Some types of people are innately better suited to govern. That is my intuition and I suspect it to be fact. If this is not something you accept as true then y

Some types of people are innately better suited to govern. That is my intuition and I suspect it to be fact. If this is not something you accept as true then you should explain why. It would not be clearly evident to me (or most of our ancestors). Some people make a virtue out of proclaiming their humble means/ability but veer over into being unscientific. This is like the monkeys who beseech the alpha-male that they are not threats. It is a good survival mode but it isn't an objective fact. Being self deprecating is not more sophisticated than arrogance. So if you don't accept the proposition as true I ask you to check if you really believe that, or whether it is convenient to your peers or authority figures that you hold that belief. It is hard not to notice many geeks are self immolating for no good reason, that is why I'm saying these things. Ruling requires a list of attributes such as detachment, emotional stability, being analytical, world comprehension, deep knowledge of the past and other rigorous training. Notice that we could test for these attributes, this would not be some handwavy 'some people are better than others' tripe, this could be demonstrated with practical trials. Tech people may or may not fit this type. I suspect they fit some of any hypothetical list but probably not all of it. As I've said before, some people do fit the type better than others. It is a sort of Platonic ideal, even the best suited human on earth doesn't perfectly fit the type. tldr; I think if you combine a programmer, an intelligence analyst and an historian with somebody of good executive function you arrive at a very crude but still very much superior ruler than the dolts (also demonstrable every day) who run our current system.