Exceptional intelligence and talent are not a private treasure, but a gift entrusted to a human being — a gift whose concealment, waste, or burial constitutes the gravest offence against oneself and against all of humanity.[1]

Already in the ancient Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30),[2] the Master taught that the servant who received a gift and buried it in the ground out of fear of risk is condemned, while those who multiplied what was entrusted to them are rewarded with the words: “Well done, good and faithful servant.”[3] The same principle permeates the spiritual and ethical tradition of many cultures: abilities must not be hidden but developed and employed for the greater good. Confucius taught that the noble person (junzi) should ceaselessly perfect themselves and apply their abilities for the harmony of society and the world.[4] Similarly, in the Buddhist path of the Bodhisattva, talents and wisdom are cultivated not for personal gain, but for the benefit of all sentient beings.[5]

In today’s popular culture, this idea resounds in the words of Uncle Ben to the young Peter Parker: “With great power comes great responsibility”[6] — a maxim that has become a universal symbol of the moral imperative proportional to the gifts one has received.

The only truly indispensable moral attitude that gives a person of exceptional intelligence the right to demand conditions enabling the full development of their potential (in accordance with the Charter of Rights of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent) is the readiness not to bury one’s talent — that is, the active, responsible, and directed toward broader benefit and deeper good use of one’s abilities.

This Code is not a necessary condition for enjoying the compensatory protection provided in the Charter of Rights. It is, however, a voluntary, conscious, and higher commitment — an invitation to the community of those who desire not only to benefit from the gift, but also to make it a source of progress for the entire civilization.

By adopting this Code, we declare that we do not wish to be merely the gifted — we wish to be faithful stewards of the treasure entrusted to us.

Warsaw, January 2026

Part I. Introduction and Philosophical Foundations

1. Introduction

Exceptional intelligence and outstanding talent constitute both an extraordinary gift and a heavy burden. Throughout history, the greatest breakthroughs — from the discovery of fire to the theory of relativity — we owe to individuals who could see farther and deeper than almost anyone around them. Yet the very same history is replete with tragic examples of geniuses rejected, misunderstood, marginalized, or even destroyed by the societies in which they lived: Socrates was forced to drink hemlock,[7] Alan Turing took his own life,[8] Nikola Tesla died in poverty and isolation.[9]

In the face of the deepening civilizational crisis of our time — stagnation in fundamental science (particularly physics and medicine), environmental degradation, accumulating existential risks, and a growing crisis of meaning — the role of individuals with the highest cognitive and creative abilities has become critical for the survival and future development of the human species. This is precisely why the Charter of Rights of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent was created, demanding protection from exclusion and the establishment of conditions enabling the full realization of their potential.

Rights, however, never exist in a vacuum. Wherever special privileges emerge, special responsibilities arise in direct proportion. The present Code of Ethics constitutes the necessary complementary counterpart — the reverse side of the same coin. Without such an ethical commitment, demands for special rights could legitimately be perceived as claims of a self-appointed elite to privileges without corresponding responsibility. With the Code in place, those demands become a justified request for conditions that allow the fulfillment of an exceptional vocation in the service of humanity.

This Code is neither a set of legal injunctions nor the statute of any organization. It is a voluntary moral obligation undertaken by individuals who recognize that their extraordinary abilities impose equally extraordinary duties. By adopting it, we declare our readiness to live according to principles higher than mere personal interest — the principles of truth, responsibility, and service.

1.1. Purpose of the Code

The principal aims of the Code are:

• To establish clear ethical principles for persons of exceptional intelligence and talent, ensuring that their activities always serve the common good of humanity and never merely private interests.

• To preempt justified accusations of elitism by demonstrating that superior cognitive capacity entails proportionally greater moral responsibility.

• To build the social trust necessary to secure the real support and protective measures envisaged in the Charter of Rights.

• To safeguard exceptional individuals themselves against the temptations that have historically led many geniuses into moral downfall — narcissism, contempt for others, instrumental treatment of people, or service to destructive ideologies.

• To create a framework for the internal culture of the high-IQ community, grounded in solidarity, mutual correction, and a shared sense of civilizational mission.

The Code thus possesses both an external dimension (towards society) and an internal one (towards the community itself and the individual).

1.2. Addressees of the Code

The Code is primarily addressed to individuals who meet at least one of the following criteria:

• A level of general intelligence (g-factor) of IQ ≥ 145 on the SD 15 scale (corresponding to an approximate rarity of 1 in 1,000 in the general population) or higher, confirmed by a reliable, standardized test administered by a competent institution.

• A level of IQ ≥ 175 SD 15 (rarity of approximately 1 in a million or rarer) — such persons are regarded as bearing a particularly strong obligation due to their unique potential.

• Possession of an exceptional, objectively documented talent in a scientific, artistic, technical, or other domain, whose level significantly exceeds the capabilities of 99.9% of the population (e.g., breakthrough achievements, patents, publications in leading journals, international awards).

The Code also applies to individuals who do not meet strict psychometric criteria but have objectively demonstrated a comparable contribution to civilizational progress and identify with the mission articulated in the Charter of Rights and in this Code.

Addressees are defined not by membership in any organization, but by the self-acceptance of this ethical commitment. The Code is open — any qualifying individual may voluntarily adopt it.

1.3. Relationship of the Code to the Charter of Rights of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent

The Charter of Rights of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent (hereinafter “the Charter”) and the present Code of Ethics form an inseparable whole — two sides of the same coin.

The Charter concentrates on what society and its institutions owe to persons of exceptional intelligence:

• protection against discrimination and exclusion,

• the right to an individualized path of development,

• the right to fair evaluation of one’s work by competent peers,

• conditions enabling focus on work of potentially breakthrough significance.

The Code of Ethics, conversely, articulates what persons of exceptional intelligence owe in return to society and to humanity:

• active employment of their potential in the service of progress,

• responsible exercise of cognitive advantage,

• avoidance of manipulation and contempt,

• contribution to the education and mentoring of future generations.

Without the Code, the Charter could be read as a one-sided claim to privileges. With the Code, it becomes part of a just social contract: society provides the enabling conditions, while exceptional individuals commit to utilizing them in a morally responsible manner.

As Aristotle already articulated in the Nicomachean Ethics: the outstanding person (megalopsychos — “great-souled”) does not demand honours for himself, but recognizes them as rightfully due on account of his genuine services to the community.[10] The contemporary formulation of this ancient insight is: special rights are justified only when accompanied by special duties.

1.4. Voluntary but Morally Binding Character of the Code

The Code has no legal force nor any institutional compulsion. It is not imposed by any organization or state. Its acceptance remains a completely voluntary and conscious act, arising from an inner conviction about the responsibility that flows from exceptional abilities.

However, voluntariness does not mean arbitrariness or lack of consequences. Acceptance of the Code is a public or private commitment to one’s own conscience, to the community of exceptionally intelligent persons, and to all of humanity. A person who has accepted it and subsequently consciously and persistently violates its fundamental principles loses the moral right to invoke the protection provided for in the Charter of Rights of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent.

In other words: the special rights arising from the Charter of Rights are morally justified only when they go hand in hand with the responsibility expressed in the Code. Whoever rejects or consciously violates the Code deprives himself of legitimacy in demanding special treatment.

1.4a. Consequences of Non-Acceptance or Violation of the Code

The consequences are exclusively moral, reputational, and social in nature within the global community of exceptionally intelligent persons and in the eyes of public opinion. There is no central “tribunal” nor any list of the excluded. These mechanisms rely on the natural processes of trust and cooperation characteristic of communities based on meritocracy and reputation.

Consequences of Non-Acceptance of the Code

A person meeting the criteria of exceptional intelligence who publicly rejects the Code or declares that they do not feel bound by any special moral obligations arising from their abilities cannot be treated as part of the responsible intellectual elite.

Such a person should not be recommended for support programs, grants, or institutions that refer to the Charter of Rights and the Code (e.g., Syncritic Academy funds, future research centers for geniuses).

They cannot be presented as a role model or representative of the high-IQ community in contacts with media, governments, or international organizations.

Any complaints they make about discrimination or exclusion lose moral force — society has the right to respond: “You demand special rights, but reject special duties.”

Consequences of Serious Violation of the Code After Acceptance

A person who has publicly accepted the Code (e.g., by signing an ethical oath, making a statement on the foundation’s website, publishing a declaration) and subsequently consciously and persistently violates it (e.g., uses their intelligence for social manipulation, intellectual fraud, support for destructive ideologies) is subject to the following natural consequences:

• Loss of trust and cooperation from other members of the high-IQ community (refusal of joint projects, reviews, recommendations).

• Public distancing from such a person by organizations promoting the Code (e.g., a statement: “Person X does not represent the values expressed in the Code”).

• Weakening of their own position in any disputes concerning rights from the Charter — institutions and public opinion may rightly conclude that someone who has betrayed their own ethical commitment does not deserve special protection.

Mechanism of Transparency and Accountability

Organizations promoting the Code (such as the Syncritic Academy Foundation or future international institutes) may maintain a voluntary, public register of persons who have formally taken the oath of acceptance of the Code. This register is positive in character (a list of trustworthy persons), not negative.

In the event of serious, documented violations, these organizations may issue a public statement withdrawing moral support for the given person — without creating a “blacklist”, but with a clear communication of values.

In summary: the consequences are real, but not institutional-coercive. They are based on the logic of trust and reputation — just as in the world of science trust in a researcher’s integrity is a condition of cooperation. Whoever wants to benefit from the moral legitimacy of special rights must demonstrate responsibility. Whoever does not want to — has the right to do so, but cannot simultaneously demand privileges justified by “higher service to humanity”.

