Scientific American and Spearman's g.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

I don't see the inherent distinction, except in your own biases on this topic, which seem to me to interestingly contradict your other expressed views on this topic.

Allow me to unpack it. Whether "intelligence" is a single object, multiple objects, or an epiphenomenon, there's certainly a set of traits that people associate with "intelligence." (In this regard, it's rather like "athleticism." There's no single definition or measure available, because the kind of athleticism needed to be a star defensive tackle is considerably different from what one needs to be a striker, a power forward, or a decathlete.)

The traits necessary to be a research physicist -- talent for mathematics, talent for abstract reasoning, creatitivity, ability to think critically, and the ability to write accurately and clearly -- are among those generally associated with "intelligence."

The traits necessary to be a singer -- good voice, abiilty to carry a tune, accuracy in timing -- are not.

So I can be a singer without being smart. I can't be a physicist -- successful or otherwise -- without being smart.

Quote:

Also, "participating in singing" isn't much of a match up with "accumulated wealth over time".

Absolutely. But the question of whether "accumulated weath over time" is an intelligence-based trait is exactly the point under discussion.

We know that Hawking is a successful physicist, and therefore he has the traits of a physicist. We don't necessarily know what distinguishes "renowned" from "ordinary" physicists, but to a first approximation all physicists are "intelligent" because of the traits necessary to be a physicist at all.

We know that Madonna is a successful singer, and therefore has the traits of a singer. But we don't have any evidence that "intellligence" is necessary to be a singer.

And if you claim that intelligence isn't necessary to be a singer, but it is to be a "successful" singer -- well, you're begging your own question.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

We could bring up examples and counterexamples for months and not get anywhere with regard to proving or disproving your hypothesis. Both Mercutio and Dr. Kitten are right. Your hypothesis doesn't predict what it's suppose to, and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Nevertheless, allow me to offer one final counterexample, this time from the smart side. By all accounts, Oscar Wilde was brilliant. At one time, he was quite the toast of London, and an international celebrity nearly on a par with Helen Keller and Mark Twain, both of whom rose to international superstardom at about the same time he did. Wilde died penniless after spending a couple of years in prison. His intelligence likely had a great deal to do with his success as a playwrite, but it did not prevent him from dying broke.

Something else occurs to me without even thinking much about it. Dan Brown is now one of the richest persons in America. Do you seriously contend he's one of the smartest, commensurate with his relative wealth?

AS

Yes. Smart people are capable of lying and of producing memes that are of adverse benefit to the rest of the population. I think Dan Brown is brilliant.


As for the Wilde anecdote, (1) Yes, he died broke and people think he's smart. You don't have to reach that far back to find examples of that, (2) I'm skeptical that he's smarter than folks over similar lengths of time acquired considerable and maintained considerable wealth for themselves. Wilde was publicly witty, but who knows the wits of those who played their "intelligence" card closer to their vest? Not me, but I'm skeptical of their public display of averageness when their bank accounts indicate otherwise.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Allow me to unpack it. Whether "intelligence" is a single object, multiple objects, or an epiphenomenon, there's certainly a set of traits that people associate with "intelligence." (In this regard, it's rather like "athleticism." There's no single definition or measure available, because the kind of athleticism needed to be a star defensive tackle is considerably different from what one needs to be a striker, a power forward, or a decathlete.)

The traits necessary to be a research physicist -- talent for mathematics, talent for abstract reasoning, creatitivity, ability to think critically, and the ability to write accurately and clearly -- are among those generally associated with "intelligence."

The traits necessary to be a singer -- good voice, abiilty to carry a tune, accuracy in timing -- are not.

So I can be a singer without being smart. I can't be a physicist -- successful or otherwise -- without being smart.




Absolutely. But the question of whether "accumulated weath over time" is an intelligence-based trait is exactly the point under discussion.

We know that Hawking is a successful physicist, and therefore he has the traits of a physicist. We don't necessarily know what distinguishes "renowned" from "ordinary" physicists, but to a first approximation all physicists are "intelligent" because of the traits necessary to be a physicist at all.

We know that Madonna is a successful singer, and therefore has the traits of a singer. But we don't have any evidence that "intellligence" is necessary to be a singer.

And if you claim that intelligence isn't necessary to be a singer, but it is to be a "successful" singer -- well, you're begging your own question.

scope shift to a strawman.

