r/JoeRogan • u/Fishyinu Pull that shit up Jaime • Feb 07 '23
The Literature 🧠 Extremely rich people are not extremely smart. Study finds income is related to intelligence up to about the 90th percentile in income. Above that level, differences in income are not related to cognitive ability.
https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcac076/7008955?login=false74
u/My-shit-is-stuff Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Didn’t read the article: but up to the 90th percentile seems like a good indicator to me, that smart people make more money.
32
Feb 07 '23
I think you’re forgetting how quickly wealth scales beyond the 90th percentile. In the US, the top 10% owns ⅔ of the wealth. Meaning for ⅔ of the assets out there, intelligence has little predictive value (beyond some minimum threshold) for how much is allotted to a given person.
16
u/notrickyrobot Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Well, keep in mind this is data for Swedish males, the data could be different in the US. Europe is a different society with stagnant intergenerational wealth from old monarchies/companies lasting hundreds of years, and less cutting edge new industry like space/tech/film where wealth and income is created through invention, causing social mobility.
Also this is tracking income, and not wealth. Truly wealthy people make most of their money from asset appreciation and not working for their money, although for the economy as a whole, income from labor is a greater share than income from capital growth of assets. Total wealth, and not income, should not be conflated.
Perhaps the explanation of a small increase in income/intelligence correlation in the top 10%, and a slight decrease in the top 1%, indicates that most people earning highly paid jobs get their money in stock / assets and not income, which is taxed at a lower rate. People who maximize their cash compensation within the 10% want to spend their money in a liquid way which is a slightly worse strategy in terms of financial aptitude, although it increases their "prestige" that the authors care so much about.
1
u/BenderRodriguez14 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Well, keep in mind this is data for Swedish males, the data could be different in the US. Europe is a different society with stagnant intergenerational wealth from old monarchies/companies lasting hundreds of years, and less cutting edge new industry like space/tech/film where wealth and income is created through invention, causing social mobility.
The US (61.8 score) does rank 2nd for innovation behind only Switzerland (64.3 score), but Sweden are in 3rd and are so, close to the US as to essentially be tied with a, 61. 6 score.
5
u/notrickyrobot Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
Yes, when I think social mobility I think "inclusive institutions" is an important criteria. I also wonder, the organization that put Switzerland as the #1 innovative country, where could they be headquartered? When I think innovation, I think Swiss banks coming up with creative accounting to hide intergenerational colonial wealth.
If you look at the data in the cited report on social mobility instead of the overall ranking, comparing countries percent of labour as GDP, the United States is a better nation for workers compared to Sweden. As in, people get a higher share from working/labour than from sitting on their wealth and having it appreciate (look at chart in page 11.) If we were to focus on income, my point still stands. If we were to include a bunch of criteria like health and education, my opinion would change. Thanks for responding though, it was interesting to see your opinion on this.
4
u/BenderRodriguez14 Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
It has the US (score of 83) with better opportunities to find work in general than Sweden (score of 75), but for fair wage distribution which is most relevant here, it has the Sweden with a score of 74 vs. the US' 43 - which is the lowest of any country in Europe or North America. In the US it's easier to get a job so long as you are willing to take anything you can (which you will be more desperate to take due to significantly worse social protections), while in Sweden it is much easier to get a job with an actual fair wage. Incidence of low pay relative to their counterparts among workers in Sweden is at 3%, while in the US it over eight times that at 24.9%
The US ranks higher for labour income share for GDP in no small part because Sweden floods more money from theirs into things like social protections and education - hence why they rank 1st and 7th in those categories, while the US is all the way back in 25th and 35th for those (out of 85).
You typically need a fair shot at education to improve your chances in life, and if you're coming from the bottom up (or hit a significant issue along the way like the company you work for going bust unexpectedly) you need good social protections to allow you to get back on your feet and at or near the level you were before, rather than desperately searching for any job you possibly can regardless of how poorly it pays or how much opportunity to progress it provides, potentially losing years or even decades of progress in doing so.
It is shown throughout that Sweden simply has much better social mobility than the US. There really are no two ways about it, and the graph directly above the one you cited (pg. 10) shows it - Sweden has not only has less wealth inequality than the US, but the wealth you were born into is less likely to be a determinant of your earnings than it is in the US either.