In this way the Code becomes effective in building social trust: it shows that the high-IQ community itself can cleanse itself of persons abusing their potential, without waiting for external sanctions.

Lesson from History: Why This Time It Must Be Different

The history of the 20th century provides painful examples that the international scientific community has repeatedly failed to hold accountable brilliant minds who cooperated with totalitarian systems or committed serious ethical violations. Werner Heisenberg, Wernher von Braun, Andrei Sakharov (in the initial phase), as well as numerous engineers and physicists in the USSR and other authoritarian regimes, continued their careers at the highest level after periods of cooperation with systems violating basic human rights, often without significant loss of trust or publication and cooperation opportunities.[11]

The reasons for this phenomenon were varied: geopolitical interests (“our bastards”), fascination with technical achievements, lack of supranational accountability mechanisms, and reluctance to engage in “witch hunts”.

Conscious of these facts, the authors of the present Code declare a clear break with this tradition of permissiveness. Acceptance of the Code means consciously rejecting the logic of “the end justifies the means” and “genius justifies everything”. An exceptionally intelligent person who uses their talent to support systems that violate human dignity, to create repressive technologies, or to consciously participate in projects threatening the survival of humanity, cannot be regarded as part of the responsible intellectual elite — regardless of subsequent achievements or change of sides.

The community of persons accepting the Code commits itself to actively distancing itself from such cases — through refusal of cooperation, public statements, and withholding of moral support. Only in this way can the social trust necessary for the implementation of the Charter of Rights be rebuilt.

1.4b. Particular Case: Cooperation with Totalitarian and Authoritarian Systems

Exceptional intelligence imposes a special duty of resistance to the temptations of totalitarian power. A person with the highest cognitive abilities possesses an exceptional capacity to foresee the long-term consequences of their actions and to understand the mechanisms of propaganda and manipulation. Therefore, explanations such as “I didn’t know”, “I was following orders”, or “it was necessary for the greater good” are morally unacceptable in their case.

The history of the 20th century shows two diametrically different approaches of outstanding scholars toward totalitarian regimes:

Negative examples — lack of accountability

• Werner Heisenberg remained in Nazi Germany and headed the Third Reich’s nuclear program, despite awareness of the nature of the regime.[12]

• Wernher von Braun actively developed the V-2 rockets, produced by concentration camp prisoners (approx. 20,000 fatal victims). Both continued brilliant careers in democratic countries after the war, without significant loss of prestige in the international scientific community.[13]

Similarly, many outstanding physicists and mathematicians in the USSR (e.g. Igor Kurchatov, head of Stalin’s atomic program) enjoyed recognition in the West despite participation in projects of a regime responsible for millions of victims.

These cases illustrate the historical weakness of the scientific community in enforcing ethical standards toward geniuses.

Positive examples — conscious refusal of cooperation

There are, however, outstanding figures who made a different choice and can serve as models of responsibility:

• Niels Bohr — Danish physicist, Nobel Prize laureate, half-Jewish. In 1943, when Germany occupied Denmark and arrest threatened him, he refused any talks about cooperation with the occupier. He fled to Sweden, then to Great Britain and the USA, where he joined the Manhattan Project — but already within the framework of the democratic Allied effort. After the war he became one of the loudest advocates of international control over nuclear weapons and open science (Open Letter to the United Nations, 1950).[14]

• Joseph Rotblat — Polish physicist of Jewish origin, the only scientist who voluntarily left the Manhattan Project in 1944 when it became clear that Germany would not build the atomic bomb. He was motivated by the conviction that nuclear weapons should not exist in any hands. After the war he founded the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 (together with the organization).[15]

• Andrei Sakharov — “father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb”. Initially he worked for the Stalinist system, but from the late 1960s he became one of the boldest dissidents of the USSR. He publicly criticized the arms race, human rights violations, and the invasion of Afghanistan. For his activity he paid with exile to Gorky (1980–1986). In 1975 he received the Nobel Peace Prize, and in later years became a symbol of moral redemption and intellectual courage.[16]

• Fang Lizhi — Chinese astrophysicist, in the 1980s became an inspiration for the democratic movement in the PRC. He refused loyalty to the Communist Party, openly criticized the regime, and supported students in Tiananmen Square. In 1989 he took refuge in the US embassy, and a year later emigrated. Until the end of his life he remained the voice of conscience of Chinese intelligentsia.[17]

Acceptance of the Code means a conscious commitment to follow the attitude of Bohr, Rotblat, the mature Sakharov, or Fang Lizhi — and not Heisenberg or von Braun. This means:

• Refusal to participate in projects that directly or indirectly serve the violation of basic human rights, repression, aggression, or existential threats to humanity.

• Public distancing from authoritarian and totalitarian systems, even at the cost of personal career, safety, or research opportunities.

• In extreme situations (threat to life or loved ones) — minimization of harm, documentation of truth, and search for paths of long-term resistance.

The Code constitutes a conscious attempt to draw lessons from history — not to judge the past, but to prevent the repetition of its mistakes in the future. An exceptionally intelligent person who consciously chooses cooperation with systems that violate human dignity loses the moral right to be recognized as part of the responsible intellectual elite — regardless of subsequent achievements or changed circumstances.

2. Philosophical Foundations of Responsibility

Exceptional intelligence and talent are not merely a private gift of fate nor a source of personal privileges. They are a phenomenon of civilizational significance, which imposes on the possessor a proportionally greater moral responsibility. The following considerations point to key philosophical traditions that form the foundation of this Code.

2.1. Aristotelian Concept of Magnanimity (megalopsychia)

In the Nicomachean Ethics (Book IV, chapter 3), Aristotle describes the magnanimous person (μεγαλόψυχος) as an individual who possesses real, exceptional qualities — including reason and cognitive abilities — and is fully aware of them. The magnanimous person is, however, neither arrogant nor contemptuous. On the contrary:

• They acknowledge their superiority not in order to despise others, but to serve the community in a manner worthy of their capabilities.

• They demand the honors due to them not out of vanity, but because these are an expression of recognition for their contribution to the common good.

• They are particularly sensitive to injustice and willing to bear personal costs in defense of truth and justice.

Aristotle emphasizes that magnanimity is connected with moderation and justice — an exceptional person cannot be servile (as that would deny their own value), nor haughty (as that would despise others). The Code adopts this concept as an ideal: a person of exceptional intelligence has the right to demand conditions enabling full development (in accordance with the Charter of Rights), but only on the condition that they use their abilities in service to the greater good.

2.2. Noblesse oblige – Obligation Arising from Distinction

The principle “noblesse oblige” (nobility obliges), formulated in the European aristocratic tradition and later extended to intellectual and economic elites, proclaims that greater privileges carry with them greater duties toward society. In the context of the Enlightenment, this idea was deepened by thinkers such as Voltaire, who in his Philosophical Letters and in the practice of life emphasized that intellectual power (the influence of a writer, scholar, philosopher) must be balanced by active engagement in the fight against fanaticism, intolerance, and injustice.

Voltaire wrote: “The more light we have, the more responsible we are for its use.”[18] An exceptional person cannot remain indifferent to suffering, ignorance, or civilizational threats — they have a moral duty to act, even at the cost of personal comfort. The Code adopts this principle as universal: exceptional intelligence is a form of “nobility of the mind,” which obliges service to humanity.

2.3. The Burden of Consciousness – 20th-Century Tradition (Lem, Nietzsche, Kołakowski)

Friedrich Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil indicated that higher consciousness is at the same time a burden: a person who sees farther and deeper can no longer be satisfied with the simple consolations of the majority. The overman (Übermensch) is not a tyrant, but a creator of new values, who takes upon themselves the responsibility for the future of humanity.[19]

Stanisław Lem develops this thought in the essay Fantasy and Futurology as well as in statements about “geniocide.” A genius experiences the “burden of consciousness” — sees threats and opportunities that others do not notice, and feels a moral compulsion to act. Lem writes: “Intelligence without ethics is dangerous; ethics without intelligence — powerless.”[20] An exceptional person cannot escape responsibility under the pretext that “the world won’t understand me anyway.”

Leszek Kołakowski in The Presence of Myth and essays on the responsibility of the intellectual emphasizes that in a world devoid of absolute certainties, a person possessing a greater ability to understand truth has a special duty to guard against manipulation, ideological blindness, and collective stupidity. The intellectual is not a “free spirit” in the sense of arbitrariness — they are a guardian of critical thinking.[21]

2.4. Responsibility Proportional to Abilities

The classic maxim “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (Marx) in an ethical, not political, context takes on new meaning. A person with exceptional cognitive abilities has a proportionally greater duty to contribute to the common good, because:

• They possess a greater ability to predict consequences.

• They better understand the complexity of civilizational problems.

• They have greater potential for creating breakthrough solutions.

This is not a call for leveling down nor for compulsory labor — but for a conscious choice of direction of action consistent with the civilizational vocation.

2.5. Synthesis: Responsible Intellectual Elite

The philosophical foundations of the Code can be summarized in the following theses:

• Exceptional intelligence is a gift of general human significance, not private.

• Possession of greater cognitive power imposes greater moral responsibility (Aristotle, Voltaire, Lem).

• An exceptional person has the right to conditions for development, but only when they use their abilities in service to truth and the good of humanity (noblesse oblige).

• The burden of consciousness does not allow for indifference — it requires active engagement in solving key problems of the era.

