Part 2: Elites are Not Good at Strategic or Long-Term Thinking

In the previous part of this short series, I wrote about how the so-called “elites” are not especially intelligent or good at long-term thinking. Their modus operandi and attitudes are much closer to those displayed by parasites and cancers than anything even vaguely beneficial to society. While that post highlighted the role of random luck and general gullibility of public in their rise, this one will focus on how their short-term world view leads to their long-term fall. Please note that this post might come across as a bit hard to understand, because the concepts I am trying to put forth have no well-known equivalents in popular culture. With that in mind, let us start by asking the first obvious question.

Why are elites, and wannabe elites, obsessed with maintaining and increasing their perceived status to the point that every action in their lives is seen through this lens?

You might have noticed that elites love to patronize art they don’t care about, make sure they attend the "right" schools and universities, pretend to read “famous” books they have no interest in and buy yachts and airplanes they seldom enjoy. They are also obsessed with buying, selling or remodeling large houses and mansions in which they seldom inhabit or enjoy. Oddly enough, this was not always the case as the rich and powerful people until the 20th century openly enjoyed their ostentatious lifestyle to a level that is hard to believe today. Remember that Louis XIV lived at Versailles for decades and Henry VIII did not reach his bodily proportions by eating a well-balanced diet. Moreover, all those kings, lords other rich people in the past used to have tons of mistresses and illegitimate children unlike their sterile equivalents today.

The point I am trying to make is that modern-day “elites”, or even those from the past century, are a very different creature from those who lived prior to the 20th century. But why? Why did people who were considered “elites” in previous eras enjoy their lives and had an amazing time, unlike their modern day counterparts. Notably, the need to secure as much status as possible for themselves also leads the current bunch to devote the majority of their mental energy to making other people poorer and more miserable than themselves. That is why billionaires complain about "high" corporate taxes and regulations while trying to pay their workers as little as they can get away with. The same applies to "millionaires" who abuse their employees and domestic staff even though doing so does not increase their ability to enjoy life. Modern “elites” are hence best understood as parasites with zero-sum thinking who either con others into accepting them or born into a stagnant system which keeps them in same social class.

Even relatively average people who make good money such as professors, middle-level managers, HR shysters etc seem to exhibit the same behavioral patterns. Notably, unlike previous eras, these parasites now feel the need to feign being somehow useful to society. Such eternal status-seeking mindset does, however, have a non-obvious but uniformly fatal flaw. The flaw I am going to talk about next is usually ignored because most people, including the "high IQ elite" cannot think outside the box in which they have locked themselves. To understand this better, let us start with a society in some sort of a dynamic equilibrium. Whether it is experiencing slight growth or stagnation, most societies can maintain functional integrity even if they are shitty places to live in- as history will readily attest.

In other words, even a fairly dysfunctional society will often remain fairly stable and predictable even if most people in it are barely scraping out a living. The real problem arises when that society experiences an external challenge- be it natural events like drought, floods, earthquakes, epidemics to man-made events such as wars, invasions or economic problems caused by external actors. It is important to note that the size of the initial external challenge is not important, as otherwise unremarkable events have a way of magnifying themselves. Societies usually depend on their "elites" to formulate and coordinate a response to external threat or disruption. They do so because the "elite" portray themselves as especially intelligent and competent.

However the hard-wired motivations, mental filters and mindset of “elites” are geared towards increasing their status- both with respect to the people under them and their peers. Therefore their behavior and actions are consciously/ unconscionably guided by whether a given path of action, plan or strategy increases their status. This obsession with maintaining and increasing status overrides all other such considerations such as the survival of the society they pretend to lead or even their eventual fate. Almost all of their choices and actions end up making the situation worse. Whether this happens on the conscious, or unconscious, level is irrelevant to the effect of such actions which causes a further deterioration in the general condition of people in that society. The worsening of conditions for average people in any society damages whatever is left of social cohesion which then feeds back into a further worsening of the overall situation resulting in even more status-driven bad decision by the "elite".

At some stage the forces which hold the stressed society together are overwhelmed by those caused by cascading events caused by the unnecessary suffering of the average people in the system. The majority then lose their faith in "elites" and all institutions associated with them, creating a power vacuum that is inevitably filled by some other faction or group. While those who fill such an emergent power vacuum might not be much better than the old "elites", they do represent a shift from the disastrous policies and institutions which drove that society to implode in the first place. However such large-scale changes cannot occur through democratic elections, as another political party or faction is essentially identical to the one it replaced. It is about the system and institutions, not political parties or leaders.

In the next part of this series, I will use examples drawn from current events and recent history to demonstrate how the behaviors and actions of “elites” in a society, which is no longer in some sort of equilibrium, almost always end up making things worse and eventually destabilizing their own position in that society. Will also talk about why the current crop of “elites” is especially unequipped to handle such crises.

What do you think? Comments?