Does income level indicate intelligence level?

[Iamme]

In so many words, I heard this very thing mentioned on the radio, again, the other day. I thought it would make a nice topic to debate.

Do you buy into this?

I'm certain that those in athletics don't count. Unless of course you argue that they were smart enough to pick a high paying occupation.:D

I think the host was more likely refering to those in professional fields like doctors, lawyers, engineers, corporate CEO's...and other 'shakers'.

I'm sure there is some truth to this. They say that you gravitate towards doing what you are comfortable with.

Some garbage collector-type person might feel real uneasy trying to learn how to become an astrophysicist or something.

My uncle claims he has a 135 I.Q. and is a very creative and respected artist. But he has been a 'starving artist'...the poor guy. He just likes art...that's all there is to it.

But, there are people out there I'm sure who are quite capable, but have chosen for various reasons to make some carrier out of one of the less stressful occupations in life. Maybe they always liked canoes and the woods...or liked living on a farm..or ?...and money don't mean anything to them.

Until...they get older and kick themselves in the pants that they didn't apply themselves to their fullest potential, and now are struggling in their retirement years.

Reflect on YOUR 'lot' in life. Do you think YOUR income level reflects accurately on YOUR intelligence?

Me first? Hmmmm. I'm a failure.:eek: I did a forty page term paper in school, once, on how I was going to be an aeronautical engineer. For real. What did I become? A woodworker! :D And then I progressed from there to go into construction, remodeling and handyman work. I should have become an aeronautical handyman.:D

Did I choose my career path (does what I do count as a carrier?) strictly because I liked being outside work, and not being confined to the regimented requirements of a corporate lifestyle? I question that to this day. Or, were my reasons deeper, like, I questioned my own brilliance, and then just took the easy way out. I don't know. I'm almost afraid to find the answer.

Some people who AREN'T all that 'swift' are out on a mission to show they can compete in this world. They are to prove something to themselves AND the world. Some of these types are over achievers. They are the ones who, in school, should have got a B- average but instead, came away with a lot of A's, because they tried really really hard. And then, they went on from there.

[Upchurch]

I don't buy it at all. While intelligence certainly is a factor, there are tons of factors that impact income level that have nothing to do with intelligence. Selection of profession, as you mentioned, is one of the biggest factors, but there is also geographical location, gender, how hard a worker you are, personal priorities and goals, etc.

[smalltlalk_2k]

The problem with this kind of question is that it is a 'generality' type of question. Intelligence probably could be used a general predictor of a person's financial success. But there are many more factors involved such as a person's determination to succeed, and in some cases just the off chance of bumping into the right person at the right time. I've known several people who will most likely never be financially successfull even though they are very intelligent. They just don't have the drive, or inclination to pursue financial success. They are content at the occupations they have and their resulting income. But intelligence would definatly play some part in success some of the time. Now as to the extent of the part it plays and how often I can not say.

Did I choose my career path (does what I do count as a carrier?) strictly because I liked being outside work, and not being confined to the regimented requirements of a corporate lifestyle? I question that to this day. Or, were my reasons deeper, like, I questioned my own brilliance, and then just took the easy way out. I don't know. I'm almost afraid to find the answer.

its probably a combination of all of those things. Key word being probably.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Iamme

Some garbage collector-type person might feel real uneasy trying to learn how to become an astrophysicist or something.

News flash: Astrophysicist is not all that high-paying a career. Ph.D. scientists (in general) make less than some other fields requiring similar levels of education (doctor, lawyer)

[Iamme]

Upchurch and smalltalk---But could there be an underlying reason why they don't have the drive? That might be an easy excuse on their part, to say they don't have the drive. Could it be that they don't have the drive, because they know they would have to *drive* harder than some naturally gifted intelligent person? Thereby, it sort of becomes a fear thing.

[smalltlalk_2k]

Originally posted by Iamme
Thereby, it sort of becomes a fear thing.


Fear one more variable that can lead to or away from high income.

[whitefork]

The ability to make a lot of money is a form of intelligence in itself, or at least a skill, I'd say, and one may have it without choosing to exercise it.

Knowing or guessing what to study, what career to choose, who to work for - all those choices require some form of practical knowledge and I think it can be considered "intelligence".

[roger]

A job's salary level is _not_ based on the intellect required to perform it, but solely on economic factors such as supply of talent in the labor pool, profitability of the work, etc.

For example, DC is full of extraordinarily bright people who work for various non profit organizations. The pay is typically low because

1) the jobs are coveted, so the labor pool is large
2) funds are tight
3) the jobs are great resume fodder, for when you want to move onto a high power/high pay job.

The sum of those factors equals low pay.