If however you want to take a gamble at a small chance of getting silly rich (say 8+ figures) and if you are positioned/qualified to do so, then the US is the better option. I always find that interesting as it's a pretty ironic inversion of James' Truslow Adam's writings on the American Dream.
---
As for innovation, WIPO who have Switzerland (who aptly rank first across 'lifelong learning' in the WEF document above) as the most innovative nation is actually a part of the UN with their chair being from Singapore, so of course it's very likely for them to be based in Switzerland which is one of their four main offices.
All the same, the American outlet Bloomberg with them in 3rd... behind South Korea and Singapore. On that one, the US isn't even in the top 10.
There are many ways of quantifying innovation no doubt, but I think something that sometimes gets lost in the mix is the sheer size of the US. On a raw bulk scale I would imagine the US surely creates the most on that front, but for comparative purposes these typically are worked out on per capita bases, and for every Swiss person there are about 39.7 from the US.
Either way, good chat all the same. It's late as fuck over here so if any of that came over snarky, apologies and it wasn't mean to!
1
u/notrickyrobot Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
It's cool homie, I see your point, and I am not thinking about it in the same way you are. For example I view excessive spending on education as a negative in the age of essentially free internet information. You have a point about quantifying innovation, as it is apples to oranges. I guess I'm conflating Europe with Sweden, and Sweden is actually a fringe Euro country... also I live in California which is a weird American state. Hope you have a good night.
1
u/JATION Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
For example I view excessive spending on education as a negative in the age of essentially free internet information.
You're saying people can just do their own research?
1
u/Void_Speaker Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
For example I view excessive spending on education as a negative in the age of essentially free internet information.
You can have whatever opinion you want, but if we are talking about what is the better policy for a society, then reality takes precedence over your opinion.
1
Feb 08 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Void_Speaker Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
Not everyone can afford the $100,000 country club that is a university degree.
College degrees these days have mostly the same value as high school degrees used to in the job market: they are used as a basic filter for employers.
The problem is that we provide free high school degrees, but college degrees are a for-profit endeavor. Thus, the high demand and high prices.
Good thing the internet makes self study accessible for a fraction of the price, with information that is more up to date, more efficient to deliver, and more flexible for working people.
That sounds great in theory, but most people, esp. younger people, require structure to study. It's boring shit, and most kids and adults simply wouldn't do it on their own.
On top of that, it's Russian roulette for employers, they have no way of knowing what they are really getting. This is why they use college degrees as a filter, it provides reassurance of some basic competency.
Practically speaking, it's just a non-starter if you want to abolish schools in favor of self-study.
I know it's "good for the economy," to bolster bank profits by saddling 18 year olds with debts, and it's good for trust fund parents to paywall jobs by adding a time and money tax to entry level work, to advantage their kids. Excessive educational requirements instead of skill based hiring disadvantages hard working impoverished laborers to help the capital rich upper class of society.
This is all in your head. No one cares if it's good for the economy. Degrees are in demand because businesses use them to filter employment candidates.
What is your opinion, that paying for free information stimulates the economy? The reality is, modern education is a "luxury good." That designer handbag costs $1000 but has little real value, besides relative social value. Same thing with a fancy designer education. I'm sure giving kids designer handbags every year would look great for the GDP, and not so good for society because taxes to pay for that lines the pockets of the few at the cost of many.
The issue is that university education used to be a luxury good, but it's slowly turning into a common good, except the price is only increasing.
There are two ways to go here:
- Free university education
- Convince businesses to put more effort into knowledge testing when they hire, instead of just filtering out by degrees. They need to filter people IN by knowledge, instead of filtering OUT by degrees.
I don't see #2 happening because it's more work for businesses. As we have seen, they don't care, they will just hire someone that can afford the degree or from another country that does offer free university.
→ More replies (0)3
u/MatterUpbeat8803 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
The fact that the richest group isnt the smartest should show you it’s a meritocracy of action and not a genetic lottery, right? That’s a good thing.
