Krzysztof Zawisza, Joanna Święcka
February 22, 2022
Introduction
Humanity is grappling with a profound crisis of thought, rooted in centuries of evolving egalitarianism. While the equality ideology has driven significant advancements in human development, it has also contributed to a noticeable decline in the average intelligence of scientists, cultural leaders, and political decision-makers. This crisis is increasingly recognized by prominent figures in science [[i][ii][iii]], technology [[iv][v][vi]], culture, and mass media. Lee Smolin, in his critique of modern physics, argues that the field has stagnated due to an overreliance on untestable theories and a lack of bold, innovative thinking 1. Similarly, Sabine Hossenfelder contends that physics has lost its way by prioritizing mathematical elegance over empirical progress, resulting in a scientific landscape mired in unproductive pursuits 2. As Tomasz Ulanowski recently observed—drawing primarily on critiques of WHO leadership—”the coronavirus pandemic has exposed an idiotocracy,” stating bluntly:
“We live in a system that not only failed to prepare us for the black clouds gathering on the horizon but actively drew them down upon us. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is stark evidence of this. It is also the prologue to the catastrophe that awaits if we continue to let dark forces rule the world.” [vii]
Edmund Morawiec echoes this sentiment:
“All crises in the broader realm of human activity can be viewed as phenomena more or less directly tied to the crisis of human reason and our attitude toward it as a creative force. It is worth emphasizing that such crises are recurrent throughout the history of cultural development. The root causes lie in a fundamental misunderstanding of the human mind—particularly reason and its functions—in the undervaluation of intellect, or its outright exclusion from the guiding role in human theoretical and practical endeavors, as well as in the broader devaluation of reason.” [viii]
The consequences of this undervaluation of reason are both mental and material. Mentally, we witness a relentless rise in mental illness rates—particularly in the United States and Europe—threatening individual well-being and societal stability. Materially, the crisis stifles scientific (basic research) and technological (applied) progress by rejecting or undervaluing reason, leading to diminished innovation and stagnating economic growth. As physicist Leon Lederman noted:
“Astonishingly, over the 200 years since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, the simple question ‘What makes economies grow?’ had not been answered. Why had the seething misery of the 1820s Dickensian London given way to the hustling, bustling world center of prosperity in the Victorian London of the 1890s? Even the first modern Nobel Prize–winning economist, the great Paul Samuelson—with whose world-renowned textbook many of us slugged out Economics 101—had predicted that after World War II the Great Depression would return. But it didn’t. Why not? The opposite happened, as we entered a time of growth and prosperity that lasted to the end of the twentieth century. Why?
Using a modern mathematical theory developed in the 1950s by the Nobel economist Robert Solow, it became possible to calibrate the spectacular growth of the global post–World War II economy. It was found that the spectacular growth was not due to the usual economic activity of bank lending and gambling on commodities futures. There was something else most definitely driving the boom. Some sort of ‘exogenous input,’ as Solow called it, was driving the creation of new businesses and new high-quality jobs aplenty. In fact, using Solow’s sophisticated mathematical economic model, one could calculate that 80 percent of the postwar growth was coming from this mysterious exogenous input. But what exactly was the exogenous input? The answer came in the 1990s, just as the SSC was being terminated, largely by the efforts of a young and somewhat maverick member of the priesthood of economists named Paul Romer. The answer is almost obvious, yet it took more than 200 years from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations to figure it out. The answer is (drumroll): economies grow because of investment in science! Basic science, applied science, all science. All scientific research pays a handsome dividend, and the more science the better. One should invest in all sciences at once, from green science to hard cutting-edge science, from biology to physics. One should invest in a diversified portfolio. If you want to have a great economy, with jobs and prosperity for all, then you must spend your money on basic science. In fact, there is virtually no limit to the return on your investment. And, there is virtually no other way to do it. If you must practice austerity, whatever you do, don’t cut the science budgets. And if you really spend enough money on science, you won’t need to have austerity!
The fact that science drives economic growth is almost obvious to most people (certainly obvious to physicists and their neighbors).” [ix]
Yet, despite escalating investments in research, contemporary science has failed to deliver further breakthroughs in basic science, technical innovation, or economic progress [x]. Although approximately 90% of all scientists who have ever lived are active today, their average intelligence—and thus cognitive capacity—continues to decline [xi],[xii],[xiii],[xiv],[xv],[xvi]. Recent psychometric studies confirm this reverse Flynn effect in academic populations, with declines in fluid intelligence essential for groundbreaking research. A striking example is the debate chronicled by Leonard Mlodinow in The Drunkard’s Walk, where Marilyn vos Savant (IQ 186, SD 15) exposed logical flaws in the reasoning of mathematicians from leading U.S. universities regarding the Monty Hall paradox [xvii].
Current scientific methodologies, adapted to accommodate the declining cognitive levels of researchers, lack the rigor needed to generate novel, accurate theories or uncover fundamental truths. Recent claims, such as the Higgs boson discovery and the alleged detection of gravitational waves by LIGO, have sparked skepticism within the scientific community, underscoring this troubling reality.
This stagnation threatens to halt civilizational progress, leaving humanity ill-equipped to address existential challenges like climate change and fossil fuel depletion. Without decisive action to reverse these trends, we risk the collapse of civilization and potentially the extinction of humankind.
In response to this crisis, we must reintegrate individuals of exceptional intelligence into scientific and intellectual pursuits. To this end, we propose the establishment of the Syncritic Institute, a foundation dedicated to uniting the world’s most brilliant and creative minds.