[Prospero]

What you hear mentioned on the radio is studies showing a positive correlation between income and intelligence. Take, for example, a child growing up in a below-poverty household in Washington, D.C. This child is not unique because D.C. in general has a lot of poverty. The education in D.C.'s public schools are the worst in the nation because the students that attend the schools are all so poverty-stricken. Now, take into account that a poor education will dramatically limit your options as far as careers go, especially if you don't have either the foresight to discover a niche for yourself or the guidance to succeed in spite of overwhelming odds.

Now consider Manhattanites. To live in Manhattan implies that you have a fairly substantial income and, presumably, a decent if not much better education. So, when it comes time to school children, you will have many more options and probably opt to send your child to either the best private schools you can afford or find something comparable in the public system. I make the assumption that the school would be affordable because living in Manhattan and supporting a family there is absurdly expensive, so there is more than likely a significant means of support from one or both parents.

In both cases the child's intelligence and future resulting from gaining that specific education during his youth, set the standard for his intelligence level for the rest of his life. That's not to say that kids from poverty areas can't grow up to become doctors (which I think might be preferable because the system makes it an uphill battle all the way, thus implying they are dedicated and hard-working) or that kids from wealthy families can't grow up to be druggie bums that live off their parents until whatever assets the family had are completely wasted. It just shows that, in general, higher socio-economic groups are better able to provide an education for their children which result in their children getting better jobs and thus earning more money. The same is true for the lower socio-economic group: less able to provide a good education, less likely child will make his way into a high-paying profession which requires good education, less likely to make a lot of money. It has nothing to do with the belief that poor people are poor because their stupid. It's more along the lines of poor people can't afford to educate themselves and thus make more money, thus they stay poor.

Again, this is another example of why I hate "studies" that don't explain everything in idiot-proof layman's terms. The media loves to scream "Poor people stupid, the rich are smart!" because it's inflammatory and will get an audience, but even while reading the story which supposedly amends this blatantly incorrect headline, it's not explained simply enough to realize that correlations are not the same as cause and effect.

[arcticpenguin]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031003060615.htm


New research by a group of economists and psychology researchers at the University of Warwick reveals that our rank position within an organisation has a bigger effect on our happiness within that job than the happiness generated by our actual level of pay. In short being top dog makes us happier than simply getting top dollar.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Intelligence is the ability of the brain to find a solution to a problem or to achieve a goal. Among people whose goal is a high income, it is near tautology that, in general, the higher incomes will go to the more intelligent. However, this says nothing of the portion of the population who does not set high income as their primary goal.

[Wile E. Coyote]

The rich would like us all to believe that money=intelligence, but it just isn't so. A lot of people come to fortune through lucky circumstances or by one-time ambition.

A lot of stupid people get high-paying jobs through nepotism or trickery, and a lot of very smart people have fallen prey to bad luck throughout their lives, resigning them to their current positions.

The bottom line is that people are not motivated by money, no matter what might be said. People are motivated by happiness and self-gratification. For many, money is one thing that helps to achive this. For others it is helping mankind, or producing art, or being with family.

Success cannot be measured in numbers. Only an individual can say whether he or she is successful, and it all has to do with happiness.

[c4ts]

My experience watching Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous has taught me that there are a lot of high income idiots out there. Mostly pop stars.

[LFTKBS]

No.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Iamme
Do you buy into this?
Yes, it's completely true. Income level absolutely indicates intelligence level. But here's the really cool part: intelligence also indicates income level!

See, if you're rich, its because you are smart: and the way we know you are smart is because you're rich.

It works the other way, too: if you are poor, it's because you're stupid, and the way we know you are stupid is because you're poor.

:rolleyes:

Just more "The Bell Curve" stupidity. Consider the powerful effects social cues have on gorrilas (they can delay puberty by up to 9 years), consider that minorities live with this kind of constant stupid social crap, consider that we are physologically similar to gorrilas... and viola! You have your self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Bazza]

The question of intelligence is such a complex topic - that to try to relate it to income levels is very difficult. Don't forget that income level doesn't always tie in automatically to a high net asset level. Some extremely intelligent people don't have a pit to hiss in when they retire! Some may have earned a good income but have bad money management skills.
Granted that those who are above average in intelligence are always more likely to be able to qualify as doctors, lawyers etc. you always find those that didn't seem as bright at school thriving in the real economy:

The requirements for economic success are:

1. A reasonable level of intelligence - you don't have to be in the top 2% - has anyone ever questioned why Mensa cuts off at 2%? Why not 4% why not 1.3254%. Who decided on the 2%

2. An eye for an opportunity with a willingness to take a reasonable risk (Those who suceed we applaud, those who fail we berate - but at least they took a risk)

3. A sense of optimism (not blind optimism) that what you are doing will work out.

4. A realisation that arts/music etc rarely pay off for most punters


A lot of people I used to go to school with who were only average have done very nicely - Has anyone ever constructed a $Q test instead of an IQ test - probably not as it would be too difficult

[Whomp]

Both my current "jobs" have no salary at all!
I am a stay at home dad taking full-time care of my two autistic children, and I am a volunteer parent advocate in the state of New Mexico, effecting systems level changes in the programs surrounding disabled children.
The governor has appointed me to several state level advisory councils, and I sit on the board of directors of the largest parent's organization in the Southwest United States.