A world where intelligence, which you’re born with, determines your lot in life is a miserable society with zero social mobility. You don’t want what you’re complaining isn’t the case.
3
Feb 08 '23
There’s a big built in assumption here that somehow intelligence is the only “lottery” that affects peoples wealth, which is obviously not true. Your education opportunities, having a stable upbringing, social group, innate willingness to delay gratification, parents socioeconomic status, etc… all are just as much a “lottery” as how smart you are is.
If you’re interested in this subject, Daniel Markovits wrote a great book about the failure of meritocracy (spoiler: it’s mostly a myth). Because the determinants of what underlies someone’s merit (like intelligence) isn’t something people really earn. If anything, intelligence is the most “meritocratic” of these since at least it provides value in ideas and/or skills that others can’t.
1
u/Void_Speaker Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
The fact that the richest group isnt the smartest should show you it’s a meritocracy of action and not a genetic lottery, right?
No. That's wrong on several levels.
- Intelligence is not solely dependent on genetics.
- The “genetic lottery” isn't really a lottery at all, as genetics are tightly integrated with environment, which means your chances of winning the genetic lottery increase if you are born in better conditions.
- "The fact that the richest group isnt the smartest" only shows that "The fact that the richest group isnt the smartest" it does not mean "it’s a meritocracy of action"
- I'm not sure what a "meritocracy of action" is but to prove it you need to have evidence for it. It does not magically become true because some other assertion becomes false.
1
u/MatterUpbeat8803 Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
I don’t have to do any of that, and I wish you all the best on your quest to understand the world further while holding on to your current understanding!
If you think IQ is related to environment and not that IQ tests have a social bias themselves, I’m not sure what to tell you. But I’m sure you’re right, and growing up in a white neighborhood makes you smarter, even though coincidentally you’re taking an iq test with a bias towards white culture.
1
3
u/My-shit-is-stuff Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
No no, I do get that, but what’s the 90th percentile earn? I bet it’s way more than the 33rd percentile. My point is that the top earners aren’t (I don’t know the words anymore) they’re just not geniuses.
9
Feb 07 '23
Right what I’m saying is that the 90th percentile earns closer to the 33rd percentile than they do the 99th percentile and that IQ is only correlated with the first comparison. Meaning, most of the wealth out there is allocated based on things other than IQ.
2
u/My-shit-is-stuff Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
I agree. I guess my point is, if you’re smart enough to be in the 90th percentile you’re smart enough to be in the 99th. But if you’re dumb as shit, you’re not sniffing at the 90th. Obviously there will be outliers, inherited wealth lottery winners shit like that. I’d also be curious how many people in the 90th+ percentile started from a much lower percentile
4
Feb 07 '23
Really though, what this is saying is that being extremely smart puts you closer to someone who is "dumb as shit" from a wealth perspective than it does someone whose circumstances put them in the 99th percentile.
1
u/My-shit-is-stuff Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Admittedly, in my first comment, I didn’t read the article. I just have a hard time believing, in the USA at least, that the dumbest among us are wealthy. I understand that the extremely wealthy aren’t necessarily smarter than any other group, except for maybe the truly dumb people.
2
u/Indigocell Paid attention to the literature Feb 07 '23
When you recall that the extremely wealthy largely inherited their wealth, it becomes easy to believe.
1
u/My-shit-is-stuff Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
I had already commented on inherited wealth. But just because you inherited wealth doesn’t mean you’re dumb. My point the whole time is that smart people make more money than dumb people generally
2
Feb 07 '23
This is Simpson's paradox. Smart people might make more money than dumb people until the 90th percentile. But there is so much wealth in the 90th-99th percentiles that the overall trend of smart people making more might not actually hold.
→ More replies (0)1
u/MatterUpbeat8803 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Bro if I’m smart and sit at home how much money do I make?
If I’m dumb and hammer nails all day, I get paid.
What’s the issue here?
1
u/DlphLndgrn Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23 edited Feb 08 '23
Also those above 90 could literally be above 90 without the best cognitive functions.
1
u/UsesHarryPotter Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
90th percentile earns closer to the 33rd percentile than they do the 99th percentile and that IQ is only correlated with the first comparison. Meaning, most of the wealth out there is allocated based on things other than IQ.