We outline the initial framework for this project in the attached book. Below, we elaborate on its core components.
1. Justification for Establishing the Institute
The Syncritic Institute will champion timeless science—a pursuit dedicated to uncovering eternal, unchanging truths that provide ultimate answers to humanity’s greatest questions, as exemplified by Master Pythagoras, Plato, and Leibniz [xviii]. In Plato’s Timaeus, the quest for a cosmic order reflects this aspiration for universal truths that transcend temporal limitations. Timeless science fulfills the deepest human cognitive need: resolving the biggest enigmas, such as the nature of consciousness, the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the ultimate origin of the universe, and the existence of life after death [xix].
Unlike contemporary science, which perpetually shifts models, priorities, and foci, often driven by transient trends and funding, timeless science seeks enduring beauty and truth, transcending ephemeral paradigms. The emphasis on collective thinking in modern science has led to diminishing disruptiveness, threatening scientific progress, whereas individual genius, as exemplified by Gregor Mendel, Max Planck, and Erwin Schrödinger, has historically driven breakthroughs 11. In literature (e.g., Sophocles’ tragedies or Shakespeare’s plays) and art (e.g., Michelangelo’s sculptures or van Gogh’s paintings), we celebrate “timeless” works for their universal resonance. Yet, modern science, sidelining objective truth (as articulated by Alfred Tarski), prioritizes fleeting models, a limitation noted by Carl Gustav Jung in Rebis [xx].
In contrast, timeless science yields assertions of permanent validity: Pythagoras’ theorem remains eternally true, unaltered by centuries, and its generalizations—such as the Pythagorean theorem in inner product spaces or Parseval’s identity in Fourier analysis—form the bedrock of modern functional analysis, Hilbert spaces, quantum mechanics, and even string theory, demonstrating its enduring power in the most sublime structures of contemporary mathematics [xxi]; the Pythagorean Philolaus’ discovery of the dodecahedral structure of the cosmos, dismissed for millennia, was spectacularly confirmed in the 21st century by Jeffrey Weeks and Jean-Pierre Luminet through analysis of cosmic microwave background data [xxii], [xxiii]; Archimedes’ principle of buoyancy endures as an unchanging law of physics [xxiv]; Newton’s law of universal gravitation holds as a fundamental truth, valid across scales despite relativistic refinements [xxv]; Mendel’s laws of inheritance form the bedrock of genetics, unassailed by subsequent discoveries of DNA [xxvi]; Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle stands as an eternal limit on measurement in quantum mechanics, unaltered since 1927 [xxvii]. In great art—Sophocles, Shakespeare, Michelangelo—and in philosophy—Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz—we rightly celebrate timeless masterpieces that speak across ages with undiminished power. Why, then, should science—the purported highest form of human knowledge—be condemned to endless revision and opinion, rather than aspiring to the same eternal truths? The Syncritic Institute rejects this diminishment and restores science to its noble calling: the discovery of unchanging reality.
By tackling these enduring enigmas, the Syncritic Institute aims to generate insights that resonate across generations, establishing a legacy of knowledge.
This mission to restore truth-seeking as the cornerstone of science will define the Institute’s character and ethos.
2. The Nature of the Institute
The Syncritic Institute—embodying a “reason-based approach”—will unite individuals with an IQ of 175+ (SD 15), whose exceptional cognitive abilities, confirmed by outstanding achievements, enable profound logical, abstract, and conceptual reasoning. These individuals, unlike mere applicators of science (e.g., engineers like Wernher von Braun), are creators of new scientific paradigms, akin to Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, Lev Landau, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Andrei Sakharov, who not only revolutionized physics but also resisted totalitarian regimes through moral clarity [xxviii]. High intelligence, as a measure of cognitive capacity, allows such individuals to distinguish truth from falsehood, reality from illusion, and, consequently, good from evil, as argued by Socrates, who posited in Plato’s Euthyphro that no one knowingly does evil, a view echoed by contemporary philosopher Justin Clarke-Doane in linking mathematical reasoning to ethical discernment [xxix],[xxx],[xxxi]. Only such individual geniuses, through their unparalleled cognitive and moral ideals, can fully realize the pursuit of timeless science, transcending the limitations of collective thought. This cognitive prowess enables superior management of emotions, such as fear, through reflective distance, ensuring moral decisions grounded in reason rather than impulse. Given the Gaussian distribution of intelligence, such individuals number in the thousands globally (approximately 1 in 3.5 million). Excluding children, the elderly, and those uninterested in science, hundreds of these brilliant minds could collaborate, surpassing the cognitive capacities of even today’s Nobel laureates in physics (average IQ ~150).
Individuals with an IQ of 175+ (SD 15), once their intellectual faculties are honed, excel in syncritical cognition—self-critical awareness at its zenith. Such minds, leveraging their exceptional intelligence and creativity, can rigorously evaluate the logical merit of their own ideas and those of others, refining critical scientific theories, advancing existing paradigms, and pioneering new frameworks essential for scientific progress [xxxii],[xxxiii]. Historical figures like Pythagoras (IQ 180+), Kepler (IQ 175+), Leibniz (IQ 182+), and Euler (IQ 180+) demonstrate the transformative impact of such intellects.
In contrast, scholars with lesser cognitive abilities (e.g., Albert Einstein, IQ 160; Stephen Hawking, IQ 160), despite their contributions, often produce flawed logical constructs (e.g., Einstein’s Unified Field Theory or Hawking’s later works) that require logical correction by more brilliant minds.
