This is a fascinating question that does a great job of bringing realism and idealism head to head. If we're realistic, obviously a lot of people have great potential, but only a very few will both have enough potential and enough drive to realistically hit it big; but can we tell who they are? Idealistically, it's not entirely fair to give a select few all the support; but is it fair to deprive all of humanity of the advances an elite few could make, just to make the elite few's contemporaneous peers feel equally attended to?
Personally, I think when you stack the probabilities of potential * interest * means * drive * luck, progress _is_ led by an elite few. The elite few are sometimes bolstered by a massive support system, but part of being the elite, successful few is being able to garner that support, whether through personality, luck, etc.
For levity, I'll also add that one thing I love about history in general is finding a tidbit like this:
> It is fitting that a pair of Coles gets a reply by a pair of MacRoberts (1986) who argue that bibliographies are incomplete.
Personally, I think when you stack the probabilities of potential * interest * means * drive * luck, progress _is_ led by an elite few. The elite few are sometimes bolstered by a massive support system, but part of being the elite, successful few is being able to garner that support, whether through personality, luck, etc.
For levity, I'll also add that one thing I love about history in general is finding a tidbit like this:
> It is fitting that a pair of Coles gets a reply by a pair of MacRoberts (1986) who argue that bibliographies are incomplete.