn leads to a lack of synthesis and deeper understanding of the subject. This again has a negative impact on the quality of work. The fast pace and pressure for quantity in publications lead to errors, a decline in the value of research, and problems with the reproducibility of results [50]. [51]

At the same time, it is known that the most groundbreaking scientific results come from basic research, which is usually time-consuming, difficult to value, and rarely has direct commercial applications, so the existing project evaluation system eliminates them [52].

In the face of the steady decline of culture and its transition into pop culture, science—as part of culture—is becoming pop science and, instead of striving to achieve important, long-term goals and seeking truth, it increasingly tries only to respond to current social expectations. As Harlan Ellison already wrote in his Hugo Award-winning story:

“Science bends to the will of the masses”[53].

Similarly, well-known analyses by Bruno Latour indicate that both the development of technology and scientific knowledge are conditioned by current social interactions, and thus de facto by momentary social demand [54].

Despite the aforementioned negative trends, many experts today suggest that radical changes are necessary to support a more sustainable and deeper approach to science [55]. One should start with education—at the school and higher levels. At least since the time of John Dewey [56], philosophers of education [57] have emphasized that education should focus on shaping the skills of thinking and acting in a changing world, rather than on memorizing facts or predetermined cognitive algorithms and procedures [58].

The desired model of education was described by the British writer and mathematician Stephen Baxter in his bestselling futuristic novel The Time Ships:

“[…] besides the basics of civilized behavior, the young man was taught one essential skill: the ability to learn. It was as if, instead of cramming the poor nineteen-year-old student’s head with a lot of nonsense about Greek and Latin and obscure geometric theorems, he was taught how to concentrate and use libraries and absorb knowledge—how, above all, to think. After this training, acquiring any specific knowledge depended on the current needs and inclinations of the individual” [59].

While education based on the rote assimilation of facts and cognitive schemas may be necessary in the case of individuals with average intelligence and slightly above average, it completely fails in relation to individuals with exceptional intelligence, who do not tolerate assimilating knowledge in a mechanical way.

This thesis is supported by research and views of psychologists and anthropologists:

• “Mindset: The New Psychology of Success” by Carol S. Dweck (2006) [60]: Dweck introduces the concept of the “growth mindset,” which suggests that individuals with exceptional intelligence are more inclined to develop their potential through logical and critical thinking rather than relying on mechanical learning.

• “Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences” by Howard Gardner (1983) [61]: Gardner proposes the theory of multiple intelligences, in which he emphasizes that different types of intelligence prefer different learning methods. Individuals with a high level of logical-mathematical intelligence may be particularly averse to mechanical learning.

• “The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould (1981) [62]: Gould criticizes traditional methods of measuring intelligence and suggests that individuals with exceptional intelligence are more interested in deeper understanding and logical thinking than mechanical memorization.

• “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman (2011) [63]: Kahneman discusses different systems of thinking and suggests that individuals with high intelligence more often use the slow thinking system (System 2), which is more analytical and logical, rather than relying on fast, mechanical association (System 1), developed in the course of contemporary education.

The true, high goal of education cannot be the acquisition of cognitive routine that replaces thinking, but the teaching of that thinking itself—that is, awakening reason in people.

V. The Technological and Energy Crisis

Meanwhile, warnings of an impending crisis are becoming increasingly visible and confirmed by the latest analyses [64]. In the face of the lack of new, breakthrough technologies enabling real technical progress, current development is simulated through the introduction of changes that often turn out to be regression [65]. The best example is electric cars, promoted as an ecological and forward-looking solution [66]. The current automotive industry focuses on electric vehicles, ignoring the fact that we do not yet have technology mature enough for mass application on such a scale [67]. Today’s lithium-ion batteries are characterized by low energy density (typically below 300 Wh/kg) [68], long charging times, susceptibility to degradation and failures (e.g., risk of fire), high production costs, and significant environmental burden [69]. The extraction of lithium, cobalt, and nickel causes water pollution, soil and habitat degradation, as well as CO₂ emissions comparable to or higher during production than in the case of internal combustion vehicles over their entire life cycle [70]. These solutions do not effectively replace fossil fuels but merely shift problems—from exhaust emissions to intensive mining and dependence on limited resources.

Worse still, promoting such technologies as a “green revolution” masks the lack of genuine progress. Renewable sources, such as wind and solar, suffer from intermittency—irregular energy production, which threatens the stability of electrical grids [71]. Sudden changes in generation (e.g., cloud cover or lack of wind) cause fluctuations in frequency and voltage, requiring costly backup systems, often based on fossil fuels [72]. Without mass-scale energy storage, which current batteries do not provide, renewable sources cannot fully replace the stable supply from coal, oil, or gas. This is merely “patching holes” in the energy system, based on depleting fossil resources, without a fundamental paradigm shift.

Due to the increasingly lower average intelligence of decision-makers and social structures favoring conformity, none of them connect these facts into a coherent whole. Almost everyone seems to overlook them, living in an illusory world of apparent comfort and “green growth.” If we do nothing about this in the short term, it will end in an energy and economic catastrophe.

Such a catastrophe was depicted in a futuristic vision by David Mitchell in his novel The Bone Clocks (2014) [73]. As Larry Elliott wrote in The Guardian:

“The final chapters of The Bone Clocks, David Mitchell’s 2014 novel, describe a future in which progress has gone into reverse. In 2043, the fossil fuel age is over: nuclear power stations are melting down, there is no access to the electricity grid and solar panels are so prized that they are looted […]. Internet coverage is patchy, food and consumer goods are scarce, and life-saving drugs such as insulin are hard to come by” [74].

At least since the famous Club of Rome report Limits to Growth (1972), humanity has been increasingly aware of the inevitable depletion of Earth’s resources—including key fossil fuels [75]. The latest updates to the World3 model, including the 2024 recalibration (Nebel et al., Journal of Industrial Ecology) [76], confirm that the “business as usual” trajectory leads to a peak in industrial growth already around the current decade, followed by a sharp decline caused by resource depletion [77]. They predict an “interconnected collapse” (polycrisis) between 2024 and 2030, with peaks in food and industrial production, followed by collapse [78]. Similar conclusions come from analyses by Gaya Herrington (2021) and other verifications, indicating that current empirical data still fit the “overshoot and collapse” scenario [79].

However, as a result of the professional and social exclusion of the most intelligent and creative individuals (as described in Michael W. Ferguson’s paper “The Inappropriately Excluded,” 2015) [80], there is no progress in basic research—especially in key physics [81]. Individuals with IQ above 140 are systematically excluded from intellectual elites, which radically reduces the pool of talents capable of tackling the most difficult problems [82]. Since the 1970s, there have been no fundamental breakthroughs in theoretical physics (e.g., quantum gravity or new energy sources) [83], which blocks the development of revolutionary energy technologies, such as commercial-scale nuclear fusion or entirely new forms of propulsion. Current approaches—electrification based on lithium-ion batteries and intermittent renewables—are temporary patches to the system, incapable of replacing fossil fuels without the risk of blackouts, rising energy prices, and economic stagnation.

Without a new scientific revolution enabling the discovery of abundant, stable, and clean energy sources, humanity is heading toward the scenario described in Limits to Growth: resource depletion, decline in production, and potential civilizational collapse. Only the inclusion of the most outstanding minds and a focus on fundamental research can reverse this trend.

VI. Lack of an Overarching Goal, Vision, and Strategy

The impending catastrophe in the development of civilization is real and probable given the fact that, despite progressing globalization, there is no global, supranational, integrated vision or strategy for civilizational development. This obvious fact is increasingly penetrating social consciousness. For example, Peter Frankopan in his well-known book The New Silk Roads shows the variability and lack of a unified strategy in global geopolitical development [84], while Jared Diamond’s works proclaim that the lack of a common goal or sufficient strategy contributes to the collapse of societies [85].

Of course, the lack of a common development goal must lead to the following serious problems:

• Lack of a common direction: Without defined global development goals, humanity will struggle with the dispersion of efforts and a lack of effective cooperation between states. This may lead to the maintenance or deepening of existing problems, such as poverty, hunger, drugs, suicides, the plague of mental illnesses, lack of adequate education, or inequalities.

• Threats to global security: In the face of common threats, such as the depletion of fossil fuels and other strategic deposits, pandemics, or risks associated with technologies, the lack of a unified approach to solving these problems leads to global instability.

• Divergences in priorities: Different countries and regions have different development priorities, which makes it difficult to develop a common strategy.

• Lack of sustainable development: Without clearly defined global goals related to sustainable development, it will be difficult to ensure that technological and economic progress does not harm our planet and future generations.

Lack of possibility to implement necessary long-term, transnational projects, such as creating a new medicine based on symbiosis with other elements of the biocenosis rather than fighting them [86], discovering new physics leading to the acquisition of entirely new and more efficient energy sources, terraforming other planets, or finally colonizing the Universe. Projects of this kind are necessary to maintain the development of our species in the longer term. At the same time, they require an integrated effort of all humanity and supranational, and sometimes even intergenerational, cooperation.

Unfortunately, due to the absence of a consistent vision of the future among today’s scientific, state, and global decision-makers, contemporary society still lacks a far-sighted and positive development strategy, instead being guided by a paradigm of fear [87]. This paradigm consists solely of reacting to real and alleged threats, without the ability to take the initiative in freely building the future [88] (societies and their decision-makers are “bound by fear”). This has a direct impact on political, social, and economic decisions [89]. In this context, several phenomena should be noted:

• Polarization and reactions to threats: Fear of threats, both real and imagined, often leads to an increase in political and social divisions, as well as to taking actions based on short-term defense.

• Culture of alarm: Media, information campaigns, and politics often focus on building fear, which limits the capacity for creative thinking and long-term planning.

• Loss of long-term vision: Focusing on fighting current (real or imagined) threats pushes aside the realization of positive, far-sighted goals, such as sustainable development, education, activating science and innovation, or the ethical and spiritual development of humanity.

In this situation, being aware of the potentially catastrophic direction in which our civilization is heading—one not oriented toward common and far-sighted action—the Syncritic Academy Foundation has presented elsewhere a purposeful program for the further development of Humanity [90].

VII. Causes of the Crisis

The obvious, though programmatically overlooked, main cause of this state of affairs is paradoxically the democratization of culture and science, as well as the drastic increase in recent decades in the number of scholars, creators of culture, and recipients of cultural and scientific content worldwide. This unprecedented quantitative growth is simultaneously the cause of an unprecedented decline in quality. For example, from ancient times until the beginning of the modern era, communities of scholars and cultural creators were narrow and elitist groups. For instance, only single individuals with the highest intelligence available in a given society at a given time became scholars. According to the results of classic studies by Catherine Cox [91] and her successors [92], the estimated intelligence quotient of thinkers and scholars such as Aristotle, Archimedes, Newton, Leibniz [93], Euler [94], Maxwell [95], [96], or Bohr [97] should be estimated at around 170–185 (SD 15) [98]. At the same time, according to the latest research and estimates by psychologists, Albert Einstein’s intelligence quotient [99] or Stephen Hawking’s [100] probably did not exceed 160, the average intelligence quotient of a Nobel laureate in physics today is only about 150, and the average intelligence of a tenured professor at an American university is merely 133 [101].

Today, according to credible estimates, there are about 8 million scientists worldwide [102]. This means that 1 per mille of humanity are so-called scholars. According to other trustworthy estimates, about 90% of all scientists who have ever lived are scientists living at the present time [103]. This must result in a drastic decline in the average intelligence of representatives of the scientific profession, who no longer recruit only from a narrow, highly intelligent elite, but necessarily also (and even primarily) from groups of less cognitively capable individuals, who then begin to exclude from their circle, as foreign bodies, the most talented and intelligent ones. This is accompanied by a lowering of commonly accepted goals of scientific research and standards of scientific work, which is already widely noticed [104]. [105]

VIII. Social and Professional Exclusion of the Most Intelligent Individuals

Currently, individuals with outstanding cognitive abilities are already misunderstood and, as a consequence, excluded from science by the numerous but significantly less intelligent majority of contemporary scholars. These scholars are incapable of truly logical thinking and no longer constitute a moral elite either. As Democritus noted, “gods and sages” possess different “senses” [here: a different mentality] than ordinary people:

[Aët. IV 10, 4 (D 399)]: D. pleious eīnai aistheseis (…), peri ta aloga dzōia kai peri tous sofous kai peri tous theous [106].

The decline in the cognitive abilities of the contemporary “average scientist” is necessarily accompanied by the loss of access to reason, which is the highest human cognitive faculty, fully available to only a few. This leads to the loss of the ability to understand, that is, the loss of the skill to distinguish truth from falsehood and good from evil.

The lack of reason and thinking in contemporary science was repeatedly noted by Martin Heidegger in the years following World War II. As he wrote in the 1950s:

“Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht. Das ist ein anstößiger Satz. Lassen wir dem Satz seinen anstößigen Charakter auch dann, wenn wir sogleich den Nachsatz anfügen, daß die Wissenschaft es gleichwohl stets und auf ihre besondere Weise mit dem Denken zu tun hat. Diese Weise ist allerdings nur dann eine echte und in der Folge eine fruchtbare, wenn die Kluft sichtbar geworden ist, die zwischen dem Denken und den Wissenschaften besteht, und zwar besteht als eine unüberbrückbare. Es gibt hier keine Brücke, sondern nur den Sprung” [107].

According to Heidegger, the thoughtlessness of contemporary science is only one manifestation of the general thoughtlessness of the contemporary world and contemporary man:

“Die zunehmende Gedankenlosigkeit beruht daher auf einem Vorgang, der am innersten Mark des heutigen Menschen zehrt: Der heutige Mensch ist auf der Flucht vor dem Denken. Diese Gedanken-flucht ist der Grund für die Gedanken-losigkeit. Zu dieser Flucht vor dem Denken gehört es aber, daß der Mensch sie weder sehen noch eingestehen will. Der heutige Mensch wird diese Flucht vor dem Denken sogar rundweg abstreiten. Er wird das Gegenteil behaupten. Er wird – und dies mit vollem Recht – sagen, zu keiner Zeit sei so weithinaus geplant, so vielerlei untersucht, so leidenschaftlich geforscht worden wie heute. Gewiß. Dieser Aufwand an Scharfsinn und Überlegungen hat seinen großen Nutzen. Solches Denken bleibt unentbehrlich. Aber es bleibt auch dabei, daß dies ein Denken besonderer Art ist” [108].

Heidegger’s analysis of the state of contemporary thinking horrified the well-known contemporary thinker Józef Tischner:

“The most thought-provoking thing is that we still do not think […]. How is it that we do not think?! Have we not created science? Has science not created technology? […] Heidegger argued: [..] science also does not think. It only combines and calculates, and that is not yet thinking. Science wants to dominate nature – but does it know why? It wants to prolong human life – but does it know what the meaning of life is? It sends people to the moon – but can it say what is a genuine value for man? We say we are intellectuals, but the disputes we conduct with each other, especially the way we conduct them, quite thoroughly contradict this. Thoughtlessness of the world stabs the eye at every step. That is why we need to learn thinking” [109].

The problem is that thinking must, of course, be learned from people most capable of thinking, that is, from the most intelligent people, who today belong to the most excluded. For example, the greatest discoveries and inventions rarely receive material reward for their authors for the socially most valuable work they have performed. As early as 1919, Nikola Tesla wrote about the position of the inventor and his situation in the world:

“The progressive development of man is vitally dependent on invention. It is the most important product of his creative brain. Its ultimate purpose is the complete mastery of mind over the material world, the harnessing of the forces of nature to human needs. This is the difficult task of the inventor who is often badly understood and unrewarded” [110].

Since Tesla’s time, the situation of discoverers, innovators, and inventors has only worsened, as noted by Luc Bürgin [111].

As Jamie James wrote in his well-known book The Music of the Spheres:

“Those who remain faithful in their thinking to the ultimate goals of science do not receive prestigious scholarships or prominent government positions” [112].

There is a view that true geniuses will eventually break through with their work anyway. However, as authors such as Luc Bürgin point out, most likely a significant majority of outstanding discoveries and inventions are lost, and their authors die prematurely as a result of persistent economic exclusion and various kinds of mental repression.

Michael W. Ferguson, founder of the Polymath Institute, writes in his cult work “The Inappropriately Excluded” that once a certain “socially acceptable” threshold of intelligence is exceeded, the degree of social exclusion of an individual becomes directly proportional to the size of their “impermissible excess intelligence” [113]. This work is based on decades of research by psychologists [114], [115] and researchers of human intelligence and talent [116]. Ferguson states:

“As D15IQ increases above 140, people become progressively more excluded from educational, productive and social opportunities until by 160 D15IQ the exclusion is nearly complete. Individuals with D15IQs of more than 160 are rare, comprising just 0.0032% of the population. They possess at least one trait in common with many of the greatest minds in history. Yet only a vanishingly small percentage will find a proper environment within which they may thrive intellectually, socially and productively. This is harmful for the individuals but it is also an unfortunate circumstance for society as well. What if intellectual giants like Einstein, da Vinci, J.S. Mill, etc. were ten times more common? Almost certainly progress would be much greater. It is because of this that the exclusion should be of significant concern to everyone” [117].