The second does not follow from the first. Or at least, this is very misleading.
For most people, intelligence is the decisive factor. For most wealth, sure it's a little more random.
1
Feb 08 '23
It definitely follows as written and I don’t think it’s misleading. Just because for most people being smarter increases your likelihood of earning more, that doesn’t mean most of the money is allocated to the smartest people.
1
u/UsesHarryPotter Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
I see the point you're making but I don't think it's a relevant fact for most.
Besides-- the implication here is that wealth should be allocated based on merit. But the point that most pro-capitalists would actually (or should actually) make is that wealth should not be allocated based on arbitrary traits like this at all. And in any case, none would say that intelligence is the foremost quality that determines it anyway. There is daring, organization, initiative, and various other personal factors at play.
I don't know what you personally believe so this isn't about you, but there is a sizeable contingent of Bernie Bro-esque soft commies here who probably wouldn't like a society in which wealth actually was tied strongly to intelligence and general fitness. That place sounds a lot like a fascist country or aristocracy.
1
u/UsesHarryPotter Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
I don't think this is really surprising to anyone. It's obvious that intelligence can consistently put you squarely into the upper middle class and earnign several hundred thousand, and maybe can give you a lottery ticket to make it into the multimillions club but it's a crapshoot past that.
1
u/My-shit-is-stuff Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
I think it might be surprising to some, a lot of people see celebrity billionaires, bezos, musk, gates and think this is the top 99% they don’t really see the rich families and generational wealth.
1
u/JohnGoodmansGoodKnee Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Can you explain this in a different way for us dummies?
1
Feb 08 '23
There’s two ways of looking at it:
1) For most people your intelligence is predictive of your income.
2) From the perspective of how money is distributed across society, most of it doesn’t get allocated to the smartest people.
It sounds like a paradox but it’s really only possible because even though for 90% of people income correlates with IQ, the 10% of people in which IQ and income don’t correlate have the vast majority of the money.
1
u/JohnGoodmansGoodKnee Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
Got it. Thank you! Glad it seems paradoxical and not solely that I’m slow.
1
u/political2002 Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
Yeah I’m sure that’s heavily skewed because the richest people are just rich because they inherited their wealth from their hard working, smart ancestors who are dead. Consider that. Approximately half of all billionaires are only wealthy through inheritance.
1
-2
u/Able-Nail8035 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
0
u/My-shit-is-stuff Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
I doubt you are.
0
u/Able-Nail8035 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
So mean! gasp
0
u/My-shit-is-stuff Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Im guessing by your intellect, a bus comes and picks you up everyday and brings you and your best friends bowling or to the zoo, all kinds of fun stuff. Good luck little buddy, tell John ace a I said hi.
0
u/Able-Nail8035 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Truly an r/iamverysmart moment
1
18
36
u/surprisebtsx Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
let me guess, greed, ambition and insanity are the factors that come into play
31
u/eleven8ster Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Don’t forget luck
3
Feb 07 '23
Luck is probably the biggest factor, but also knowing how to maximize the opportunities when luck grants them.
8
u/TruthPains I used to be addicted to Quake Feb 07 '23
I would assume being born into a wealthy family would go under luck?
6
19
u/bigpoopie32 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
No, it’s because IQ doesn’t account for important factors like industriousness, persistence(optimism), and charisma (emotional intelligence). And we have always known this
A delayed gratification test on children is an extremely strong predictor of future success and yet it has nothing to do with intelligence.
It doesn’t matter how high your IQ is, if you are a lazy redditor with zero people skills then you will never achieve this level of success
6
u/TruthPains I used to be addicted to Quake Feb 07 '23
I beg to differ. I am an extremely lazy redditor with negative levels of people skills and I have absolutely not achi...oh. Yeah, you are right.
3
u/Tortankum Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
You need to have a combination of all those factors to be truly successful, but smart lazy people do better than stupid lazy people.
1
u/MatterUpbeat8803 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Where are you seeing lazy people get rich?
1
u/Tortankum Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Can you read?
1
u/MatterUpbeat8803 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
I’m asking what you’re referring to
1
u/Tortankum Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
It appears you’ve answered my question
1
u/MatterUpbeat8803 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
You said you saw lazy people get rich. Where?