I didn't present Madonna as a singer, I presented her as a wealth accumulator over time. Similar to how Hawkings is a physics achievements and accolades accumulator over time. That's more apples to apples in my opinion.

As for Madonna's specific talents outside of wealth accumulation, I would put marketing as her primary talent -not "singing".

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

scope shift to a strawman.

I didn't present Madonna as a singer, I presented her as a wealth accumulator over time.

Yes. You begged your own question.

Quote:

Similar to how Hawkings is a physics achievements and accolades accumulator over time.

And, as I pointed out, the analogy does not hold because there is a non-question-begging line of reasoning to show that Hawking [sic] is smart.

That line of reasoning doesn't not apply to Madonna.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

I think most folks are okay with the idea that it's not just a slacker mentality separating them from Einstein level achievements. But, I think this idea is counterintuitive to two classes of people: (1) folks who are strongly oriented towards the idea of unlimited self-improvement -that's actually my disposition, which is why I had such an ambitious life plan in the first place, and (2) extremely smart people. DrKitten may fall in that category

Well, I thank you.

But I don't think you're really understanding my criticisms.

I have no beef with the idea, broadly defined, of "aptitudes." I'm perfectly willing to believe that Einstein was a better physicist than I could ever be, no matter how hard I try. I'm also willing to believe that Bill Gates is a better business owner than I could ever be, that Aneka Sorenson is a better golfer, that Martha Graham is a better dancer, and that St. Augustine is a better theologian.

What I deny is that St. Augustine was a better dancer than I could ever be, or that Aneka Sorenson is a better theologian.

Modern IQ theory concludes -- accepts as axiomatic, at this point -- that IQ is unitary, fixed, and heritable. So Albert Einstein's estimated 180 IQ (or whatever the current estimates-du-jour are) mean that he is not only a better physicist than I am, but that he is inherently smarter than me at whatever he chooses to set his hand to. In the framework of IQ theory, there are no talents, merely IQ.

If you want to see this concept expressed (badly) in fiction, read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Her intellectual elite are better at everything than the masses. Franciso d'Anconia is capable of running a copper foundry, making a fortune on the stock market, and studying physics and philosophy full-time, all at the same time. His philosophy professor (whose name escapes me at the moment) quits his professorship and becomes a fry cook -- making the best hamburgers in the country. Et cetera, et cetera.

Talents, on the other hand, are subject-specific. Einstein had a gift for physics -- but he was lousy as a fashion maven, and Coco Chanel couldn't do physics very well.

Quote:

Once one is in a program which forces an intellectual spread even among smart people, like UCLA Phsyics program, it becomes rather obvious that there are people who are so much smarter than you that it's not just a slacker work ethic keeping you from matching them in performance.

That's the question -- are they "so much smarter than you," or "so much more talented"? The two are not synonymous. You may simply not have the knack for physics, but you can blow their socks off at biology -- or geology -- or trombone playing -- or Fantasy Football.

Unless bpesta is right and IQ really is unitary, fixed, and heritable.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by drkitten

That's the question -- are they "so much smarter than you," or "so much more talented"? The two are not synonymous. You may simply not have the knack for physics, but you can blow their socks off at biology -- or geology -- or trombone playing -- or Fantasy Football.

Unless bpesta is right and IQ really is unitary, fixed, and heritable.

I'm still a fence sitter on this. First of all, your distinction between the words "talented" to mean one of multiple intelligences and "smarter" to mean a unitary, fixed, and heritable intelligences seems to be self-made. One could as easily use the word "smart" where you use "talented" see for instance street smarts vs. book smarts.

Secondly, although I see your points and analogies, I also see the case that these things, even at the high end of the curve, are still driven primarily by a unitary element to intelligence. Very successful ("talented") people may self-deprecatingly lie when they claim to be an idiot in other areas- in my own personal observations, the smartest people I've known can do pretty much everything better and learn pretty much everything faster than even very smart folks. And most discplines do seem to be a matter of applying critical thinking skills to the particular topics of the discipline. So, my own intuition points in both directions on this topic. That's one of the reasons I'm eager for more quality research to be done in this area, from the bottom up.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Yes. You begged your own question.



And, as I pointed out, the analogy does not hold because there is a non-question-begging line of reasoning to show that Hawking [sic] is smart.

That line of reasoning doesn't not apply to Madonna.

