It depends how "leadership" is defined. By and large, I am a strong believer in rule by the smart, although culture is a lot more important than IQ. Probably 2

It depends how "leadership" is defined. By and large, I am a strong believer in rule by the smart, although culture is a lot more important than IQ. Probably 20-30% of those in the ruling class have a high enough IQ (125+) to be there but less than 1% have sufficient culture. Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney come to mind as examples. They're so uncultured they probably eat steak with their fingers; that such louts could rise to such high levels of influence is a serious problem. And our society is such an ugly mess because people like them (uncultured people, with ugly minds) rise to power and remake the world in their image. I think it's also obvious that most business executives are selected for people-pleasing and crude optimizations (next-quarter profits) rather than vision, creativity, and humanity. The traditional two-tier managerial structure (although excruciatingly flawed and less-than-useless in practice) had the right idea. At one degree above the average (110-125) you have the managers, whom the line workers look to for leadership, but who do not alienate them with their intelligence. At two degrees up (125-145) you have the executives, who can lead and mentor the managers, and whose closer connection to "the metal" gives them a strong voice in the decision-making. At 3 and more degrees, you have strategists and academics who present the information and advise the decisions. However, modern corporate society doesn't work this way; the executives are often mediocrities, the "advisor" class isn't really listened-to, and most of what goes on in academia is self-referential bullshit. "Rule by the smart" is not flawless, of course. Bigger problems than a lack of intelligence in our ruling class are the lack of integrity, vision, and compassion... which are also much harder to measure-- although all of these correlate are correlated much more strongly with IQ than with "leadership" as measured by our current selection process. Therefore, an "IQ meritocracy" would be an improvement. Between a set of 140+ IQers (among whom there would be some who are unfit to lead) and the people running the show now, I'd bet on the first class without hesitation.