Except its because the collective has given smart people these entitlements. "Hey this guys pretty smart, lets give him tenure." Did you personally pay the taxes to run that university? Did you make those policies? How much of an island do you think 'smart' people really are?

Or "Hey this guy is pretty good at business, lets give him low taxes to reward him and keep him happy."

I think its difficult for successful people to see how much they're lifted up by everyday people in society doing their best to incentivize meritocracy and creating an even playing field where the smart people can succeed.

Lets remember, the idea of the meritorious succeeding is rare in society. Up until recently you had to be a non-woman, non-slave, and at the very least come from a wealthy or political family. Or perhaps sidestep this by having powerful political patrons but then still be under the gun of, say, the inquisition.

Also when we look at many of the enlightenment thinkers and supporters, we see a slew of milquetoast intellects and ordinary people fighting against the old order of theocracies, monarchs, and dictators. Why did the smart need them to build the society they needed to succeed in? Newton wasn't writing about the freedom of man, instead he was obsessed over his place in the kingdom of heaven and went a bit mad about non-violent coin counterfeiters, advocating for their death, and often delivering it using the power of his position in the mint.

I think there's an Ayn Rand sized fallacy hole that you're falling into here.

>Lets remember, the idea of the meritorious succeeding is rare in society. Up until recently you had to be a non-woman, non-slave, and at the very least come from a wealthy or political family. Or perhaps sidestep this by having powerful political patrons but then still be under the gun of, say, the inquisition.

In most historical human societies, the way to "succeed" was to threaten to kill other people unless they gave you what you wanted.

That sounds unlikely to me, or at least something hard to measure that could easily be spun in different ways depending on your favored interpretation. Do you remember where you read it?

A couple of immediate objections come to mind. First, "intelligence" is difficult to define or measure. Things like standardized IQ tests tend to come with an implicit agenda. Second, thinking instead about "innovation", history surely shows that most innovation happens when humans group together (in farming communities, cities etc).

It's true though that in recent history, cities are more associated with social atomization. Overall it seems like a very fuzzy and complicated issue.

I'd rather see the connection between happiness and self-sufficiency, because ultimately, isn't happiness what we all want? Whether through intelligence, social connections or religion, achieving that elusive sense of peace and happiness is what drives people's ambitions.

That would have no effect over just a few generations.

It's figure of speech.