I don't think you showed that any more than Madonna has demonstrated that she's smart both through marketing and through wealth accumulation over time. I think it's a bit off the mark to describe Madonna's primary achievement as singing, not so different from describing Hawking's primary talent as oratory.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

I'm still a fence sitter on this. First of all, your distinction between the words "talented" to mean one of multiple intelligences and "smarter" to mean a unitary, fixed, and heritable intelligences seems to be self-made. One could as easily use the word "smart" where you use "talented" see for instance street smarts vs. book smarts.

Well, it's hard to write without using words. If you believe that IQ -- Spearman's g -- measures "intelligence," then you inherently buy into the notion that "intelligence" is a single, unitary, fixed, immutable, heritable, &c. object.

If you think that "intelligence" is multifaceted, then you reject IQ as "intelligence."

Quote:

Secondly, although I see your points and analogies, I also see the case that these things, even at the high end of the curve, are still driven primarily by a unitary element to intelligence. Very successful ("talented") people may self-deprecatingly lie when they claim to be an idiot in other areas- in my own personal observations, the smartest people I've known can do pretty much everything better and learn pretty much everything faster than even very smart folks.

Well, I guess that our experiences differ.

More to the point, so do the the experiences of the people who work with (and use) these kinds of things. There's a reason, for example, that the SAT score includes both verbal and math subscales. Because even both scales load onto 'g,' one's success as a math major is more strongly predicted by one's math subscore than by one's verbal subscore. The GRE uses three different subscales. I think the Armed Forces Aptitude Test has something like seven subscales.

Quote:

And most discplines do seem to be a matter of applying critical thinking skills to the particular topics of the discipline.

I'm afraid that you just substituted one ill-defined term for another. What are "critical thinking skills," and what evidence do you have that the set of "skills" relevant to history are the same as the skills relevant to physics -- or relevant to trombone playing -- or relevant to solving jigsaw puzzles?

And if the skills are, in fact, the same, why do people's math and verbal SAT scores differ?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

I don't think you showed that any more than Madonna has demonstrated that she's smart both through marketing and through wealth accumulation over time.

You cannot assume that Madonna has shown she's smart "through wealth accumulation over time." That's called "begging the question."

If you think that you can demonstrate, first, that Madonna's primary talents are in "marketing" rather than in singing, and second, that marketing inherently requires intelligence in the same way that physics does, then I invite you to do so.

But neither of those are obvious.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by drkitten

You cannot assume that Madonna has shown she's smart "through wealth accumulation over time." That's called "begging the question."

If you think that you can demonstrate, first, that Madonna's primary talents are in "marketing" rather than in singing, and second, that marketing inherently requires intelligence in the same way that physics does, then I invite you to do so.

But neither of those are obvious.

It's a scope shift to say "requires intelligence in the same way as".

You earlier wrote:

Originally Posted by drkitten

We know that Hawking is a successful physicist, and therefore he has the traits of a physicist. We don't necessarily know what distinguishes "renowned" from "ordinary" physicists, but to a first approximation all physicists are "intelligent" because of the traits necessary to be a physicist at all.

We know that Madonna is a successful singer, and therefore has the traits of a singer. But we don't have any evidence that "intellligence" is necessary to be a singer.

These aren't debating different types of intelligence. You said that physicists are "intelligent" because of necessary traits. By that you meant people that had reached a certain threshold of achievement within physics, such as a PhD from an accredited program. Similarly, people who reach a certain threshold of wealth accumulation over decades can be called "intelligent". because of elements that are necessary to achieve this (fighting off tort suits, picking honest and able money managers, rejecting swindle attempts, etc.) You might say that's begging the question. But one can still say the same about your claim about physicists. It's circular, and it's begging the question. I think the exact same criticisms apply.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by drkitten

And if the skills are, in fact, the same, why do people's math and verbal SAT scores differ?

Well, even if those skills were the same, people's math and verbal scores could differ, due to a variety of other fluctuations.

Further, the SAT's don't just test raw ability, they also teach base of knowledge in a subject. So frequently immigrants from non-english speaking countries to better on the math section than the verbal section. That doesn't mean they are verbally less gifted.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by drkitten

I'm afraid that you just substituted one ill-defined term for another. What are "critical thinking skills," and what evidence do you have that the set of "skills" relevant to history are the same as the skills relevant to physics -- or relevant to trombone playing -- or relevant to solving jigsaw puzzles?