• Responsibility is proportional to abilities — the higher the intelligence, the stricter the ethical duty.

By adopting this Code, we declare that we do not want to be merely “exceptional individuals” living for ourselves. We want to be responsible guardians of progress, worthy of the trust of society, which has the right to expect more from us than from the average person.

In the following chapters, concrete principles and duties arising from these philosophical foundations will be developed.

Part II. General Principles and Overriding Values

3. Overriding Principles

These principles constitute the indisputable ethical core of the Code. They are hierarchically ordered and have an absolute character – no situation, no personal interest, nor any temporary circumstances can justify their violation. A person accepting the Code recognizes them as the highest criterion for evaluating their own conduct.

3.1. Primacy of truth over personal interest

Objective truth – understood as the correspondence of statements with reality independent of desires, beliefs or benefits – is the highest value. A person of exceptional intelligence, possessing special tools for its discovery and verification, can never consciously falsify facts, manipulate data, or present hypotheses as certainties in order to achieve personal, professional or ideological benefits.

Even in the face of social, institutional or political pressure, the duty to speak the truth remains absolute. As Immanuel Kant wrote: “Have the courage to use your own reason”[22] also means having the courage to bear the consequences of that truth.

3.2. The good of humanity as the supreme value

The activity of a person of exceptional intelligence must always be evaluated through the prism of the long-term good of all humanity and the survival of civilization. No project, publication or professional decision can consciously increase the risk of existential catastrophe or systemic degradation of living conditions for future generations.

The good of humanity is not identical with the interest of the current majority, a specific nation, class or ideology – it is a universal good encompassing all present and future generations.

3.3. Intellectual humility in the face of the limits of one’s own knowledge

Exceptional intelligence does not mean infallibility. A person of exceptional ability has a particular duty to continually question their own convictions, remain open to falsification, and recognize the boundaries of current human knowledge.

Intellectual pride – the conviction of possessing ultimate truth or the superiority of one’s own model of reality – is one of the most serious dangers stemming from high intelligence. As Bertrand Russell reminded us: “Stupidity consists not in a lack of intelligence, but in the conviction that one possesses it sufficiently.”[23]

3.4. Respect for the dignity of every person

Regardless of level of intelligence, talent or achievements, every human being possesses inherent dignity. A person of exceptional ability can never treat others instrumentally, show contempt, dehumanize, or justify the suffering of individuals for a “higher purpose”.

This respect does not mean cognitive relativism – truth remains truth – but it excludes arrogance, dignity-harming sarcasm, and any form of discrimination.

3.5. The principle of non-harmful means

Even the noblest goal does not justify morally impermissible means. A person of exceptional intelligence, aware of the complex consequences of actions, has a particular duty to choose methods that minimize suffering and do not violate basic ethical principles.

History has repeatedly shown that geniuses who applied the principle “the end justifies the means” became perpetrators of the greatest tragedies.

4. Particular Values

These values flow directly from the overriding principles and define the specific way of using exceptional abilities. They constitute a positive imperative of action – not only “what not to do”, but “what to do”.

4.1. Responsible use of cognitive advantage

Higher ability to understand reality gives real advantage – in prediction, planning, and influencing the course of events. This advantage can never be used for private enrichment at the expense of others, for social manipulation, or for building personal power.

Instead, it should serve the protection of the weaker, the exposure of falsehood, and the creation of solutions beneficial to all.

4.2. Protection of the intellectually weaker against manipulation

A person of exceptional ability possesses rhetorical, logical and cognitive tools that can be used for persuasion at a level inaccessible to most people. Using this asymmetry to mislead, instill fear, or impose beliefs contrary to the interests of the recipients is morally unacceptable.

Instead of manipulation, clear, honest communication adapted to the level of the recipient is required – but never lowering it or distorting the truth.

4.3. Contribution to civilizational progress as a moral imperative

Exceptional intelligence is a rare phenomenon of key importance for the survival and development of humanity. A person possessing such potential has a moral duty to actively contribute to solving the most important problems of the era – from existential threats to scientific and technological stagnation.

This is not a legal or institutional obligation, but an inner imperative arising from the fact that in a situation of civilizational crisis, silence or exclusive focus on private goals amounts to a moral betrayal of one’s own vocation.

4.4. Scientific and artistic integrity

In research, creative, or innovative activity, a person of exceptional ability commits to the highest standards of honesty: correct citation, truthful reporting of results (including negative ones), avoidance of intellectual plagiarism, and conscious distinction between facts and hypotheses.

Violation of integrity in these fields undermines not only one’s own credibility, but the credibility of the entire community of exceptional persons.

4.5. Long-term ethical perspective

Decisions of a person of exceptional ability should be evaluated not only in terms of immediate consequences, but primarily in terms of effects over decades and centuries. Higher ability to model the future imposes a duty of particular caution toward innovations with potentially revolutionary (positive or negative) impact.

The principles and values expressed in this part of the Code create a coherent ethical system, in which exceptional intelligence is treated not as a privilege for self-realization, but as a trust entrusted by humanity to its most capable representatives. Their observance is the condition for the moral legitimacy of the rights contained in the Charter of Rights of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent.

In the following parts, detailed duties toward society, toward other exceptional persons, and toward oneself – being consequences of these overriding principles and values – will be developed.

Part III. Duties Toward Society and Humanity

5. Obligation of Civilizational Service

Exceptional intelligence is a rare phenomenon whose frequency of occurrence decreases exponentially with increasing level of ability. As a consequence, a person possessing such potential becomes a gift of strategic importance to all of humanity — a gift whose full realization can determine the direction of civilizational development and the survival of the species. This potential, although fully belonging to a free and autonomous human individual, is at the same time an entrustment by history and humanity — a trust that it will be used in the service of the greater good.[24]

5.1. Active contribution to solving key problems of humanity

A person of exceptional intelligence has a moral duty to direct a significant portion of their time, energy and abilities toward problems of the highest civilizational priority. These problems include in particular:

• existential and catastrophic risks (artificial general intelligence, biological weapons, climate change on a scale leading to ecosystem collapse, pandemic risks, asteroid threats),[25]

• scientific and technological stagnation in fundamental fields (high-energy physics, life-extension medicine, fusion energy),[26]

• degradation of society’s cognitive and epistemological institutions (erosion of trust in science, proliferation of disinformation).[27]

This does not mean a prohibition against working in seemingly “less important” fields, but the duty to ensure that the overall life balance of contribution is significantly positive on a civilizational scale.

5.2. Priority of research and innovation of breakthrough significance

Routine, commercial or administrative work, although worthy of respect in persons of average ability, constitutes in the case of a genius a form of wasting potential. A person of exceptional ability should strive for conditions that enable concentration on tasks with the highest expected impact — even if they involve long-term risk and lack of immediate rewards.

History shows that the greatest breakthroughs (theory of relativity, DNA structure, transistor, mRNA vaccines) were accomplished by individuals who refused to scatter their efforts on trivial objectives.[28]

5.3. Avoiding the waste of potential

Consciously choosing a career path or lifestyle that prevents the full utilization of one’s abilities (e.g. excessive engagement in speculative financial activity, entertainment or politics without strategic dimension) constitutes a moral failing toward one’s own vocation and toward humanity, which has the right to expect a contribution proportional to the rarity and power of such a gift. This is not about asceticism or renunciation of personal happiness, but about conscious proportionality: the higher the potential, the greater the obligation to realize it in the service of progress.

6. Obligation of Education and Mentoring

Exceptional intelligence must not remain locked in an ivory tower. Its possessor has the duty to transmit knowledge and support the development of future generations.

6.1. Transmitting knowledge in an understandable way

A person of exceptional intelligence undertakes to communicate their discoveries and ideas in a form accessible not only to a narrow circle of specialists, but also to broader circles of educated laypeople. This includes writing popular science articles, participating in open lectures, and creating educational materials.

Avoiding this duty on the pretext of “the subject matter being too complicated” constitutes a form of intellectual egoism.[29]

6.2. Supporting the development of gifted individuals from less privileged backgrounds

Exceptional individuals often come from advantageous starting conditions. A person accepting the Code has a particular obligation to actively seek out and support talents from socially, economically, or geographically disadvantaged environments — through mentoring, recommendations, creating scholarships, or compensatory programs.

Only in this way can the intellectual elite avoid the charge of reproducing inequality.[30]

6.3. Combating myths and prejudices concerning intelligence

A person of exceptional intelligence has the duty to publicly oppose both myths that downplay the role of intelligence (“everyone is equal in potential”) and toxic stereotypes (“a genius is always emotionally unbalanced”). Educating society about the real nature of high intelligence — its needs, limitations, and contributions — is a prerequisite for obtaining broad social consent for the protections provided in the Charter of Rights.[31]

7. Obligation of Responsible Social Influence

Exceptional intelligence confers real influence over opinions, decisions, and directions of societal development. This influence must be exercised with the highest degree of responsibility.

7.1. Prohibition of manipulating public opinion for personal gain

The use of rhetorical, analytical, or predictive abilities to deliberately mislead public opinion in order to obtain personal, financial, or power-related benefits is one of the gravest violations of the Code.