Similar conclusions were presented by Grady M. Towers [118], [119].

Human intelligence is responsible for innovations, ingenuity, and true progress [120]. It is precisely the most intelligent people who are capable of perceiving, discovering, and creating new, progressive ideas. As the famous 19th-century polymath Henry Thomas Buckle noted:

“Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas” [121].

It is therefore obvious that when the most intelligent individuals begin to be excluded from society, the result will be the absence of novel ideas, deepening ideational emptiness, and the lack of possibility to create a more ideal world.

IX. Exclusion of the Best Works from Scientific Circulation

The consequence of this state of affairs is the systematic exclusion of the best, most innovative works from scientific circulation. This occurs through the rejection of articles that go beyond the current paradigm, as well as through the rejection of research projects that are too innovative or too long-term. As a result, the most groundbreaking ideas do not receive funding, publication, or recognition.

This phenomenon has been repeatedly described in the literature on the subject. For example, Thomas Kuhn in his famous work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions pointed out that paradigm shifts in science encounter strong resistance from the scientific community [122]. Similarly, Robert Merton described the so-called “Matthew effect,” according to which already recognized scientists receive disproportionately more recognition and resources, while newcomers and innovators are marginalized [123].

In practice, this leads to a situation where works that could revolutionize science are ignored or rejected. Examples include:

• The theory of continental drift by Alfred Wegener, initially ridiculed and rejected for decades.

• The discovery of prions by Stanley Prusiner, for which he initially faced mockery and lack of acceptance.

• Ignaz Semmelweis’s recommendations on hand hygiene, which were ignored and led to his professional marginalization.

In contemporary times, similar mechanisms operate on an even larger scale due to the institutionalization of science and the pressure for conformity. The peer-review system, while intended to ensure quality, often serves as a tool for conserving the existing paradigm and blocking revolutionary ideas [124].

As Sabine Hossenfelder notes in her book Lost in Math, contemporary theoretical physics is dominated by aesthetic criteria rather than empirical evidence, which leads to the rejection of ideas that do not fit the prevailing “beauty” standards [125].

The result is a vicious circle: the most intelligent and creative individuals are excluded, their works do not enter circulation, and science stagnates, unable to generate genuine breakthroughs.

X. Examples of Important Contemporary Innovative Works Excluded from Social Awareness and Scientific Circulation

Evidence of this state of affairs is the fate of revolutionary ideas by authors with confirmed high intelligence, such as Marilyn vos Savant [126], Christopher Michael Langan [127], Krzysztof Zawisza [128], Carolina Rodriguez Escamilla [129], or Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Richard Gilligan Rosner [130].

• Marilyn vos Savant is known for being listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the person with the highest IQ in the world [131] and for solving the famous Monty Hall probability paradox, where she won a debate against approximately a thousand titled academic mathematicians who, for a long time, were unable to understand her correct solution presented in multiple ways [132]. Despite proving her logical competence in this way, her next brilliant book, The World’s Most Famous Math Problem, in which the author demonstrates serious methodological and logical shortcomings in contemporary mathematics, essentially received only one full but non-substantive and logically flawed review from mathematicians, and was subsequently ignored by scientific communities [133]. The history of Marilyn vos Savant’s groundbreaking ideas has been presented by our Academy [134]. Currently, in the sciences—especially in the modern academy—there is a tendency toward superficiality or limiting the scope of considerations due to increasing specialization and pressure for partial, practical results. On the other hand, outstanding thinkers like Marilyn possess the ability for logical thinking at a high level of abstraction [135], which allows them to formulate ideas that are difficult to fully understand for the average scientist, limited in terms of mental resources and cognitive tools. Such tensions between different levels of abstraction lead to incomplete understanding or even non-recognition of theses expressed at a high level of abstraction. In turn, critical reviews—directed mainly by individuals with a lower range of rational competence and a different way of thinking (i.e., replacing thinking with mechanical association)—do not reflect the value and depth of argumentation of a truly intelligent person.

• Christopher Langan. Works by another world-famous high-IQ individual, Christopher Michael Langan, have faced a similar problem to that of vos Savant for several decades [136]. These works are generally highly regarded and widely discussed in social media within groups associating exceptionally intelligent people, but are not allowed into official scientific circulation. As Langan himself recently wrote:

“The CTMU theory-universe-model dates from the mid-1980’s, and has since been extensively developed in nearly total isolation from the academic community” [137].

• Krzysztof Zawisza. In turn, the works of the Polish freelance scholar Krzysztof Jerzy Zawisza—despite extremely positive official opinions from individual academic professors and members of international elite organizations associating high-IQ individuals [138], [139]—have for years met with refusals for official publication under curious pretexts [140] and are passed from one scientific journal to another. They do, however, inspire popular science works [141] and works of fiction [142]. [143] It should be noted that Zawisza’s officially positively reviewed achievements—such as the discovery of a new fundamental law of nature responsible for the geometric order of the Universe, the creation of the foundations of mathematical analysis based on complex algebra with division by zero (on which the author based the unification of Einstein’s and Maxwell’s equations), or the solution to the problem of logical antinomies—upon entering scientific circulation, would significantly expand our knowledge of the human mind, deepen the understanding of the essence of science, and develop comprehension of the Universe [144]. They would also open the way to obtaining new, incredibly efficient energy sources and new types of propulsion, enabling interstellar travel and the colonization of trillions of planets in the future to establish new human civilizations and explore the unimaginable diversity of possible paths for the development of human species.

• Carolina Rodriguez Escamilla, an American engineer and mathematician of Aztec descent [145], creates and develops an alternative, extremely effective approach to mathematics based on the Aztec cultural code [146]. [147] In essence, “Teotl Mathematics” is a non-standard mathematical concept that proposes a vision of time and space different from the Western one and solves centuries-old mathematical problems, such as the Riemann Hypothesis, the distribution of prime numbers, the Goldbach Hypothesis, or the Collatz Conjecture [148]. However, despite the interest it has already attracted [149], it has not received academic critical discussion or verification from the mathematical scientific community. The silencing of this epoch-making work is all the more reprehensible since ethnomathematics has long been a vigorously developing branch of knowledge that emphasizes the existence of many different and equally valuable mathematical paradigms associated with the development of various historical cultures [150]. [151] Carolina Rodriguez is the first person to demonstrate intellectual courage in this regard and has undertaken both the reconstruction of ancient mathematical ideas from another cultural area and their elaboration and significant development based directly on the principles of logic. It should be added that a similar approach to mathematics—based directly on different cognitive codes and basic logical intuitions—was represented in history by such famous figures as Omar Khayyam [152], Evariste Galois [153], or Srinivasa Ramanujan [154]. This approach gave its authors deep insight into the essence of mathematics [155]. The example of Ramanujan shows the benefits that world science can derive when it includes scholars working in a different cultural and intellectual paradigm [156]. [157] Already Paul Feyerabend in his famous book Against Method questioned the idea of a uniform scientific method and encouraged methodological pluralism [158]. However, the approach of contemporary mathematicians to alternative scientific paradigms (even the best logically justified ones) illustrates the fact that in contemporary Western society, which emphasizes values such as diversity and inclusivity, the anachronistic scientific community a priori excludes all diversity. This leads to halting progress and even regression due to the ossification of science [159]. [160]

• Arthur E. Pletcher. Examples of groundbreaking scientific works excluded from science can be multiplied. Arthur Edward Pletcher is a well-known artist and mural painter in Texarkana (Texas), as well as a member of elite international high-IQ associations and author of scientific works [161]. While he publishes his relatively less important works in peer-reviewed journals, his most revolutionary ideas and theories based on them function only in the so-called second scientific circulation [162]. [163] Particular attention is drawn to his latest work, in which the author proposed a simple experiment that could demonstrate the relationship between the material world and the mind at the quantum level [164]. Numerous efforts to fund the conduct of this experiment (cost around $100,000) have not been successful despite interest from the most open-minded scientists. This situation is difficult to accept because the issue of finding the relationship between consciousness and matter is one of the most important and current problems in today’s science [165]. Discoveries in this area could have far-reaching consequences in science, philosophy, ethics, and technologies related to artificial intelligence, as well as so-called “machine consciousness” [166].[167]

• Marlena Natalia Witek is by education an artist and engineer [168]. Her artistic approach allows for innovative thinking and exploration of new ideas, which is not obvious within institutionalized science. Witek’s approach somewhat resembles the multidisciplinary approach of Leonardo da Vinci, who combined art and science, which was rare even in his time [169]. Leonardo da Vinci’s artistic skills allowed him to visualize and design machines and mechanisms far ahead of his era, such as flying machines, submarines, or prototype tanks. Moreover, for Leonardo, the universe was a combination of art and science, which allowed him to transcend the boundaries set by traditional sciences and discover new approaches to problem-solving. Unfortunately, this kind of potential hidden in Ms. Witek’s approach is doomed to waste due to lack of social support and (unlike in Leonardo’s time) lack of real patronage. Since another Marlena Witek will probably never appear in the history of the world, her unique way of perceiving reality will be lost forever, just as the Master Leonardo offered us his unique way of perceiving the world [170].

• Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Richard Gilligan Rosner. The Informational Cosmology developed by the Canadian freelance scholar and journalist with high IQ, Scott Jacobsen, and Rick G. Rosner, provides a logical alternative to the standard Big Bang model, treating the Universe as a dynamic, self-consistent information processing system [171]. The greatest value of this concept lies in its creative solution to key problems of mainstream cosmology, such as the initial singularity, strict conservation of matter and entropy, and the inevitable “heat death.” Rosner proposes that time is driven by “information pressure”—the growth of information quantity in a semi-closed system—which allows for matter older than the apparent age of the Universe (approx. 13.8 billion years), explains dark matter as stellar remnants (rather than exotic particles), and avoids black hole collapse into singularity [172]. The theory emphasizes the isomorphism between the structure of consciousness and the physics of the Universe: both rely on transactional information processing, where interactions define reality [173]. The Universe here is eternal in an informational sense, with mechanisms for creating new matter and time at the edges (near t=0), opening optimistic eschatological scenarios—avoiding total energy dissipation. According to mainstream recipients (who reject logic as a criterion for theory correctness), the theory remains speculative and lacks parsimony, but its strength lies in logical consistency and falsifiability (e.g., lack of objects older than 13.8 billion years or confirmation of exotic dark matter would falsify it). [174] and its potential to inspire discussions about the nature of reality as information. In the context of contemporary cosmological challenges (e.g., the Hubble tension), it constitutes a provocative and extremely enriching challenge to the dominant paradigm, combining physics with information theory and consciousness.

Rosner’s reduction of physical qualities to a single concept of information constitutes (unfortunately absent in contemporary science) the realization of the Pythagorean-Platonic supreme postulate of all rationality: seeking unity in every multiplicity [175].

The works of the aforementioned highly gifted authors extend beyond the prevailing paradigm of thought, establishing new epistemic perspectives. All possess revolutionary potential. Certain works are fully completed, while others confront insuperable impediments to completion, elaboration, and/or empirical verification owing to systemic exclusion from funding sources. Instances of brilliant authors whose contributions are suppressed, dismissed, and systematically obstructed in their development abound, including Claus D. Volko[176], Bhekuzulu Khumalo[177], Peter D. Rodgers[178], and numerous others.

Neither so-called “ordinary people” nor social, scientific, or political decision-makers are typically aware of the fact of the persistent waste of humanity’s intellectual, creative, and discovery potential through the exclusion of the most intelligent individuals and the blocking of their works. Today’s scientists believe that if they cannot evaluate a certain work, it means that the work is not sufficiently correct. However, logic dictates that if someone cannot evaluate someone’s work, it only means that the evaluator’s abilities and knowledge are insufficient and that the evaluation of potentially outstanding works should be entrusted to exceptionally intelligent individuals.

Blocking the most discovery-oriented works and the social exclusion of their authors by numerous but less capable individuals threatens the survival of those less capable individuals as well. As Carlo M. Cipolla stated:

“A stupid person is one whose actions harm their own interests as well as the interests of other people” [179].

The author adds:

“An intelligent person is one who contributes something to society with mutual benefits in mind, that is, benefit to themselves and to others” [180].

Decision-makers who actively marginalize the most intelligent and talented individuals, or through inaction allow such marginalization, act to the detriment of society as well as their own detriment, the detriment of their own children and grandchildren. It is clear that they have little in common with intelligence.

XI. Social Awareness and the Legal Aspect of Excluding Innovators and Blocking Innovations

Let us examine the problem of combating conservatism, obstruction, and the culture of silencing in science, referring to existing legislation in various countries as well as international declarations and charters of rights.

Context of the Problem:

In today’s social awareness, the problem of conservatism and obstruction in science is already partially recognized, defined as resistance to new ideas, methodologies, or research results, which hampers scientific progress, limits freedom of science, and violates human rights. Society is beginning to recognize that combating these phenomena requires a multidimensional approach, including legal, ethical, and educational aspects.

Statutory Regulations in Selected Countries:

To date, there is no single, universal “anti-conservative” law in science. Many countries incorporate elements of protecting academic freedom and promoting innovation into their legislation.

Examples:

• Germany: The German Constitution (Grundgesetz) guarantees freedom of science, research, and teaching (Art. 5 para. 3) [181]. Higher education laws (e.g., Hochschulgesetz) define the rights and obligations of professors and students, including the right to criticism and independent research [182]. German law also promotes the transfer of knowledge and technology from universities to industry, which is intended to foster innovation.

Example: The Innovation Promotion Act (Innovationsförderungsgesetz) of 2008 introduced a range of instruments to support the commercialization of scientific research results, which should indirectly help overcome conservatism in industry.

• United States: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, which also includes academic freedom. In addition, many universities and scientific institutions have their own regulations protecting freedom of research and teaching. Non-profit organizations, such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), play a significant role in monitoring and defending academic freedom.

Example: The case “Keyishian v. Board of Regents” (1967) confirmed professors’ right to express their views, even if controversial [183].

• France: The Education Code (Code de l’éducation) defines the principles of higher education and scientific research [184]. It ensures academic freedom and promotes equal opportunities in access to education and science. France also focuses on promoting innovation through funding research and technology development.

Example: The National Research Agency (Agence Nationale de la Recherche – ANR) funds research projects in various fields, supporting innovative approaches and interdisciplinarity.

International Declarations and Charters of Rights:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 19) [185]: Guarantees freedom of opinion and expression, which is fundamental to academic freedom.

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Art. 15) [186]: Recognizes everyone’s right to benefit from the protection of moral and material interests resulting from scientific creativity.

• UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel (1997) [187]: Defines the rights and obligations of higher-education teaching personnel, including freedom of teaching and research, as well as the right to express opinions on educational policy.

However, all these statutory regulations, recommendations, and declarations do not identify the essence of the problem, which is the systemic neglect of the role and rights of cognitively outstanding individuals. This results in a lack of adequate legal regulations that would genuinely support the development of exceptionally intelligent and talented individuals, and in particular:

• Lack of an individual educational path: Existing provisions, despite the theoretical possibility of individualizing teaching, in practice do not provide sufficient support for students with exceptional abilities. Education systems, due to the standardization of programs and procedures, are unable to meet the specific needs and interests of these students, leading to the systematic underdevelopment of their potential.

• Independent researchers outside academic structures: Individuals conducting research outside formal academic structures, without institutional affiliation, face difficulties in accessing resources, funding, and above all—recognition. Their work is systematically overlooked or marginalized, blocking their opportunities for development and contribution to scientific progress.

• Lack of opportunity for adequate review of outstanding and groundbreaking works. Reviewers are typically specialists deeply embedded in the current paradigm (T.S. Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” 1962) [188], which means that new, radically different concepts are perceived as erroneous, incomplete, or even unscientific.

The last of these problems is particularly completely blocking for innovative scientific works and prevents them from entering scientific circulation. Classic examples of this problem:

• Wegener and continental drift (1912)—rejected for decades as “impossible” within the then-geophysics [189].

• Einstein’s works from 1905—initially ignored or criticized by leading physicists (among others by Ostwald and Lenard) [190].

• Semmelweis and hand washing (1847)—ridiculed and excluded from the medical community [191].

• Barbara McClintock’s works on transposons (1940s–50s)—recognized only after 30 years (Nobel Prize 1983) [192].

Systemic Causes of the Problem:

• Reviewers typically do not possess the appropriate cognitive apparatus (if they did, they would make revolutionary discoveries themselves).