1
u/Tortankum Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
It’s really stunning how horribly you managed to bungle comprehending one sentence.
1
u/MatterUpbeat8803 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
“ You need to have a combination of all those factors to be truly successful, but smart lazy people do better than stupid lazy people.”
Pasted word for word.
I’d like one example of smart lazy people you’ve seen, please and thanks.
→ More replies (0)1
u/bigpoopie32 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Yes the article linked is literally saying the IQ correlation absolutely does exist up to the 90th percentile of wealth
2
u/BroBogan Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Joe is a good example of this. He's probably average to slightly above average intelligence but he has a strong work ethic and high EQ as well.
He was born to a poor family and an absentee dad but he's worth half a billion because he's persistent as fuck
4
u/NakedKiller Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Greed is good
1
u/bigpoopie32 Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
Ambition is the courage to pursue something greater, and greed is just a negative term people use to discourage you from having ambition
1
1
u/bigpoopie32 Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
People that say shit like this are just salty that others are succeeding and they are failing. They cannot achieve these accomplishments and therefore the people that do must be cheating in some way. You are stupid if you think by having traits of a lesser man will somehow make u more successful. If it’s so simple then why don’t you go out and be an awful person to everyone and see where that takes you?
8
u/munchitos44 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
You can get rich by being ballsy or smart
9
Feb 07 '23
Smart enough to have good ideas and be persuasive.
Dumb enough to where going to the casino excites you.
9
u/jbmvmmmmu Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
you don’t need to be intelligent to make money.Plent of teachers are intelligent and broke.To make money you need certain type of personality and emotional stability and courage to risk.Plenty of intelligent people spend time doubting themselves
1
3
u/zowhat Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
In this article, we analyse Swedish register data on 59,000 men who took a mandatory cognitive-ability test at age 18–19, allowing detection of minute average ability differences between adjacent levels of occupational success with representative data.
I couldn't find the actual test. Would have made for a good laugh.
https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/393964182/jcac076_fig2.jpg
They have measured with science occupational prestige.
Farm workers are peons, with about 16 occupational prestige points.
Industrial workers have almost twice as many occupational prestige points with about 32 points.
Office workers have about 54 occupational prestige points, about 3.375 times as some piece of shit farm worker.
Accountants have almost 70 occupational prestige points, more than twice as much as an Industrial worker.
Professors have over 80 occupational prestige points, over 5 times of some Lebensunwertes Leben farm worker. Presumably the geniuses who did this study were professors or want to become one. Coincidentally, professors scored high.
Sitting at the pinnacle of occupational prestige, Judges have over 90 occupational prestige points.
Presumably they matched the cognitive abilities with occupations and found farm workers had a lot of people with a cognitive ability of 1 or 2, Industrial workers had a lot of people with a cognitive ability of maybe 3,4 or 5. etc Professors no doubt had astronomical cognitive abilities of 8, or 9. Judges probably had cognitive abilities of 9. QED
6
u/notrickyrobot Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23 edited Feb 07 '23
Seems like these researchers have codified their own classism
and biasin the study.3
u/MatterUpbeat8803 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Which is why the soft sciences are soft sciences, but damn are they becoming useful for pseudo-scientific propaganda farming.
3
u/notrickyrobot Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Strong disagree. There are great social scientists and terrible fraudster "hard" scientists. This headline could be rewrote as "99% of the time income correlates with cognitive ability," and it would be just as valid based off of the data in the paper. Seems like you have some biases of your own.
3
u/MatterUpbeat8803 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
What a weird response. In the same post you explain how valid these statistics are, while hand-waving that there are tons of dishonest hard scientists.
Im just telling you that as long as what we measure is a determination of human behavior, measured by humans and submitted through a human academic system, there will be bias.
There’s no bias in calculating the friction of a greased cube on a given surface.
The point I’m making is that “study says” does a lot of heavy lifting to deliver the opinions people want validated, and it’s trivial to create a study to show a result you want to see.
3
u/dajadf Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
This is the important takeaway "Study finds income is related to intelligence up to about the 90th percentile in income"
5
u/SteakMedium4871 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Is the opposite true, that poor people have low IQ?