An example of problematic behavior may be Elon Musk’s repeated public overestimation of the realism and timelines for Mars colonization (e.g., announcements of one million people living on Mars by 2050 or crewed landings in the 2020s). Numerous independent analyses by industry experts indicate that such statements significantly exceed current technological and logistical capabilities, serving primarily to build a visionary image, inflate the value of his companies’ shares, and attract capital. As one critic observed: Musk “sold people their own dreams”, exploiting their longing for grand visions of the future at the expense of realistic expectations.[32]

In contrast, a positive example of responsible communication of cosmic visions is Carl Sagan. As a NASA advisor and author of the Cosmos series, Sagan promoted Mars and further space exploration with enormous enthusiasm, inspiring millions of people. At the same time, he always emphasized scientific rigor, the enormous technical challenges, the necessity of long-term investments, and realistic timelines — without creating illusory promises. His approach combined dream with responsibility, demonstrating that vision can motivate society without manipulating expectations.[33]

A person of exceptional intelligence has a particular duty to distinguish between an inspiring vision and the deliberate creation of illusion for personal or corporate benefit. Even if the ultimate goal (the development of space technologies) is noble, means based on manipulating public expectations remain morally unacceptable.

7.2. Criticism of power and institutions only in a constructive manner

A person of exceptional intelligence has both the right and the duty to criticize institutions, systems, and political decisions — but always on the basis of facts, logic, and alternative proposals. Destructive, nihilistic, or purely emotional criticism that leads to polarization without offering solutions is morally unacceptable.

7.3. Avoiding the creation or reinforcement of social divisions

Exceptional intelligence must not be used to deepen divisions along the lines of “us (the smart) versus them (the stupid)”. Public statements laced with contempt, sarcasm, or a sense of superiority toward the majority of society undermine the legitimacy of the entire high-IQ community.

Instead, the required language is one of respect, cognitive empathy, and focus on shared civilizational goals.

7.4. Responsibility for the consequences of one’s own ideas

A person of exceptional intelligence bears particular responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of the ideas, models, or technologies they disseminate. This includes the duty to monitor their applications and to publicly warn against abuses — even if doing so requires confronting one’s own earlier assumptions.

The duties described in this section constitute a concrete realization of the overriding principles from Part II. Their observance is the condition of moral coherence: society has the right to expect from persons of exceptional intelligence a contribution proportional to their abilities before granting them special protection and support.

The next part will discuss duties toward other persons of exceptional intelligence as well as toward oneself.

Part IV. Duties Toward Other Persons of Exceptional Intelligence

8. Solidarity and Cooperation

The community of persons of exceptional intelligence is naturally small, dispersed, and historically exposed to isolation. Its strength lies not in numbers, but in the ability to achieve synergy. A person accepting the Code recognizes that their own development and civilizational effectiveness depend to a large extent on the quality of relationships with others of comparable abilities.

8.1. Supporting other members of the high-IQ community

A person of exceptional intelligence has a moral duty to actively support others who meet the criteria of exceptional intelligence through:

• sharing knowledge, resources, and contacts,

• providing constructive review of work,

• recommending for support programs, grants, or institutions,

• assisting in situations of professional or social exclusion.

Isolation or indifference toward the fate of another genius constitutes a breach of solidarity, which is a condition for the survival and development of the entire group.

8.2. Avoiding destructive competition

Competition for resources, recognition, or priority of discovery is natural, but it must never take the form of deliberate blocking, discrediting, or plagiarism of another community member’s work. The history of science knows cases of devastating disputes (e.g., Newton–Leibniz, Edison–Tesla), which delayed progress and harmed both sides.[34]

A person of exceptional intelligence undertakes to engage in fair competition — based on the substantive superiority of solutions, not on personal attacks or institutional manipulation.

8.3. Promoting a culture of substantive discussion and mutual correction

Internal debates within the high-IQ community should serve as a model of rational discourse for the whole of society. This means:

• focusing on arguments, not on persons,

• readiness to change one’s position in the face of better evidence,

• avoiding emotional escalations and ad personam attacks,

• treating sharp but substantive criticism as a gift, not as an attack.

Such a culture strengthens the collective credibility and effectiveness of the group.

9. Protection Against Internal Elitism

The greatest threat to the moral legitimacy of the community of exceptional persons comes not from outside, but from within — from the temptation of contempt, exclusion, or the creation of hierarchies based on subtle differences in IQ, field of expertise, or achievements.

9.1. Prohibition of contempt toward persons of lower intelligence

Even in internal discussions, it is unacceptable to express contempt, sarcasm, or a sense of superiority toward the majority of society. Any such behavior — even in a closed circle — undermines the principle of respect for human dignity and reinforces external stereotypes about the “arrogance of geniuses”.[35]

9.2. Openness to contributions from outside the narrowest elite

Exceptional intelligence is not monopolized by persons with IQ above 175 SD 15. Many breakthroughs have occurred through collaboration with individuals of high, but not extreme, abilities, or through inspirations from outside. A person of exceptional intelligence undertakes to:

• listen attentively to arguments regardless of their source,

recognize the merits of collaborators who have lower general intelligence but specialized competencies,

• avoid creating closed coteries accessible only to the “highest” levels.

9.3. Self-criticism and mechanisms of internal correction

The community of exceptional persons must possess built-in mechanisms of self-criticism to prevent drift toward collective narcissism or messianism. A person accepting the Code undertakes to:

• regularly subject their own convictions to doubt,

• accept constructive criticism from other members of the community,

• publicly admit errors when they are demonstrated.[36]

9.4. Counteracting toxic internal hierarchies

Within the community it is unacceptable to create or reinforce hierarchies based solely on raw IQ test scores, number of patents, or citations. Every person meeting the criteria of exceptional intelligence or talent deserves equal respect and equal opportunity to participate in discussion.

Superiority in a specific field or project is natural and desirable — but it must not translate into general moral or social status within the group.

The duties described in this part constitute protection against the greatest historical error of intellectual elites — cutting themselves off from the rest of humanity and internal ossification. External solidarity (toward society) requires first internal solidarity, based on humility, cooperation, and mutual respect.

The next part will discuss duties toward oneself — the only subject who ultimately decides on the realization of the entire Code.

Part V. Duties Toward Oneself

10. Duties Toward Oneself

The only subject who ultimately decides on the realization of the entire Code is the person themselves. Exceptional intelligence imposes special duties not only toward humanity and other exceptional persons, but also toward one’s own physical, mental, and emotional well-being. Neglecting oneself leads to burnout, loss of creativity, moral decay, or even self-destruction — which in turn deprives civilization of the contribution the person was capable of giving.[37]

10.1. Care for physical and mental health

Exceptional cognitive effort requires exceptional self-care. A person accepting the Code undertakes to:

• maintain regular sleep (minimum 7–8 hours daily on average),

• engage in physical activity at least 4–5 times per week,

• follow a balanced diet and, if possible, undergo regular medical check-ups,

• monitor mental health and seek (someone else’s or your own) help at the first signs of depression, anxiety, or burnout.

Neglecting health is not heroic asceticism — it is a betrayal of one’s civilizational vocation.[38]

10.2. Protection against intellectual burnout and cognitive overload

Exceptional intelligence is often accompanied by intense inner life, hyperfocus, and tendency toward overwork. A person of exceptional ability has the duty to protect themselves from:

• chronic overload leading to diminished returns and loss of originality,

• obsessive rumination and perfectionism that paralyze action,

• compulsive information consumption (doomscrolling, endless reading without synthesis).

Practical guidelines:

• Introduce regular “cognitive sabbaths” — periods of at least 24–48 hours without intellectual work or screen time.

• Practice deliberate breaks from deep work (e.g. Pomodoro technique extended to 90–120 minutes cycles).

• Set hard limits on information intake (e.g. no more than 2–3 hours of new reading per day outside core projects).

10.3. Development of emotional intelligence and empathy

High intelligence frequently coexists with lower emotional intelligence or difficulties in reading social cues. A person accepting the Code undertakes conscious work on emotional self-regulation and empathy — both toward their own emotions and those of others.

Practical guidelines:

• Read fiction literature regularly (novels, dramas) — minimum 12 books per year — focusing on characters’ perspectives.[39]

• Practice active listening: in every longer conversation dedicate at least 70% of the time to listening, asking deepening questions instead of presenting one’s own views.[40]

• Participate (if possible) in team activities requiring cooperation with people of various intelligence levels (volunteering, team sports, amateur theater).

• Regularly seek feedback: every quarter ask 2–3 trusted persons: “How do you perceive my behavior in social situations? Where can I be more empathetic?”

10.4. Maintaining balance between work and personal life

Exceptional potential does not justify complete sacrifice of private life.

Practical guidelines:

• Introduce strict time boundaries for work (e.g. no more than 50–60 hours per week on average throughout the year).

• Plan at least 4–6 weeks of vacation per year without access to intellectual work.

• Consciously invest in family and friendship relationships — whenever possible establish fixed rituals (e.g. shared meals, weekend outings).

• Find a hobby completely detached from analytical thinking (music, gardening, cooking, climbing).[41]

The duties toward oneself are not secondary — they are the foundation enabling the fulfillment of all other obligations contained in the Code. A burned-out, unbalanced, or emotionally crippled genius ceases to be useful to civilization and becomes a cautionary tale.

By caring for oneself, the person accepting the Code ensures that their exceptional abilities can serve humanity for decades, not just a few intense years.

Part VI. Ethics in the Face of Breakthrough Civilizational and Existential Changes

Principle 1. Responsibility for the fate of the species in the era of technologies with existential leverage

Persons of exceptional intelligence and talent who gain real influence over the development of technologies capable of radically altering the trajectory of civilization (in particular: artificial general intelligence, population-scale genome editing, brain–machine interfaces at the level of mind integration, synthetic biology capable of designing new forms of life, highly autonomous military systems) treat these technologies as the common good of the species, and not as private intellectual capital, a tool of personal advantage, or corporate property.