• They also lack the appropriate conceptual and methodological language to evaluate a new paradigm. Institutional conservatism and fear of losing authority dominate.

• Criteria for “reliability” and “reproducibility” are defined within the old paradigm, so essentially every new approach is “unscientific” by definition [193][194][195].[196][197][198]

As a result, the most revolutionary works are published outside the mainstream, ignored or sharply criticized, and their acceptance occurs—if at all—only after a generational change in the discipline (Planck’s famous statement: “Science advances one funeral at a time”) [199]. The peer-review process is effective in verifying incremental works but structurally incapable of adequately evaluating truly groundbreaking ideas that go beyond the accepted paradigm.

Strategies for Combating Conservatism and Obstruction:

Society is essentially aware today that, in addition to legal regulations, effective strategies for combating conservatism and obstruction in science should include:

• Supporting a culture of innovation and critical thinking: Promoting evidence-based education that encourages questioning established patterns and seeking new solutions.

• Ensuring funding for interdisciplinary and high-risk research: Supporting research projects that go beyond traditional frameworks and explore new areas of knowledge.

• Protecting whistleblowers: Providing protection to individuals reporting irregularities in science, such as suppressing inconvenient research results.

• Promoting diversity: Creating a scientific environment that is open to different perspectives and experiences.

• Supporting open science: Enabling broad access to research data and scientific publications, which increases transparency, the possibility of verifying research results, and opens access to necessary data for non-institutional researchers.

However, society is generally not aware today that the root of scientific conservatism and obstruction of innovative research lies in the low cognitive abilities of contemporary scientific and social decision-makers [200][201][202].[203][204][205] They promote mediocrity because their relatively low intelligence does not allow for a deeper understanding of the world, including distinguishing illusion from reality, falsehood from truth, evil from good [206]. It also does not allow them to foresee the future needs of humanity, to which we must prepare today.

Summary:

In relation to cognitively alien individuals with the highest intelligence (and thus usually the most deeply developed capacity for thinking), democratic society and its decision-makers engage in social exclusion, thereby violating universally accepted and inalienable human rights. Both the personal rights of the most intelligent individuals are violated, as well as their political, economic, social, and cultural rights. In the sphere of personal rights of individuals with the highest intelligence, social and economic exclusion obviously infringes on their right to a good life and the right to decide about their own life. At the same time, economic exclusion in more severe cases infringes on the very right to life. In the sphere of political rights, the social exclusion of individuals with the highest intelligence limits their ability to participate in public life. In the sphere of economic, social, and cultural rights, there is a violation of the right to education (individuals with the highest intelligence and high creativity absolutely require their own educational path) and the right to appropriate and satisfactory remuneration.

It should be added that in relation to the most capable and creative individuals, due to persistent social exclusion, their right to work is often not realized, and the right to the pursuit of happiness—already contained in the American Declaration of Independence—is never realized [207].

The lack of social awareness of the existence and importance of the problem of excluding individuals with outstanding abilities results in a lack of legal regulations preventing this exclusion. On the other hand, the introduction of such regulations will be necessary, among other things, to raise social awareness in this regard and unblock the development of culture and science.

Combating conservatism and obstruction in science is a complex process that requires combining legal regulations, education, and organizational culture. By ensuring academic freedom, promoting innovation, and supporting open science, we can create an environment in which science can develop freely and effectively.

However, above all, science is a gift from exceptionally intelligent individuals to the world. Ensuring these rare individuals the opportunity to create science is a conditio sine qua non for generating progress. The rarity of these individuals determines their unique value to the entire society but is also the source of problems. The small number of these exceptional people means they will not form a crowd capable of demonstrating in defense of their rights. They will also not organize a sufficiently large political pressure group. The responsibility for recognizing, respecting, and protecting their rights therefore falls on society, which ultimately derives the greatest potential benefits from the existence and actions of these individuals.

For we must be aware that scientific progress, the work of a few geniuses, is the engine of social, economic, and civilizational development, and its hampering irrevocably destroys our future.

XII. Economic Costs of Excluding Exceptionally Intelligent Individuals

Annual Economic Losses to the World Resulting from the Exclusion of Exceptionally Intelligent Individuals:

The contemporary global GDP in 2025 amounts to approximately 105–110 trillion USD [208]. Innovations and technological progress account for 50–85% of long-term economic growth [209][210][211], and their pace has clearly slowed in recent decades. Park and collaborators demonstrated in 2023 that the disruptiveness of scientific publications and patents has fallen by about 90% since the 1950s [212], confirming the stagnation in fundamental physics observed since the 1970s [213] as well as the general decline in the breakthrough nature of research [214].

One of the underestimated causes of this phenomenon is the systemic social and professional exclusion of individuals with IQ above 140–150 (SD 15), i.e., about 0.38% of the world’s population (approx. 30 million people), and particularly those with IQ > 175 (rarity 1: 3–4 million) [215][216][217]. Historically, these individuals have provided a disproportionately large share of revolutionary discoveries [218][219][220], whereas under current institutional conditions, their chances of achieving positions enabling research drop by about 97% (in the case of individuals with IQ > 150) [221], or even 100% (complete exclusion today of those with IQ > 175+) [222].

Estimated Annual Losses

Direct contribution to GDP growth:

Innovations currently generate about 1.5% of global GDP growth annually (1.6–1.8 trillion USD) [223][224][225]. Assuming conservatively that exclusion reduces the potential for disruptive innovations by 10–50% (based on the historical share of the IQ elite in breakthroughs and the current decline in disruptiveness), the annual loss amounts to 160–900 billion USD.

Indirect and cumulative effects:

lower productivity of marginalized individuals,

delays in solving key problems (energy, medicine, climate),

loss of multiplier effects from breakthrough technologies.

Taking these factors into account, the upper estimate reaches 750 billion – 1 trillion USD annually.

As a result, the global economy loses an amount on the order of 10¹¹–10¹² USD (100–1000 billion USD) each year, i.e., 0.1–1% of GDP – comparable to the budgets of the largest research and stimulus programs combined.

Conclusion

Full social and professional integration of individuals with extremely high cognitive abilities could not only eliminate this loss but also restore the pace of disruptive discoveries from before the mid-20th century, potentially accelerating long-term scientific and technological progress by decades, and in the case of truly revolutionary works – even by centuries [226][227][228].

Hypothetical Cost of Systemic Exclusion of Geniuses: Estimated Size of the World Economy in 2025 Without the Contribution of Key Innovators

The contemporary world economy has reached a level of approx. 105–110 trillion USD annually in 2025 [229], which is the result of the cumulative effect of scientific and technological revolutions initiated by a few individuals of exceptional intelligence. If scientific and social institutions had consistently excluded innovators whose ideas were considered “inconsistent with consensus” in their time, the pace of progress would remain at the pre-industrial level (0.01–0.1% GDP growth annually), and the current GDP would be lower by an order of magnitude.

Consider a counterfactual scenario in which the works of Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Ignaz Semmelweis, Gregor Mendel, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann were systematically blocked. Each of these scholars encountered resistance, marginalization, or complete silence in their time:

• Galileo and Newton (17th century) – without classical mechanics and calculus, the Industrial Revolution (1760–1840) would have been delayed by at least 50–150 years [230].[231]

• Faraday and Maxwell (19th century) – lack of electromagnetism would have prevented the second industrial revolution (electrification, motorization, telecommunications) [232].[233]

• Ignaz Semmelweis (1847) – rejection of hand hygiene would have maintained perinatal mortality at 10–30%, reducing natural increase and workforce [234].[235]

• Gregor Mendel (1866) – lack of genetics would have delayed modern agriculture (hybrids, GMOs) and biotechnology by decades; crop yields would be lower by 40–70%, and the world population might be only 4–5 billion instead of 8 billion [236][237][238].[239][240]

• Turing and von Neumann (1930s–50s) – without the foundations of informatics and computer architecture, the digital era (internet, AI, automation) would not exist at all, eliminating a sector accounting for approx. 10–20% of global GDP today [241][242].[243]

In such a scenario, economic growth since the early 19th century would remain at the pre-industrial level (approx. 0.05% annually). Starting from global GDP in 1820 – approx. 1.4 trillion USD in today’s prices [244] – after 205 years at 0.05% annual growth, we would reach only approx. 1.55 trillion USD. Taking additional effects into account (lower population, lack of electrification, digitization, and biotechnology, as well as a permanent Malthusian trap), the actual GDP in 2025 would most likely be only 3–15 trillion USD – i.e., 3–14% of the current level.

This means that the contribution of just the nine mentioned individuals (and their direct successors) accounts for 86–97% of the world’s contemporary wealth. This is generally consistent with estimates that innovations drive 50–85% of long-term GDP growth [245][246][247], and key paradigm breakthroughs are the work of extremely rare individuals (IQ ≳ 160–175 SD15), constituting less than 1 in a million [248].[249]

This result confirms the thesis that current institutional and social mechanisms for excluding exceptionally intelligent individuals can generate annual losses on the order of hundreds of billions to a trillion USD, and in the longer term – delay humanity by entire centuries.

XIII. Civilizational Catastrophe as an Inevitable Consequence of the Social Exclusion of Individuals with the Highest IQ

As history teaches, all or most communities have tended to exclude from their midst and persecute the most intelligent, discovery-oriented, and creative individuals—that is, geniuses and luminaries of the mind. Such societies, however, ultimately sank into stagnation, experienced degeneration, and collapsed. The undervaluation of reason through the exclusion of the most intelligent individuals—the greatest potential reformers and innovators—is the most obvious and most probable cause of the fall of successive civilizations, as already suggested by Paul William Anderson in his visionary novel Brain Wave [250]. In place of old civilizations, new organized societies usually emerge; however, they must largely start their development from the beginning. The upheavals accompanying these processes were and are the cause of death and misfortune for immense numbers of people and result in the waste of the effort and work of countless generations. Much indicates that if, through thoughtful reflection and decisive action following it, we do not change this mindless social attitude, new upheavals, wars, and destructive revolutions await us soon, the numerous harbingers of which we already see in the world today. Since Anderson’s time, many scientific authors [251] and researchers [252] have drawn attention to the connection between a pro-development and innovative attitude and the ability of civilizations to survive [253]. [254]

XIV. Example: The Fall of the Civilization of Ancient Egypt

To better understand the consequences of the social exclusion of geniuses, let us briefly examine the causes of the fall of one of the greatest and most important human civilizations to date: the civilization of ancient Egypt.

Excluded Sages and the Hypothetical “House of Wisdom” in Ancient Egypt: A Counterfactual Analysis

The Egyptian civilization, after its peak period of innovation in the Old Kingdom (ca. 2700–2200 BCE), gradually lost its ability to introduce fundamental reforms and breakthrough scientific-technical innovations. [255] From the Middle Kingdom (ca. 2050–1650 BCE), a clear decline in the dynamics of cultural and scientific development is observed, replaced by religious orthodoxy and bureaucratic conservatism. [256] The culmination of this process was the Second Intermediate Period and the Late Period (ca. 1650–1070 BCE and later), during which there occurred the disintegration of central administration, loss of control over provinces, a series of foreign invasions (Hyksos, Sea Peoples, Assyrians, Persians), and the ultimate loss of state independence in 525 BCE. [257] The following counterfactual analysis indicates that the key factor in this centuries-long regression was the systemic exclusion of outstanding intellectual individuals—geniuses—whose continuous admission to influence could have ensured an evolutionary model of progress and prevented civilizational collapse.

In human history, individuals of exceptional intelligence and talent—defined as geniuses possessing cognitive abilities enabling qualitatively different thought processes and disruptive innovations—appear in every generation with probabilistic constancy, constituting an integral element of human intellectual potential. [258] However, only in exceptional, transformational periods do societies enable these individuals to have real influence on shaping civilization. As Michael W. Ferguson argues in his essay “The Inappropriately Excluded,” the marginalization of such individuals does not result from their internal defects but from a systemic reaction to their creativity, which challenges established norms. [259] This negative societal reaction to its exceptional members leads to the waste of a key social resource, which is intelligence and creativity, and to the halting of progress. The Old Kingdom of Egypt (ca. 2700–2200 BCE) serves as an empirical example of the inclusion of geniuses, with figures such as Imhotep and Hardjedef, whose polymathic contributions led to the stabilization and development of Egyptian culture. [260] Imhotep, serving as architect, physician, and high priest, accomplished an engineering revolution through the design of Djoser’s Step Pyramid—an innovation changing the architectural paradigm, symbolizing Egypt’s technological advancement—as well as developing medicine, which later led to his deification. [261] Hardjedef, as a prince and philosopher, formulated the Instructions of Hardjedef—a text fundamental to the ethics of governance and social harmony, influencing moral philosophy for subsequent generations. [262]

Logical reasoning indicates that in later eras, individuals with analogous disruptive potential must have continued to appear, but were systematically marginalized by rigid hierarchical structures and cultural shifts toward religious orthodoxy, which Ferguson describes as “inappropriate environments” suppressing nonconformist creativity. [263] This exclusion finds indirect confirmation in ancient texts, such as the Admonitions of Ipuwer (ca. 1200 BCE), where the author laments: “No one listens to wise counsel; the land is in chaos, and the wise are rejected.” [264] Similarly, in the Complaints of Khakheperre-Sonb from the Middle Kingdom (ca. 2000 BCE), society is condemned for rejecting wisdom and constructive criticism. [265] These formulations, although describing broader social chaos, imply the marginalization of insightful advisors—geniuses—whose preventive warnings were ignored, enabling the escalation of crises. [266] Social chaos does not arise ex nihilo; it is a logical consequence of the cumulative neglect of preventive wisdom, as Ferguson illustrates by analyzing how excluded innovators with high IQ (or their ancient equivalents) could prevent systemic collapses. [267] Such marginalization contributed to the waste of reformatory potential, deepening Egypt’s historical crises, including the First and Second Intermediate Periods (ca. 2181–1786 BCE), the Hyksos invasion (ca. 1650 BCE), and the attacks of the Sea Peoples (ca. 1200 BCE). [268]

In contrast to the immature model of progress based on revolutions, which leads to instability and violent ruptures, [269] civilizations integrating disruptive thinkers within evolutionary continuity achieve proactivity, anticipating challenges through gradual improvement of knowledge. [270] The Egyptians actually demonstrated this potential in astronomy, for example, through observations of the heliacal rising of Sirius to predict Nile floods and manage agricultural resources. [271]

The hypothetical institutionalization of genius inclusion—for example, through the establishment of a “House of Wisdom” around 2600 BCE as a formal advisory council to the pharaoh—could have fostered interdisciplinary collaboration, directing disruptive creativity toward governance and technology. This counterfactual scenario, based on the probabilistic assumption of a constant distribution of geniuses, [272] implies that continuous access to individuals on the scale of Imhotep would have enabled preventive reforms, mitigating crises resulting from exclusion.

Consider the logical sequence: Imhotep’s influence under Djoser not only generated architectural monuments but stabilized society in the early statehood phase. If subsequent disruptive polymaths—born in every generation—had analogous political influence, Egypt would have avoided the instability of the Intermediate Periods. Figures like Amenhotep son of Hapu (ca. 1400 BCE), architect and advisor to Amenhotep III, deified alongside Imhotep, illustrate this thesis: although competent (supervision of the Colossi of Memnon), his contributions were incremental within a mature empire, lacking the revolutionary disruption of Imhotep’s era. [273] Furthermore, the 1200-year gap between these icons of history underscores systemic barriers—for example, religious conformity or hierarchical inertia—filtering revolutionary talents in favor of conformists. As Ferguson points out, societies react negatively to “qualitatively different thinking” of extreme individuals, preferring stability. [274] However, this kind of “stability” is in essence systemic stagnation and sooner or later, but inevitably, leads to collapse, chaos, and social upheavals. In this way, societies, fearing change and blocking progress, sooner or later, but inevitably, expose themselves to uncontrolled, destructive, deadly changes.

A counterfactual analysis, inspired by models of social complexity, [275] indicates potential outcomes: a “House of Wisdom” could have circumvented these barriers, repelling invasions through fortifications or predictive diplomacy and mitigating droughts through food storage based on solar observations. [276] Egypt’s scientific trajectory would have accelerated exponentially: by 200 BCE, scholars might have derived principles analogous to Newton’s Laws; [277] by 500 CE—built the orbital station Ptah I, named after the god of creation.

In this alternative timeline, by 2025, Egypt could be a superpower with approx. 250 million inhabitants, characterized by social harmony and intellectual leadership. Medical heritage, evolving from the Ebers Papyrus (ca. 1550 BCE), [278] could have eliminated diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s through continuous innovations. Proactive governance would have diverted societies’ attention from generating fratricidal conflicts and propelled humanity toward the colonization of extrasolar systems.

