If it is impossible to have both, then I would send the cultural signals that maximize the happiness and health of society as a whole,

If you're arguing that keeping some "majority" happy at the expense of everyone else is in order, then I disagree. Rebellion will always be the end result of just keeping some happy, but not others. We need to create a society that makes a real effort to accommodate everyone, so there is nothing to rebel against.

and hope that those who are different can find a way to get by

They "get by" in the manner of working to change society so that it accommodates them along with everyone else. History has always been that way.

and knowing that those who do manage will be several cuts above the average - just as they have always been.

Though individuals like that are never respected, but rather marginalized as being "unnatural," because they upset the "majority" on an emotional level. That is the problem.

Not at all. Of course I want girls' choices to be respected.

Then in that case, we need to follow Madonna's lead and insist that Papa not preach.

"Tradition only works for those who are at the top of the power hierarchy, within a tradition that insists on having power hierarchies."

This is nonsense.

Is it, Baldur? I would believe that if I actually saw those who deviated from the norm being happy in large numbers. Or I didn't see so many who are not at the top of the hierarchy laying around my local parks in homeless heaps, or wandering the streets mentally ill because they were thrown out of their houses due to inability to afford the rent or mortgage. Or if I wasn't constantly rejected by everyone for not being "masculine" in a traditional sense as I described above, or because I do not "act my age," and would prefer to date an amazing 14-year-old girl rather than a middle-aged lady whom society insists would be "perfect" for me. So, we must vehemently disagree about tradition working for everyone.

There is certainly room for improvement in many traditions,

There is a difference between reasonable imperfections and glaring flaws that have serious consequences for large numbers of people.

but traditions generally formed because they met the needs of all the people involved.

These "traditions" were not formed by people who existed within a system of equality. They were changed or tweaked as time went on at the behest of the beneficiaries.

You overestimate the capacities of many of those at the bottom,

If I did that, then I would be arguing that those at the bottom would be routinely listened to and accommodated for. But they are not. And traditions do not begin to change for the better until so many of them are negatively affected that they start rebelling in large numbers, either directly or indirectly, rather than simply "going with the flow."

and overestimate the desire of those at the top to be at the top.

I'll believe that when I see large numbers of people at the top giving up their positions, rather than usually being more than happy to deal with the burdens compared to the rewards.

In actual fact, there are a great deal of people in the world that are just not very smart,

Yet are still capable of having talents that can make a good contribution to the world, and still able to make reasonably competent decisions and assessments in their fields.

who don't have much in the way of useful skills,

"Useful" is subjective. A talented corporate lawyer is "useful" only to people at the top, in terms of helping them preserve their power. On the other hand, maintenance people who are good at cleaning go a long way towards keeping certain pandemics from rising and literally plaguing our society.

and who need other people to watch out for them and help them out.

This shouldn't be a problem, because people who act as guides for others are valued in themselves. However, this doesn't mean that being smart automatically means you're a good guide or caregiver, since that may not be where your particular talents lie.

If you give such people control of all the resources they need, they will exhaust those resources in short order and be no better off than before

A major assumption there. Especially since giving control to the "smart" few have resulted in those few giving themselves an obscene amount while shirking the rest of society, including the many smarter people who are not "lucky" enough to be in positions of power. Power tends to corrupt far more than any other factor.

but now those resources will be gone.

Then please tell these supposedly smart people who control the resources to start taking care of everyone, since they have yet to do so. Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but I'll get to your point.

Those who you see as being at the top of the "power structure" very often do not want to be there, but fill that position because they feel an obligation to look out for their neighbors who are not as capable of looking out for themselves.

Yet we do not see this happening. Instead, we see these people looking out only for themselves. Being smart will not make you immune to corruption to power. This is why power structures do not tend to result in fair distribution of resources, and why traditions based on them do not result in benefits to everyone. Power of attorney is an individual sort of matter that I agree most do not want, but I have a relative who would love nothing better than to have that type of power over me because he doesn't agree with the way I live my life, but he is someone who most definitely does NOT make good or rational decisions for himself.

To an outsider they may appear to be "lording it over" their peers - but in fact they are not really peers (not equals) even though they are friends, and frequently what appears to be bullying behavior is just trying to stop a friend from doing something stupid that will hurt themself.

Which, again, is a rationalization for controlling other people "for their own good." Arguing for the same thing that the antis do, and using their favored excuse. Genuine intentions of altruism do not make this right, or necessarily lead to good outcomes. There are ways to guide people towards making better decisions for themselves without literally taking control over their lives, which more often than not amounts to people "correcting" those who simply want to make decisions they disapprove of. And I should not have to be telling you, of all people, this, Baldur; not after your many years of dealing with the antis right here beside me.

Throw in the fact that those at the top will make mistakes sometimes, and there can be a semblance of "abuse" that can be used to generate jealousy and hatred.

They tend to make mistakes very often, because their motives are often to get people under their "care" to live in accordance with their personal sensibilities, which they confuse as being "in their best interests." There is a huge difference between smarts and common sense; intelligence and enlightenment; quantity of experience and quality of the same. I think you mistake jealousy for righteous indignation. As for hatred? Well, yes, we tend to come to hate those who try to control us, and with good reason.

Note: For some reason, Tor won't let me post particularly long responses in a single reply, so I have to break this up into different parts. Sorry for any possibly inconvenience.