Archetype
We estimate roughly 1% of people fit this profile — about 1 in 100.
You embrace algorithmic governance and data-driven control. Smart surveillance and AI optimization can solve social problems better than messy democracy.
Wondering if this is you? Take the 4-minute assessment →A snapshot of where this archetype sits — what holds it together, what it inherits, and where it meets others on the map.
The thinkers whose ideas this type descends from. Most lived in other eras and never identified with it.
428–348 BCE
Rule by experts who hold knowledge ordinary citizens lack — Plato made the case first; your tradition just swaps data and credentials for the philosopher-king. The Republic is where the argument starts.
1844–1900
When you treat democratic egalitarianism as a moral swindle rather than a moral floor, you are standing on Nietzsche. His attack on Christian morality and his faith in elite minorities making new values is the link the post-democratic tech-right now makes explicit.
1848–1923
Pareto turned political suspicion into a science: elites always rule, ideologies only rationalize, and history is just the circulation of lions and foxes through power. It's why your type reads every democratic claim as a cover story.
1857–1929
Hand the machinery of society to the engineers and let efficiency, rather than profit or politics, run the show. Veblen's The Engineers and the Price System proposed exactly that "soviet of technicians," an early charter for rule by technical elite.
1858–1941
Before Pareto extended it and Burnham modernized it, Mosca had the core insight: an organized minority always beats a disorganized majority, and organization itself is the wellspring of political power. That structural advantage is the argument your type makes for expert rule.
1876–1936
Every organization, even the ones built to be democratic, ends up ruled by a small leadership class — Michels called it the iron law of oligarchy. His pessimism is the premise your tradition weaponizes: if constraint is impossible, expert rule is only being honest about it.
Public figures associated with this position today. Listed for recognition, not endorsement.
b. 1967
The Technological Republic makes the case your type feels in its bones — that software supremacy is national fate, and Silicon Valley's retreat from the state was a moral failure. Karp built Palantir as that argument in working code.
b. 1971
Own the platform where public argument happens and you no longer petition the culture — you set its terms. Musk turned free-speech absolutism and anti-"woke" politics into a global cultural battleground, the tech-power move your type recognizes on sight.
b. 1955
When you treat AI leadership as the new commanding height of national power, security and technological supremacy fuse into a single argument. Schmidt is the one who made it plainest: whoever leads the machines leads the geopolitical order.
b. 1944
Mass data and surveillance aren't a threat to order in this worldview — they're the instrument of it. Ellison's security-first, order-first politics is the Silicon Valley faith that the watched society is the safe one, and it's the reflex your type shares.
b. 1971
"It's Time to Build" read as a mood; the Techno-Optimist Manifesto reads as a platform — energy, chips, markets, and a named list of enemy ideas. Andreessen gave the tech right its founding document, then pointed its capital at the state's failures.
b. 1992
Anduril is the bridge your type wants built — Silicon Valley engineering pointed back at the Pentagon. Luckey's muscular, patriotic case for rearming America to deter its adversaries is where the tech-right turns toward hard power.
b. 1967
The move from libertarian to nationalist isn't a betrayal here — it's the logic completing itself, freedom rerouted through the strong state. Thiel funded and theorized that turn, and the American tech-right is standing on the scaffolding he built.
The intellectual tradition this type is rooted in.
A four-minute assessment across four axes — no account required, no signup, no spam.
Begin the assessment