Are richer people smarter than people who aren't rich?

Double O Orange

If I was a billionaire I would think I was pretty clever.

McMurphy

Dunno.but skinny people are skinnier than people who aren't skinny.

I'd be pretty pleased with myself if I was a billionaire.

Depends on how the money is made. Inheritance is meaningless, but if a person makes a fortune using specialist knowledge or elite skills, the chances are they're quite clever. Cleverer than most, probably, but not necessarily cleverer than someone poor who didn't have the same opportunities.

McCrack

Im getting increasingly convinced boards.ie are behind starting these retard threads...trying to keep the momentum going

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Hadn't we this already last week?


A rich person would realise this.

Todd Gack

No

Exhibit A: Donald Trump

TheBiz

Not smarter, but they are able to use the knowledge they have to make money, it's about how you commercialise it. They are good entrepreneurs/intrapreneurs.

McMurphy

In other news Bill Gates is no longer the king of capitalism.

Bill has been overtook in wealth by Jeff Bezos.

At this rate, Bill will be visiting the noodle aisle in a lidl near you soon.

jamesbere

Rick Shaw wrote: »

In other news Bill Gates is no longer the king of capitalism.

Bill has been overtook in wealth by Jeff Bezos.

At this rate, Bill will be visiting the noodle aisle in a lidl near you soon.

Only time he'll visit the noodle aisle is if he buys lidl

A Battered Mars Bar

McCrack wrote: »

Im getting increasingly convinced boards.ie are behind starting these retard threads...trying to keep the momentum going

Then you start one. Oh wait you dunno how do you.

Are Am Eye

80% are. 30% are not.

Ninthlife

I dont know if rich people are smarter than people who arent rich but i do know they are richer

Roger_007

Anyone who starts off wealthy and ends up wealthy haven't really achieved much.
People who start with little or nothing and make oodles of dosh are generally cleverer and have a greater work ethic than the average.............that's why they are successful.
There are plenty of clever people who couldn't be bothered putting in the hard graft or taking the risks that is required to be successful. Most people are too risk-averse to ever make the big bucks.
It all boils down to what you want out of life and how hard you are willing to work for it, but you need the brain power to really make it big.

the_pen_turner

I would say as a collective yes.

xzanti

Daddy can't buy you 'cop on' in Trinity.

- some Apprentice contestant of yesteryear.

Shenshen

For a given value of "clever".

I think rich people who inherited wealth would tend to be better educated and connected, so in a much better position to push their advantages.

Rich people who are from a poorer background would certainly have an above-average level of smarts, at least in the making money sector.

There's very few rich philosophers around.

Arghus

I look into my empty wallet.

NO.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bob24

Being smarter can help getting richer (although not always).

But I don't think it works the other way around: being richer doesn't make you smarter.

Also it depends what you mean by smart. Someone can be good at doing business but have no culture and be a bit of an idiot in some circumstances. Is there ability to do business being smart? Different people might answer differently.

Carry

Generally no. You find a lot of dumb folk among the rich people.

It depends how you define smart, though.

It might be smart (or rather clever as in cute hoor) to exploit other people to your own advantage, but that doesn't mean you are actually intelligent.
And there is insular smartness, that is knowing your way around in a certain business or talent.

Kids of rich people have the advantage to get a better education, food (important for brain nourishment) and general environment, which helps to develop brains, if there is grey matter in the first place. But that's not a given, the grey matter, that is. I met rich people with a first class education and background who are actually quite intellectually challenged.
Cue Trump, as already mentioned.

On the other hand I met people not really poor but miles away from being rich - and highly intelligent and cultured without a formal education.

Of course there are the ones who don't give a fiddlers either way. They are just content enough to be as they are.

Muahahaha

You can be rich and intelligent but it doesnt necessarily mean you are always smart. Case in point is a family member, got 7 As in the Leaving back in the 80s when things like that were rare, aced her medical degree, always in the top 3 in the class and then aced her speciality before becoming the youngest consultant in Ireland at the age of 32. Shes defintely rich and intelligent but often dumb at the same time- she has lost 4 passports in eight years and now Foreign Affairs reckon she is flogging them on the black market. She ran out of dishwasher tablets so threw a cup of Fairy Liquid in the dishwasher and was then surprised when the kitchen got flooded with bubbles. She has at least two tips a year when parking her car, she cant cook and refuses to try, the list goes on and on. Intelligent, rich but not very smart, at least at being an adult. I still love her all the same though

osarusan

Apart from pure luck like a lottery win or maybe an inheritance, there is going to be something involved in their becoming wealthy.

It might be that they are 'smarter', it might be that they are harder-working or more focused, it might be that they identified a niche that nobody else did, it might be that their particular skills are simply in an area that tends to make people a lot of money.

And then, there are different kinds of 'smart' too.

