What is wrong with elitism if it is definied as follows ==>?

Not at all. It's called a Meritocracy. It keeps things specialized rather than versatile. I like it.

I think everyone is missing the biggest part of the question, and that is the definition of elitism. The one most qualified gets the job. It doesn't matter who you know, what else you can do, other than in the desired field. Actually, elitism helps tradesmen and the working class, because the better you are at your job, the better you are for everyone else, and yourself.

Why remove "wealth" from the definition? Wouldn't you want a wealthy person's guidance if you were trying to find out the best way to make money? Assuming that a particular wealthy person didn't gain their wealth by winning the lottery or becoming a pop star or some other random means, I would imagine they would have a lot to offer on the subject of amassing a personal fortune.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with elitism, per se, it is just that over the centuries, members of the elite have earned resentment from the rest of us. If we all took a step back and thought about it like reasonable people, we would realize that with enough hard work, "the elite" would cease to exist ... because we could all have "superior" knowledge, abilities, wealth, etc.

If people reach the 'elite' class through superior qualifications--education or intelligence, physical strength, special abilities,etc--then that's not elitism.

Elitism is the idea that some people have special rights and privileges over others just because of their membership in an elite class. If a law firm hires only Jewish lawyers, for instance, because they believe Jews are superior in some way, that is elitism.

In the US for many years, only the sons of the wealthy and powerful got into Ivy League colleges. Then they became leaders in industry and finance and law and medicine, which they used as justification to keep the kids of less-educated, poorer, working-class, or even foreign-born parents out of colleges. They called this system 'Meritocracy' but you can see it was just the opposite of that. For many years (and almost still today) 'meritocracy' has two different meanings, and they are actually completely opposite. 'Elitism' is used the same two ways.

Being elite in your field is a good thing. Being an elitist snob is something else. People who work hard and earn respect while still being humble are certainly an elite group. People who get elected to a political office and then look at disdain at average America are elitist snobs.

If you are from a blue state and poke fun at NASCAR loving southerners for since you perceive them to be less intelligent then you are an elitist snob. If you see those same groups of folks as normal people with the same thoughts and problems as everyone else then you're a wise person.

"Considered" members of the elite? Uh, no. First, considered by WHOM? There are people who consider corrupt idiots to have outstanding abilities.

"Select" again, by WHOM? And, yes, I have a big problem with the "wealth" bit, but will ignore it as asked.

Taken most seriously, carry the most weight -- well, only an idiot ignores what people with expertice, who've proven themselves worth listening to, have to say, or refuse to give their words weight. But "outstanding personal abilities" -- do you mean having great charm, being a fine athelete? I don't grant such people much weight for those things alone.

"render them especially fit to govern" -- uh, more problems here. I don't think it's wise to give too much power to anyone. And certainly not unconditional power.

And I believe in democracy -- in the broad sense. Ultimate power should reside in the citizenry. This would work a LOT better if we had a better-educated citizenry.

You know, as I look over your list of characteristics, I see a GAPING hole: what about character, integrity, compassion, long-sightedness, inclusiveness, and a whole host of other moral qualities? Being smart and having loads of expertice does NOT make someone well-meaning, or what they think conducive to the general good.

Insofar as it's clear that we vary greatly in our talents and apptitudes, it DOES make sense for people with those do things that require them -- assuming they do them with integrity; as opposed to putting people in charge of things willy-nilly, leading to lots of incompetence.

But what elitism tends to be about, really, is giving "elites" EXTRAS, or in denying basics to the rest of us. After all, despite our talents and experience differences, we are all EQUALLY HUMAN, thus deserving of full human rights.

Back to the drawing board with ye!

But this was an interesting exercise. And as I glance up again, I see one of my favorite words: 'wisdom' -- listening to the wise is always good. But then, how do we know who they are, and even the wise aren't infallible.

Elitism is often associated with a snobbish attitude of entitlement due to qualifications, be them wealth or intelligence. There's nothing wrong with being wealthy and / or intelligent if one is humble and doesn't hold themselves in higher regard because of their wealth or intelligence. We should encourage people to be elite, we should discourage them from being elitists.

They can twist words as much as they want, but I want to be treated by an elite doctor.

i agree smart people should rule.... the problem is can those smart people rule others without being corrupted, and care for the needs of the millions of citizens...remember people are elected to represent the people ! not themselves

As an elite, I don't see the problem with my superiority.

That's the same definition for SMUG, CONCEIT, ARROGANT, LIBERAL,and STUPID