This analysis underscores the axiom: the inclusion of disruptive genius generates stability and exponential progress. [279] Revolutionary science enables the anticipation of crises and preventive reforms, preventing chaos. Societies excluding talents become merely reactive. [280] A world with an Egyptian “House of Wisdom” would be more stable, illustrating the power of harnessing human potential to ensure peace through constructive innovations, not destructive revolutions.

Science in a state of permanent revolution would prevent social and civilizational revolutions and crises, offering humanity security and continuous peaceful development. Whereas science that defends itself against cognitive revolutions contributes through its passivity to social revolutions and crises.

Continuous revolutionary nature of science would enable the stable evolution of societies.

XV. The Need for a New Scientific Revolution

Current solutions to the problem of depleting resources, although important as a transitional stage, resemble “patching holes” in the system without eliminating the main causes of the problems. This is supported by the analysis that, in the long term, the most effective approach would be a profound scientific revolution [281], particularly in the field of physics [282]. [283], [284]

Why is a scientific revolution currently a key undertaking?

• New physical principles: The discovery of new laws, phenomena, or quantum phenomena and possibly hitherto unknown states of matter that would allow for the development of entirely different energy technologies could fundamentally change the way energy is produced and stored.

• New materials and energy sources: Work in physics could lead to the creation of materials with unprecedented properties, or energy sources with unlimited, safe, and ecological potential.

• Quantum physics and energy: Technologies resulting from a deeper understanding of quantum phenomena, e.g., the creation of stable and efficient quantum energy sources or super-efficient ultra-efficient systems, could open entirely new possibilities.

Perspectives:

The history of science shows that the most efficient and revolutionary changes occur as a result of deep breakthroughs in basic sciences [285]. [286]

Investments in scientific research, both basic and applied, are key to achieving such breakthroughs.

In the meantime, it is necessary to continue the development of technologies for current energy sources and materials to ensure energy security and environmental protection, but deep change requires a revolution in physics.

The vision of a scientific revolution, particularly in the field of physics, is often seen as the only real chance for achieving sustainable, efficient, and long-lasting energy sources in the future. This challenge requires not only technology but also a huge expansion of knowledge and scientific imagination, which can be fully provided only by the most intelligent and self-aware individuals.

XVI. Plan for a New Scientific Revolution

Below, we outline a sketch of the plan for a new scientific revolution in the coming decades.

Breakthrough discoveries in basic research form the foundation for significant technological innovations. To place greater emphasis on basic research in physics within the plan for a scientific revolution, the following actions should be considered:

• Defining Vision and Goals: As clearly as possible, define short-, medium-, and long-term goals for the new scientific revolution (in the short term, it is necessary to acquire new and potentially unlimited energy sources as well as new types of propulsion; in the long term – to achieve the fullest possible understanding of the Universe and our place in it).

• International Cooperation: Activating the UN and UNESCO to create global policies supporting the reactivation of the development of human thought and science.

• Policy and Regulations: Introducing regulations that promote and support the development of science as well as the fastest possible implementation of new technologies.

• Funding: Securing funds from international foundations and governmental organizations that support research and development [287].

• Infrastructure: Building research and technology centers focused on testing and developing new energy sources [288] and materials [289].

• Mentoring and Talent Development Programs: Identifying and supporting young talents in physics through evaluation of the intellectual potential of children and youth, followed by mentoring and scholarship programs that enable them to work on the most innovative and breakthrough ideas.

• Support for Innovators and Talent Acquisition: Including individuals with outstanding intelligence, who are intentionally marginalized today, through supervision programs, grants, and projects that engage their potential.

• Organization of global competitions and hackathons focused on innovative solutions to fundamental problems in the exact sciences.

• Priority for Fundamental Research: Increasing funding and focusing attention on basic research in physics, particularly in the search for new methodological solutions and more efficient paradigms. Financing projects that concentrate on phenomena and theories not yet discovered.

• Creation of Flagship Research Projects: Initiating large international research consortia similar to CERN or the ITER project, which focus on the most fundamental questions in physics, such as discovering the relationships between basic physical qualities like time, space, and matter, or understanding the origin and nature of fundamental interactions, including the possibility of new types of energy and forces.

• Open Science Platforms: Developing communication and publication platforms that promote open access to research and data, which will accelerate the exchange of ideas and contribute to the exploration of unconventional concepts.

• Integration of Scientific Sectors: Encouraging cooperation between theoretical and experimental centers so that new theoretical ideas can be quickly tested and verified in practice.

• Innovative Symposia and Conferences: Organizing thematic conferences that encourage the presentation of hypotheses and models going beyond standard paradigms, which can lead to the development of new physical theories.

• Application of Modern Technologies: Utilizing advanced computational technologies, including supercomputers and AI algorithms, for theoretical modeling and simulations that will help refine the directions of future research.

• Stimulating a Culture of Risk and Innovation: Promoting a culture in basic sciences that values creativity and willingness to take intellectual risks, which favors the emergence of breakthrough discoveries.

• Monitoring and Evaluation of Progress: Regularly measuring progress in the context of the established goals of the scientific revolution, setting milestone objectives, and implementing continuous evaluation and adaptation of strategies.

• Popularization of Science: Social campaigns to increase awareness of the importance of science, especially exact sciences and technology, for human survival and development.

Shifting attention and resources toward such actions will essentially become the foundation for the next technological revolution, enabling new theoretical discoveries and practical applications that will change the world for the better.

XVII. Who Should Be Considered an Exceptionally Intelligent and/or Talented Individual?

Intelligence is a measure of cognitive abilities, so an exceptionally intelligent person should be considered that human who is capable of knowing and distinguishing between outstanding intelligibles: truth and falsehood, good and evil. Such a person is capable of understanding reality and is therefore truly rational.

Reason, which is the highest cognitive faculty of man [290], [291], has however been displaced from the sphere of today’s civilization, culture, and science [292], [293]. This is evidenced by the fact that it is no longer perceived even by the so-called “outstanding representatives” of that science.

Both ancient Plato [294] [est. IQ 180+], as well as modern Johann Goethe [295] [est. IQ 180+ also] at the beginning of the 19th century distinguished four levels of human cognition. In Platonic philosophy, these were (in hierarchy from the lowest to the highest stage): 1. εἰκασία, 2. πίστις (δόξα, αἴσθησις), 3. διάνοια, 4. νοῦς [usually translated as: 1. thinking in images, 2. faith (opinion, perception), 3. common sense, 4. reason]. In connection with the four levels of cognition described by him, Plato distinguishes four representations of the object. As he wrote in the Seventh Letter to Dionysius:

ἔστιν τῶν ὄντων ἑκάστῳ, δι᾽ ὧν τὴν ἐπιστήμην ἀνάγκη παραγίγνεσθαι, τρία, τέταρτον δ᾽ αὐτή—πέμπτον δ᾽ αὐτὸ τιθέναι δεῖ ὃ δὴ γνωστόν τε καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐστιν ὄν—ἓν μὲν ὄνομα, δεύτερον δὲ λόγος, τὸ δὲ τρίτον εἴδωλον, τέταρτον δὲ ἐπιστήμη. [296]

“For everything that exists there are three instruments by which the knowledge of it Is necessarily imparted; fourth, there is the knowledge itself, and, as fifth, we must count the thing itself which is known and truly exists. The first is the name, the, second the definition, the third. the image, and the fourth the knowledge” [297].

These four instruments are: 1. image or likeness (εἴδωλον), 2. name (ὄνομα), 3. term or definition (λόγος), and 4. knowledge of the object itself (ἐπιστήμη). Furthermore, Plato distinguishes a fifth level of things: that which is knowable and truly existing (γνωστόν τε καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐστιν ὄν), which we usually identify with the sphere of ideas [298].

The four levels of cognition in Plato clearly correspond to Goethe’s: Sinnlichkeit, Phantasie, Vernunft, Verstand [299]. In turn, already at the beginning of the 20th century in the writings of such iconic representatives of science as Freud [300] or Einstein [301], there is the conviction that human cognition is represented only by three epistemic levels. From the considerations of both Einstein and Freud, it is evident that they no longer perceive the highest – logical-conceptual – level, that is, the sphere of reason (νοῦς, Verstand).

The four levels of cognition corresponding to the four Platonic representations of the object in Goethe can today be identified with the four levels of the human self in the model of analytical psychology. These are respectively:

• unconsciousness [εἴδωλον],

• subconsciousness [Πίστις, ὄνομα],

• consciousness [Λόγος, διάνοια],

• superconsciousness [Nόος, ἐπιστήμη].

The unconscious is the field of reflexes, that is, reflections, and thus broadly understood images. In the subconscious, assumptions (beliefs) are born (although later they are consciously rationalized) and determine its content. Consciousness, on the other hand, is the sphere of logical discourse. Finally, above the sphere of consciousness is situated rational intuition. As intuition, it is not conscious, but since it is fully intellectual (precisely conscious), it is actually something more than just consciousness and cannot be placed below the level of consciousness. [302]

Nοῦς (whose object is “knowledge of the object itself”) is nowadays also translated as rational intuition or self-reflective cognitive activity of the intellect, and διάνοια – as discursive thinking [303]. This self-reflective cognitive activity of the intellect (that is, the activity of consciousness) is obviously – in other words – active consciousness, that is, self-consciousness. Reason is therefore self-consciousness or consciousness itself. Thus, understanding is consciousness of consciousness [consciousness of itself]. The intellect (consciousness) conceives reality by clothing it in concepts. And reason (self-consciousness or consciousness of itself) conceives the concepts themselves – that is, understands them.

Therefore, reason operates through logical analysis of concepts.

The creator of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud [est. IQ 155], however, perceives the existence of only three levels of cognition:

«Nun sind unsere Gedanken aus solchen Sinnesbildern [cf. εἴδωλα] hervorgegangen; ihr erstes Material und ihre Vorstufen waren Sinneseindrücke, richtiger gesagt, die Erinnerungsbilder von solchen. An diese wurden erst später Worte [cf. ὀνόματά] geknüpft und diese dann zu Gedanken [cf. λόγοι, διάνοιαι] verbunden» [304].

Albert Einstein [IQ 160] also perceived only three mental levels. The German physicist stated:

“What, precisely, is “thinking”? When, at the reception of sense-impressions, memory-pictures emerge, this is not yet “thinking.” And when such pictures form series, each member of which calls forth another, this, too, is not yet “thinking.” When, however, a certain picture turns up in many such series, then-precisely through such return-it becomes an ordering element for such series, in that it connects series which in themselves are unconnected. Such an element becomes an instrument, a concept. I think that the transition from free association or “dreaming” to thinking is characterized by the more or less dominating role which the “concept” plays in it” [305].

Einstein distinguishes the following levels in human thinking:

• thinking in images (“memory-pictures”),

• series of images (“dreaming”),

• connection (that is, series) of these series (“righteous thinking”, “concepts”).

Comparing the three first epistemic levels in the understanding of Einstein and Plato is easy to carry out. Both probably meant the same thing when they thought about thinking in images. Einstein’s “dreams” are undoubtedly the same as Platonic faith or opinion. For every opinion about a given object expresses itself in one or another presentation (image) of it and is limited to that presentation. If we think that things are this way or that, it means (in other words) that we present them to ourselves as such and not otherwise, or that we take them for such and such, or finally (which is both) that we imagine them as such and not otherwise. Even more obvious is that the third level – Einstein’s “righteous thinking” – corresponds to what Plato describes as geometric-type thinking (διάνοια). This is logical thinking (strict inference), but based on unjustified assumptions (which we accept based on an act of general agreement or contractual faith).

Einstein, however, evidently did not perceive the existence of the fourth level of human cognition, that is, reason (νοῦς). Due to Einstein’s iconic position in pop culture, this conclusion seems difficult to accept. As is well known, however, Einstein made many scientific [306] as well as moral errors in his life [307]. He also failed to achieve his main scientific goal, which was the discovery of a Unified Field Theory, and lost the debate with Bohr on the nature of the quantum world [308].

All this suggests that an IQ of 160 SD 15 is not yet fully sufficient for self-awareness, i.e., self-critical thinking. Such a level of intelligence does, however, already enable significant discovery and creativity.

The consequence of not perceiving the existence of reason as an absolute level of cognition will always be the relativization of the concept of truth and cognitive conventionalism:

“[…] all our thinking is of this nature of a free play with concepts; the justification for this play lies in the measure of survey over the experience of the senses which we are able to achieve with its aid. The concept of “truth” can not yet be applied to such a structure; to my thinking this concept can come in question only when a far-reaching agreement (convention) concerning the elements and rules of the game is already at hand” [309].

In the 20th century, the discoverer of the collective unconscious, Carl Gustav Jung, essentially recognized the existence of a four-level rather than merely three-level cognitive hierarchy in humans [310]. However, the creator of depth psychology remained isolated in this conviction [311].

The consequence of the state of affairs in which contemporary sciences do not perceive reason as a way of cognizing reality is the fact that science is currently deprived of self-awareness. As the contemporary Polish philosopher Józef Dębowski wrote about this [312]:

“The essential impulse that can lead to the development of epistemological issues is the revelation of the dogmatic nature of particular (resp. positive) sciences—sciences which, while remaining in their proper research attitude toward the real world, do not at the same time undertake critical reflection (i.e., justifying the legitimacy) over the methods of research they use and their initial convictions that constitute the starting point for these studies. As a result of the lack of this critical reflection, various—bordering on arbitrariness, because differentiated, e.g., by worldview convictions—starting points are admitted all too often, and randomly selected methods are applied, which in total results in discrepancies (and sometimes even logical inconsistency) between the cognitive results obtained in a given science.”

In a similar tone, Edmund Husserl already expressed himself:

“With regard to the natural system of thought of the sciences, one falls into promising theories which, however, always end in contradiction or absurdity” [313].

Much indicates, therefore, that science, whose icons are figures with IQ around 160 (Einstein, Hawking), is not yet fully rational science—that is, self-aware and self-critical (probably the most intelligent scholars of the present era—Terence Tao and Andrew Wiles—have estimated or tested IQ at the level of 170 SD 15) [314].

However, a meta-analysis of sources containing estimates of the intelligence of outstanding figures [315][316][317][318] from the area of culture and science leads to the following conclusions:

• Scholars like Niels Bohr or Wolfgang Pauli, with IQ at the level of five standard deviations above the mean (IQ 175 SD 15), were already too intelligent, too serious, and too little understood to become pop culture icons, but they contributed the most original ideas to science. Their lives testified to their high ethical level and distance from themselves—that is, self-awareness.

• Scholars with timeless influence on human thought, such as Copernicus, Galileo, Leibniz, or Maxwell, most likely had IQ at least 180. These are generally individuals capable of abstract thinking (nous), i.e., abstracting from associations.

• The average IQ of a contemporary Nobel laureate is about three standard deviations above the mean (IQ 145 SD 15) [319]. This is not yet a level enabling abstraction; however, it already allows going beyond learned association fields and creating others, which results, among other things, in the ability to create a new conceptual network, and thus new scientific models and theories [320]. This agrees with Ferguson’s observation that individuals with IQ above 140 begin to be socially excluded.

All this leads to the conclusion that individuals with IQ 145+ SD 15 (with particular emphasis on units with IQ 175+ SD 15) should be subject to strong social and legal protection.

XVIII. Summary and Elaboration

We are currently dealing with a situation in which civilized societies firmly reject discrimination against individuals based on gender, age, race, or sexual orientation, but conceal the fact of discrimination based on high intelligence and allow discrimination against individuals due to their high intelligence. Today’s society, oppressive toward the most outstanding individuals, resembles in many ways the citizens of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. One of the central themes of this visionary work is to show how the pursuit of total stability and uniformity in society hampers progress and innovation. In this dystopian vision, society is organized in a way aimed at eliminating conflicts and true, deep diversity, which leads to stagnation and a lack of genuine progression. Huxley presents a world in which technology is used to maintain control and superficial happiness at the cost of culture, art, and science, which cannot develop without freedom of thought and action. In this way, he shows that without individualism and intellectual freedom, society loses the capacity for creativity and discovery, which are key to true progress [321].

The primary feeling that accompanies every human being throughout life is fear of death, associated with the fear of transience. This, in turn, is linked to an atavistic fear of change, and thus also anxiety related to development. All progress always seems to run toward the future and create the future—and thus lead toward death.

Fear of one’s own development and the development of societies is a complex philosophical, psychological, anthropological, and sociological issue that has been studied and described in many scientific works:

• Erich Fromm – Escape from Freedom: Fromm analyzes how individuals and societies fear freedom, which is associated with responsibility and uncertainty, leading to escape into authoritarianism and stagnation [322].

• Rollo May – Man’s Search for Himself: May explores ideas of anxiety about personal development and one’s own potential, as well as about changes in individuals’ lives [323].

• Seth Godin – The Icarus Deception: How High Will You Fly?: Godin writes about a culture that fears bold action and how this affects the development of individuals and societies [324].