Bob24

Carry wrote: »

Kids of rich people have the advantage to get a better education, food (important for brain nourishment) and general environment, which helps to develop brains, if there is grey matter in the first place. But that's not a given, the grey matter, that is. I met rich people with a first class education and background who are actually quite intellectually challenged.
Cue Trump, as already mentioned.

On the other hand I met people not really poor but miles away from being rich - and highly intelligent and cultured without a formal education.

I think it boils down the the fact that when you are rich you typically can create more opportunities to improve yourself (money can buy you those opportunities), but at the same time you have less of an incentive to do so (the same money also garantee an easy lifestyle without having to think to too much and it is tempting to go for the lazy option).

Those 2 things probably balance out each other.

Sam Kade

Double O Orange wrote: »

If I was a billionaire I would think I was pretty clever.

But you aren't and you're not

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pherekydes

Donald Trump certainly thinks so.

MRnotlob606

A lot of rich people are just stupid people who were lucky to have inherited wealth.

The people I admire are the rich people who go from rags to riches.

Sam Kade

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

A lot of rich people are just stupid people who were lucky to have inherited wealth.

The people I admire are the rich people who go from rags to riches.

Michael O' Leary, he's earning 9k/day now from humble beginnings.

Sam Kade

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

A lot of rich people are just stupid people who were lucky to have inherited wealth.

The people I admire are the rich people who go from rags to riches.

Why do you think people that inherited wealth are stupid?

Carry

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's what I meant with insular talent

Intelligence has many facets. The smartest people are those who know they have limited/specialized skills and make the most of those they have.

My old school reports said that I'm highly intelligent but lazy. Fine by me. What ever smartness I have I used it to indulge my laziness in a comfortable way while accepting that I will never get rich. So what.

steddyeddy

So Trump's smarter than Feynman? No he's not. By that simple thought experiment we answer the question.

Donald Trump

steddyeddy wrote: »

So Trump's smarter than Feynman? No he's not. By that simple thought experiment we answer the question.

Well given that his brain power has likely decreased somewhat over the last few decades due to decomposition, I reckon I am smarter than him.

Plus I don't think he ever banged a hot Slovenian 20-something model.

Take that maths nerds

_Brian

Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. It's life, there's no simple answer

Pherekydes

steddyeddy wrote: »

So Trump's smarter than Feynman? No he's not. By that simple thought experiment we answer the question.

Compare like with like: Is Trump cleverererer than an orangutan? No.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If all one wants from life is to add zeros to one's bank account. Which is grand if that's all one hopes to aspire to. And gets it.

Wibbs

_Brian wrote: »

Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. It's life, there's no simple answer

If they're born to it, then no. There may be some residual genetic smarts involved, at least with the acquisition of wealth, but that goes for most human endeavours. But when one considers how many "great houses" fell through the dissolution of successive heirs, that may not be the case, or at least it's diluted.

If they "come from nothing"(rarely enough) then yes they're "smarter". In that direction anyway. And again fair play. If they succeed. I've often answered when someone starting out has asked me the question of what is a good direction to take, I'd suggested that unless you have an actual career/interest, rather than a job masquerading as one, then go for the greasy till and build that up. If riches result then you can more easily follow what you actually want to do and stop before it becomes a bore.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Sam Kade wrote: »

Michael O' Leary, he's earning 9k/day now from humble beginnings.

"Humble beginnings"? :pac: Yeah like being schooled in Clongowes is somehow humble. And then going on to third level at a time when it wasn't even close to a given the way it is today? Seriously?

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And he did so in large part by fluke and luck. But regardless, cool beans for Bill, but how many of the hyper rich who sought out that goal as the primary focus of their lives do much beyond that? Eff all. The commoners seem to derive succour from stories like Warren Buffet's fave food is burgers and he lives in the same house that he bought back in whenever. As if that makes him someone more "real". No, it makes him a high functioning savant type at making money. At best such people foster art and science and that's cool, but almost none actually create it. They're most certainly needed, a necessary evil as it were, but their value is almost entirely as funders, not creators.

LordSutch

Double O Orange wrote: »

Are richer people smarter than people who aren't rich?.

NO.

red ears

I would say its highly likely successful people have a higher average IQ than people who aren't successful.

Wibbs

red ears wrote: »

I would say its highly likely successful people have a higher average IQ than people who aren't successful.

It depends on one's definition of successful. The aforementioned Richey Feynman ended up comfortably well off. As a by product of his success in his intellectual pursuits. Leonardo DaVinci ended up supported by admirers and not so well off. The list of great minds that actually changed our world for the better, but who ended up pretty destitute is a long one.

If riches is what you seek and end up getting then fine and good luck to you, but I see it as similar to the more recent phenomenon of people looking for fame as an end point, rather than as a by product of being talented.