They are subject to special care for:

• maximizing the probability of long-term beneficial outcomes for humanity

• minimizing the risk of sudden, irreversible degradation of the human condition or loss of civilizational pluralism

• actively countering the monopolization of key breakthroughs by narrow interest groups[42]

Principle 2. Duty of early and honest signaling of “points of no return”

A person who is among the first to recognize that a given technology or line of research is approaching a critical point, after which return becomes practically impossible or disproportionately costly, and the pace of change outstrips society’s capacity for adaptation and control, has a moral duty to:

• publicly and comprehensibly warn about it before the point is crossed

• not restrict this knowledge to “initiated” circles

• treat silence in such a situation as a form of co-responsibility for future consequences[43]

Principle 3. Ethics of radical improvement of human nature (enhancement / transhumanism)

The use of technologies to improve one’s own cognitive, health, and longevity capabilities is permissible and desirable — provided empathy, shared feeling, and a sense of common fate with the rest of humanity are preserved.

It is not permitted to strive to create a permanent, hereditary caste of the “improved”, separated from the rest of the species by an insurmountable genetic, technological, or economic barrier within a single generation.

Modification of human nature on the scale of a significant portion of the population requires prior, broad, intercultural, and multi-generational debate.[44]

Principle 4. Attitude toward death and multi-generational legacy

A person of exceptional intelligence designs the effects of their work on a horizon of at least 5–10 generations, and in the case of discoveries of civilizational character — on a horizon of hundreds of years and the entire trajectory of the species.

They adopt an attitude toward death as an integral, irrevocable, and deeply positive value of the human condition — even if radical biological life extension or digital continuation of consciousness were to become technically possible in their own lifetime.

In the spirit of the ancient Stoic memento mori (“remember that you must die”), they treat awareness of their own finitude not as a source of fear or a defect to be repaired, but as a gift that gives life:

• urgency and intensity — forcing authentic choices here and now, instead of postponing meaning for later (Seneca: “Let each day close the account of life”),

• authenticity and freedom — liberating from vanity, slavery to opinion, and pursuit of illusory immortality (“He who has learned how to die has unlearned how to be a slave” – Montaigne in the Stoic spirit),

• the unique preciousness of every moment, relationship, and act of creation — because what is finite is most valuable (Marcus Aurelius: “You can leave life right now. Let that determine what you do and say and think”),

• protection against the boredom of eternity and trivialization of existence — death protects against infinite stagnation and emptiness that could result from unlimited life extension.[45]

Therefore, prolonging one’s own existence at any cost can never become a supreme value over the good of future generations and the condition of the entire species. Acceptance of mortality as a source of meaning, fire, and freedom remains one of the highest moral attitudes of a person of exceptional intelligence.

They consciously build legacy not through personal fame or monuments, but through durable protective structures (open knowledge, institutions balancing risk, values resistant to erosion over time, safeguards against successive critical points).

Principle 5. Right and limits of ultimate dissent

In a situation of very high probability of irreversible existential catastrophe or profound degradation of the human condition, when peaceful and institutional means have failed, a person of exceptional intelligence has the moral right (and in extreme cases the duty) to apply measures of last resort (withholding contribution, strategic delay, disclosure of weaknesses, sabotage of one’s own work) — provided proportionality, exhaustion of alternatives, and readiness to bear full responsibility.[46]

In the next part, examples of ethical dilemmas and mechanisms for implementing the Code will be presented.

Part VII. Detailed Ethical Dilemmas and Implementation Mechanisms

12. Examples of Application and Casuistry

This chapter presents selected ethical dilemmas that a person of exceptional intelligence may encounter. Each case includes a description of the situation, analysis according to the principles of the Code, and a recommended attitude. The purpose is not to provide rigid rules for every possible circumstance, but to train moral sensitivity and the ability to apply overriding principles in practice.

12.1. Work in a technology corporation vs. independent research

Situation: A person with IQ >160 receives a lucrative job offer from a large technology company (e.g., AGI development in a commercial laboratory).[47] The financial conditions allow for complete life independence, but the project focuses primarily on increasing shareholder profits, and the risk of unbalanced AGI is downplayed by management. At the same time, there is an opportunity for independent research, but without funding guarantees and with the risk of poverty.

Analysis:

• The obligation of civilizational service (5.1–5.3) and the priority of existential problems indicate that work on AGI with potentially breakthrough impact has higher priority than commercial goals.

• The primacy of the good of humanity (3.2) requires assessing whether participation in the project increases or decreases the risk of catastrophe (e.g., due to lack of sufficient safety research).

• The temptation of wealth at the expense of principles (11.1) is obvious here.

Recommended attitude:

Refusal of the offer if the company does not commit to significant investments in AGI safety proportional to the scale of the project. Alternatively — negotiation of conditions enabling independent publication of safety results and cooperation with non-profit organizations. Acceptance of the offer without such guarantees would be a serious violation of the Code.[48]

12.2. Publication of controversial scientific truth

Situation: A researcher discovers solid evidence for significant genetic conditioning of intelligence differences between population groups. Publication could be used to justify discrimination, but concealing the results would mean falsifying science.

Analysis:

• The primacy of truth (3.1) is absolute — concealing the results would violate scientific integrity.

• The good of humanity (3.2) and responsibility for the consequences of ideas (7.4) require, however, particular care in presentation: emphasizing complexity (environmental influence, lack of normative implications), distancing from racist interpretations, and cooperation with ethicists and sociologists.

• Respect for human dignity (3.4) excludes language suggesting superiority of one group over others.

Sample recommended attitude:

Publication in a reputable journal with extensive methodological and ethical context, simultaneous writing of a popular science article explaining the nuances, and a public statement condemning any discriminatory applications of the results.[49]

12.3. Criticism of political power and the risk of polarization

Situation: A person of exceptional intelligence observes serious government errors in crisis management (e.g., pandemic, climate policy). Public criticism could contribute to policy change, but in a polarized society it would also strengthen divisions and hatred toward the “intellectual elite”.

Analysis:

• The obligation of constructive criticism (7.2) and contribution to civilizational problems (5.1) require speaking out.

• The prohibition on reinforcing divisions (7.3) and the prohibition on contempt (9.1) require a particular form of statement.

• Intellectual humility (3.3) reminds that even a genius can be wrong in political assessment.

Recommended attitude:

Criticism always based on facts and models, with clear presentation of alternatives and acknowledgment of uncertainty. Calm language, avoiding sarcasm and generalizations about the “stupidity of voters”. Cooperation with experts of different political views to build consensus.[50]

12.4. Attitude toward educational systems and talent selection

Situation: A person of exceptional intelligence is invited to design an educational program for gifted children. The proposal includes early selection (from 8–10 years old) and separate teaching paths, which could be accused of “elitism” and reproduction of social inequality.

Analysis:

Obligation to support gifted individuals from disadvantaged environments (6.2) and avoiding reproduction of inequality.

The right to an individual educational path (from the Charter of Rights) also applies to gifted children.

Respect for dignity (3.4) excludes treating the program as a class privilege.

Recommended attitude:

Acceptance on the condition of implementing aggressive compensatory mechanisms: active searching for talents in public schools, full-cost scholarships, quotas for children from low-income families, and monitoring of the program’s social effects.[51]

12.5. Ethics in personal and family relationships – choice of life partner with large intelligence difference

Situation: A person of exceptional intelligence is considering or entering a serious relationship/marriage with a partner whose general intelligence level is significantly lower (difference ≥30 IQ points, i.e. ≥2 SD).[52] Part of the environment (family, friends from the high-IQ community) expresses opinions — from constructive concerns about shared interests to unacceptable eugenic comments (“waste of genetic potential” or “you will lower the level of children”).

Analysis:

Respect for human dignity (3.4) and the prohibition of contempt toward persons of lower intelligence (9.1) are absolute and without exceptions. Any comments reducing the partner’s value to their IQ, treating them as “genetic material”, or suggesting superiority of some people over others are morally unacceptable and require immediate, firm condemnation — even if made in a closed circle.

At the same time, the person of exceptional intelligence has the duty of realistic, conscious assessment of potential difficulties. Experiences of the high-IQ community and psychological research indicate that with a difference exceeding approx. 30 IQ points, deep intellectual and emotional communication becomes significantly more difficult (concept of “communication range” or “window of understanding”). The risk of chronic intellectual loneliness, frustration on both sides, asymmetry in the relationship (dominance of one partner in the cognitive sphere), and relationship breakdown significantly increases.

True marital partnership requires the possibility of mutual understanding of key life matters, joint development, and emotional balance. A large intellectual disproportion often leads to a relationship in which one partner feels misunderstood or overwhelmed, and the other — lonely in their deepest interests.

The duty toward oneself (chapters 10–11) includes protection of one’s own long-term mental and emotional well-being — chronic intellectual loneliness in the closest relationship can lead to burnout, depression, and reduced civilizational contribution.

Example recommended attitude:

Immediate and unequivocal distancing from any discriminatory or eugenic remarks — they undermine the basic principles of the Code and harm the legitimacy of the entire community of exceptional persons.

Conscious, honest self-assessment before making final commitments: will the intellectual difference allow for authentic partnership, or will it rather create permanent asymmetry? Sincere conversation with the partner about intellectual needs, ways to satisfy them (e.g. contacts with the high-IQ community), and realistic expectations.