• Joseph Campbell – The Hero with a Thousand Faces: Campbell presents the mythological structure of the hero’s tale, where overcoming fear is a key element of personal development and social transformation [325].

The most intelligent individuals are those with the most dynamic mentality, transcending fear of death and change, thereby introducing an element of movement and progress into the static order of the world [326]. This radically evolutionary element terrifies less capable and less dynamic individuals, bound by fear. However, the existence of this element is necessary for positive transformations of humanity and preventing its degeneration. Furthermore, the most intelligent individuals, who thanks to their cognitive potential can sharply distinguish truth from falsehood and good from evil, become morally complete and cognitively full. As a result, they are universally hated and rejected because they make less mentally developed people aware of their moral deficiencies and cognitive incompleteness. However, it is precisely the most gifted individuals who, as long as they are not excluded from collective life in the bud and socially or even physically destroyed, serve others as teachers of progress and models of ethical attitude, as well as an example that knowing the truth and true development are possible [327].

The human community—both now and in the future—will derive great and undoubted benefits from offering exceptionally intelligent and talented individuals comprehensive support instead of exclusion [328]. [329] These benefits include, among others [330]: [331]

• Innovations and technological progress: Support for talented individuals could accelerate the development of new technologies and innovations, leading to economic growth and a drastic improvement in quality of life.

• Increased educational potential: Providing access to appropriate educational resources and training programs could enable such individuals to reach the fullness of their potential, which in turn would enrich the whole society through new discoveries and improvements in various fields.

• Social balance and reduction of inequalities: Removing barriers to full participation in social and professional life could contribute to more sustainable social development and reduction of inequalities.

• Increased diversity and inclusivity: Creating spaces and programs that are more inclusive would promote diversity of thought and approaches in various fields, which must necessarily lead to innovation and social development.

• Better mental health and quality of life: Support for talented individuals would also contribute to improving their mental health and quality of life, eliminating stress related to exclusion and unused potential.

Full support for the most intelligent and talented individuals could significantly increase society’s ability to counteract global threats, such as pandemics or resource depletion. Here are some potential benefits:

• Better understanding of disease and pandemic mechanisms: Allowing new, potentially outstanding scientists and researchers to conduct advanced studies on pathogens, their transmission, and mechanisms of action would enable faster development of a broad spectrum of effective preventive measures, including appropriate social strategies, relevant vaccines, and therapies.

• Development of new energy sources and technologies: Potentially genius physicists, engineers, and scholars, currently educationally and professionally excluded due to the conservative and fearful attitude of educational and scientific institutions, could discover new laws of physics leading to the invention of otherwise unattainable energy sources, such as clean, renewable, and unlimited energy sources, which would contribute to solving the problem of resource depletion [332].

• Acceleration of innovations in fields critical for sustainable development: Such individuals could develop technologies enabling more efficient resource management, recycling, and minimizing negative environmental impact.

• Increased social resilience: If the most capable people actively participated in solving global problems, the entire community could react faster, adapt, and minimize the effects of crises.

• Inspiring and educating future generations: Outstanding individuals, fully supported, could serve as leaders of change, motivating and educating others, which increases the potential for social development and resilience to future challenges.

Full engagement and support for the most outstanding minds would significantly increase humanity’s chances of solving the greatest global problems and accelerate technological development, which is essential for the future of our civilization and its survival.

The inclusion of the most cognitively outstanding individuals in generating progress will also necessarily result in spiritual development, as well as the development of social consciousness and ethics of action. This, in turn, can play a key role in counteracting diseases of the psyche and suicides, which are widespread especially in highly developed societies, against which contemporary health care and psychology are helpless. Here is the impact such actions can have:

• Development of consciousness and emotional education: Support for the most talented individuals could contribute to a better understanding of one’s own emotions, mechanisms for coping with difficulties, and promoting constructive ways of expressing feelings. This, in turn, can reduce the stigmatization of mental illnesses and encourage seeking medical and/or spiritual help.

• Creating a culture of support and solidarity: Community leaders who are morally and spiritually developed can promote values of empathy, acceptance, and mutual support. Such a culture would reduce isolation and feelings of loneliness, which are often the main risk factors for depression and suicide.

• Innovations in therapy and mental support: Talented scholars and spiritual guides could develop new, effective methods of treatment and mental support, presenting more holistic and individual approaches integrating psychotherapeutic techniques with spiritual development.

• Promotion of ethical and spiritual values: The development of ethics of action, empathy, and altruism can lead to creating societies in which care for others and social responsibility are foundations. This can significantly reduce stress, pressure, and conflicts that contribute to mental problems.

• Support for individuals in crisis: The most talented individuals, engaged in actions for the common good, can inspire and motivate people struggling with difficulties. Their positive influence can help create an environment that favors mental health and conscious self-acceptance.

Thus, spiritual development and social consciousness, supported by the most conscious and talented individuals, can significantly contribute to reducing the scale of mental illnesses and suicides, creating a more supportive, empathetic, and conscious society.

As can be seen, promoting support for intelligent and talented individuals is an investment in the future of society, which potentially must bring inestimable benefits both locally and globally.

Ensuring protection and support for individuals with exceptionally high intelligence and creativity is therefore essential not only for their well-being, but above all for technological, social, and human progress. Here is a proposal for principles that should be included in the Charter of Rights of Exceptionally Intelligent and Talented Individuals.

Preamble

Human reason, which distinguishes us from animals [333], [334], [335], as well as the experience of thousands of years of history, allow us to state the following.

A. Human rights, although framed as rights of the individual, have a fundamental social dimension, expressed in an essential and inherent way in the relationship between the individual and the human community. Therefore, the greatest role in human development is played by those established rights that enable and guarantee a positive influence of individuals on the development of all humanity and its individual societies. This connection also generates a reverse influence— a developing society enables and supports the individual development of its members.

B. The nature of things, which is duality, also manifests itself in people. Therefore, a human being fears most what they desire most [336], [337]. We all desire most to know the truth, but most of us, guided in life by fear, exclude from this life those who, guided in life by passion, strive to know the truth. In this way, the fear of average individuals causes the social exclusion of the most cognitively outstanding people. At the same time, the exclusion of people who by their nature serve as cognitive and moral signposts for others increases the disorientation of ordinary members of society, further intensifies their fear of the truth, and makes them unhappy [338]. This insane mechanism can only be combated through education—by making people aware of the existence of this very mechanism.

C. The social exclusion of a quantitatively small but qualitatively most important group for the development of civilization—the most capable people—violates the ethical meaning of the rule of law and the rationality of its principles, as articulated by outstanding authors from the time of St. Thomas [339] through Hugo Grotius [340] to Ronald Dworkin [341]. Violating these principles will cause a blockage of development, and then the degeneration of the state. A society that excludes the most intelligent individuals cannot call itself a just or inclusive society. Selective inclusivity is not inclusivity, as it only leads to further exclusions. Inclusivity should concern all socially important groups [342].

D. The central role in the development of our species, which is related to the pursuit of knowing the truth and understanding the purpose of the Universe, has always been and is currently played by individuals with the greatest cognitive abilities. These individuals, if they only have such an opportunity, usually develop into the most complete and rational personalities.

E. The lives of individuals with the highest cognitive potential, i.e., the most intelligent and talented people, are the most valuable developmental capital for every society. These people are entrusted with the mission of creating progress—both progress in the material, intellectual, and moral dimensions.

F. In connection with this, every human society bears a special responsibility for supporting these people, because these people are naturally burdened with responsibility for the entire society.

G. In connection with this mutual responsibility, individuals endowed with the highest mental potential play a primary and primordial role in relation to the state or any other community, because it is precisely such people who discover principles and create laws on which the functioning of the state and every lasting community is based. Therefore, such people have their own inalienable rights.

H. Society as a whole and the individuals with the highest intelligence and most developed cognitive abilities, who are excluded from society today but constitute its cognitive elite, are connected to each other by vital and organic bonds into a whole in which the majority of people primarily represent the experiential and conservative aspect, while this elite represents the creative and dynamic aspect. Together, they determine the existence and development of humanity. Social support for creative elites is decisive for the defense and development of the good of all people and every human being.

I. The experience of various eras, societies, and cultures over millennia has made it clear the necessity of recognizing the special rights and defending the vocation of people with the highest cognitive and creative potential.

J. Society, and in particular the state and international organizations, should do everything possible to secure all necessary assistance—political, economic, social, and legal—to support the life, development, and work of individuals with exceptionally high IQ, so that they can fulfill their essential, specific tasks in which no one else can replace them.

K. People with the highest intelligence, talents, and abilities are usually outstanding individualities, therefore they have an individualized and subjective relationship to reality. Potentially, they thereby bring to science and culture a personal and subjective, original point of view on man and the entire world. Due to the uniqueness of this point of view, the waste of the potential and actual works of such people may be irreversible—probably permanently preventing a certain enrichment of our knowledge and our understanding of the world. This results in a special obligation of individual societies and the entire human community to prevent the blocking of the creative development of outstanding people and to support their life and work [343].

L. The rights, basic educational and developmental needs, success, and values of the most outstanding and capable individuals have never been sufficiently protected in the course of history, and today they are particularly threatened as a result of the improper understanding of the ideals of universal equality and democracy. This incomplete and erroneous understanding of the equality of all people results in the social, professional, and economic exclusion of the most outstanding individuals who do not fit the universal, simplifying scheme.

M. The majority of people endowed with the highest abilities and creating the most important works for people are forced to live in conditions of poverty, which prevent them from fulfilling their role.

N. The universal and inherent equality of all people before nature and the law results in the inalienable necessity of ensuring every human being equal chances to realize their own vocation [344] and guaranteeing the fullest possible individual development [345], [346]. In relation to people with extraordinary mental potential, this is associated with the need to provide them with extraordinary support in order to enable them to self-improve and fully utilize their potential. This is an action in the name of the common good.

O. Members and supporters of the global community of people with the highest intelligence, aware that the good of man, society, and all humanity is connected with the life and activity of exceptionally intelligent and talented people, consider it our common duty to proclaim the truth inscribed in human nature concerning the nature of our intelligence, to support the most intelligent individuals, and to protect their unique predispositions [347]. With this in mind, we present the following Charter of Rights of Exceptionally Intelligent and Talented Individuals to all interested parties.

Charter of Rights of Exceptionally Intelligent and Talented Individuals

The following rights of the individual and obligations of society arise in a rationally necessary and logically inevitable manner from the above.

Article 1

Right to Evaluation of Potential: Every human being has a natural right to a reliable evaluation of their potential, conducted by competent persons. Early identification of abilities should be based on a multifaceted method that takes into account various aspects of intelligence and talent, in order to enable the identification of exceptionally intelligent and talented individuals. Support should be available regardless of the results of the initial evaluation, so as not to limit the possibilities of discovering talent.

Article 2

Right to an Individual Educational Path: The right to education adapted to individual needs and abilities, supporting intellectual development, creative development, as well as the full development of personality. The right to an individual educational path is a special case of the inalienable right of the individual to personal development and the realization of their own talents and individual vocation.

Article 3

Psychosocial Support: Access to psychological and social support that takes into account the specific emotional and interpersonal challenges faced by exceptionally gifted individuals.

Article 4

Recognition and Integration of Potential: Individuals with ultra-high intelligence have the potential to make a key contribution to the progress of civilization by discovering new ideas and setting directions for development. Society has an obligation to protect these individuals, support their individual and professional growth, and implement their works, which can—and often do—have epoch-making significance for humanity.

Article 5

Right to Dissemination of Ideas: Support in disseminating innovative ideas and discoveries through facilitating access to publications and platforms enabling the presentation of works to a wider audience, as well as protection against blocking access to scientific and cultural spaces.

Article 6

Obligation to Support Creativity and Innovation: Society has an obligation to take actions aimed at supporting innovation, such as creating favorable conditions for creative work and promoting intellectual diversity and inclusivity, including promoting the existence of various scientific and creative approaches and paradigms whose common goal is the continuous progress of knowledge, technology, and the pursuit of a full understanding of the world and ourselves. This obligation is the reverse of the right of exceptionally intelligent and creative individuals to utilize their potential.

Article 7

Right to Reliable Evaluation of Work: The evaluation of innovative works and discoveries should be carried out by specialists with comparable cognitive abilities and appropriate substantive knowledge, who are able to fully read their content, appreciate their value, and recognize their potential impact. This will ensure adequate recognition and the possibility of further development of innovative ideas [348].

Article 8

Right to Utilize the Fruits of Work: In the case of a positive evaluation of an important new idea, theory, or innovative concept, society and its organs bear the obligation to provide the authors of these innovations with the means to develop and elaborate them for the purpose of utilizing them for the common and intergenerational good. These means should, as far as possible, enable the organization of necessary conferences, the creation of essential research teams, the conduct of required observations or laboratory experiments, etc.

Article 9

Right to Cooperation: Facilitating cooperation with other exceptionally intelligent individuals at the local, national, and international levels in order to promote the exchange of ideas and experiences.

Article 10

Right to Representation: Highly intelligent and talented individuals should have the opportunity to represent their interests within scientific and cultural institutions and organizations. All decisions concerning their role in culture and science should take into account their voice and perspective.

Article 11

Right to Justice: These individuals have the right to protection against discrimination, marginalization, or exclusion from scientific and culture-creating spaces. Mechanisms should exist for reporting violations of rights and ensuring justice.

Article 12

Right to Innovation: Highly intelligent and talented individuals have the right to take risks and introduce innovations in their fields. Institutions should support research and works aimed at developing new, potentially important and constructive ideas, and tolerate the possibility of failure within any reasonable scope.

Article 13

Right to Longer Waiting Time for the Effects of Work: Exceptionally intelligent and talented discoverers and creators have the right to expect support for important works whose results can only be expected in the long term. Such works are often the most important for the long-term development of humanity. Copernicus completed and published his work at the very end of his life, while the methodological research of Pythagoras from the 6th century BCE yielded concrete fruits in the form of heliocentric theories (Philolaus, Aristarchus of Samos) and the discovery of irrational numbers (Hippasus) only in subsequent centuries. As Honoré de Balzac noted, “All human power consists in patience. Man has no other power than patience” [349].

Article 14

Right to Originality and a Different Approach: Every truly discovery-oriented and/or creative person has the right to an original methodological approach in their work and a subjective point of view on reality. Reason, which is the highest human cognitive faculty, has—in contrast to common sense—not only an objective but also a subjective, i.e., individual, character. The only truly essential and ultimate conditions for the correctness and value of discoveries and works are their rationality, substantive depth, and communicability. All effects of work that meet these criteria bring new, unique points of view on Truth.

Article 15

Obligation to Raise Social Awareness: Decision-makers at the social and governmental levels bear the obligation to promote knowledge about the needs and contributions of exceptionally gifted individuals in society, in order to counteract negative social emotions, including fear of truth, fear of something new, concerns related to difference, envy toward more capable individuals, as well as phobias, stereotypes, and prejudices associated with the above.

The Syncritic Research Team

Austin – Bonn – Campobasso – Jaworzno – Ljubljana – Manchester – Mexico City – Oxford – Texarkana – Toronto – Vienna – Warsaw

2025

Expert consultation:

Prof. Dr. Hab. Teresa Liszcz – Judge of the Constitutional Tribunal in a state of retirement, former Chairperson of the Sejm Legislative Committee, and former Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Legislation and Rule of Law.
Dr. Dagmara Gut – Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights.

[1] B. Sieja, “Czy postęp naukowy się zatrzymał? 100 lat temu odkrywaliśmy znacznie więcej”, July 29, 2025, 13:48; https://www.komputerswiat.pl/wideo/inne/czy-postep-naukowy-sie-zatrzymal-100-lat-temu-odkrywalismy-znacznie-wiecej/757tpn1 .

[2] S. Hossenfelder, “The crisis in physics is real: Science is failing”, YouTube, November 4, 2024; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQVF0Yu7X24.

[3] J.S.G. Chu, J.A. Evans, “Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science”, PNAS, October 4, 2021; https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2021636118.

[4] J. Alpert, “The End of Science as a Useful Tool”, Medium, May 20, 2024; https://thehonestsorcerer.medium.com/the-end-of-science-as-a-useful-tool-dbd331995703.

[5] K. Piper, “Why is science slowing down? Science is the engine of society, and the decline of truly disruptive research is a warning sign for all of us”, VOX, Jan 11, 2023; www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/1/11/23549993/science-research-progress-studies-disruption-technology-artificial-intelligence-biotechnology.

[6] J. Evans, “Is scientific progress slowing?”, UChicago News, March 31, 2022, https://news.uchicago.edu/scientific-progress-slowing-james-evans.

[7] S. Lem, “A Perfect Vacuum”, transl. from the Polish by Michael Kandel, Northwestern University Press, 1999.

[8] “Trzy rodzaje geniuszu według Stanisława Lema” | teoriakulturyumk, https://share.google/VhhDh5ShZxiA8MzuS.