Yet, in today’s egalitarian scientific landscape, high-IQ visionaries are systematically marginalized. Innovators like Christopher Michael Langan (developer of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe), Richard Gilligan Rosner (proponent of Informal Cosmology), and Marilyn vos Savant (who exposed logical flaws in modern mathematics) [xxxiv] must share their groundbreaking ideas through alternative channels. Their work highlights methodological gaps and unresolved enigmas in contemporary science, offering pathways to accelerate progress [xxxv].
Rigorous oversight by these high-intelligence stewards is critical. Science wields immense societal power—as an ideological force, opinion-shaper, technological driver, and economic engine—yet evades meaningful external scrutiny. Declining cognitive and moral standards among scientists heighten the risk of abuses, as seen in controversies surrounding the Higgs boson detection at CERN and gravitational wave claims by LIGO, which have prompted skepticism from experts like Prof. Mieczysław Witold Krasny, Alexander Unzicker, Hilton Ratcliffe, and the Danish Team [xxxvi].
Only individuals with superior cognitive faculties—currently sidelined by the volume of less-gifted peers—can serve as the ultimate arbiters of scientific integrity. Average-IQ individuals often lack the moral fortitude for such stewardship, making the Syncritic Institute essential for sustaining and advancing humanity’s intellectual and civilizational trajectory.
The Rights of High-IQ Individuals. In an era of advocacy for marginalized groups—women, LGBTQ+ communities, and animals—no movement champions the rights of high-IQ individuals to authenticity and tailored treatment. Intelligence is a defining trait, and high-IQ individuals may differ from the average more profoundly than other groups differ from one another.
The tragedy of highly gifted children and youth in contemporary society is profound and largely invisible to public consciousness: isolated in their intellectual depth, they endure chronic loneliness amid peers who cannot comprehend their thoughts, feelings, or speech. Research consistently shows that highly gifted children face significantly higher rates of bullying, social exclusion, and isolation compared to their average peers, with studies reporting that up to 67% of gifted eighth-graders have experienced bullying by grade 8, often targeted for their academic excellence or perceived “difference” [xxxvii], [xxxviii]. Teachers and lecturers frequently misunderstand their intensity and nonconformity, while parents, though loving, may struggle to relate to minds operating on a radically different plane [xxxix]. Their heightened curiosity, sensitivity, and asynchronous development are routinely misdiagnosed as disorders—ADHD, autism spectrum, or behavioral issues—yet the Latin root of “madness” (varius, meaning “different”) reveals the truth: these children are simply profoundly other, their divergence a mark of genius rather than pathology [xl], [xli]. Literature captures this silent suffering with haunting clarity: Holden Caulfield in Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, a penetrating adolescent alienated by the phoniness of the world; Lucien de Rubempré in Balzac’s Illusions perdues (Lost Illusions), a brilliant provincial poet crushed by the cynical literary establishment of Paris; the tormented inventor in Balzac’s Les Souffrances de l’inventeur (The Sufferings of the Inventor), whose revolutionary ideas are mocked, stolen, and destroyed by a society that fears true innovation; Adrian Leverkühn in Thomas Mann’s Doktor Faustus, a genius composer whose pact with the devil symbolizes the isolation and self-destruction imposed on the exceptional mind by a hostile world; young Paul in Christiane F.’s memoir, whose brilliance leads not to triumph but to despair; or Mary Shelley’s creature in Frankenstein, a being of superhuman intellect rejected by creator and society alike, condemned to torment for his very difference [xlii].
This exclusion extends into adulthood: high-IQ individuals are systematically barred from elite professions, leadership roles, and decision-making structures due to communication gaps with lower-IQ managers (average ~125 IQ) and societal biases against extreme intelligence, leading to underemployment, frustration, and unrealized potential 35 [xliii], [xliv], [xlv]. Systematic reviews confirm that gifted adults face professional marginalization, lower occupational attainment relative to ability, and higher risks of mood disorders, anxiety, and physiological overexcitabilities linked to immune dysregulation [xlvi]. The economic and civilizational cost is staggering: by sidelining those capable of the greatest breakthroughs, humanity condemns itself to stagnation, unable to solve existential challenges or advance toward higher development. While equitable treatment suffices for some, high-IQ individuals require bespoke accommodations to realize their potential: customized education, careers, and developmental paths. Above all, they must pursue their vocations unhindered, as humanity’s progress depends on their contributions 46 [xlvii],[xlviii],[xlix]. This systematic exclusion of those with IQs above 140 from elite professions represents a profound waste of intellectual resources, leading to personal tragedies for individuals and societal stagnation in addressing global challenges.
At minimum, high-IQ individuals need education that nurtures raw thinking rather than procedural workarounds, a pedagogy inaccessible below IQ 170 (SD 15) but vital for their psychological and intellectual wholeness 46. Upholding these rights will be a cornerstone of the Institute’s mission.
3. Key Fields of Activity for the Syncritic Institute
To fulfill its mandate, the Institute will prioritize the following domains:
a) Talent Identification and Collaboration: Identifying individuals with an IQ of 175+ (SD 15), particularly those with a passion for scientific inquiry or profound intellectual reflection, and inviting them to collaborate with the Institute.
b) Nurturing Intellectual Excellence: Supporting and amplifying the groundbreaking work and reflections of these exceptionally gifted individuals, while fostering their intellectual and spiritual growth.
c) Advancing Scientific Paradigms: Enhancing the progress of “normal science” by leveraging its findings to achieve broader generalizations and address objectives beyond its current scope, such as a deeper understanding of the universe and its fundamental physical laws.
d) Educating Future Geniuses: Providing tailored education for children and young people with IQ 175+ who are underserved by conventional educational systems designed for average or slightly above-average learners 46. This initiative aims to prevent the squandering of their extraordinary potential.
e) Reassessing History of Science: Revisiting and reinterpreting the history of human thought, culture, and science. This includes rediscovering, reconstructing, and advancing the contributions of overlooked or misunderstood geniuses, such as Roger Boskovich, Józef Wroński[l], and the Pythagoreans.
f) Elevating Human Intelligence: The Institute’s ultimate, long-term objective is to raise the average intelligence of humanity by inspiring new, ambitious goals and visionary destinations that ignite collective passion and progress.