If the relationship is entered into — full commitment to building a relationship based on complementarity (e.g. emotional support, shared non-intellectual values), while simultaneously caring for one’s own cognitive needs outside the relationship.

In the case of planning offspring — responsible consideration of all factors (emotional, educational, genetic), with priority on the child’s good and without reducing the decision to eugenic calculation.

Love and emotional attraction can overcome many obstacles, but a person of exceptional intelligence has a moral duty to enter a relationship with open eyes — not with the illusion that a large intellectual difference “will not matter”. A conscious choice protects both one’s own happiness and the partner’s dignity.[53]

12.6. Boundary between mentoring and manipulation

Situation: A person of exceptional intelligence conducts mentoring of a young, highly gifted researcher. They see that the mentee is heading toward research with potentially destructive impact (e.g. dual-use biotechnology). Is it permissible to actively redirect their career?

Analysis:

• Protection of the weaker from manipulation (4.2) also applies to mentoring relationships.

• Good of humanity (3.2) and responsibility for consequences of ideas (7.4).

• Principle of non-harmful means (3.5).

Recommended attitude:

Full transparency: open discussion of risks, presentation of facts and arguments, but the final decision belongs to the mentee. Concealing information, emotional blackmail, or blocking access to resources in case of disagreement are unacceptable.[54]

The presented cases do not exhaust the possible spectrum of dilemmas, but illustrate the way of applying the Code in practice. A person of exceptional intelligence should in every new situation ask themselves three questions:

• Does this serve truth and the good of humanity?

• Does it respect the dignity of all involved persons?

• Does it utilize my potential proportionally to its rarity?

In the final part, the mechanisms for implementing the Code and the formula for voluntary commitment will be discussed.

Part VIII. Implementation and Accountability Mechanisms

13. Voluntary Commitment

The Ethical Code of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent is a completely voluntary act. No institution is authorized to impose it or punish for non-acceptance. Its force flows solely from the internal conviction of the accepting person and from the moral coherence between rights (Charter of Rights) and duties (Code).[55]

13.1. Formula of the ethical oath

A person wishing to formally accept the Code may make the following voluntary commitment (publicly or privately):

“I, [first and last name], aware of the rarity and significance of my intellectual potential and talent, voluntarily accept the Ethical Code of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent.

I commit to be guided in my life and activities by the principles of truth, the good of humanity, respect for the dignity of every person, and responsibility proportional to my abilities.

I promise to use my gift not for private privileges, but in the service of civilizational progress, solidarity with other exceptional persons, and my own continuous ethical and intellectual development.

I understand that accepting this Code means moral legitimacy to benefit from the protection provided in the Charter of Rights and that conscious and persistent violation of its principles will deprive me of this legitimacy in the eyes of my own conscience and the community of exceptional persons.

I accept this commitment of my own free will, without coercion, and with full responsibility.

[date and signature]”[56]

13.2. Forms of declaration

• Private — recorded only for oneself.

• Semi-public — transmitted to trusted persons from the high-IQ community.

• Public — published on websites of organizations promoting the Code (e.g. Syncritic Academy Foundation) or in the register of voluntary commitments.[57]

13.3. Independence of the right to protection from acceptance of the Code

This Code is a voluntary, higher ethical standard whose acceptance strengthens moral legitimacy and builds social trust in the idea of special protection for persons of exceptional intelligence.

However, the right to benefit from the support and protection mechanisms resulting from the Charter of Rights of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent cannot be conditioned on acceptance of the Code.[58]

14. Oversight and Support Institutions

14.1. Role of organizations promoting the Code

Organizations such as the Syncritic Academy Foundation or future international institutes for persons of exceptional intelligence may:

maintain a voluntary, public register of individuals who have taken the ethical oath (exclusively positive — a list of trustworthy persons),

organize forums for ethical discussion and mediation in cases of dilemmas,

issue statements of moral support or withdrawal of support in the event of serious, documented violations.[59]

14.2. Mediation and accountability mechanisms

In the event of a public dispute concerning a violation of the Code (e.g. the use of intelligence for social manipulation), voluntary mediation by a panel of independent persons who themselves have accepted the Code is possible.

Sanctions are exclusively moral and reputational in nature: public withdrawal of support, refusal of cooperation in projects, exclusion from closed support programs. There is no “blacklist” nor any central tribunal.[60]

14.3. Protection against abuse of mechanisms

Every statement alleging a violation must be based on publicly available facts and subject to the principle of presumption of innocence. False accusations themselves constitute a violation of the principles of the Code (primacy of truth, respect for dignity).[61]

15. Conclusion and Call

The Ethical Code of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent is not a manifesto of superiority, but an act of humility toward the gift we have received and toward the responsibility it imposes.

The history of humanity shows that the fate of civilizations has repeatedly depended on how the most capable individuals used their potential — whether in the service of truth and the common good, or in pursuit of power, wealth, or vanity. The contemporary civilizational crisis — scientific stagnation, existential threats, erosion of trust in reason — demands more from us than ever before.[62]

By accepting this Code, we do not demand privileges for ourselves. We demand conditions that allow us to serve humanity more effectively. We do not wish to be solitary geniuses in an ivory tower. We wish to be responsible guardians of progress — worthy of the trust of a society that has the right to expect the most from us.

We therefore appeal to all persons meeting the criteria of exceptional intelligence and talent: accept this Code not as a limitation, but as liberation. Only an intellectual elite that voluntarily assumes the burden of higher duties deserves the protection and support provided for in the Charter of Rights.

May truth, responsibility, and service become the distinguishing mark of the new, conscious intellectual elite of the 21st century.[63]

Annexes

Annex 1: Concise Version of the Code – 10 Fundamental Principles

• Primacy of truth above all else.

• The good of humanity as the supreme value.

• Respect for the dignity of every human person.

• Responsibility proportional to abilities.

• Active contribution to key civilizational problems.

• Solidarity and cooperation with other persons of exceptional intelligence.

• Intellectual humility and continuous development.

• Personal integrity in the face of temptations of power and wealth.

• Constructive social influence without contempt or manipulation.

• Fidelity to one’s own vocation in the service of progress.

Annex 2: Selected Quotations

• Aristotle: “The great-souled man is worthy of great things and conscious of being so.”

(Nicomachean Ethics, Book IV, chapter 3 – on megalopsychia)

• Voltaire: “The more light we have, the more responsible we are for its use.”

• Stanisław Lem: “Intelligence without ethics is dangerous.”

• Joseph Rotblat: “Science must be in the service of humanity, not the other way around.”

• Andrei Sakharov: “An intellectual has the duty to speak the truth and expose lies.”

Annex 3: Version History of the Code

First preliminary version – January 2026.

[1] The original metaphor of “burying the talent” is directly drawn from the biblical parable and serves as the central ethical image of the entire document.

[2] Matthew 25:14–30 (New Testament) — the Parable of the Talents, one of Jesus’ most famous teachings on stewardship, responsibility, and the consequences of inaction. In the story a master entrusts servants with different sums of money (talents) “to each according to his ability.”

[3] Direct quotation adapted from widely used English Bible translations (e.g. ESV, NIV, NKJV): “Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.” (Matthew 25:21,23).

[4] Junzi (君子) — the Confucian ideal of the noble, morally cultivated person who continuously refines their character and serves society (see Analects of Confucius, especially Books I–IV and XII–XIV).

[5] Bodhisattva path (Mahayana Buddhism) — the vow to attain enlightenment not only for oneself but for the liberation of all beings; wisdom and abilities are seen as tools of compassion (key concept in texts such as the Lotus Sutra and Diamond Sutra).

[6] Famous line popularized by Spider-Man comics. It first appeared (in slightly longer form: “with great power there must also come — great responsibility”) as narrative text in Amazing Fantasy #15 (1962), the debut of Spider-Man by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. It was later retroactively attributed to Uncle Ben as moral advice to Peter Parker and became one of the most recognizable ethical maxims in modern popular culture.

[7] Socrates was sentenced to death in 399 BCE by an Athenian court and chose to drink hemlock rather than flee, as described in Plato’s Apology and Phaedo. His case is classically cited as the archetype of the conflict between philosophical truth-seeking and democratic society.

[8] Alan Turing (1912–1954), pioneer of modern computing and artificial intelligence, was chemically castrated after a 1952 conviction for homosexuality (then illegal in the UK) and died by cyanide poisoning in 1954. He received a posthumous royal pardon in 2013.

[9] Nikola Tesla (1856–1943), inventor of the AC power system and numerous other technologies, spent his final years in poverty despite his revolutionary contributions, largely due to financial exploitation, disputes with Edison, and lack of institutional support.

[10] Megalopsychia (μεγαλοψυχία) — traditionally translated as “magnanimity” or “greatness of soul” — is discussed by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, Book IV, chapters 3–4 (esp. 1123a–1125a). It is presented as the “crown of the virtues,” belonging to the person who is worthy of — and claims — great honours on account of genuine excellence, while despising small things and remaining moderate towards honours themselves. Modern scholarship frequently highlights its aristocratic character and tension with egalitarian ethics.

[11] The issue of post-war careers of former Nazi scientists is most famously associated with Operation Paperclip — the secret U.S. program that recruited German scientists, engineers, and technicians (including Wernher von Braun) after World War II.

[12] Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976) — theoretical physicist, Nobel Prize 1932. His role in the German nuclear program remains controversial; he never actively sabotaged it, but also did not push for rapid weapon development.

[13] V-2 production at Mittelwerk factory used forced labor from Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp; von Braun was aware of the conditions.