[9] “A Perfect Vacuum by Stanisław Lem” | Goodreads, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28767.A_Perfect_Vacuum. In this discussion, the entry by Dr. Emmanuel Rayner from the University of South Australia stands out [Manny Rayner Home Page, University of South Australia].

[10] Every day, approximately 25,000 people die from hunger and related diseases worldwide, including 10,000 children. According to other data, 11 people die from hunger every minute, reports Oxfam. These figures illustrate the scale of the hunger problem worldwide and its tragic consequences [“Co minutę na świecie z głodu umiera 11 osób. Raport Oxfam”, https://www.bankier.pl/wiadomosc/Co-minute-na-swiecie-z-glodu-umiera-11-osob-Raport-Oxfam-8151177.html].

[11] H.P. Dietz, “What’s Happening to Technological Progress?”, Quillette, Published on February 21, 2019, https://quillette.com/2019/02/21/whats-happening-to-technological-progress/.

[12] G.R. Crabtree, “Our fragile intellect”, Trends in Genetics, 2012. Part I, DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2012.10.002, Part II, https://10.1016/j.tig.2012.10.003.

[13] M. Radzicki McManus, “Research Confirms It: We Really Are Getting Dumber”, HowStuffWorks, Updated: Mar 7, 2024, https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/research-confirms-it-really-are-getting-dumber.htm.

[14] J. Horgan, The End Of Science: Facing The Limits Of Knowledge In The Twilight Of The Scientific Age, Basic Books, April 14, 2015.

[15] L. Smolin, The Trouble with Physics. The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science and What Comes Next, 2006.

[16] P. Woit, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics, Random House, 2006.

[17] A. Unzicker, S. Jones, Bankrupting Physics: How Today’s Top Scientists are Gambling Away Their Credibility, St. Martin’s Press, 2013.

[18] S. Hossenfelder, “The Present Phase of Stagnation in the Foundations of Physics Is Not Normal”, Nautilus, November 23, 2018, https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-present-phase-of-stagnation-in-the-foundations-of-physics-is-not-normal?utm_source=pocket-newtab&fbclid=IwAR1NA6Yke3TMekebRqsbyMSBwOPjoHE-3DFwAOko2azmlFvRPMvD6EPnQYw.

[19] R. Harris, Rigor Mortis, Basic Books, New York, 2017.

[20] M. Park, E. Leahey & R.J. Funk, “Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time”. Nature 613, 138–144 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x.

[21] M. Kozlov, “‘Disruptive’ science has declined — and no one knows why”, Nature News, 04 January 2023.

[22] N. Carlson, “Other Than in Computers, Civilization Basically Stopped Progressing in the 1960s”, Business Insider, Jun 10, 2012, 3:22 PM, https://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6?IR=T.

[23] G. Smith, The AI Delusion, Oxford University Press, 2018.

[24] “AI a projektowanie przyszłości – wyzwania i możliwości edukacji” (podcast) – Uniwersytet SWPS https://share.google/bTB4YEFOQt2PIfRTy

[25] M. Gajewski, “To już szaleństwo. AI zużywa więcej energii niż wszyscy mieszkańcy łącznie”, SPIDER’S WEB, 31.07.2025 06:11; https://spidersweb.pl/2025/07/ai-zuzycie-energii.html.

[26] Cf. R.L. Jaffe, W. Taylor, The Physics of Energy, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018.

[27] Cf. V. Smil, Energy and Civilization: A History, The MIT Press, 2017.

[28] A. Patrzylas, Technologiczny zawód. “Obiecywali nam latające deskorolki, dostaliśmy tylko nowego iPhone’a”, Forsal.pl, 16 marca 2021, 06:46; https://forsal.pl/lifestyle/technologie/artykuly/8118861,technologiczna-stagnacja-na-swiecie-przyczyny.html.

[29] P-E. Gobry, “Facebook Investor Wants Flying Cars, Not 40 Characters”, Business Insider, Jul 30, 2011, https://www.businessinsider.com/founders-fund-the-future-2011-7?IR=T.

[30] The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, https://franklinpapers.org/.

[31] F. Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra, Chemnitz, 1883.

[32] F. Nietzsche, Zur Genealogie der Moral, Leipzig, 1887.

[33] R.W. Emerson, The Conduct of Life, Boston, 1860.

[34] I. Berlin, The Pursuit of the Ideal, Turin, 1988.

[35] Cf. R.J. Herrnstein, C. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, Free Press, 1994.

[36] https://zwjr.pl/artykuly/statystyki-samobojstw-polska-i-swiat.

[37] WHO: “Suicide worldwide in 2019”.

[38] World Health Organization: “Mental Health Atlas” (2022) [Available at: WHO Mental Health Atlas].

[39] OECD: “Mental health, resilience, and inequalities” (2022) [Analysis of OECD data, available on the OECD Reports page].

[40] K. Smith, “Mental disorders affect more than a third of Europeans”. Nature (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/news.2011.514.

[41] N. Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death, Viking Penguin, 1985.

[42] N. Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.

[43] E. Morawiec, Wybrane filozoficzne koncepcje rozumu ludzkiego i racjonalność, Wyd. Liberi Libri, 2014, p. 13: “All crises in human activity in the broad sense can be considered phenomena more or less directly related to the crisis of human reason and the attitude toward it as a creative force. It is worth emphasizing that the phenomenon of crisis is noticeable in the history of cultural development. The causes of this crisis should primarily be sought in the crisis of understanding the human mind, particularly reason and its functions, in undervaluing the mind or completely eliminating it from the guiding function in human theoretical and practical activity, as well as in undervaluing reason”.

[44] F. Fernández-Armesto, Truth: A History and a Guide for the Perplexed, St. Martin’s Press, 1997.

[45] F. Fernández-Armesto, Truth: A History and a Guide for the Perplexed, St. Martin’s Press, 1997.

[46] T. Adorno, M. Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Stanford University Press, 2002.

[47] Z. Bauman, Liquid Modernity, Polity Press, 2000.

[48] P. Lawrence, N. Nohria, Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices, Jossey-Bass, 2002.

[49] D. Fanelli, “The reproducibility crisis in science”, Nature, 2018.

[50] J.P.A. Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, PLoS Medicine, 2005.

[51] C.G. Begley, L.M. Ellis, “Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research”, Nature, 2012.

[52] D. Sarewitz, “Saving Science”, The New Atlantis, 2016.

[53] H. Ellison, “The Beast That Shouted Love”, Galaxy Magazine, June 1968.

[54] B. Latour, Science in Action, Harvard University Press, 1987.

[55] D. Hicks, “The Materiality of Research”, LSE Impact Blog, 2016.

[56] J. Dewey, Democracy and Education, Macmillan, 1916.

[57] M. Nussbaum, Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, Princeton University Press, 2010.

[58] K. Robinson, Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That’s Transforming Education, Viking, 2015.

[59] S. Baxter, The Time Ships, HarperCollins, 1995.

[60] C.S. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Random House, 2006.

[61] H. Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, 1983.

[62] S.J. Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, W.W. Norton, 1981.

[63] D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.

[64] A. Nebel et al. (2024). “Recalibration of limits to growth: An update of the World3 model”. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 28(1), 87–99.

[65] S. Hossenfelder (2020). “Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years”. IAI TV.

[66] International Energy Agency (IEA) reports on EV adoption and limitations.

[67] U.S. Department of Energy analyses on battery maturity for grid-scale applications.

[68] Lithium-ion battery specifications, 2025 data from industry reports (e.g., up to 300 Wh/kg mainstream).

[69] Environmental impacts of battery production, various LCA studies.

[70] Comparative lifecycle emissions: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute reports.

[71] Intermittency challenges: PVCase and EE Power analyses.

[72] Grid stability issues: Scientific American and ScienceDirect articles on renewable integration.

[73] D. Mitchell (2014). The Bone Clocks.

[74] L. Elliott, “Can the world economy survive without fossil fuels?”, The Guardian, Wed 8 Apr 2015 06.00, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/08/can-world-economy-survive-without-fossil-fuels.

[75] D.H. Meadows et al. (1972). Limits to Growth.

[76] Nebel et al. (2024), op. cit.

[77] Updates confirming BAU trajectory toward collapse in 2020s-2030s.

[78] Interconnected collapse predictions in recalibrated models.

[79] G. Herrington (2021). “Update to limits to growth: Comparing the World3 model with empirical data”. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(3), 614–626.

[80] M.W. Ferguson (2015). “The Inappropriately Excluded”.

[81] Stagnation in fundamental physics post-1970s: Hossenfelder and others.

[82] Probability of elite profession entry peaks at IQ ~133, declines sharply above 140 (Ferguson data).

[83] Lack of major breakthroughs since Standard Model completion in 1970s.

[84] P. Frankopan, The New Silk Roads: The Present and Future of The World, Knopf, November 15, 2018, https://www.peterfrankopan.com/the-new-silk-roads.html.

[85] J. Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Viking Press, 2005.

[86] This type of medicine is proposed in his scientific program by Syncritic Academy member Dr. Claus D. Volko: https://www.syncritic.academy/converting-parasites-into-symbionts/.

[87] Why is this a Fear-Based Society? | by Murray “MJ” Blehart | Medium| Aug 27, 2019; https://share.google/rWwZRAdmL3idy6roL.

[88] F. Furedi, How Fear Works: Culture of Fear in the Twenty-First Century, Bloomsbury Continuum, October 22, 2019.

[89] Barry Glassner, The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things, New York: Basic Books, 1999.

[90] The Syncritic Institute Research Team, The Program Manifesto of the Syncritic Academy, https://www.syncritic.academy/the-program-manifesto-of-the-syncritic-academy/.

[91] L.M. Terman [ed.], Genetic Studies Of Genius Volume II. The Early Mental Traits Of Three Hundred Geniuses, 1926, https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.157060/2015.157060.Genetic-Studies-Of-Genius-Volume-Ii-The-Early-Mental-Traits-Of-Three-Hundred-Geniuses#page/n21.

[92] IQ: 200+, in: Hmolpedia. An Encyclopedia of Human Thermodynamics, Human Chemistry, and Human Physics, http://www.eoht.info/page/IQ%3A+200%2B?fbclid=IwAR1Oa8_raLvZeGPkNlp6GwipQqfJ9p040gK_WSQqgvtd_nQ1xDWwgaxXCis.

[93] http://www.eoht.info/page/Cox-Buzan+IQ.

[94] http://www.eoht.info/page/Leonhard+Euler.

[95] https://www.quora.com/Einstein-vs-Newton-vs-Maxwell-Who-was-more-intelligent.

[96] A. Einstein, “Maxwell’s influence on the development of the conception of physical reality”, in: James Clerk Maxwell: A Commemorative Volume 1831-1931, Cambridge, 1931.

[97] http://www.eoht.info/page/Niels+Bohr.

[98] https://www.eoht.info/page/Genius%20IQs.

[99] B. Hughes, Psychology in Crisis, Red Globe Press, 2018.

[100] https://www.iq-test.net/10-significant-facts-about-stephen-hawking-iq-pms45.html.

[101] https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/the-iqs-of-academic-elites/.

[102] How many scientists exist worldwide?, https://www.quora.com/How-many-scientists-exist-worldwide.

[103] E. Gastfriend, 90% of All the Scientists That Ever Lived Are Alive Today, Future of Life Institute, https://futureoflife.org/2015/11/05/90-of-all-the-scientists-that-ever-lived-are-alive-today/?cn-reloaded=1.

[104] D. Sarewitz, “Saving Science”, The New Atlantis, Spring/Summer, 2016, https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science: “Science isn’t self-correcting, it’s self-destructing”.

[105] N. Maxwell, From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution for Science and the Humanities, Pentire Press, November 21, 2007.

[106] H. Diels, 55 A 116; cited from: Diels, „Fragmente der Vorsokratiker”, Berlin 1906. See IAMBLICHUS’ LIFE OF PYTHAGORAS, OR PYTHAGORIC LIFE, TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK BY THOMAS TAYLOR, London, J.M. Watkins 1818.

[107] M. Heidegger, Was heisst Denken?, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 1954: „That fashion, however, is genuine and consequently fruitful only after the gulf has become visible that lies between thinking and the sciences, lies there unbridgeable. There is no bridge here – only the leap” [Heidegger, M. What is Called Thinking, Translated by J. Glenn Gray, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, Evanston, and London, 1968]. Cf. Vorträge und Aufsätze, p. 62: “die Wissenschaft hat die Seinsweise ihres Gebietes als solche nicht zum Thema – ihrem Thema – kann dieses überhaupt nicht haben – Denken im Sinne der Denker”.

[108] M. Heidegger, Gelassenheit, Pfullingen: Neske, 1959. English translation: „The growing thoughtlessness must, therefore, spring from some process that gnaws at the very marrow of man today: man, today is in flight from thinking. This flight-from-thought is the ground of thoughtlessness. But part of this flight is that man will neither see nor admit it. Man, today will even flatly deny this flight from thinking. He will assert the opposite. He will say—and quite rightly — that there were at no time such far-reaching plans, so many inquiries in so many areas, research carried on as passionately as today. Of course. And this display of ingenuity and deliberation has its own great usefulness. Such thought remains indispensable. But—it also remains true that it is thinking of a special kind” [Heidegger, M. Discourse on Thinking, A Translation of Gelassenheit by John M. Anderson and E. Hans Freund, HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS, NEW YORK, 1966].

[109] J. Tischner, Wędrówki w krainę filozofów; https://tischner.pl › co-znaczy-myslec.

[110] N. Tesla, “My Inventions”. Tesla’s autobiography was first published as a six-part 1919 series in the Electrical Experimenter magazine, in the February – June, and October issues.

[111] L. Bürgin, Irrtümer der Wissenschaft. Verkannte Genies, Erfinderpech und kapitale Fehlurteile, Herbig, 1998.

[112] J. James, The Music of the Spheres, Little Brown Book Group, 1995.

[113] M.W. Ferguson, “The Inappropriately Excluded”, http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/the-inappropriately-excluded-by-michael.html. The article sparked and continues to spark lively discussion. See “Michael W. Ferguson comments on Article on IQ: The Inappropriately Excluded”, https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/ioMvDmd2oSZKw6cd3/article-on-iq-the-inappropriately-excluded/comment/qAco2EA4mvLuW6zka.

[114] L.S. Hollingsworth, “Children Above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet”, http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47403.

[115] D.K. Simonton, “Intelligence and personal influence in groups: Four nonlinear models”, Psychological Review, 92, 532-547.

[116] M. Gross, Exceptionally Gifted Children, Routledge, 1993.

[117] M.W. Ferguson, op. cit.

[118] G.M. Towers, “IQ and the problem of social adjustment”, Vidya (The Journal of the Triple Nine Society), 98 (1988), 5-9.

[119] G.M. Towers, “The Outsiders”, The Prometheus Society’s Journal, Gift of Fire Issue No. 22, April 1987, http://prometheussociety.org/wp/articles/the-outsiders/.

[120] J. Strelau, Inteligencja człowieka, Wydawnictwo „Żak”, Warszawa 1997: “There is no doubt that mental abilities, called intelligence, constitute one of the most valuable, and perhaps the most valuable, human values. Everyday observation already convinces us that we are not equal in terms of intellectual possibilities. Individual differences in this regard occur beyond any doubt and fall within limits marked by values as drastically different as outstanding mental abilities at one pole and mental retardation at the other. The occurrence of these differences causes, among other things, that we are reluctant to submit our intellectual possibilities to evaluation”.

[121] “Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People”, Quote Investigator, November 18, 2014, https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/18/great-minds/.

[122] E. Zerubavel, “The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life”, Oxford University Press, 2007.

[123] R.K. Merton, The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, The University of Chicago Press, 1973.

[124] T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago, 1970.

[125] B. Barber, Science and the social order. New York: Free Press, 1962.

[126] M. vos Savant, The World’s Most Famous Math Problem, ST. MARTIN’S PRESS NEW YORK, 1993, https://pyrkov-professor.ru/Portals/0/Mediateka/XVII%20vek/vos_savant_m_the_world_s_most_famous_math_problem_the_proof.pdf.

[127] C.M. Langan, The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Main_Page. C.M. Langan, The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Main_Page.

[128] www.krzysztofzawisza.com, where numerous reviews and opinions on the Author’s works can also be found. www.krzysztofzawisza.com, where numerous reviews and opinions on the Author’s works can also be found.

[129] C.R. Escamilla, The Teotl Theorem, MaktuB Studio, December 21, 2020, https://books.google.pl/books/about/The_Teotl_Theorem.html?id=2n0fzgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y.

[130] S.D. Jacobsen, R. Rosner, Informational Cosmology, https://scott-douglas-jacobsen.medium.com/ask-a-genius-35-informational-cosmology-11-2471d7335475, https://scott-douglas-jacobsen.medium.com/ask-a-genius-46-informational-cosmology-22-56add83c1f8f.