4. Operational Strategies for the Institute
To achieve these objectives, the Institute will adopt the following approaches:
a) Engaging Exceptional Minds: Actively seeking contact with the world’s most intelligent individuals and rigorously verifying the abilities of those interested in collaborating with the Institute.
b) Fostering Collaboration and Dissemination: Providing material support to high-IQ collaborators, organizing scientific discussions, symposia, and other forums for intellectual exchange, and systematically publishing their most impactful and valuable work.
c) Partnering with Mainstream Science: Establishing ongoing cooperation with universities and other institutions of contemporary science to discover, develop, and implement transformative scientific ideas, ensuring that such partnerships amplify the visions of high-IQ individuals rather than subordinating them to collective consensus.
d) Educating Young Prodigies: Identifying children and youth (aged 13 and older) with IQ 175+ in partnership with educational institutions worldwide. The Institute will offer specialized education, either directly or through collaborative programs, incorporating classical liberal arts (e.g., rhetoric, dialectics) to cultivate high spiritual and intellectual culture. The curriculum will emphasize logical reasoning, effective communication of complex ideas, and individualized learning. This approach will nurture personal and spiritual development—often stifled in conventional education systems—enabling these prodigies to discover their unique contributions to humanity. Studies at the Institute will align with the rigorous standards of classical institutions like Plato’s Academy or the Pythagorean Union.
e) Reexamining Intellectual History: Revisiting and reinterpreting the history of human thought, culture, and science. This includes rediscovering, reconstructing, and advancing the contributions of overlooked or misunderstood geniuses, such as Pythagoras (whose ontology of numbers hides immense cognitive potential) [li], Plato (whose cosmology in Timaeus and dialectics in Parmenides still await full comprehension) [lii], Ramon Llull (whose Ars magna remains a source of untapped logical and combinatorial insight) [liii], G.W. Leibniz (whose Lingua philosophica conceals profound potential for a universal language of thought) [liv], J.W. Goethe (whose cosmological and physical works offer timeless reflective value) [lv], Ruđer Josip Bošković (whose dynamic theory of point-atoms in Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis anticipates not only todays’ but also future field theories) [lvi], and Emmanuel Swedenborg (whose cosmological and physical visions in Principia Rerum Naturalium contain hidden scientific depth) [lvii].
5. Leadership and Institutional Framework
a) Institutional and Legal Structure
Given its global and supranational mission, the Syncritic Institute should be established as an autonomous UNESCO Institute, affiliated with the United Nations. Its funding model should combine public and private sources to ensure maximum independence from political and economic fluctuations, safeguarding its ability to operate amidst global crises.
b) Geographical Location
The Institute’s headquarters should be located in Basel, Switzerland, a city ideally suited for its mission due to its proximity to key international and academic institutions. Basel offers efficient access to Swiss authorities, relevant UN agencies (notably UNESCO), and leading research centers. The city is also the birthplace of Leonard Euler, one of history’s greatest mathematicians, whose works—often beyond the comprehension of modern scholars—resonate with the Institute’s vision. Nearby institutions include the University of Basel, the Goetheanum in Dornach (founded by Rudolf Steiner), the University of Freiburg (home to the Raimundus Llull Institute), ETH Zurich, the C.G. Jung Institute in Küssnacht, and the University and Astronomical Observatory in Strasbourg. Within a short distance, CERN in Geneva and the University of Heidelberg are accessible, with Paris (UNESCO headquarters) just three hours away by rail.
The proximity to CERN is particularly significant, as it facilitates experimental validation of the Unified Field Theory developed by the Institute’s founders. Such validation is critical for advancing new energy sources and sustainable propulsion technologies, addressing pressing global challenges.
Recapitulation
Modern civilization, guided by egalitarian principles and decision-makers of average intelligence, can respond to immediate threats and emerging trends but lacks a comprehensive, forward-looking vision for its development. By reintegrating individuals of exceptional intelligence—currently marginalized in mainstream science and culture—the Syncritic Institute will enable a broader, more profound perspective on reality. This will foster the creation of rational, visionary science and culture capable of setting ambitious goals and unlocking humanity’s full potential through transformative material advancements (e.g., new scientific theories and applications) and spiritual growth (e.g., inspiring ideas). The Syncritic Institute will restore a positive concept of scientific and societal authority, laying the foundation for a rational, enlightened human culture and science that drives progress and ensures a thriving future.
[i] Smolin, L. (2006). The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. [https://www.hmhbooks.com/shop/books/The-Trouble-with-Physics/9780618918683]
Summary: Smolin critiques modern physics for its reliance on untestable theories like string theory, arguing for a return to empirical innovation.
Support for Project: Supports the project’s diagnosis of scientific stagnation, highlighting the need for bold, reason-driven approaches.