[14] Niels Bohr’s Open Letter to the United Nations (1950) was a pioneering call for international control of atomic energy and open scientific exchange.

[15] The Pugwash Conferences (founded 1957) brought together scientists to discuss nuclear disarmament and global security; Rotblat was its driving force until his death in 2005.

[16] Andrei Sakharov received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975; he was not allowed to travel to Oslo to accept it. His exile in Gorky (now Nizhny Novgorod) lasted until Mikhail Gorbachev personally allowed his return in 1986.

[17] Fang Lizhi (1936–2012) is often called “China’s Sakharov”. After the Tiananmen crackdown he lived in exile in the United States until his death.

[18] The quote is a close paraphrase of Voltaire’s frequent emphasis on the moral duties of the enlightened mind, particularly visible in his Letters on the English (1733) and his lifelong campaign against l’infâme (fanaticism and superstition). A very similar formulation appears in his correspondence and essays.

[19] Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch (most fully developed in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1883–1885) is explicitly presented as a figure of creative responsibility and self-overcoming, not domination. The burden of higher consciousness is a recurring theme in his late works.

[20] The exact sentence “Inteligencja bez etyki jest niebezpieczna; etyka bez inteligencji – bezsilna” is one of Stanisław Lem’s most frequently quoted aphorisms, appearing in various interviews and essays from the 1970s–1990s (e.g. in discussions around Summa Technologiae and Golem XIV).

[21] Leszek Kołakowski’s reflections on the intellectual’s duty in the absence of absolutes are central to The Presence of Myth (1973/1989) and his essays from the 1960s–1980s, especially those written after his break with Marxism.

[22] Immanuel Kant, “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” (1784) – the famous opening line “Sapere aude!” (“Dare to know!” / “Have the courage to use your own reason!”) is directly referenced here in the context of moral courage to uphold truth.

[23] Bertrand Russell, paraphrase from his essay “The Triumph of Stupidity” (1933) and related interwar writings, where he frequently criticized overconfident intellectuals and warned that intellectual arrogance is a form of stupidity.

[24] The exponential rarity of very high intelligence is well documented in psychometric literature. The normal distribution of IQ implies that the density of individuals at +5σ (≈ IQ 175 SD15) is roughly 1:3.5 million, and at +6σ ≈ 1:1 billion. See e.g.: Lubinski & Benbow (2006), “Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY): accomplishments and future plans”; Wai et al. (2010), “Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities”.

[25] The classification of existential risks used here closely follows the typology introduced by the Global Challenges Foundation and the work of the Future of Humanity Institute (Oxford), especially Toby Ord’s The Precipice (2020), which estimates the cumulative existential risk this century at roughly 1 in 6.

[26] The diagnosis of stagnation in fundamental physics has been widely discussed since the 1990s–2000s. Key texts include: Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics (2006); Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong (2006); Sabine Hossenfelder, Lost in Math (2018).

[27] Erosion of trust in science and proliferation of disinformation became major topics of research after 2016. See in particular: Nature Reviews – “Trust in science” special issue (2021); Lewandowsky et al. (2020), “The COVID-19 pandemic: a global crisis for science and society”.

[28] The examples listed are canonical cases of high-leverage breakthroughs achieved by individuals who protected large blocks of uninterrupted deep work time: Einstein (1905–1915), Watson & Crick (1953), Bardeen–Brattain–Shockley (1947–1951), Karikó–Weissman (1990s–2005).

[29] The accusation of “intellectual egoism” when refusing to popularize science has been a recurring criticism of many prominent scientists throughout history. A classic modern example is Richard Feynman’s strong insistence on the moral duty to explain complex ideas clearly to the public (see his lectures and books, e.g. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, 1999).

[30] The issue of social reproduction of intellectual elites and the under-representation of talent from disadvantaged backgrounds is well documented in longitudinal studies of giftedness. See especially: Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius & Worrell (2011), “Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education”; and the work of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), which shows that socioeconomic background remains a significant barrier even at the extreme right tail of ability distributions.

[31] The most harmful stereotypes and myths about high intelligence have been systematically described in psychological literature. Key references include: Gross (1993), Exceptionally Gifted Children; Silverman (1993), Counseling the Gifted and Talented; and the ongoing work of the Davidson Institute and SENG (Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted), which highlight the widespread misconceptions of “genius = mental instability” and the damage they cause both to gifted individuals and to public policy.

[32] Numerous expert critiques of Elon Musk’s Mars colonization timelines have appeared in aerospace engineering literature and public analyses. Key sources include: Casey Handmer’s detailed technical breakdowns (2020–2023), Robert Zubrin’s more optimistic but still critical assessments in The Case for Mars (updated editions), and reports from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on human Mars mission feasibility (e.g., 2022 decadal survey). The phrase “sold people their own dreams” echoes widespread commentary in outlets such as The Atlantic, Wired, and independent space blogs (circa 2018–2025).

[33] Carl Sagan’s approach to popularizing space exploration is documented in his books Cosmos (1980), Pale Blue Dot (1994), and The Demon-Haunted World (1995), as well as in his advisory role for NASA’s Voyager and Viking programs. His insistence on scientific honesty alongside inspiration is widely regarded as a model of responsible intellectual influence in the history of science communication.

[34] The Newton–Leibniz priority dispute over the invention of calculus (late 17th–early 18th century) became one of the most notorious and bitter controversies in the history of science. Both men independently developed the foundations of calculus, but accusations of plagiarism, national bias (Royal Society committee favoring Newton), and personal attacks escalated the conflict, delaying the acceptance of unified notation and hindering mathematical progress in England for decades. Similarly, the “War of the Currents” (late 1880s–early 1890s) between Thomas Edison (promoting DC) and Nikola Tesla/George Westinghouse (promoting AC) involved aggressive propaganda, public animal electrocutions to discredit AC, patent battles, and attempts to associate AC with danger (including influencing the first electric chair to use AC). The rivalry delayed efficient power standardization and personally harmed Tesla (financial ruin) while ultimately proving AC superior for long-distance transmission. Both cases illustrate how destructive competition among geniuses can significantly slow scientific and technological advancement.

[35] The stereotype of “arrogant genius” has deep historical roots and is frequently reinforced by real cases of intellectual contempt. Notable examples include: Ludwig Wittgenstein’s documented disdain for “lesser minds” in Cambridge circles (described in Ray Monk’s biography, 1990), Paul Dirac’s legendary social withdrawal and curtness toward non-physicists, and contemporary online communities where high-IQ individuals occasionally express overt contempt for average intelligence (e.g. documented in forums such as Mensa, LessWrong, or certain subreddits circa 2010–2025). Psychological research on gifted adults shows that such attitudes often lead to social isolation and damage the broader perception of the gifted community (see e.g. Jacobsen, 1999, The Gifted Adult; Webb et al., 2005, Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults).

[36] The necessity of self-criticism and openness to correction within elite intellectual groups is a recurring theme in the philosophy of science and ethics of knowledge. Karl Popper’s concept of falsification (The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934/1959) and his emphasis on “conjectures and refutations” as the essence of rational progress directly support the moral obligation of intellectuals to expose their own ideas to severe criticism. Similarly, John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859) argues that even the most brilliant mind benefits from — and is morally obliged to seek — dissenting voices to avoid dogmatism. Modern high-IQ communities (e.g. Effective Altruism, rationalist movement) have repeatedly experienced crises of collective narcissism when internal criticism mechanisms failed (see e.g. analyses of the “EA leadership crisis” of 2022–2023).

[37] The phenomenon of burnout and self-destruction among highly gifted individuals is extensively documented in psychological literature on gifted adults. Classic studies include: Jacobsen (1999), The Gifted Adult; Streznewski (1999), Gifted Grownups; and the work of James T. Webb and colleagues on misdiagnosis and emotional vulnerabilities of the gifted (2005). Many historical geniuses — including John Nash, Vincent van Gogh, Alan Turing, and Virginia Woolf — suffered severe consequences from neglect of mental and emotional health.

[38] The moral framing of health neglect as a “betrayal of vocation” echoes ancient philosophical traditions (e.g. Aristotle’s emphasis on physical virtue as necessary for intellectual excellence in Nicomachean Ethics) and modern bioethics of genius (e.g. discussions in the works of Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom on existential risk reduction, where long personal lifespan and sustained productivity are treated as civilizational imperatives).

[39] The recommendation of regular fiction reading to improve theory-of-mind and empathy is supported by a growing body of research. Key studies include: Kidd & Castano (2013), “Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind”, Science; Mar et al. (2006), “Bookworms versus nerds: the social abilities of fiction and non-fiction readers”; and Oatley (2016), “Fiction: Simulation of social worlds” (Trends in Cognitive Sciences). The specific minimum of 12 books/year aligns with common recommendations in gifted counseling literature.

[40] Active listening as a trainable skill for high-IQ individuals is emphasized in emotional intelligence training programs tailored for gifted adults (e.g. SENG – Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted workshops; Webb et al., Supporting the Emotional Needs of the Gifted, 2011). The 70% listening guideline is a practical adaptation of Carl Rogers’ client-centered therapy principles, often recommended in high-functioning autism and giftedness literature.

[41] The importance of non-analytical hobbies for cognitive balance and prevention of burnout among intellectuals is well-established in positive psychology and creativity research. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of “flow” in non-work activities (1990, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience) and Teresa Amabile’s studies on creativity show that hobbies detached from one’s primary domain help recharge cognitive resources and prevent fixation. The importance of non-analytical hobbies for cognitive balance and prevention of burnout among intellectuals is well-established in positive psychology and creativity research. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of “flow” in non-work activities (1990, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience) and Teresa Amabile’s studies on creativity show that hobbies detached from one’s primary domain help recharge cognitive resources and prevent fixation.

