[Distraction] Controversial sociological hypothesis

[azekeil]

I was having a 'discussion' earlier this morning with my cow-workers over my theory that you can estimate a lower limit for someone's intelligence by how much they earn. With the exceptions of dumb luck, illegal activities and third world countries that don't have first world job opportunities. I challenged them to provide counter-examples (ie. someone that is dumb that earns a lot) to disprove my theory and they did eventually manage to come up with footballers and porn stars, and for a different reason artists.

I think the ability to earn money, however you do it, is a good measure of the lower limit of someone's intelligence because at the end of the day there is only a finite amount of money in this country as defined by the Bank of England¹ and therefore we are all in indirect competition for it. This is achieved by value being placed on goods and/or services and that being represented by an income.

So with the footballer and porn star arguments, it just shows what strange things humans place value in! Art I believe has its own value, but not one that many modern-day capitalists have much time for.

---

¹ - On a side note, how do they govern and introduce new money into the economy? I realise that introducing more money without controls makes inflation spiral and devalues the currency against foreign currencies, but where does it enter the economy? With the government? UPDATE: This seems to give a good idea of how it works (and the effects of hyper-inflation) - through loans to businesses.

Comments

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

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...

[sarah-mum.livejournal.com]

Using economic factors to measure intelligence is like using bricks to measure quality of sound. They may be linked, but there's no direct and useful correlation. Money is, as you say, a finite resource, but due to its means of control it's no distributed in an even and equal fashion. Nobody gets paid by the IQ point.
Also, I can think of many examples of extremely intellegent people who, for various reasons, earn very little.

Counter-examples (other than models and pop stars) include several salespersons of my againtance who are as thick as tar but make heaps on commission.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Hm, it's a very loose link I agree, and therefore perhaps not useful.

I think I was more getting at trying to define intelligence by the value people are willing to pay for it..