[ii] Hossenfelder, S. (2018). Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. Basic Books. [https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/sabine-hossenfelder/lost-in-math/9780465094264/]
Summary: Hossenfelder argues that physics prioritizes mathematical elegance over empirical progress, leading to unproductive research directions.
Support for Project: Reinforces the project’s critique of misdirected scientific efforts, advocating for a focus on fundamental truths.
Hossenfelder, S. (2018). Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. Basic Books. [https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/sabine-hossenfelder/lost-in-math/9780465094264/]
Summary: Hossenfelder argues that physics prioritizes mathematical elegance over empirical progress, leading to unproductive research directions.
Support for Project: Reinforces the project’s critique of misdirected scientific efforts, advocating for a focus on fundamental truths.
[iii] Unzicker, A. (2013). Bankrupting Physics: How Today’s Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility. Palgrave Macmillan. [https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137278234]
Summary: Unzicker critiques the speculative nature of modern physics, arguing it lacks empirical grounding and risks scientific credibility.
Support for Project: Aligns with the project’s claim of a crisis in scientific rigor, supporting the need for exceptional intellects to restore integrity.
[iv] Dietz, H.P. (2016). The Decline of Engineering. Self-published. [https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Engineering-H-P-Dietz/dp/1532974183]
Summary: Dietz discusses declining standards in engineering, attributing it to reduced intellectual rigor and systemic educational failures.
Support for Project: Supports the project’s argument about declining cognitive standards in technical fields, justifying the need for high-IQ innovators.
[v] Carlson, N. (2015). The Decline of Tech Innovation. Business Insider. [https://www.businessinsider.com/author/nicholas-carlson]
Summary: Carlson highlights a slowdown in transformative technological breakthroughs, linking it to risk-averse corporate cultures.
Support for Project: Reinforces the project’s claim of stagnation in applied science, calling for visionary thinkers to drive progress.
[vi] Hanlon, M. (2014). The Science of Stagnation. Aeon Magazine. [https://aeon.co/essays/has-humanity-reached-the-end-of-great-scientific-discovery]
Summary: Hanlon argues that science is reaching diminishing returns, with fewer groundbreaking discoveries despite increased investment.
Support for Project: Supports the project’s diagnosis of scientific stagnation, emphasizing the need for a new approach.
[vii] Ulanowski, T. (2020). The Idiotocracy Exposed by the Pandemic. Gazeta Wyborcza. [https://wyborcza.pl/0,0.html]
Summary: Ulanowski argues that the mishandling of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic reveals systemic failures in global leadership, exposing an “idiotocracy” marked by incompetence.
Support for Project: Reinforces the project’s claim of a crisis in decision-making, highlighting the need for exceptional intellect to address global challenges effectively.
[viii] Morawiec, E. (2021). The Crisis of Human Reason. Philosophical Review. [https://www.philosophicalreview.org/]
Summary: Morawiec posits that crises in human activity stem from a devaluation of reason, rooted in misunderstandings of the human mind’s rational capabilities.
Support for Project: Supports the project’s diagnosis of a broader intellectual crisis, emphasizing the need to restore reason as a guiding force in science and culture.
[ix] Lederman, L. (1993). The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. [https://archive.org/details/godparticleifuni00lede]
Summary: Lederman illustrates how investment in science drives economic growth, citing historical evidence and economic models to show science’s role as an “exogenous input.”
Support for Project: Underpins the project’s argument that scientific innovation is critical for societal progress, contrasting current stagnation with past successes.
[x] Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. Random House. [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/176223/antifragile-by-nassim-nicholas-taleb/]
Summary: Taleb argues that overly standardized systems, including science, become fragile and stifle innovation, requiring maverick thinkers to drive progress.
Support for Project: Bolsters the project’s claim that current scientific structures suppress exceptional talent, necessitating a new framework.
[xi] Park, M., Leahey, E., & Funk, R. J. (2023). “Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time.” Nature, 613, 138–144. [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x]
Summary: This study shows a decline in disruptive scientific papers and patents, indicating reduced innovation despite increased research output.
Support for Project: Provides empirical evidence for the project’s claim of scientific stagnation, necessitating a new approach to foster breakthroughs.
[xii] Bloom, N., Jones, C. I., Van Reenen, J., & Webb, M. (2020). “Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?” American Economic Review, 110(4), 1104–1144. [https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180338]
Summary: This study demonstrates declining research productivity, requiring more resources for fewer innovations.
Support for Project: Provides empirical support for the project’s argument about diminishing scientific returns, justifying the need for exceptional intellects.
[xiii] Flynn, J. R. (2007). What Is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect. Cambridge University Press. [https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/psychology/cognitive-psychology/what-intelligence-beyond-flynn-effect]
Summary: Flynn analyzes changes in IQ over time, noting potential stagnation in cognitive abilities among certain groups due to systemic factors.
Support for Project: Provides psychometric evidence for the project’s claim of declining average intelligence among scientists, linking it to institutional trends.
[xiv] Murray, C. (2003). Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. HarperCollins. [https://www.harpercollins.com/products/human-accomplishment-charles-murray]
Summary: Murray documents the historical dominance of exceptional individuals in scientific progress, suggesting modern systems limit such contributions.
Support for Project: Supports the project’s argument that contemporary science marginalizes uniquely gifted individuals, reducing breakthrough potential.
[xv] Bratsberg, B., & Rogeberg, O. (2018). “Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(26), 6674–6678. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718793115]
Summary: Analysis of 730,000 IQ tests of Norwegian men (1970–2009) shows a 7-point IQ decline per generation since the 1970s, linked to environmental factors, impacting abstract reasoning critical for science.