(Oh, and I graduated FSU with my BSEE)

I must be an IDIOT!


Whomp!

[QuarkChild]

Geez, I hope income level doesn't indicate intelligence. I earn less than 14K....before taxes. I think that's less than half of average.

Edited to add: I never thought of this before, but I bet I earn less money than either of my parents pay every year in taxes.

Better leave grad students out of your analysis. :)

[espritch]

Geez, I hope income level doesn't indicate intelligence. I earn less than 14K....before taxes. I think that's less than half of average.

So grad students are basically academic slave labor. :)

[Blue Monk]

Does income level indicate intelligence level?

Boy I hope not or I better find someone to take care of me, hehe.

To me the biggest flaw in this logic is that it assumes an intelligent person would place wealth as a priority. I know any number of intelligent people who do not.

I could easily argue that an individual that spends so much time trying to acquire superficial wealth, at the expense of time spent with his family and loved ones is showing a decidedly lack of intelligence.

Not eveyone worships the almighty dollar.

As a musician I find a similar thought process concerning the arts. Many people assume that if you are a musician your ultimate goal is to be famous ala Madonna or J-Lo. I've even had people suggest to me that after 30+ years in the business without 'hitting it big' that perhaps it was time I gave it up. To them, the quest for fame is the only measure of success.

To the person who's goal is to have a happy and stable life and raise a fine family and provide for them and then do, I would say that that person is not only successful but shows enough intelligence to have their priorities right.

To me, an obsession for wealth is not the hallmark of an intelligent person.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by QuarkChild
Geez, I hope income level doesn't indicate intelligence. I earn less than 14K....before taxes. I think that's less than half of average.
I really hope income doesnt reflect on intelligence, I currently have a steady income of roughly US$0.00 a year... I should consider getting a job or something, I could probably make that figure jump 10 maybe 20 fold...

[jan]

Ludwig Wittgenstein was a member of one the wealthiest families of Austria ever, and was born incredibly rich. He gave away everything to become an elementary teacher. How stupid.

I would like to ask another question: are all slaves cowards?

The Great Philosopher Plato said yes. A slave not being a coward would have been killed in a battle, so if somebody is alive and a slave, he must prefer life instead of honour and must be a coward.

The funny thing is, Plato was once invited to become the consultant of a dictator. Since Plato was one of the worst spin doctors ever, he soon started to alienate the dictator, and it ended with Plato being sold as a slave, and his friends from the academy had to rescue him.

See, all those slaves don't deserve better. They are all just cowards.

See, all those poor people just don't deserve better. They are just stupid. Don't pity them!

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by espritch
So grad students are basically academic slave labor. :)
Well, my roommate, who is an Econ grad, told me that undergraduates in the Economics program work as TAs (for academic credit) but don't get paid anything. Now that's slave labor.

[Iamme]

Marquis---Here I go again with another devilish question: Could it be that a lot of people say they have no goal to make lots of money because deep inside they know they really can't...without turning into some wreck, from having to so overachieve to get to the goal? Could this be the REAL reason in MOST cases?

Take ME for example. I find it fun to study up some on (take for example) what someone like Hawking has to say. But for me to consider doing what HE does, and to get to some point where you are highly respected, and you don't feel all burned out by trying to 'cram' to become this genius...well, it just ain't goona happen. So, i go outside and read about HIS findings..while I whittle a stick...or contemplate why jello is gelatinous...or what brainy person figured out how to get all those sardines into a sardine can!.:(

[JAR]

I had plenty of friends in high school who were less well read than me but got much better grades in school.

I was incompetent at certain types of classes, those being science classes, English classes, math classes, cross-country running, the long-distance running part of the track and field team, and history classes.

I was in Geometry for three school years and one summer school session.

I just don't have that hard-working persona. I also have an attention deficit disorder.

During my senior year after failing Chemistry for the second time, in the second semester I was put in a easier science class for people who did poorly in science classes. I went from being an F student to an A+ student.

I actually didn't meet the criteria to graduate from high school, but the school made an exception with me for some reason I don't know.