By critical thinking skills I mean applying the major logic and reasoning subroutines that were pretty much hones by ancient greeks such as Pyrrhos and that folks have been applying in the tradition of the enlightenment ever since.

I'm not convinced that the skill set to be a physicist is so different from the intelligence needed to be an effective trombone player or puzzle solver. There are elements of memory, juggling, and applying pieces of information for all three of these tasks, as there are for most.

The more items of information one can juggle in one's head, the quicker one can run through logical options, and the more quickly one can memorize and recall necessary information for the task the more effectively on can play the trombone, solve a puzzle, and do physics, in my opinion.

Of course I see various counterarguments here, but I think a good case can be made that the primary driver for all three is a unitary intelligence centered on speed of processing and organizing information.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

It's a scope shift to say "requires intelligence in the same way as".

Sorry -- let me rephrase.

I showed that to be a physicist requires "intelligence" by enumerating the necessary skills and showing that they were the sort that we generally consider to be "intelligent."

If you can show that to do marketing requires intelligence "in the same way," then you will have a case to suggest that Madonna is, in fact, intellligent (if you can show that Madonna's primary talent is marketing).

So -- what are the traits necessary to do marketing? Are they traits that would be widely accepted as indicators of "intelligence"?

Quote:

These aren't debating different types of intelligence. You said that physicists are "intelligent" because of necessary traits. By that you meant people that had reached a certain threshold of achievement within physics, such as a PhD from an accredited program.

Er, no. I meant what I wrote -- that to reach that threshhold of achievement required certain abilities (enumerated above).

Quote:

Similarly, people who reach a certain threshold of wealth accumulation over decades can be called "intelligent".

Unproven.

Quote:

because of elements that are necessary to achieve this (fighting off tort suits, picking honest and able money managers, rejecting swindle attempts, etc.)

All right, enumerate the elements, then.

I don't consider the ability to "fight off tort suits" to indicate intelligence. It simply means that you have the ability to recognize intelligence in your prospective lawyer.

I don't consider the ability to hire honest and able money managers to indicate intelligence, either, for more or less the same reason. Ane the one who rejects swindle attempts is, of course, your money manager, not you....

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Sorry -- let me rephrase.

I showed that to be a physicist requires "intelligence" by enumerating the necessary skills and showing that they were the sort that we generally consider to be "intelligent."

I think a list of necessary skills to be a wealth accumulator can be formulated, and contested, about as well as a list of necessary skills to become a physicist. But let's compare apples to apples. If by physicist you mean someone that earned a phD is physics from an accredited institution, then there should be a similar threshhold bar for wealth accumulators (earned $2 million dollars or more in under 5 years twice in two different instances of enterprise -for a total net worth of over $4 million dollars at the time of assessment -for example). Otherwise for every lotto winner who hasn't yet spent themselves back to the middle class, I could point out someone who calls themselves a self-taught physicist specializing in the physics of the soul.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

I think a list of necessary skills to be a wealth accumulator can be formulated, and contested, about as well as a list of necessary skills to become a physicist.

Then I invite you to do so.

Quote:

If by physicist you mean someone that earned a phD is physics from an accredited institution, then there should be a similar threshhold bar for wealth accumulators (earned $2 million dollars or more in under 5 years twice in two different instances of enterprise -for a total net worth of over $4 million dollars at the time of assessment -for example).

Seems reasonable. If the Ph.D. bar is too high, acceptance to an accredited Ph.D. program in physics still demonstrably requires a lot of "intelligent" traits.

My problem isn't with definition of "wealth accumulator," but with the fact that the skill sets that "wealth accumulators" share doesn't seem either to lend itself to a uniform description -- what do Terrell Owens, Madonna, Michael Dell, Trey Parker, George Soros, Hugh Jackman, and Mike Tyson have in common?

Further, I believe that when you look at any individual "wealth accumulator," their primary skills wlll not be obviously related to "intelligence." Terrell Owens, for example, is a fast runner with very good hand-eye coordination. Trey Parker is a very gifted visual artist. Hugh Jackman is a very talented actor. Mike Tyson is tremendously strong, fast, and able to take punches.

But which of those is a sign of "intelligence"?

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Then I invite you to do so.