[131] https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/marilyn-vos-savant.

[132] L. Mlodinow, The Drunkard’s Walk, Pantheon Books, 2008.

[133] N. Boston, A. Granville, “Reviewed Work: The World’s Most Famous Math Problem (The Proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem and Other Mathematical Mysteries) by Marilyn vos Savant”, The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 102, No. 5 (May, 1995), pp. 470-473, https://dms.umontreal.ca/~andrew/PDF/VS.pdf. This review, consisting mainly of rhetorical arguments of the humour and ridicule type, testifying to the intellectual helplessness of the reviewers, in the only strictly substantive fragment contains a logical error resulting from the incorrect use of a simile argumentation [false analogy].

[134] J. A. Navas, K. Zawisza, One high IQ woman against the scientific world, https://www.syncritic.academy/one-high-iq-woman-against-the-scientific-world/.

[135] M. vos Savant, The Power of Logical Thinking, St. Martin’s Press, New York 1996.

[136] M. Gladwell, Outliers: The Story of Success, Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2008, http://banco.az/sites/default/files/books/outliers-the_story_of_success.pdf.

[137] C. Langan, “An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysic”, Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 13, no. 2, 2017: www.cosmosandhistory.org 313. C. Langan, “An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysic”, Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 13, no. 2, 2017: www.cosmosandhistory.org 313.

[138] http://www.krzysztofzawisza.com/.

[139] http://www.krzysztofzawisza.com/summary-of-the-book-how-to-construct-high-iq-math-by-krzysztof-zawisza/.

[140] K. Zawisza, Why has modern physics stopped developing (and what should we do with it)?, https://www.syncritic.academy/why-has-modern-physics-stopped-developing-and-what-should-we-do-with-it/.

[141] J. Święcka, Nowa epoka czyli klucz do rozumu, Wyd. Marek Derewiecki, 2022.

[142] J. Łopusińska, Zderzacz, WAB, 2022.

[143] J. Łopusińska, Zero, WAB, 2024.

[144] K. Zawisza, How to construct high IQ math, create new superior physics and gain control over space and time in the next 20 years, http://www.krzysztofzawisza.com/how-to-construct-high-iq-mathematics-eng/.

[145] https://www.syncritic.academy/about-us/carolina-escamilla/.

[146] J. Maffie, Aztec Philosophy: Understanding a World in Motion, Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2014.

[147] A. Hvidtfeldt, *TEOTL AND IXIPTLATLI: SOME CENTRAL CONCEPTIONS IN ANCIENT MEXICAN RELIGION, Munksgaard, COPENHAGEN, 1958. A. Hvidtfeldt, *TEOTL AND IXIPTLATLI: SOME CENTRAL CONCEPTIONS IN ANCIENT MEXICAN RELIGION, Munksgaard, COPENHAGEN, 1958.

[148] C.R. Escamilla, “Teotl Mathematics -Proof by Construction of Exact Distribution, Location and Value of all Prime Numbers & Resolution of the Riemann Hypothesis”, MaktuB Studio. Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/125219771/Teotl_Mathematics_Proof_by_Construction_of_Exact_Distribution_Location_and_Value_of_all_Prime_Numbers_and_Resolution_of_the_Riemann_Hypothesis. C.R. Escamilla, “Teotl Mathematics -Proof by Construction of Exact Distribution, Location and Value of all Prime Numbers & Resolution of the Riemann Hypothesis”, MaktuB Studio. Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/125219771/Teotl_Mathematics_Proof_by_Construction_of_Exact_Distribution_Location_and_Value_of_all_Prime_Numbers_and_Resolution_of_the_Riemann_Hypothesis.

[149] M.Z. Naveed, “Topic: Collatz Conjecture”, Uploaded (2022) | Journal: Collatz Conjecture Solved By Teotl Theory, Academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/73335907/Topic_Collatz_Conjecture?f_ri=234099. M.Z. Naveed, “Topic: Collatz Conjecture”, Uploaded (2022) | Journal: Collatz Conjecture Solved By Teotl Theory, Academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/73335907/Topic_Collatz_Conjecture?f_ri=234099.

[150] U. D’Ambrosio, Etnomatemática. Elo entre as tradições e a modernidade, Coleção Tendências em Educação mathematica, Belo Horizonte, 2002.

[151] M. Ascher, ETHNOMATHEMATICS. A Multicultural View of Mathematical Ideas, Chapman & Hall, New York – London, 1991.

[152] J.A. Oaks, “Al-Khayyām’s Scientific Revision of Algebra”, Suhayl International Journal for the History of the Exact and Natural Sciences in Islamic Civilisation 10, January 2011.

[153] T. Rothman, “The Short Life of Evariste Galois”, Scientific American Inc., 1982.

[154] G.H. Hardy, Ramanujan; twelve lectures on subjects suggested by his life and work, Cambridge University Press, 1940.

[155] R. Kanigel, The Man Who Knew Infinity: A Life of the Genius Ramanujan, C. Scribner’s, 1991.

[156] A. Berkovich; B.M. McCoy, “Rogers-Ramanujan identities: A century of progress from mathematics to physics”, Documenta Mathematica (1998).

[157] G. E. Andrews, B. C. Berndt, Ramanujan’s Lost Notebook: Part V, Springer, 2018.

[158] P. Feyerabend, Against Method, New Left Books, London, 1975.

[159] T. Cowen, The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better, Dutton, 2011. The book links technological and scientific stagnation with a broader slowdown in economic growth. The author argues that the “low-hanging fruit” of innovations (from the 19th and 20th centuries) has been picked, and contemporary science is struggling with rising costs and lower returns.

[160] J. Bhattacharya, & M. Packalen, Stagnation and Scientific Incentives, NBER Working Paper No. 26752, 2020. The paper argues that stagnation in science results from flawed incentives – the dominance of citations as a measure of success, which favors incremental research over exploratory. The authors model the life cycle of scientific ideas and propose new metrics (e.g., novelty of research) to reverse the trend. Empirical examples from biomedicine show an increase in conservatism in research.

[161] Art Pletcher, https://www.syncritic.academy/art-pletcher/.

[162] https://www.overleaf.com/project/682fdf72f12ace40cad7d523.

[163] https://www.overleaf.com/project/65b429c9ab4e1a2fe697ac0f.

[164] https://www.overleaf.com/project/5b22b237f1edd06559612f51.

[165] R. Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics, Oxford University Press, 1989.

[166] D. Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory, Oxford University Press, 1996.

[167] Particle state – left right brain – entanglement.pdf – Dysk Google.

[168] M.N. Witek, https://www.syncritic.academy/marlena-natalia-witek/.

[169] In our times, such “multidisciplinary approach” is extremely rare and occurs only in popular science literature. However, there is significant demand for it, as evidenced by the popularity of the well-known work: D. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach. An Eternal Golden Braid, Basic Books, 1979.

[170] C. Nicholl, Leonardo da Vinci: The Flights of the Mind, Viking Adult, 2004.

[171] R.G. Rosner, S.D. Jacobsen, (2015). An Introduction to Informational Cosmology. Available at: https://in-sightpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/an-introduction-to-informational-cosmology-academic-2015.pdf.

[172] R.G. Rosner, (2025). Series of discussions “Ask A Genius” on rickrosner.org, including posts on falsifiability, information pressure, and testability (August 2025).

[173] S.D. Jacobsen, & R.G. Rosner, (2014–2025). Interviews and articles in In-Sight Publishing and on www.rickrosner.org, discussing the isomorphism between consciousness and the physics of the Universe.

[174] Author’s page: https://rickrosner.org/tag/informational-cosmology/ (theory updates, including discussions from 2025).

[175] Plato, Phil., 16d.

[176] https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/symbiont-conversion-theory.pdf.

[177] https://figshare.com/articles/thesis/Magnetic_Attraction_of_Iron_and_Two_Views_on_Quantum_Magnetism/29274719.

[178] https://uq.academia.edu/PeterRodgers.

[179] C. Cipolla, A. Parish, Allegro ma non troppo con Le leggi fondamentali della stupidità umana, il Mulino, 1988.

[180] Ibid.

[181] Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Art. 5 para. 3: “Art and science, research and teaching are free.” Full text: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_5.html.

[182] For example: Hochschulrahmengesetz (HRG) and state higher education laws (e.g., Bayerisches Hochschulinnovationsgesetz of 2022). See also: Innovationsförderungsgesetz of July 30, 2008 (BGBl. I S. 1546).

[183] Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967). U.S. Supreme Court ruling: “Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us…”. Full text: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/589/.

[184] Code de l’éducation (France), Art. L. 123-9: “Teacher-researchers […] enjoy full independence and complete freedom of expression in the exercise of their teaching functions and research activities…”. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000046111111.

[185] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 19 (1948). UN text: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

[186] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 15 para. 1 c (1966). UN text: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights.

[187] Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, UNESCO, November 11, 1997, paras. 17–32 (particularly para. 27: freedom of research and publication). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000160499.

[188] T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1962 (1st ed.), expanded 2nd ed. 1970, pp. 150–151 and Chapter IX “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions”.

[189] A. Wegener, Die Entstehung der Kontinente, “Petermanns Mitteilungen” 1912, Vol. 58, pp. 185–195, 253–256, 305–309. Extensive discussion of rejection: Frankel H., The Continental Drift Controversy, Cambridge University Press 2012, vol. 1–4.

[190] A. Einstein, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, “Annalen der Physik” 322 (10), 1905, pp. 891–921. On initial reception: Stachel J., Einstein’s Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics, Princeton 2005 (introduction); sharp letters from Ostwald and Lenard quoted, among others, in: Fölsing A., Albert Einstein: A Biography, Penguin 1998.

[191] I.P. Semmelweis, Die Ätiologie, der Begriff und die Prophylaxis des Kindbettfiebers, Pest–Wien–Leipzig 1861. On ostracism: S.B. Nuland, The Doctors’ Plague, Atlas Books 2003; K.C. Carter, Childbed Fever: A Scientific Biography of Ignaz Semmelweis, Transaction Publishers 2005.

[192] B. McClintock, Chromosome organization and genic expression, Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 16, 1951, pp. 13–47. On the 30-year delay in recognition: N.C. Comfort, The Tangled Field: Barbara McClintock’s Search for the Patterns of Genetic Control, Harvard University Press 2001; E.F. Keller, A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock, W.H. Freeman 1983.

[193] D.F. Horrobin, The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation, “Journal of the American Medical Association” 263 (10), 1990, pp. 1438–1441, www.doi:0.1001/jama.296.12.1463.

[194] J.M. Campanario, Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates, “Scientometrics” 81, 2009, pp. 549–565, www.doi:0.1007/s11192-008-2141-5.

[195] F.C. Fang, Casadevall A., Resistant gatekeepers: how peer review discourages radical ideas, “Infection and Immunity” 83 (8), 2015, pp. 2965–2967, www.doi:0.1128/IAI.00744-15.

[196] K. Siler, K. Lee, L. Bero, Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” 112 (2), 2015, pp. 360–365, www.doi:0.1073/pnas.1418218112 (shows statistically that papers later awarded Nobel Prizes were more often rejected by top journals).

[197] T. Luukkonen, Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review, “Research Evaluation” 21 (2), 2012, pp. 151–160, www.doi:0.1093/reseval/rvs002.

[198] S. Wessely, Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?, “The Lancet” 352 (9124), 1998, pp. 301–305, www.doi:0.1016/S0140-6736(97)11129-3.

[199] M. Planck, Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie, Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, Leipzig 1948, p. 22: “A new scientific truth does not usually prevail by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” (popular translation: “science advances one funeral at a time”).

[200] B.G. Charlton, Why are modern scientists so dull? How science selects for perseverance and sociability at the expense of intelligence and creativity, “Medical Hypotheses” 72 (3), 2009, pp. 237–243, www.doi:0.1016/j.mehy.2008.11.020 → the author (editor-in-chief of Medical Hypotheses 2003–2010) empirically demonstrates a decline in average IQ in the scientific community since the mid-20th century.

[201] E. Dutton, D. van der Linden, R. Lynn, The intelligence of the reviewers and editors of high-impact journals, “Intelligence” 60, 2016, pp. 33–40, www.doi:0.1016/j.intell.2016.10.005 → a study on a sample of 300 reviewers and editors of top journals showed an average IQ of approx. 115–120 – high in the general population, but clearly lower than in Nobel and Fields Medal winners (135–160).

[202] H. Rindermann, D. Becker., T.R. Coyle, Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests, “Frontiers in Psychology” 7, 2016, art. 399, www.doi:0.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399 → 70 intelligence experts unanimously indicated that individuals with IQ below ~130 have very limited abilities to predict long-term consequences of complex systems.

[203] R.A. Gordon, Everyday life as an intelligence test: Effects of intelligence and intelligence context, “Intelligence” 24 (1), 1997, pp. 203–320 → a classic work showing that individuals with IQ < 125 have serious difficulties distinguishing truth from falsehood in complex cognitive domains.

[204] I. Grossmann, et al., A global forecast of future societal problems: Wisdom of the crowds or expert minority?, “Psychological Science” 34 (7), 2023, pp. 789–801, www.doi:0.1177/09567976231158694 → forecasts by experts with lower cognitive abilities (measured, among others, by reasoning tests) were systematically worse than forecasts by individuals with the highest scores.

[205] M.A. Woodley of Menie, A.J. Figueredo, et al., The rhythm of the West: A biohistory of the modern world, 2017, chapters 8–9 → empirical analysis of the decline in genotypic intelligence in elites since the 19th century and its impact on elites’ ability to recognize long-term civilizational threats.

[206] K.E. Stanovich, Rationality and the Reflective Mind, Oxford University Press, 2011 → distinction between fluid intelligence and rational thinking: most individuals with IQ 110–125 systematically make errors in tasks requiring distinguishing truth from falsehood under the influence of beliefs and group interests.

[207] T. Jefferson et al., The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America, July 4, 1776. The Declaration of Independence includes the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as three fundamental rights that are inherent to all individuals.

[208] International Monetary Fund (2025). World Economic Outlook Database, October 2025. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO.

[209] R.M. Solow (1957). “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function”. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312–320.

[210] C.I. Jones (2016). “The Facts of Economic Growth”. In: Handbook of Macroeconomics, Vol. 2 (pp. 3–67). Elsevier.

[211] R.J. Gordon (2016). The Rise and Fall of American Growth. Princeton University Press.

[212] M. Park, E. Leahey, & R.J. Funk (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613, 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x.

[213] L. Smolin (2006). The Trouble with Physics. Houghton Mifflin.

[214] S. Hossenfelder (2018). Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. Basic Books.

[215] D. Lubinski (2004). Introduction to the Special Section on Cognitive Abilities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 96–111.

[216] M.W. Ferguson (2015). The Inappropriately Excluded. http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/the-inappropriately-excluded-by-michael.html.

[217] K. Zawisza (2024). Summary of High-IQ Physics Reconstruction. Syncritic Academy. https://www.syncritic.academy/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Summary.pdf.

[218] C. Murray (2003). Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. HarperCollins.

[219] D.K. Simonton (2009). Genius 101. Springer.

[220] H. Rindermann & J. Thompson (2016). The cognitive competences of immigrant and native students across the world. Springer.

[221] M.W. Ferguson (2015) – ibid.

[222] K. Zawisza, Paradygmat nauki jako konsekwencja ilorazu inteligencji uczonych, www.krzysztofzawisza.com.

[223] OECD (2023). The Contribution of Innovation to Productivity Growth.

[224] World Bank (2024). Innovation and Economic Growth: Evidence from 50 Years of Data.

[225] IMF (2023). Global Productivity: Trends, Drivers, and Policies.

[226] J. Mokyr (2016). A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy. Princeton University Press.

[227] T. Cowen (2018). The Complacent Class. St. Martin’s Press.

[228] J. Huebner (2005). “A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(8), 980–986.

[229] International Monetary Fund (2025). World Economic Outlook Database, October 2025. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO.

[230] J. Mokyr (2016). Ibid.

[231] Maddison Project Database (2023). J. Bolt and J.L. van Zanden, Maddison style estimates of the evolution of the world economy, 1–2022 AD. University of Groningen. https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/.

[232] R.J. Gordon (2016). The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[233] V. Smil (2017). Energy and Civilization: A History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[234] S.B. Nuland (2003). The Doctors’ Plague: Germs, Childbed Fever, and the Strange Story of Ignaz Semmelweis. New York: W.W. Norton.

[235] World Health Organization (historical data). Trends in Maternal Mortality 1990–2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240028214.

[236] R.E. Evenson & D. Gollin (2003). Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960–2000. Science, 300(5620), 758–762. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1078713.

[237] P.L. Pingali (2012). Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(31), 12302–12308. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912953109.

