Originally Posted by
IndiReloaded
[Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Its a good thought. But not what I mean. By my definition, anyone 'trying' to fit into that 2% is not part of that group. I think its something largely wired by genes that emerges in particular circumstance.
I would agree that arbitrary ~40% could be defined as a subclass of that original 98%. There are all sorts of ways one could subdivide those numbers. In fact, I figured someone would post this idea, but it doesn't change anything about where you naturally fit. Again, I state there is nothing wrong with whatever group one is in, its just a different way of existing. Its funny to me tho that anyone would associate the smaller percentage as something that should necessarily be strived for. It can be a very painful existence, being that far off the curve.
Rand would have described this distinction as those who want to be vs. those who simply ARE. There is nothing wrong with those who want to be as striving for this as a goal. Increased productivity, as you say. Or, perhaps, genetically they might be 'almost' and their children might benefit the full benefit (or suffering, depending).
But, for examples, I would look to natural leaders, the truly innovative (inventors), etc. They occur with about the frequency I describe. Not too many can emulate their level of results.