Luckily I managed to phrase my post better than I did in my earlier discussion. I propose that your earnings delimits the lower bound of your intelligence - so for lack of a better measurement I could say you have an IQ of at least 100 (for example). It may well be higher than that (and from personal experience I would say it is very much so).
However, it is also important because I'm therefore NOT saying that someone who earns little is dumb. I think one's intelligence (as I'm measuring it with earnings) gives your earning potential, and your earnings give a lower bound to your intelligence (as I choose to measure it).
The reason for all this is that ultimately I think it has to be the method for measuring (lower bounds to) intelligence because it's a constantly self-moderating system where we're all in competition with each other (because there is only a finite amount of money in our economy).
So yes, I'd say that the drug barons are bloody intelligent as their system allows them and their down-chain middlemen to make a lot of money with minimal responsibility. I don't think it's morally right however...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 03:33 pm (UTC)However, it is also important because I'm therefore NOT saying that someone who earns little is dumb. I think one's intelligence (as I'm measuring it with earnings) gives your earning potential, and your earnings give a lower bound to your intelligence (as I choose to measure it).
The reason for all this is that ultimately I think it has to be the method for measuring (lower bounds to) intelligence because it's a constantly self-moderating system where we're all in competition with each other (because there is only a finite amount of money in our economy).
So yes, I'd say that the drug barons are bloody intelligent as their system allows them and their down-chain middlemen to make a lot of money with minimal responsibility. I don't think it's morally right however...