If I were one - which, clearly, I am not - I would be terribly offended.

Yet another "global consultants firm" (whatever that actually is) has made an apparently successful attempt to have their company accepted as "the experts" on a subject of, at least, passing interest. That subject would be geniuses. Creators Synectics (even their company name sent me scurrying to an encyclopedia; irrefutable evidence that I am not on their list) has released the definitive list of "the top 100 geniuses living in the world today."

Well.

On cursory examination (which is all I originally intended to give this foray into a Walter Mitty Moment of "Did I make the list?" fantasy), I was taken aback when I saw the names of those who actually did make the list. Just a glimpse the numero uno on the list (Albert Hoffman, the "father of LSD) quickly convinced me that this was not going to be a list that I was going to like very much. It proceeded to gallop downhill from there, if one can imagine such a "less than zero" plunge. Let’s check out a few of the more noxious entries:

Number 3: George Soros who, at least according to the document from Synectics, single-handedly brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union and in 1994 "broke the Bank of England" on their Black Wednesday in 1992. In the recent past, he has devoted his considerable fortune to far-left crusades in America where he tried in vain to defeat President George Bush in 2004.

Number 5: Nelson Mandela, the living combination of Ghandi and Martin Luther King of South Africa. His noble and courageous stand against apartheid and subsequent Noble Peace Prize in 1993 not withstanding, would not hardly (in my humble opinion) be classified as a "genius" in the classic sense (e.g. Einstein, De Vinci, et al). Humanitarian and world-class inspiration? Absolutely. Genius? I demur.

Number 12: Li Hongzhi, the founder of worldwide Falun Gong religious cult. This is the same group that was, allegedly, behind the fatal Sarin gas attack on a Japanese subway in 1995 which killed 12 people. Genius? Who knows or cares. Fanatic? Absolutely.

And these, gentle reader, are merely samples from the top 15 "living geniuses."

After reviewing the Creators Synectics protocol for arriving at their list, it shows that the list - from its very inception - is extremely suspect. The list was compiled by emailing 4000 requests to "known people in the UK" asking them to nominate "up to 10 people who were alive and who they considered to qualify as a genius." They received 600 replies (a 15% response rate) listing 1100 people. Forty per cent of those nominated were actually not among the living . This, alone, lends its own questions of validity of the sample if not the cultural awareness of the contributors. Another 120 names submitted were "impossible to identify or were found to be self-nominations." These were discounted. The list of 400 names (lets’s see now: 4000 requests for submissions, 400 viable names. Hummm?) was then submitted to a panel of - count ‘em - 6 individuals "with expertise in the fields of creativity and innovation."

The panel then rated the individuals on "five predefined characteristics of genius." These were:

• Paradigm Shifting
• Popular Acclaim
• Intellectual Power
• Achievement
• Cultural Importance

I am not sure that "Popular Acclaim" and "Cultural Importance" are valid measures of genius but, then, I am not a member of this elite club nor do I claim to have any "expertise in the fields of creativity and innovation." But, nevertheless...

The list was heavily weighted toward American and British citizens, as one might expect. China, Southeast Asia and Russia were criminally under-represented. But this is simply another flaw in the study design and the result of the biased sampling group. This nit-picking aside, the problems I find really alarming are some of those who the list "honors." I have no quarrel with Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Steve Wozniak (but not Steve Jobs?) or even Prince (or is it "The Artists Formerly Known As Prince?"), J.K. Rowlings, Stevie Wonder and The Dalai Lama.

I will limit my brief rant to just two who were included on the list.

Checking in at #43 we have - wait for it...Osama Bin Laden. It’s bad enough that he was ranked ahead of Paul McCartney (#58), The Woz (#67) and John Williams (#72). For God’s (or Allah’s) Sake people, the man is a terrorist and mass murderer who revels in death and destruction! If Hitler were alive, I am sure the good folks at Creators Synectecs would have put him in their top 10 because of his "cultural importance" and "paradigm shifting." After all, he did lead "to a complete re-appraisal of everything that had gone on before." For example, he brought a "reappraisal" of humanity, morality, compassion and the like. Perhaps, if they were alive, we could have seen Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao similarly immortalized for their staggering "cultural importance." Come to think of it, why didn’t the very-much-alive Kim Jung Il get a nod from the esteemed panel?

On a slightly lighter note, I have to say that #94 made the list turn my frown upside down. That’s right, Dolly Parton made the list.

Who would dare say this list is not a completely serious assessment of the intellectual capacity of the world’s inhabitants?