[espritch]

The Great Philosopher Plato said yes. A slave not being a coward would have been killed in a battle, so if somebody is alive and a slave, he must prefer life instead of honour and must be a coward.

Socrates was a great philosopher. Plato was a self aggrandizing poser. Socrates said he was the wisest of men because, while he knew nothing, he at least recognized that he knew nothing. Plato, on the other hand, thought Plato knew everything. He described his perfect society in “The Republic” and (big surprise) his perfect society would be ruled by philosophers (Plato’s chosen profession – no doubt pure coincidence). In addition to completely missing the main lesson Socrates tried to impart, Plato had the unmitigated gall to put his ideas in the mouth of his departed teacher. Plato was an ass.

[American]

Of course it's not 100%, but by the time you are 40, I think there is a relationship among that age group. If you are younger, then your income was probably more related to your background (parents). Much older than 40, and by then you probably know your limits in life and are willing to compromise income for happiness.

To see it another way - look at a person at the peak of their carreer. That's usually when they are in their early 40s and earning a living, performing most accordingly to their education or intelligence level.

Short answer: generally, yes, but with many other factors.

[jan]

Originally posted by espritch

The Great Philosopher Plato...
Socrates was a great philosopher. Plato was a self aggrandizing poser.

I used a discussion technique called "irony".

[fake chinese accent]
I huave been teeched dis anshient discussion technique by de diskurs monks of Shaolin.
[/fake chinese accent]

[Iamme]

I've been taking in all your responses. They vary and each seems to give valid points. The idea for this thread was spurned from listening to Boortz (I believe it was) one day,a week or two ago), and he brought up this perceived relationship between income and intelligence.

For some reason, everytime I hear this, I picture a janitor pushing a broom in a school hallway. Kind of like a Maytag repairman looking guy. And they always have those keys on a keychain. I wonder what thoughts go through their mind as they are pushing the broom.:D

And then I think, "Hey. These guys make good money!" And then I go on to think of the stories you hear about the junk yard/salveage operation that is worth over a million dollars! You know...those dirty grunchy guys with their foul language...chomping on cigars. You know...not what you perceive as Phi Beta Kappa material.:D

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Yahzi



:rolleyes:

Just more "The Bell Curve" stupidity. Consider the powerful effects social cues have on gorrilas (they can delay puberty by up to 9 years), consider that minorities live with this kind of constant stupid social crap, consider that we are physologically similar to gorrilas... and viola! You have your self-fulfilling prophecy.

Geesh, talk about a straw man.

Have you read the Bell curve?

Why is it that the correlation between adopted parents and their adopted kids is essentially zero (especially as the kids get older-- ironically more exposed to the environment of their adoptive parents) yet the correlation between the bio parents and the adopted kids is as high as .85?

And, this thread title-- again-- is an empirical question, versus a matter of opinion.

It's well documented that the correlation between IQ and SES (socio economic status-- a measure of income) is .33.

So, intelligence explains 10% of the variance in income.

Should we be impressed by this number? Well, I dunno, but that how fast you can arrange blocks to form a picture explains 10% of whatever causes income is pretty impressive to me.

To Prospero: Show me the study that says where you get educated / the type of education you get can increase one's intelligence.

I think you got it backwards-- how smart you are causes how much education you get. For example, are ivy league schools prestigious because they make people smart, or because smart people attend them?

Please people, stop bashing IQ with ignorant comments, or I might say something mean.

C'mon, "skeptics" Show me the data.


Edited to correct a mistake: I forgot that the correlations I referenced above directly estimate shared variance and hence are not squared. So, the highest correlations would be .75 -- not .85 as I said above.

[hammegk]

A better question would be;

Given two people -- equal in every way other than one has a 10 point higher IQ -- who both "want to make money".

Who would you bet on as more likely to succeed?

Better yet, make that 2 groups of people -- one group with a 10 point iq advantage at every position. Who do you bet on?

[espritch]

I used a discussion technique called "irony".

I understood that you were employing irony. It wasn’t my intent to argue with your post. I was just taking a gratuitous shot at Plato since the name had come up. Sorry for the confusion. :(

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by hammegk
A better question would be;

Given two people -- equal in every way other than one has a 10 point higher IQ -- who both "want to make money".

Who would you bet on as more likely to succeed?

Better yet, make that 2 groups of people -- one group with a 10 point iq advantage at every position. Who do you bet on?

Drats, I wish I would have mentioned this.

I'd add that when using groups of people, you wouldn't even have to equate for "all other things being equal".

Just within iq = 110, get a randomly selected group of individuals and compare them to another randomly selected group within the population, IQ = 100

Guess what direction the mean income difference will be?