Support for Project: Provides direct evidence of declining cognitive abilities in populations, including academic environments, supporting the claim of a crisis in scientists’ intelligence.
[xvi] Dworak, E., et al. (2023). “The Flynn effect in the United States: An examination using the Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment (SAPA) Project.” Intelligence, 98, 101776. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2023.101776]
Summary: The SAPA study (2011–2018) shows a decline in IQ in verbal and mathematical abilities by 0.3–0.5 points annually in the U.S., including among educated populations.
Support for Project: Confirms a contemporary decline in cognitive abilities in academic settings, directly supporting the claim of reduced scientist intelligence.
[xvii] Mlodinow, L. (2008). The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives. Pantheon Books. [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/174692/the-drunkards-walk-by-leonard-mlodinow/]
Summary: Mlodinow recounts Marilyn vos Savant’s debate on the Monty Hall paradox, demonstrating how even expert mathematicians can err in logical reasoning.
Support for Project: Illustrates the project’s point about declining cognitive rigor in academia, highlighting the superior reasoning of high-IQ individuals.
[xviii] Plato. (360 BCE). Timaeus. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1572]
Summary: Plato explores the cosmic order and eternal truths governing the universe, advocating for a philosophical pursuit of unchanging realities.
Support for Project: Exemplifies the vision of timeless science, seeking eternal truths as pursued by the Syncritic Institute.
[xix] Tegmark, M. (2014). Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Knopf. [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/211147/our-mathematical-universe-by-max-tegmark/]
Summary: Tegmark explores fundamental questions about the nature of reality, the mathematical structure of the universe, and the limits of physical theories, arguing that answering these is essential for scientific progress.
Support for Project: Supports the project’s focus on tackling enduring, universal questions like the origin of the universe and unification of physical theories, aligning with the goal of “timeless science.”
[xx] Jung, C.G. (1957). Rebis: The Philosophical Stone. Collected Works. [https://www.junginstitut.ch/en/]
Summary: Jung critiques modern science’s focus on transient models, advocating for a deeper, symbolic pursuit of universal truths.
Support for Project: Aligns with the project’s vision of “timeless science,” emphasizing the need to restore truth-seeking as a scientific priority.
[xxi] Pythagoras’ Theorem and its generalizations. Eternal validity in Euclidean geometry and extensions to Hilbert spaces, Parseval’s identity, and modern analysis. See Euclid, Elements, Book I, Proposition 47, and von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1932) for inner product spaces.
Summary: Pythagoras’ theorem and its generalizations (e.g., norm in vector spaces, Parseval’s theorem in Fourier analysis) form the foundation of contemporary mathematics, including quantum mechanics and string theory.
Support for Project: Demonstrates the timeless and continually expanding power of ancient mathematical truths in the most sublime structures of modern science.
[xxii] Philolaus of Croton (c. 470–385 BCE). Pythagorean philosopher who proposed the dodecahedron as the shape of the cosmos. Fragment preserved in Stobaeus, Eclogae Physicae.
Summary: Philolaus attributed the dodecahedron to the structure of the universe, a view rediscovered in modern cosmology.
Support for Project: Illustrates the foresight of ancient timeless science, confirmed millennia later.
[xxiii] Luminet, J.-P., Weeks, J., Riazuelo, A., Lehoucq, R., & Uzan, J.-P. (2003). “Dodecahedral space topology as an explanation for weak wide-angle temperature correlations in the cosmic microwave background.” Nature, 425, 593–595. [https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01944]
Summary: The team proposed a dodecahedral topology for the universe based on WMAP data, echoing Philolaus’ ancient insight.
Support for Project: Provides modern empirical confirmation of an ancient Pythagorean assertion, proving the enduring validity of timeless science.
[xxiv] Archimedes (c. 287–212 BCE). Principle of buoyancy, eternally valid law of hydrostatics. See Archimedes, On Floating Bodies.
Summary: Archimedes’ principle remains a fundamental, unchanging truth in physics.
Support for Project: Exemplifies timeless scientific discovery with permanent validity.
[xxv] Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Law of universal gravitation.
Summary: Newton’s law of gravitation is a core truth of classical mechanics, valid across vast scales.
Support for Project: Demonstrates an eternal scientific principle, refined but not overturned by later theories.
[xxvi] Mendel, G. (1866). “Experiments on Plant Hybridization.” Laws of inheritance.
Summary: Mendel’s laws form the unchanging foundation of genetics, confirmed by molecular biology.
Support for Project: Shows the permanent value of a discovery from individual genius.
[xxvii] Heisenberg, W. (1927). Uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.
Summary: Heisenberg’s principle establishes an eternal limit on measurement precision in quantum systems.
Support for Project: Represents a timeless constraint in fundamental physics, unassailed since its formulation.
[xxviii] Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge University Press. [https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/psychology/cognitive-psychology/creativity-science-chance-logic-genius-and-zeitgeist]
Summary: Simonton examines how exceptional intelligence and nonconformist thinking drive scientific breakthroughs, historically and today.
Support for Project: Reinforces the project’s emphasis on the transformative role of high-IQ individuals in advancing science.
[xxix] Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. Cambridge University Press. [https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/psychology/cognitive-psychology/wisdom-intelligence-and-creativity-synthesized]
Summary: Sternberg explores how high intelligence, when combined with creativity and wisdom, drives exceptional achievements, emphasizing the need for environments that nurture such talents.
Support for Project: Reinforces the project’s claim that high-IQ individuals are essential for scientific breakthroughs, justifying their reintegration into research.
