Why Geniuses Don't Make Money

[David Sklansky]

Yes. But I'm willing to lay 5-1 odds. Meanwhile I neglected to mention that another way geniuses make money is through patenting their inventions.

The bottom line is that even if geniuses were as bad as some say in "people skills" they would still be on average richer than all but near geniuses who had those skills. That may not have been as true 100 years ago. But nowadays so much of what makes the world go round depends on stuff that only the smartest people have a prayer of fully understanding. In fact the rest of the people of the world should be grateful that geniuses are not a greedy bunch. If they organized and went on strike I'm sure they could significantly incresase their net worth just by this maneuver since it would force everybody else to admit how dependent on them they really are (contrast that to the air traffic controllers strike that Reagen busted with slightly inferior replacements. You can't find replacements for the smartest 500,000 people on the planet. The next 500,000 have no prayer of duplicating their work).

[Mark1808]

Bill Gates was nowhere near the best programmer of his generation, but he made far more than all programmers combined. How? He had a connection with IBM through his mother. He knew a guy who wrote DOS and he put the two together and was shrewd enough to cut himself a good deal. Genius? I think so, you may not. I would venture to say that most inventors were not the ones to make the most off their inventions.

[David Sklansky]

You guys can get so confused. Take plastic surgeons. If I pick one at random the chances I pick someone who is worth 300 million is probably less than if I picked a non plastic surgeon. But the average net worth of a non plastic surgeon is maybe a tenth of the doctor.

[Rearden]

"If they organized and went on strike I'm sure they could significantly incresase their net worth just by this maneuver since it would force everybody else to admit how dependent on them they really are"

...Atlas Shrugged? (sorry I had to, the temptation was too great) [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[AnyTwoCanLose]

I accept that people with people skills do much better than those without.

The mistake that everyone seems to be making is assuming that geniuses are all nerds that can't relate to anyone.

There's plenty of us geniuses in the world that get along fine and are socially well adjusted.

You'd never consider me a genius if you met me in real life. I'd be an example of an "average guy" that did really well.

But I am one. Its just that the same social skills I use to get ahead in life inform me that people would hate me if I ran around saying, "I am a genius."

Genius and social outcast are not synonomous.

(yes, Poindexter, I know that you don't start a sentence with 'but')

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys can get so confused. Take plastic surgeons. If I pick one at random the chances I pick someone who is worth 300 million is probably less than if I picked a non plastic surgeon. But the average net worth of a non plastic surgeon is maybe a tenth of the doctor.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK then, would the wealthiest plastic surgeon be the best or most knowledgeable plastic surgeon? I think not. His genius would be to see how his skills could be applied on a far grander scale. There is a genius to building wealth that is not correllated to one's specific mastery of a profession. No one comes close to putting out the type of material David Slanky does on poker, is he the wealthiest person in the poker business?

[David Sklansky]

You are still committing the same fallacy

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. But I'm willing to lay 5-1 odds. Meanwhile I neglected to mention that another way geniuses make money is through patenting their inventions.

The bottom line is that even if geniuses were as bad as some say in "people skills" they would still be on average richer than all but near geniuses who had those skills. That may not have been as true 100 years ago. But nowadays so much of what makes the world go round depends on stuff that only the smartest people have a prayer of fully understanding. In fact the rest of the people of the world should be grateful that geniuses are not a greedy bunch. If they organized and went on strike I'm sure they could significantly incresase their net worth just by this maneuver since it would force everybody else to admit how dependent on them they really are (contrast that to the air traffic controllers strike that Reagen busted with slightly inferior replacements. You can't find replacements for the smartest 500,000 people on the planet. The next 500,000 have no prayer of duplicating their work).

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this arguement apply? The smartest scientists are all in grant funded pure research labs. If they went on strike, not very many people would notice because the only thing that is taken away hasn't even been invented/discovered yet.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. But I'm willing to lay 5-1 odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I would take such a bet. But because you transmogrify intelligence into an objective category, which you call "smartness," the wager would be meaningless.

How do you suggest we determine who is "extremely smart" versus those who are merely "very smart?" IQ scores? Do you really think that the average net worth of those people with IQ scores between 180 and 200 is greater than the average income of those who score between 140 and 160? If this is what you are suggesting, then I would gladly take 5 to 1 (but probably not 2 to 1).

[Warren Whitmore]

Do no use "net worth" and "average income" as if they are the same thing. Average income has its highest correlation coefficient with physical height. Net worth after pulling out inheritance with IQ.