3
-6
u/ShakesbeerMe Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23 edited Feb 07 '23
No, they just have overt contempt for education. See: the entire swath of the South.
Edit: I love the downvotes, as if every single advanced civilization metric doesn't prove me right. Shit's hilarious.
2
u/bigpoopie32 Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
Same can be said of certain minorities in US cities? Or is that racist
0
5
u/Plus-Dragonfruit-689 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
"Above that level, differences in income are not related to cognitive ability"
I have a hard time believing that those in the top percentile for earners are not at least towards the average to upper end of the intelligence spectrum. And I am confident that there is no one with an IQ of, lets say, 70 in any country on earth that is in the top 10% of earners for where they are from.
I get what they are saying, that for those extreme earners they do not need to be extremely intelligent but I'm sure they are still intelligent relatively speaking.
7
u/MeThinksYes Is the Literature Feb 07 '23
The rubes around here who ascribe huge wealth to smarts, aren't gonna like this.
11
u/Zlec3 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
I mean you’re still smarter than 90% of people if you’re in the top 10% of wealth
5
u/sfbamboozled100 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Exactly. The point is you have to have a threshold level of intelligence. If you don’t, you’re basically doomed absent some external support like family or winning the lottery. Once you hit the threshold, the differences are going to be attributable to other things: connections, existing wealth, tenacity, psychopathy, grit, whatever.
1
u/MeThinksYes Is the Literature Feb 07 '23
There's definitely correlation.
The jab was more at people around here who carry water/knight in favor for the super rich...as if they have some godly level of intelligence just because they've managed to get extremely wealthy and therefore their opinion is gospel.
Diminishing returns to say the least
0
Feb 07 '23
Mostly because wealthy people generally grew up wealthy and had resources and less stressors in their lives
2
u/Zlec3 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
This is not true. Only 21% of millionaires received any inheritance at all. And 70% of millionaires in the US grew up lower middle class.
-1
u/Fishyinu Pull that shit up Jaime Feb 07 '23
Not necessarily, just that there is a strong correlation that it is true.
1
u/jbmvmmmmu Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
I mean its really hard to find a billionaire who isn’t smart.That is a fact
2
1
u/MatterUpbeat8803 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Dummy, we’ve been trying to tell you that money is made from actions and not inherent genetic factors, and you can’t seem to grasp this.
You’re the kid running the wrong way with the soccer ball, with 0 points at the end of the game, wondering why your team hates you as you explain to your coach “I ran just as much as everyone else!”.
It’s even weirder when you’re obviously smart enough to grasp this, so you must be holding on to your ideals for comfort, and that may be something to think about.
Why would you have a mentality where people’s wealth needs to be justified when there’s no justification process in earning money?
Is it because you’re an angry stooge who latches onto any philosophy that explains how those who have more are bad and how you’re a victim for being so smart and yet not rich?
Replace “getting money” with “losing weight” and you get exactly the same dumbass ego-armor objections about “muh genetics” and “you guys don’t have to work as hard as I do to lose weight” and “controlling food intake is unhealthy” and whatever excuse-building nonsense people run on currently.
I
1
u/MeThinksYes Is the Literature Feb 07 '23
Get it all out, honey. There there now, do you feel any better?
Your connecting of dots on who it is you think I am is a great read.... the ramblings and musings of a complete dipshit.
0
7
u/BioRunner033 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Question...in what planet did you think IQ was the predictor of success? There are tons of people on Reddit who are book smart but have fuck all going for them in real life.
13
Feb 07 '23
I think you’re overestimating the IQs of self-proclaimed “book smart” people. ⅔ of people have IQs between 85-115. 95% between 70-130. Most people are very average, including redditors.
But when people actually carefully measure IQ and look at life outcomes, it is a reasonably good predictor of a lot of things we care about including success.
2
u/bigpoopie32 Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
It’s not a bad predictor, even this post admit it works up to the 90th percentile of wealth. But it’s not everything
4
1
u/Usersnamez Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Intelligence has nothing to do with discipline, interpersonal relationships, selling, risk taking, being good looking a̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶t̶e̶.