Seems reasonable. If the Ph.D. bar is too high, acceptance to an accredited Ph.D. program in physics still demonstrably requires a lot of "intelligent" traits.

My problem isn't with definition of "wealth accumulator," but with the fact that the skill sets that "wealth accumulators" share doesn't seem either to lend itself to a uniform description -- what do Terrell Owens, Madonna, Michael Dell, Trey Parker, George Soros, Hugh Jackman, and Mike Tyson have in common?

Further, I believe that when you look at any individual "wealth accumulator," their primary skills wlll not be obviously related to "intelligence." Terrell Owens, for example, is a fast runner with very good hand-eye coordination. Trey Parker is a very gifted visual artist. Hugh Jackman is a very talented actor. Mike Tyson is tremendously strong, fast, and able to take punches.

But which of those is a sign of "intelligence"?

Mike Tyson is demonstrably not a wealth accumulator. Let's use Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, or Magic Johnson as an example. Or perhaps George Foreman or Muhammad Ali.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by drkitten

My problem isn't with definition of "wealth accumulator," but with the fact that the skill sets that "wealth accumulators" share doesn't seem either to lend itself to a uniform description -- what do Terrell Owens, Madonna, Michael Dell, Trey Parker, George Soros, Hugh Jackman, and Mike Tyson have in common?

That's a good question, and one that a lot of people, including I suspect some reputable scientists are studying. To keep it closer to apples-to-apples, I think it's worth looking at George Soros, Paul McCartney, George Lucas, and Oprah Winfrey. All 3 are self-made billionaires (similar magnitude of wealth accumulation), although they made their wealth in very different mediums. I suspect they think faster (much faster) and more rationally than almost all other people, which has allowed them to redistribute tens of million of social resources to their personal control each year for decades.

They're engaged of what I consider to be rational self-interest maximization, and they're better at it than most of the rest of us because they're better at raw cognitive skills. I understand this is expressed vaguely and I'd like to flesh it out more and hope to do so (hopefully with the help of others).

But, I do think that with the case of these 4 and others, it's not just the case that they have some talent that a manager helped them to make some money off of. I think they've very intelligently hustled their way to billions of net worth, and would have achieved similar outsized success even if they were banned from the mediums (currency speculation, music, film, and television, respectively) in which they achieved it. I'll try to elaborate on this in subsequent study breaks.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

Mike Tyson is demonstrably not a wealth accumulator.

Isn't he?

My understanding is that his total earnings over his career are several hundred million dollars, and that in 1990 he was worth well over $10 million.

Did I misunderstand your criteria, and we should be gauging people only on their present (2006) wealth?

If so, I think your criteria may have some problems; someone who is a "wealth accumulator" today might manage to lose it all next week and end the year penniless. In which case the best that can be said about anyone who is currently a "wealth accumulator" is just that they haven't messed up YET.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Isn't he?

My understanding is that his total earnings over his career are several hundred million dollars, and that in 1990 he was worth well over $10 million.

Did I misunderstand your criteria, and we should be gauging people only on their present (2006) wealth?

If so, I think your criteria may have some problems; someone who is a "wealth accumulator" today might manage to lose it all next week and end the year penniless. In which case the best that can be said about anyone who is currently a "wealth accumulator" is just that they haven't messed up YET.

I acknowledged from the get go that this measure wouldn't be perfect, just that I think it's the best available. Our best information indicates that Mike Tyson is not particularly successul at wealth accumulation.

As far as the person worth $10 million that might manage to lose it all next week, one can say the same about the person with a great scientific reputation that loses it. Did they suddenly become less smart? Or did later events allow us to more accurately reappraise their reputation. More commonly, that happens with a "hot young scientist" whose reputation cools in subsequent decades.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

That's a good question, and one that a lot of people, including I suspect some reputable scientists are studying. To keep it closer to apples-to-apples, I think it's worth looking at George Soros, Paul McCartney, George Lucas, and Oprah Winfrey.

But that's exactly my point. You claim that you're keeping it closer to "apples to apples," but it could also be argued that you're using a biased and unrepresentative sample -- three people from the entertainment industry? -- and that your conclusions are therefore questionable.

I note, for example, that no athletes are in the set you select. Is this because athletics does not typically pay in the billions, because no athlete is "smart enough" to make that kind of money,
or because you simply left Michael Jordan off your list? Similarly, there are no writers, no pure businessmen, no "inventors,"... the list goes on.