Donald Trump

Wibbs wrote: »

If all one wants from life is to add zeros to one's bank account. Which is grand if that's all one hopes to aspire to. And gets it.

Let's be honest. There is more to it than just the image of the miser loving looking at the numbers on their bank statement. There are a lot of nice things in life that, although not necessities, are nice to have but cost money.

Wibbs wrote: »

If they're born to it, then no. There may be some residual genetic smarts involved, at least with the acquisition of wealth, but that goes for most human endeavours. But when one considers how many "great houses" fell through the dissolution of successive heirs, that may not be the case, or at least it's diluted.

If they "come from nothing"(rarely enough) then yes they're "smarter". In that direction anyway. And again fair play. If they succeed. I've often answered when someone starting out has asked me the question of what is a good direction to take, I'd suggested that unless you have an actual career/interest, rather than a job masquerading as one, then go for the greasy till and build that up. If riches result then you can more easily follow what you actually want to do and stop before it becomes a bore.

Implicit in the above paragraph is that people with money or wealth or who have it at the start of their life, have a huge advantage. I don't think that this is in dispute by anyone. Whether it is cash handed to them or just the flexibility and security that they have to be able to start and do things.

So if I have kids and I want them to succeed, I know that having those extra zeros will give them a greater probability of having an easier life. Fumbling in that greasy till might not be a wholly selfish act.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Who are mostly average/low in the IQ stakes. And by how much of a difference to you measure yourself? You are raising kids, in a house, working all the hours by your account, and your pursuits are reading, engaging on the sidelines and feeling smug in what you consider "high brow" stuff. So you have a "better" new Ford Focus in your driveway? The difference between you and "them" is more about snobbery than anything more tangible. Get back to me when you create the media you admire and consume. #notholdingmybreath Though some have suggested you may well be lost to the world of finance when soap operas may be more your forte.

That's completely correct. Buffett has said openly that he doesn't want multiple homes and yachts. Not because he can't afford them -- with a net worth of around $75 billion, obviously he can -- but because they'd be a distraction. It has nothing to do with trying to live like one of the commoners.

You ---- Country mile ---- Point.

Yes, but that value shouldn't be underestimated, either. The Renaissance arguably would not have happened without the Medicis, who played a huge part in the patronage of the arts and culture, and that's just one example.

Which is why I said it is often a "necessary evil" and I have no problem with that. Indeed many of said Renaissance patrons were of a more involved and catholic mind than similar today. The notion of the Renaissance Man fostered that ideal of the well rounded man. A "Buffet" is more a one sided man to the point of a financial Rainman. And he'd not be alone in that arena.

Wibbs

Donald Trump wrote: »

So if I have kids and I want them to succeed, I know that having those extra zeros will give them a greater probability of having an easier life. Fumbling in that greasy till might not be a wholly selfish act.

Oh it's not DT. Of course folks will want their families to thrive more than just survive. NO issue there. And indeed I take issue when the more socialist types seek to undermine that in some naive sense of "fairness" Many of whom had advantage themselves to be able to hold such opinions. Much as I LOL at those "I came from nothing so why can't you" types, who mostly also came from an original position of advantage, one that bot types deny or ignore.

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nope. Merely observations of other's opinions, of which I could quote a legion and you seemed to take no umbrage with them. I can tease out the "snobbery" angle too if you wish? Again by observation and example. I would be "attacking" your postings, not "attacking" you.

BAAA RAM EWE

McCrack wrote: »

Im getting increasingly convinced boards.ie are behind starting these retard threads...trying to keep the momentum going

Well then I expect them to ban themselves and whatever forum they posted in to then be shut down for review for the good of the users.

I remember reading an line in the Irish Marxist Review, or one similar publication, that said something like "the smartest socialists all work in banks" (I should point out, this was long before the financial collapse of 2008-9 and the concomitant socialisation of liabilities!). The point the author was making, related to the reality of the current socio-political environment.

That is to say, even the most radical of informed socialists will accept that capitalism is a requirement of the civilisation of humankind. They will accept that there is a positive statistical correlation between academic intelligence and wealth. Karl Marx, of all people, recognised the importance of this empirical truth.

I am an individual of very ordinary intelligence, like most people, so we tend to consider ourselves as playing the role of a referee! And I believe that most of us who belong 'in the middle', both in terms of intellect and earnings, will say that academic intelligence is indeed correlated with earnings, but that academic intelligence seems to be largely an accident of fate, be that genetic or environmental.

As an accident of fate, I don't believe that intelligence ought to prescribe an individual's right to personal and familial dignity, but that is a phase we are currently going through in our development as a species. Someday, I think we will evolve beyond that.

But I think it is foolhardy to persist with the belief that (certainly in 'western' society) academic intelligence and earnings are not positively correlated.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.