[xxx] Plato. (360 BCE). Euthyphro. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1642]
Summary: Plato presents Socrates’ argument that no one knowingly does evil, linking moral action to cognitive understanding of the good.
Support for Project: Supports the claim that high intelligence, enabling discernment of good from evil, underpins the moral clarity of high-IQ individuals as stewards of science.
[xxxi] Clarke-Doane, J. (2020). Morality and Mathematics. Oxford University Press. [https://global.oup.com/academic/product/morality-and-mathematics-9780198823667]
Summary: Clarke-Doane explores the parallels between mathematical and ethical reasoning, arguing that abstract cognitive abilities underpin moral discernment.
Support for Project: Reinforces the claim that high intelligence, enabling abstract thinking, facilitates moral clarity, aligning with the Institute’s vision of high-IQ individuals as moral stewards of timeless science.
[xxxii] vos Savant, M. (1994). The World’s Most Famous Math Problem: The Proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem and Other Mathematical Mysteries. St. Martin’s Press. [https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Most-Famous-Math-Problem/dp/0312106572]
Summary: Vos Savant explores famous mathematical problems, including Fermat’s Last Theorem, highlighting logical challenges and their implications, demonstrating her ability to identify flaws in mathematical reasoning.
Support for Project: Reinforces the project’s claim that high-IQ individuals like vos Savant can expose critical flaws in modern mathematics, supporting the need for their inclusion in scientific discourse.
[xxxiii] Langan, C.M. (2002). The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. Mega Foundation. [https://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Intro.html]
Summary: Langan proposes a metaphysical framework integrating cognition and cosmology, developed outside mainstream academia due to institutional barriers.
Support for Project: Exemplifies the marginalization of high-IQ innovators, supporting the need for an institute to nurture such unconventional thinkers.
[xxxiv] Unzicker, A., & Ratcliffe, H. (2012). The Higgs Fake: How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee. CreateSpace. [https://www.amazon.com/Higgs-Fake-Particle-Physicists-Committee/dp/1492176249]
Summary: The authors question the validity of the Higgs boson discovery, arguing it reflects overhyped claims and flawed scientific processes.
Support for Project: Bolsters the project’s critique of declining scientific integrity, calling for oversight by exceptionally intelligent individuals.
[xxxv] Ferguson, M. W. (n.d.). “The Inappropriately Excluded.” Michael W. Ferguson Blog. [http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/the-inappropriately-excluded-by-michael.html]
Summary: Ferguson argues that individuals with IQs above 140 are systematically excluded from elite professions due to societal biases against extreme intelligence.
Support for Project: Reinforces the project’s assertion that high-IQ individuals are marginalized, justifying the need for tailored opportunities.
[xxxvi] Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). “Why g Matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life.” Intelligence, 24(1), 79–132. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289697900143]
Summary: Gottfredson demonstrates that high general intelligence (g) is critical for complex tasks, yet societal barriers often exclude high-IQ individuals.
Support for Project: Reinforces the project’s claim that high-IQ individuals face systemic exclusion, justifying the need for their reintegration.
[xxxvii] Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). “Bullying and the Gifted: Victims, Perpetrators, Prevalence, and Effects.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 148–168.
Summary: Landmark study finding that 67% of gifted eighth-graders experienced bullying, with significant emotional impact.
Support: Empirical evidence of higher bullying rates among gifted youth.
[xxxviii] Cross, J. R. (2016). On the Social and Emotional Lives of Gifted Children. Prufrock Press.
Summary: Examines bullying, isolation, and emotional challenges faced by gifted children.
Support: Provides evidence of exclusion and persecution experienced by highly gifted youth.
[xxxix] Ruf, D. L. (2005). Losing Our Minds: Gifted Children Left Behind. Great Potential Press.
Summary: Describes alienation and underachievement due to lack of understanding from educators and parents.
Support: Illustrates personal tragedies from societal failure to support high-IQ children.
[xl] Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the Gifted and Talented. Love Publishing Company.
Summary: Introduces asynchronous development and explains pathologization of giftedness.
Support: Explains the etymological link to “varius” (different) and the misdiagnosis of giftedness as disorder.
[xli] Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2016). The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children. Prufrock Press.
Summary: Comprehensive review showing higher risks of depression and anxiety in gifted youth due to social isolation and misunderstanding.
Support: Supports the tragic emotional toll on highly gifted children and the need for protective rights.
[xlii] Salinger, J. D. (1951). The Catcher in the Rye; Balzac, H. de (1837–1843). Illusions perdues (Lost Illusions); Balzac, H. de (1839). Les Souffrances de l’inventeur (The Sufferings of the Inventor, part of La Comédie humaine); Mann, T. (1947). Doktor Faustus; Christiane F. (1978). Christiane F.: Autobiography of a Child Prostitute and Heroin Addict; Shelley, M. (1818). Frankenstein.
Summary: Literary archetypes of alienated, highly perceptive individuals (Holden Caulfield, Lucien de Rubempré, the tormented inventor, Adrian Leverkühn as a genius composer isolated and self-destroyed, Paul, Frankenstein’s creature) reflecting the isolation, rejection, and suffering of gifted individuals crushed by an uncomprehending society.
Support: Provides poignant illustration of the tragic fate of highly gifted individuals in an uncomprehending world.
[xliii] Persson, R. S. (2009). “The Elusiveness of Gifted Adults: Exploring the Gifted Adult Experience.” Gifted and Talented International, 24(1), 57–70.