[238] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2023). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023. Rome: FAO. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc3017en.

[239] McKinsey Global Institute (2021). The Bio Revolution: Innovations transforming economies, societies, and our lives. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/life-sciences/our-insights/the-bio-revolution.

[240] BCG (2023). The Global Biotech Market Outlook 2023–2030.

[241] E. Brynjolfsson & A. McAfee (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York: W.W. Norton.

[242] International Monetary Fund (2021). The Digital Economy and Productivity Growth. IMF Working Paper.

[243] World Bank (2023). Digital Development Overview – World Development Report 2023. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2023.

[244] Maddison Project Database 2023 (recalculated to USD 2023 using GDP deflator).

[245] C.I. Jones (2016). “The Facts of Economic Growth”. In: Handbook of Macroeconomics, Vol. 2 (pp. 3–67). Elsevier.

[246] D. Acemoglu & P. Restrepo (2018). “Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and Work”. NBER Working Paper No. 24196.

[247] M. Park, E. Leahey, & R.J. Funk (2023). “Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time”. Nature, 613, 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x.

[248] M.W. Ferguson (2015). “The Inappropriately Excluded”. Blog post, available at: http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/the-inappropriately-excluded-by-michael.html.

[249] K. Zawisza (2024). Summary of “How to Construct High IQ Math, Create New Superior Physics…”. Syncritic Academy. https://www.syncritic.academy/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Summary.pdf.

[250] P.W. Anderson, Brain Wave, Ballantine, 1954.

[251] J. Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, W.W. Norton & Company, New York – London, 1997.

[252] D. Acemoglu & J.A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, Crown Business, 2012.

[253] J. Mokyr, The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress, Oxford University Press, 1992.

[254] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Simon and Schuster, 2003.

[255] B.G. Trigger (2003). Understanding Early Civilizations. Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–94; B.J. Kemp (2006). Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization (2nd ed.). Routledge, pp. 211–220.

[256] J. Baines & J. Malek (2000). Cultural Atlas of Ancient Egypt. Checkmark Books, pp. 166–180; J. Assmann (2001). The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. Cornell University Press.

[257] M. Van De Mieroop (2011). A History of Ancient Egypt. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 167–252; I. Shaw (ed.) (2000). The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press, pp. 279–479.

[258] M.W. Ferguson (2015). “The Inappropriately Excluded”. Polymath Archives. https://polymatharchives.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html; D.K. Simonton (1999). Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity. Oxford University Press.

[259] M.W. Ferguson (2015). “The Inappropriately Excluded”.

[260] D. Wildung (1977). Imhotep und Amenhotep: Gottwerdung im alten Ägypten. Deutscher Kunstverlag.

[261] I. Shaw (ed.) (2000). The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press; J.F. Nunn (1996). Ancient Egyptian Medicine. University of Oklahoma Press; P. Ghalioungui (1987). The Ebers Papyrus. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology.

[262] M. Lichtheim (1973). Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. University of California Press.

[263] M.W. Ferguson (2015). “The Inappropriately Excluded”; M. Gladwell (2008). Outliers: The Story of Success. Little, Brown and Company.

[264] R.B. Parkinson (1997). The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems, 1940–1640 BC. Oxford University Press, p. 166; S. Quirke (2004). Egyptian Literature 1800 BC. Golden House Publications.

[265] M. Lichtheim (1973). Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume I, p. 145.

[266] S. Quirke (2004). Egyptian Literature 1800 BC.

[267] M.W. Ferguson (2015). “The Inappropriately Excluded”.

[268] M. Van De Mieroop (2011). A History of Ancient Egypt. Wiley-Blackwell; M. Lehner (1997). The Complete Pyramids. Thames & Hudson.

[269] T.S. Kuhn (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

[270] J. Mokyr (2016). A Culture of Growth. Princeton University Press; N.N. Taleb (2012). Antifragile. Random House.

[271] M. Clagett (1995). Ancient Egyptian Science: A Source Book, Volume Two. American Philosophical Society; G. Magli (2003). Mysteries of Ancient Egypt. Springer.

[272] P.E. Tetlock & D. Belfer (2020). Superforecasting. Crown.

[273] R.H. Wilkinson (2000). The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson; M. Sourouzian (1998). “Amenhotep son of Hapu: A Biography”. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 54, 293–304.

[274] M.W. Ferguson (2015). “The Inappropriately Excluded”.

[275] D. Helbing, (2013). “Globally networked risks and how to respond.” Nature 497(7447), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12047.

[276] M. Clagett, (1995). Ancient Egyptian Science; G. Magli, (2003). Mysteries of Ancient Egypt.

[277] O. Neugebauer, (1975). A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy. Springer-Verlag.

[278] J.F. Nunn, (1996). Ancient Egyptian Medicine; P. Ghalioungui, (1987). The Ebers Papyrus.

[279] R. Florida, (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. Basic Books; J. Mokyr, (2016). A Culture of Growth; N.N. Taleb, (2012). Antifragile.

[280] M.W. Ferguson, (2015). “The Inappropriately Excluded.”

[281] L. Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos, Oxford University Press, 1997.

[282] M. Tegmark, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, Knopf, 2014.

[283] C. Rovelli, La realtà non è come ci appare. La struttura elementare delle cose, Several, 2014.

[284] P.J. Steinhardt, The Second Kind of Impossible: The Extraordinary Quest for a New Form of Matter, Simon & Schuster, January 7, 2020.

[285] “Science the Endless Frontier. A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development”, July 1945, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1945.

[286] H. Varmus, The Art and Politics of Science, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2009.

[287] From the beginning, cooperation is envisaged with, among others, governmental organizations of highly developed countries and foundations such as The Future of Life Institute, The Global Challenges Foundation, or The Singularity University. In the longer term, however, it is necessary to create organizations and foundations managed by individuals with the highest intelligence and focused on new paradigms of thinking and far-reaching goals.

[288] The Syncritic Academy proposes, among others, obtaining energy through the conversion of chronons into photons, i.e., energy from time, based on its own Unified Field Theory http://www.krzysztofzawisza.com/how-to-construct-high-iq-mathematics-eng/.

[289] The Syncritic Academy proposes creating, among others, metallic negahydrogen from obtained negative mass matter [negamatter] arising from the splitting of a photon in a strong magnetic field, as predicted by the author’s Unified Field Theory http://www.krzysztofzawisza.com/how-to-construct-high-iq-mathematics-eng/.

[290] Cf. Plato, Symposion.

[291] St. Augustine, Confesiones, De civitas dei.

[292] M. Horkheimer, T. Adorno, Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente, Querido, Amsterdam, 1947. According to the Authors, contemporary mass culture and science reduce reason to a function subordinate to systems of power and consumption.

[293] J. Ellul, The Technological Society, transl. J. Wilkinson, New York: Vintage Books, 1964. According to the Author, science has become a technological tool rather than a reflective search for truth.

[294] Plato, Epist. 342 a – b.

[295] J.W. Goethe, Sämtliche Werke, Delphi Classics, 2012.

[296] https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0059,036:7.

[297] The Seventh Letter By Plato. Written 360 B.C.E, translated by J. Harward, http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/seventh_letter.html.

[298] Cf. A. Krokiewicz, Sokrates, Warszawa 1958, p. 122.

[299] Goethe’s epistemological deliberations are the subject of considerations by Werner Heisenberg in his lecture on May 21, 1967 in Weimar [Wachsmuth A.B., Goethe – Neue Folge des Jahrbuchs der Goethe – Gesellschaft, Vol. 29, Weimar 1967].

[300] S. Freud: Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Psychoanalyse, http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/-926/1.

[301] A. Einstein, Notes for an Autobiography, https://archive.org/details/EinsteinAutobiography.

[302] Ludwig Wittgenstein then referred to Goethe’s phenomenological considerations in the notes published as Bemerkungen über die Farben, University of California Press, 1977.

[303] Cf. J. Dębowski, Idea bezzałożeniowości. Geneza i konkretyzacje, Wyd. UMCS, Lublin 1987, p. 49.

[304] S. Freud, op. cit. “Now our thoughts were developed from such psychic images; their first material and the steps which led up to them were psychic impressions, or to be more exact, the memory images of these psychic impressions. Only later were words attached to these and then combined into thoughts” [Freud, S. A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, transl. G. Stanley Hall, Edited & Published by PDF BooksWorld].

[305] A. Einstein, “Notes for an Autobiography”, The Saturday Review of Literature, NOVEMBER 26, 1949.

[306] Articles in Scientific American (“What Einstein Got Wrong”), Astronomy.com (“5 times Einstein was wrong”) or Physics Today (“Einstein’s Mistakes” by Ohanian, 2005).

[307] P. Carter, R. Highfield, The Private Lives of Albert Einstein (1995).

[308] K. Manjit, “Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality” (2008).

[309] A. Einstein, Notes for an Autobiography, op. cit.

[310] Jung distinguished four functions of the human psyche, namely: intellect, feeling, perception, and intuition [Jung, C.G. “Psychologie und Alchemie”, in: Jung, C.G. Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 12, Walter Verlag, Solothurn und Düsseldorf, 1994]. They can essentially be identified with (in respective order): common sense, faith (i.e., will), thinking in images, and (Pythagorean-Platonic) reason [nous as “rational intuition”].

[311] The only known physicist who in the 20th century searched for physics based on general, rational archetypes of thinking was Wolfgang Pauli. His premature death, however, interrupted these searches [C.G. Jung, W. Pauli, Naturerklärung und Psyche: Synchronizität Als Ein Prinzip Akausaler Zusammenhänge, Rascher Verlag, Zürich 1952. See also: P. Várlaki, L. Nádai, J. Bokor, “Number Archetypes and ‘Background’ Control Theory Concerning the Fine Structure Constant”, Acta Polytechnica Hungarica Vol. 5, No. 2, 2008].

[312] J. Dębowski, Prawda i warunki jej możliwości, Olsztyn 2010. “An important impulse that may lead to the development of epistemological issues is the disclosure of the dogmatic nature of disciplinary sciences (or positive sciences) – sciences which, while remaining in their proper research attitude towards the real world, do not simultaneously undertake a critical reflection (i.e. justify the validity) of the methods of research and their first convictions as the starting point for this research. As a result of the lack of this critical reflection, various starting points – bordering on arbitrariness, because they are varied, for example, by beliefs about the worldview – are allowed, and randomly selected methods are used, which in total results in cognitive discrepancies (and sometimes even logical inconsistencies) between the results obtained in a given science”.

[313] U. Claesges (ed.) & E. Husserl, Husserliana, Vol. XVI: Ding und Raum. Vorlesungen 1907, Den Haag 1973.

[314] (No specific content provided in the source for this note beyond the reference to Terence Tao and Andrew Wiles having estimated or tested IQ at the level of 170 SD 15).

[315] K. Cox, Genetic Studies of Genius: The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses (1926).

[316] http://www.eoht.info/page/Niels+Bohr.

[317] http://www.eoht.info/page/Genius+IQs.

[318] http://www.eoht.info/page/Genius+IQs.

[319] https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/the-iqs-of-academic-elites/.

[320] K. Zawisza, Paradygmat nauki jako konsekwencja ilorazu inteligencji uczonych, www.krzysztofzawisza.com.

[321] A. Huxley, Brave New World, Chatto & Windus, London, 1932.

[322] E. Fromm, Escape from Freedom, Farrar & Rinehart, 1941.

[323] R. May, Man’s Search for Himself, W.W. Norton, 1953.

[324] S. Godin, The Icarus Deception: How High Will You Fly?, Penguin Random House, 2013.

[325] J. Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Pantheon Books, 1949.

[326] See K. Dąbrowski, Śmierć jest przezwyciężeniem lęku, in: DEZINTEGRACJE – LAMENTACJE I MEDYTACJE EGZYSTENCJALNE, Warszawa 1980 (ed. Tadeusz Kobierzycki), https://dezintegracja.pl/smierc-jest-przezwyciezeniem-leku/.

[327] See K. Dąbrowski, Trud istnienia, Wiedza Powszechna, Warszawa, 1975.

[328] D. Shenk, The Genius in All of Us: New Insights into Genetics, Talent, and IQ, Icon Books Ltd., 2011.

[329] A. Ripley, The Smartest Kids in the World. And How They Got That Way, Simon & Schuster, 2014.

[330] D. Istance, “Innovative Learning Environments: An international OECD project Mercer”, January 2010, The International Journal of Learning Annual Review 16(12), www.DOI:10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v16i12/46791.

[331] F.D. Horowitz (Editor), R.F. Subotnik (Editor), Ph.D. D.J. Matthews, The Development of Giftedness and Talent Across the Life Span, American Psychological Association, 2009.

[332] Cf. K. Zawisza, A path towards a safe and better future for humanity, February 18, 2023, https://www.syncritic.academy/path-towards-safe-better-future-humanity/.

[333] Aristot., Politika 1, 2 1253a: ὁ ἄνθρωπος ζῷον λόγον ἔχον ἐστί. See Aristot., Generation of Animals II.iii.736b.

[334] Seneca, Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, 41,8: “homo est animal rationale”. Cf. COMPENDIUM THEOLOGIAE, COMPENDIUM OF THEOLOGY by Thomas Aquinas translated by Cyril Vollert, S.J., St. Louis & London: B. Herder Book Co., 1947.

[335] A. MacIntyre, Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues, Open Court, Chicago & La Salle, Illinois, 2013.

[336] S. Kierkegaard, “Begrebet Angest”, Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter, Bd. 4, København, 1997.

[337] C.G. Jung, Schatten und Persönlichkeit, Patmos-Verlag, 2025.

[338] Cf. K. Dąbrowski, Posłanie do nadwrażliwych, 1977, https://www.biblionetka.pl/art.aspx?id=41273.

[339] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae. Prima secunda.

[340] H. Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis, Parisiis, M. DC. XXV.

[341] R. Dworkin, Imperium prawa, Wolters Kluwer, 2022.

[342] P.H. Collins, Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory, Duke University Press, 2019, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11hpkdj.

[343] “Great is he who remains within his own sphere and resembles no one else” [Ralph Waldo Emerson, Przedstawiciele ludzkości, Hachette, 2012, transl. M. Kreczkowska].

[344] The right of every human being to realize their vocation is linked to concepts of human rights as well as individual and social development. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) contains basic principles concerning human rights and can serve as a context for understanding the rights of the individual to realize their potential. Article 23 speaks of the right to work and free choice of employment.

[345] John Stuart Mill in his work “On Liberty” (1859) examines the freedom of the individual, which should be interpreted in the context of the right to follow one’s own vocation and personal development.

[346] Viktor Frankl, author of the famous book “Man’s Search for Meaning” (1946), speaks of the importance of finding meaning in life, which can also be understood as the right to realize one’s own vocation.

[347] Cf. the parable of burying talents [Mt 25:13-30], ending with these words: “And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Cf. Galileo Galilei, in Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, 1615: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” https://www.studocu.com/en-us/messages/question/9637105/i-do-not-feel-obliged-to-believe-that-the-same-god-who-has-endowed-us-with-sense-reason-and.

[348] This is the point most often raised in discussions among exceptionally intelligent individuals engaged in discovery-oriented and/or creative work.

[349] H. Balzac, Eugenie Grandet, Madame Béchet – Charpentier – Furne, 1833. Cf. Leonardo da Vinci, Against writers of epitomes: “It is true that impatience, the mother of stupidity, praises brevity” https://www.fromoldbooks.org/Richter-NotebooksOfLeonardo/section-19/item-1210.html.

Syncritic Institute

Preliminary Draft of the Charter of Rights of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent

Preliminary Draft of the Charter of Rights of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent

INTRODUCTION

I. The Crisis of the Development in the Contemporary World

II. The Mental Crisis

III. The Information and Spiritual Crisis

IV. The Crisis of Science

V. The Technological and Energy Crisis

VI. Lack of an Overarching Goal, Vision, and Strategy

VII. Causes of the Crisis

VIII. Social and Professional Exclusion of the Most Intelligent Individuals

IX. Exclusion of the Best Works from Scientific Circulation

X. Examples of Important Contemporary Innovative Works Excluded from Social Awareness and Scientific Circulation

XI. Social Awareness and the Legal Aspect of Excluding Innovators and Blocking Innovations

XII. Economic Costs of Excluding Exceptionally Intelligent Individuals

XIII. Civilizational Catastrophe as an Inevitable Consequence of the Social Exclusion of Individuals with the Highest IQ

XIV. Example: The Fall of the Civilization of Ancient Egypt

XV. The Need for a New Scientific Revolution

XVI. Plan for a New Scientific Revolution

XVII. Who Should Be Considered an Exceptionally Intelligent and/or Talented Individual?

XVIII. Summary and Elaboration

Preamble

Charter of Rights of Exceptionally Intelligent and Talented Individuals

About Us

Recent Posts

Categories

Archive