That's actually a refreshing way of looking at something. The pathologically acquisitive are naturally a small part of the population suffering insecurity, often driven by early deprivation. Our natural instinct is to share intelligence, wrt food, predators, resources.

I have a theory that the misnomer "intellectual property" is most ardently championed by (perhaps older) intelligent/creative people who fear losing their power. Fear that this may be their last great idea fosters withholding and subtracts from the opportunities of the many.

This comes up in other contexts. In cybersecurity, if one discovers a new exploit the natural instinct for most people is responsible disclosure, even without a bounty. However, the temptation to privatise that knowledge as a sellable "zero-day" is powerful. But what we see is that it's the mediocre who do that more. Top 0.1% hackers are so confident in their ability to find more and deadlier exploits at will, they don't hoard as it's beneath them.

> Top 0.1% hackers are so confident in their ability to find more and deadlier exploits at will, they don't hoard as it's beneath them.

Or they probably see it as leverage for a job with a company at some point in the future. Or an achievement they can put on their resume or show the world.

I might be wrong in assuming this, but I take it that you believe the disclosures of these top tier hackers are a result of an altruistic benevolence. If so, I think you're describing a soul rarer than the Loch Ness Monster. The best hackers do zero-day work because they love it and it pays (in cash, achievement, fame, etc.). If it doesn't pay, they'll probably find some other way of getting their kick upto and including trading exploits or data for cash.

Even the hacker who saved the net from Mirai all those years ago sold exploits.

> of an altruistic benevolence.

I'm not sure I believe in that. Or rather, I think the idea of altruistic benevolence as a simple exclusive categorical is naive. Humans have super complex motives, often quite unconscious, multi-faceted and even in contradiction.

What I would say is that very high performing people think and behave in different ways. In political science (I'm thinking of Nicomachean Ethics but it's a recurring theme in modernity too) is the conceit of the "Great/Noble Man", whose competence places him "above" everyday perspectives and rituals. They're rare not because apparent altruism is rare, but because people of that calibre are rare.

Interesting theory. Do you think Wikipedia is an example of a work around?