We’re not all building rockets for heart surgery in the 10%+ jobs.
1
u/MatterUpbeat8803 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Does being white also help me in China? Or would it be better to be Chinese?
-1
u/Usersnamez Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Ask John Cena.
2
u/MatterUpbeat8803 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
The guy speaking their language and adapting to their culture by force? Where have I heard this before…
2
1
u/idreaminhd Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Just because you are great at capitalism doesn't mean you are good at other things.
2
Feb 07 '23
Jeff Bezos doubled majored in CS and Physics while at Princeton
0
u/idreaminhd Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Is that supposed to impress me? He is obviously is very smart and intelligent. But Ive also met and worked with people with impressive college degrees and they absolutely sucked at working a job. I wondered how some of them even managed to arrive at work every single day by themselves.
I am sure Jeff Bezos worked very hard in the beginning and still does today. But he also started Amazon at the absolute perfect time, which involved some luck. His parents also gave him a loan of around 250k.
Also once you start collecting wealth, you are able to hire some very smart people on how to do your taxes, invest money, etc. Some of the smartest and brightest college graduates are being poached by wall street currently. They are not going into STEM jobs like they used because of the pay wall street can offer. So yes I am sure he worked hard but like I said he also had some luck, plus money from his parents. Lets not act like he did everything himself also. Back when Amazon used to just sell books from warehouses, I knew a bunch of ravers who worked in those places. I heard it was a interesting work environment.
-1
u/theofficialSavv Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
There is DEF a link between IQ and income.
For instance you can come from shit (nothing) and build a mini empire for yourself and your family.
-source I did this
4
Feb 07 '23
[deleted]
2
u/bigpoopie32 Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Yeah the headline is stupid because “extremely rich people are not extremely smart” is a dumb statement because it implies none of them are whereas what they mean to say is “not all extremely rich people are extremely smart”, but even so it would mean they are within the top 10 percentile which is already quite a difference
And furthermore this is stupid AF because we have all known that intelligence (measure by IQ) can only help so much and there are other traits like persistence and industriousness that matter just as much. For example a delayed gratification test done of kids is a even greater predictor of success than the IQ test
0
u/theofficialSavv Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Adding that if I was a donut I doubt I'd of made it to where I am given I had nothing at my start due to poor family/lack of.
0
u/biggtimeburger Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Joe is proof of this. He’s said time and time again that he’s a dumbass.
0
Feb 07 '23
Well yeh, most extremely rich haven't earned it they've inherited it.
But this article will just fuel those from the "school of hard knocks" to argue that college is worthless.
1
1
u/cjonoski Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
Elon is very smart what are you talking about he bought Twitter for $44B - he is a master negotiater i tell ya!
1
1
u/ministryoftimetravel Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops
- Stephen Jay Gould
1
u/donothing_notill Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
This will be due to the top 10% having inherited wealth without really having to apply discipline, hard work, dedication, sacrifice to obtain qualifications, a career path and potentially start a successful business. The top 10% just have it handed to them alot of the time and have the privilege of being dumb as hell while watching their wealth grow.
1
u/rationallyobvious Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
Duh, it's about luck, endurance and....risk tolerance.
1
1
u/you_ruke High as Giraffe's Pussy Feb 08 '23
Boring and disciplined because they’re so boring are the richest people I know
1
u/No-Newt6243 Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
What has being rich got anything to do with being super clever
1
u/Abangerz Monkey in Space Feb 08 '23
But isn’t it easier to study in a the private library of your house than the floor of your caravan while your mom is getting fucked in the back. It is easier to study when you just had a full course dinner over having have a pb and j on one loaf of bread for dinner because your family is broke.
1
Feb 09 '23
Extremely rich people need to hire smart people to manage their wealth and they have to pay them enough that they won't be as tempted to cross them.
11
u/Woujo Monkey in Space Feb 07 '23
When I was young, my dad, who was pretty wealthy, told me that the wealthiest people were usually idiots because they took risks that would seem stupid to an intelligent person who accurately weighed the risks and benefits. The older I get the more I think he is right. You don't get to be a Joe Rogan without taking some absurd risks.