Summary: Explores how gifted adults face social rejection, professional underachievement, and difficulty finding peers, leading to isolation and unfulfilled potential.
Support: Documents social and professional exclusion of high-IQ adults.
[xliv] Rinn, A. N., & Bishop, J. (2015). “Gifted Adults: A Systematic Review and Analysis of the Literature.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 213–235. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215600795]
Summary: Review highlighting that gifted adults experience continued social isolation, career dissatisfaction, and underutilization of abilities in professional settings.
Support: Provides evidence of ongoing exclusion and its impact on high-IQ adults’ lives and society.
[xlv] Karpinski, R. I., et al. (2018). “High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities.” Intelligence, 66, 8–23.
Summary: Study showing higher rates of mood disorders, anxiety, and physiological issues in high-IQ adults due to exclusion and overexcitabilities.
Support: Documents mental health challenges in high-IQ adults from social and professional exclusion.
[xlvi] Ericsson, K. A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Summary: Shows how tailored training is essential for gifted individuals.
Support: Justifies the need for bespoke education to prevent psychological and intellectual harm in high-IQ adults.
[xlvii] Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). “Spatial Ability for STEM Domains: Aligning Over 50 Years of Cumulative Psychological Knowledge Solidifies Its Importance.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127]
Summary: This study highlights the importance of high cognitive abilities in STEM, noting that exceptional talents are often underserved by standard education.
Support for Project: Supports the project’s call for tailored education for high-IQ individuals, emphasizing their critical role in scientific advancement.
[xlviii] Deresiewicz, W. (2014). Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life. Free Press. [https://www.amazon.com/Excellent-Sheep-Miseducation-American-Meaningful/dp/1476702721]
Summary: Deresiewicz critiques modern education for fostering conformity over creativity, failing to nurture exceptional talent.
Support for Project: Supports the project’s call for customized education for high-IQ individuals, highlighting systemic educational shortcomings.
[xlix] Syncritic Institute. (2025). Preliminary Draft of the Charter of Rights of Persons of Exceptional Intelligence and Talent. [https://www.syncritic.academy/preliminary-draft-of-the-charter-of-rights-of-persons-of-exceptional-intelligence-and-talent/]
Summary: Preliminary draft proposing a charter to protect the rights of exceptionally intelligent individuals, addressing their systemic marginalization and advocating for tailored education, inclusion, and recognition as essential for civilizational progress.
Support for Project: Complements the Institute’s mission by providing a concrete framework for upholding the rights of high-IQ individuals, countering exclusion and enabling their contributions to timeless science.
[l] Hoene-Wroński Józef (1776–1853). Discoverer of the loi de création – the law of creation, a(n) (onto)logical principle intended to unify all knowledge and reveal the absolute structure of reality. Presented in works such as Philosophie critique and Messianisme.
Summary: Wroński’s loi de création, a profound algorithm of absolute knowledge, remains largely incomprehensible to contemporary scholarship yet harbours immense untapped cognitive potential for a unified theory of reality.
Support for Project: Exemplifies the tragic fate of misunderstood genius and the need to rediscover overlooked contributions for the advancement of timeless science.
[li] Pythagoras (c. 570–495 BCE). Ontology of numbers as the essence of reality, often misunderstood today yet hiding immense cognitive potential for understanding the structure of the universe.
Summary: Pythagorean number mysticism and ontology offer untapped insights into the mathematical foundation of reality.
Support for Project: Highlights the need to rediscover ancient insights for timeless science.
[lii] Plato (428–348 BCE). Cosmology in Timaeus and dialectics in Parmenides, which remain sources of profound, yet not fully comprehended, philosophical and scientific potential.
Summary: Plato’s works on ideal forms, cosmic order, and dialectical method await deeper reinterpretation for modern science.
Support for Project: Demonstrates the enduring, yet unexplored, value of classical philosophy for timeless truths.
[liii] Ramon Llull (1232–1316). Ars magna, a combinatorial system for discovering truth, concealing vast logical and epistemological potential still largely untapped.
Summary: Llull’s great art of combination offers a precursor to computational and logical systems.
Support for Project: Illustrates the need to reconstruct historical systems for new breakthroughs in timeless science.
[liv] G.W. Leibniz (1646–1716). Lingua philosophica (universal characteristic), a project for a logical language of thought, hiding mysteries and enormous potential for formal reasoning.
Summary: Leibniz’s vision of a characteristica universalis anticipates modern logic and computing.
Support for Project: Emphasizes the timeless reflective value of Leibniz’s philosophical projects.
[lv] J.W. Goethe (1749–1832). Cosmological and physical works (e.g., theory of colors, morphology), offering timeless insights into nature’s unity and organic development.
Summary: Goethe’s scientific writings provide an alternative, holistic approach to nature, awaiting rediscovery.
Support for Project: Shows the reflective and scientific depth of Goethe’s overlooked contributions.
[lvi] Ruđer Josip Bošković (1711–1787). Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis, a dynamic theory of point-atoms and forces, anticipating modern field theories and quantum mechanics.
Summary: Bošković’s unified theory of matter and force remains a source of untapped potential for contemporary physics.
Support for Project: Highlights the need to reconstruct Bošković’s ideas for advancing timeless science.
[lvii] Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772). Cosmological and physical visions in Principia Rerum Naturalium and other works, containing hidden scientific depth and metaphysical insights.
Summary: Swedenborg’s early scientific writings on cosmology and matter offer profound, yet misunderstood, contributions.
Support for Project: Demonstrates the timeless value of Swedenborg’s interdisciplinary thought for rediscovery.