Why Geniuses Don't Make Money

[mindflayer]

How many Geniuses do you know??

If you say geniuses dont make the really big $ because they can't, I won't argue the fact that...

a) 999/1000 geniuses can't make a hundred million NW BUT
999,999/1,000,000 Joe Average cant make the hundred million NW either.

b) those geniuses who can make the really big money sometimes DO in fact decide not to because their goal was NOT to make money, but to help society.


Typical example of a genius at work.
web page

Fredric Banting Won the Nobel prize for Medicine in 1923.
He discovered insulin. (used by all diabetics) In his day, diabetics faced shorter lives, blindness and even lost limbs as a result of their body's low levels of insulin.

Did he seek a patent on his formula?!? Make millions and retire rich?? He and his lab mates decided to sell the rights to the formula to the University where he discoverd it for $1 as a means of ensuring that insulin could be affordably manufactured for years to come.

[noggindoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Back to poker. A major portion of standardized IQ tests involves PATTERN RECOGNITION.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you consider <1/8 to be a "major portion?"

[kiddj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Back to poker. A major portion of standardized IQ tests involves PATTERN RECOGNITION.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you consider <1/8 to be a "major portion?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to a specific IQ test where 1 section out of 8 is dedicated to pattern recognition? Which test is this, and what are all the sections called? I'm sure many intelligence tests have different specific distributions of testable aptitudes. The test I'm familiar with is the Mensa admissions test. This includes a standard IQ test plus another sectional test: either of which you need to score in the top 2% for admission.

There may have been only 1 section specifically for pattern recognition (I think there was at least 3). However, some questions in the math, verbal, memory, and problem solving sections also involve this ability.

[Ass Master]

The reasoning behind your hypothesis is not without merit but nonetheless your argument is weak. When trying to infer whether a certain attribute makes one more or less likely to land in a certain distinguished sub-population (e.g. high net worth individuals) you cannot simply look at the density of that attribute in the sub-population. You must compare the density of the attribute in the sub-population with its density in the population as a whole.

For example, let's say you find in your distinguished sub-population that attribute A occurs with probability 10%. One might conclude that possessing attribute A makes an individual less likely to land in the sub-population. However, if attribute A only occurs with, say, frequency 1% in the entire population, this means that possession of attribute A makes one much more likely to land in the sub-population.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario. Suppose those with attribute A will, over their lifetime, accumulate a net worth that is normally distributed with mean of 5 million dollars and standard deviation of 2 million dollars (say negative realizations correspond to dying in debt). Those without attribute A have a net worth that is normally distributed with mean of 3 million dollars and standard deviation of 2 million dollars. Suppose attribute A occurs with frequency 1% in the population, e.g. there are 100 with attribute A in a population of 10,000. If you look at the upper 95% quantile of net worth, attribute A occurs with frequency roughly 5%. (This I estimated through numerical simulation.) However it would be erroneous to conclude based on this 5% frequency that having attribute A is a disadvantage to landing in the upper 95% wealth quantile, since it is occuring with 5x greater frequency than in the general population and by construction has a superior net worth distribution.

In this discussion attribute A consists not only of being a genius, but being an genius and having the accumulation of a high net worth as your goal. The frequency of this attribute in the general population is tiny.

[Pompey]

I've not read through the thread but could someone just give me the easy answer?

I've got an IQ of 147+ but I only earn £16.3K after almost 6 years in my job, I assume there's a straightforward fix to this. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Many Thanks

[kiddj]

[ QUOTE ]
I've not read through the thread but could someone just give me the easy answer?

I've got an IQ of 147+ but I only earn £16.3K after almost 6 years in my job, I assume there's a straightforward fix to this. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Many Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy answer: Lack of honesty? Lack of drive?

Less easy answer: Go to school and become an engineer. If your IQ is 147+ (which it probably isn't), any degree program that qualifies you for a high salary job should be easy to complete. Most engineering disciplines can make you a good income without requiring graduate school. (You only need a bachelor's.)

Easiest answer: Sell all your possessions, go to Vegas, and put all your money on red.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
A more useful comparison is to compare the percentage of people with an IQ of 140+ who are CEOs to the percentage of people with an IQ of 120-140 who are CEOs.

I am not sure what the answer would be, but I am absolute sure that if you did the same comparison for Poker results rather than CEOship, the higher IQ players would on average have better results.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have said before I am sure this is wrong, I'd put myself above the majority of 2+2ers in terms of IQ and behind most in terms of poker ability. I have put in a reasonable amount of work in my game with fair results but nothing exciting, I feel hard work and natural ability are the two most important aspects needed for a successful player, and that intellegence beyond a certain point adds very little in my opinion. Small sample though.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Stupid people with strong people-skills can go further than smart people with poor people skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bang, spot on.

Mack

[Pompey]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've not read through the thread but could someone just give me the easy answer?

I've got an IQ of 147+ but I only earn £16.3K after almost 6 years in my job, I assume there's a straightforward fix to this.

Many Thanks


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Easy answer: Lack of honesty? Lack of drive?

Less easy answer: Go to school and become an engineer. If your IQ is 147+ (which it probably isn't), any degree program that qualifies you for a high salary job should be easy to complete. Most engineering disciplines can make you a good income without requiring graduate school. (You only need a bachelor's.)

Easiest answer: Sell all your possessions, go to Vegas, and put all your money on red.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ok I wasn't really looking for an easy answer, I was just posting to show that having a high IQ doesn't make it easy to be a high flier - having drive and direction have got to be just as important.

To answer your other points, I do have a kinda non-vocational science degree which doesn't count for too much, studying a subject that leads directly to a profession/trade would of definitely been a good idea.

Also I said 147 + as on the day I did the test I had man flu (a bit of a cold) so I reckon I'm worth a point or two extra (148 was the score needed to gain membership)

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stupid people with strong people-skills can go further than smart people with poor people skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bang, spot on.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Smart people with strong people-skills can go further than stupid people with strong people skills.