[42] The concept of technologies with “existential leverage” and the moral imperative to treat them as a common good of the species is central to contemporary existential risk discourse. Key references include: Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence (2014); Toby Ord, The Precipice (2020); the Global Priorities Institute and Future of Humanity Institute working papers on governance of transformative AI and biotechnology.

[43] The moral duty of early whistleblowing / signaling of irreversible thresholds is modeled on real historical and contemporary cases: Leo Szilard’s 1939 letter to Roosevelt on nuclear fission, Geoffrey Hinton’s public warnings on AGI risks (2023), and the broader literature on “infohazards” and responsible disclosure in AI safety (Bostrom 2011; Russell 2019).

[44] The ethical prohibition on creating a hereditary “improved” caste within one generation draws from contemporary bioethics debates on germline editing and transhumanism. See: Julian Savulescu & Nick Bostrom (eds.), Human Enhancement (2009); Françoise Baylis, Altered Inheritance (2019); and the 2021–2023 statements of the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing.

[45] The Stoic framing of death as a positive source of meaning, urgency, and freedom is directly drawn from: Seneca’s Letters to Lucilius (esp. Letter 12, 49, 77); Montaigne’s Essays (Book I, ch. 20: “That to study philosophy is to learn to die”); Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations (Book II.11, IV.17, XII.36). Modern philosophical reflections on finitude in the context of life extension appear in: Bernard Williams, “The Makropulos Case” (1973); Samuel Scheffler, Death and the Afterlife (2013).

[46] The qualified right of “ultimate dissent” in extreme existential scenarios is discussed in philosophical and strategic literature on civilizational risk: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s writings on AI alignment and “pivotal acts” (2008–2023), Nick Bostrom’s “singleton” and “crunch time” concepts, and Anders Sandberg’s analyses of unilateral action in high-stakes coordination problems. The proportionality and exhaustion-of-alternatives criteria align with just war theory adaptations to technological dilemmas (e.g. Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars applied to preemptive sabotage scenarios).

[47] In the current state of social exclusion of high IQ persons such state of affairs is highly unlikely, but not absolutely excluded. The estimated IQs of Einstein and Hawking were around 160 SD 15, Linus Pauling’s – 165, while contemporary outstanding mathematicians – Terence Tao and Andrew Wiles – probably have IQs of 170. People with exceptional IQs of 160-170 are still sometimes (exceptionally) socially accepted. Only having an IQ of 175+ results in immediate social and professional exclusion. See: M. Ferguson, “The Inappropriately Excluded”.

[48] The classic ethical dilemma between commercial incentives and long-term safety in AGI development has been extensively discussed in the AI alignment literature. See: Stuart Russell, Human Compatible (2019); the OpenAI charter (2018) and its subsequent tensions with profit motives; and the 2023–2025 public debates surrounding Anthropic, DeepMind, and xAI regarding safety vs. speed trade-offs.

[49] The “race and intelligence” controversy has produced numerous high-profile cases of publication dilemmas (e.g., the 1994 Bell Curve debate, the 2018 Nature Genetics papers on polygenic scores, and the 2020–2023 discussions around GWAS results). The recommended balanced approach mirrors the statements of the American Psychological Association (1996 Intelligence Task Force report) and the 2021 Genetics Society statement on group differences.

[50] The challenge of constructive criticism in polarized environments is analyzed in: Jonathan Haidt & Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind (2018); Cass Sunstein, #Republic (2017); and the work of the Heterodox Academy on viewpoint diversity and depolarization.

[51] The tension between gifted education acceleration and social equity concerns is documented in: David Lubinski & Camilla Benbow’s SMPY longitudinal studies (ongoing since 1971); the National Association for Gifted Children policy statements; and the 2022–2025 debates in the European Council for High Ability regarding compensatory mechanisms in selective programs.

[52] Of course, such a situation is extremely unlikely. If someone were to want a partner with significantly lower intelligence than their own, it would indicate that they themselves represent low intelligence.

[53] The empirical literature on large IQ-discrepant relationships is limited but consistent: Terman’s Genetic Studies of Genius (1925–1959) follow-up data, Leta Hollingworth’s observations, and modern qualitative studies (e.g. Silverman 1993; Jacobsen 1999) all report increased risk of relational strain when the IQ gap exceeds ~25–30 points. The concept of “intellectual loneliness” and “communication range” appears frequently in high-IQ support communities (e.g. Mensa, InterGifted, Davidson Young Scholars forums).

[54] The mentoring/manipulation boundary in high-stakes research is discussed in: the Asilomar AI Principles (2017); the Montreal Declaration for Responsible AI (2018); and case studies of dual-use biotechnology mentoring (e.g., the 2011 H5N1 gain-of-function controversy and subsequent biosecurity training guidelines from the National Academies).

[55] The purely voluntary and non-coercive character of the Code mirrors the structure of many historical ethical declarations that rely on personal conscience rather than institutional enforcement. Classic examples include: the Hippocratic Oath (ancient and modern versions), the Geneva Conventions’ voluntary adherence mechanisms, and contemporary codes such as the Asilomar AI Principles (2017) or the Montreal Declaration for Responsible AI (2018), all of which emphasize moral commitment without legal sanctions.

[56] The formula of the ethical oath draws inspiration from several traditions of personal moral pledges: the ancient Hippocratic Oath, the modern Physician’s Pledge (Declaration of Geneva, WMA 2017 revision), and the voluntary ethical commitments used in high-stakes fields such as nuclear non-proliferation (e.g. the Russell–Einstein Manifesto 1955, Pugwash movement pledges). The explicit link between acceptance of duties and moral legitimacy to claim rights reflects the Aristotelian principle of reciprocity in justice (Nicomachean Ethics, Book V).

[57] The three-tier structure of declaration (private, semi-public, public) is modeled on existing practices in professional and intellectual communities: private conscience notes (common in philosophical diaries), semi-public letters of commitment (e.g. Effective Altruism pledge variants), and public registries (e.g. the Giving What We Can pledge public list, or the open-source software contributor codes of conduct on GitHub). The mention of the Syncritic Academy Foundation as an example platform aligns with the document’s origin and proposed institutional home.

[58] The explicit separation of Charter rights from Code acceptance is a deliberate safeguard against accusations of coercive elitism or cult-like structures. It follows the logic of modern human rights instruments (e.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948), where basic protections are inalienable and not conditional on moral or ideological conformity, while higher voluntary standards (e.g. professional oaths, corporate ethics codes) enhance legitimacy but do not revoke baseline entitlements.

[59] The model of a voluntary, positive-only public register of ethical commitment has precedents in several high-trust professional and intellectual communities. Examples include: the Giving What We Can public pledge list (effective altruism movement, launched 2009), the 80,000 Hours career pledge registry, and the open-source software community’s Contributor Covenant signatory lists. These mechanisms rely on reputation and social proof rather than coercion, which aligns with the Code’s philosophy of moral rather than institutional enforcement.

[60] The exclusive reliance on reputational and social sanctions (without formal tribunals or blacklists) mirrors governance models in decentralized, merit-based communities. Notable parallels include: academic peer review and retraction mechanisms (e.g. Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE guidelines), the Effective Altruism community’s informal reputational accountability (post-2022 FTX crisis reforms), and the rationalist movement’s use of public distancing and withdrawal of cooperation in cases of serious misconduct (e.g. documented in LessWrong and EA Forum discussions 2022–2025).

[61] The strict requirement of publicly verifiable facts and presumption of innocence protects against weaponization of ethical mechanisms — a known risk in voluntary codes of conduct. This mirrors core principles of natural justice and due process found in: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 11), professional disciplinary codes (e.g. American Psychological Association Ethics Code, Principle 1.01 on misuse of reports), and modern online community moderation guidelines (e.g. Wikimedia Foundation’s “Assume good faith” and evidence-based enforcement policies).

[62] The diagnosis of contemporary civilizational crisis as a consequence of systemic marginalization of the most capable minds echoes several influential 20th- and 21st-century diagnoses. Key parallels include: Stanisław Lem’s concept of “geniocide” (genocide of geniuses) in Summa Technologiae (1964) and later essays; Eric Drexler’s warnings about technological stagnation in Radical Abundance (2013); and the “Great Stagnation” thesis of Tyler Cowen (2011), extended by Peter Thiel in Zero to One (2014) and subsequent writings on the slowdown of fundamental scientific and technological progress since the 1970s.

[63] The call for a “conscious intellectual elite” defined by voluntary higher duties rather than mere cognitive superiority draws from classical philosophical traditions of the philosopher-king (Plato, Republic V–VI) and the noble soul (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics IV.3 on megalopsychia), reinterpreted through modern voluntary ethics frameworks. Similar ideas appear in: José Ortega y Gasset’s The Revolt of the Masses (1930) on the need for a responsible “select minority”; Karl Jaspers’ concept of the “axial age” intellectual vocation; and contemporary meritocratic ethics in the works of Michael Sandel (The Tyranny of Merit, 2020), who argues that true elite legitimacy requires humility and service rather than entitlement.

The Ethical Code of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent

The Ethical Code of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent

1.4a. Consequences of Non-Acceptance or Violation of the Code

1.4b. Particular Case: Cooperation with Totalitarian and Authoritarian Systems

About Us

Recent Posts

Categories

Archive