I would also question how different those four actually are, simply because you've set the capital threshhold so high that there's no way for anyone to make that kind of money except by investment. (Most of McCartney's wealth, for example, is not from his singing career, but from the way he reinvested the proceeds of his singing career.) If you're arguing that there's a set of intelligence-based skills that underly successful investment, that's not the same as arguing that there's a set of intelligence-based skills that underlay the ability to accumulate wealth for investment in the first place. Using McCartney for an example again -- I don't believe that he was substantially smarter than the rest of the Beatles. The one traditionally considered "the smart Beatle" was of course John Lennon (McCartney was "the cute Beatle," IIRC.). So if John was so much smarter, why was Paul so much wealthier?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

I acknowledged from the get go that this measure wouldn't be perfect, just that I think it's the best available. Our best information indicates that Mike Tyson is not particularly successul at wealth accumulation.

I think you're setting yourself up for an accusation of cherry-picking. If you want to formalize the criteria for inclusion as "wealth accumulators" simply in terms of the amount of money made and the amount of money accumulated at one time, then Tyson qualifies.

Perhaps adding another criterion about wealth being largely non-decreasing or something like that, something to prevent yo-yo rags-to-riches-to-rags-to-riches from qualifying?

Quote:

As far as the person worth $10 million that might manage to lose it all next week, one can say the same about the person with a great scientific reputation that loses it. Did they suddenly become less smart?

Er,.... being intelligent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for having a great scientific reputation. For example, the South Korean geneticist who was found to be falsifying his data lost all his reputation, but I don't think he suddenly became stupid. A good scientific reputation requres both honesty and intelligence (and, for that matter, being right, which is not the same as being smart).

I would argue that a dishonest scientist is still "smart" -- after all, he still managed to jump through the necessary intellectual hoops to become a scientist in the first place.

[Yahzi]

Originally Posted by drkitten

I note, for example, that no athletes are in the set you select.

You may also note that Dave continually ignores the single most common method of becoming a millionare... inheiritance.

But I suppose, since IQ is genetic and hereditary, we can assume that those people who inheirted their wealth also inheirted the appropriate IQ to go along with it.

That's the hallmark of a good theory, you know... even contradictory facts prove it's true.



Seriously, I don't know how you can bear his fetish with such patience.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by Yahzi

You may also note that Dave continually ignores the single most common method of becoming a millionare... inheiritance.

But I suppose, since IQ is genetic and hereditary, we can assume that those people who inheirted their wealth also inheirted the appropriate IQ to go along with it.

That's the hallmark of a good theory, you know... even contradictory facts prove it's true.



Seriously, I don't know how you can bear his fetish with such patience.

You don't have to go far to note this -as I mentioned from my first post on this topic, that's exactly why I posited accumulated wealth over time, not inherited wealth. Although I think intelligence probably comes into play in retention of inherited (or other windfall) wealth over time, because very smart folks are going to work at (and often succeed in) redistributing inherited wealth from the inheritee to them. However, it's much less of an apples to apples comparison than comparing folks like Soros, McCartney, and Oprah to the rest of us, most of whom start, like they did, at much closer to zero wealth than centimillions.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by drkitten

I think you're setting yourself up for an accusation of cherry-picking. If you want to formalize the criteria for inclusion as "wealth accumulators" simply in terms of the amount of money made and the amount of money accumulated at one time, then Tyson qualifies.

Perhaps adding another criterion about wealth being largely non-decreasing or something like that, something to prevent yo-yo rags-to-riches-to-rags-to-riches from qualifying?




Er,.... being intelligent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for having a great scientific reputation. For example, the South Korean geneticist who was found to be falsifying his data lost all his reputation, but I don't think he suddenly became stupid. A good scientific reputation requres both honesty and intelligence (and, for that matter, being right, which is not the same as being smart).

I would argue that a dishonest scientist is still "smart" -- after all, he still managed to jump through the necessary intellectual hoops to become a scientist in the first place.

Once again, I'm not cherrypicking any more than one would be by revising estimations of level of intelligence a young scientist thought to be the most brilliant in her field, when she ends up with a lackluster achievement career, similarly with a fraudster.

You're shifting here to a binary definition of intelligence ("A fraudulent scientist is still smart") from a scaled appraisal of intelligence ("Stephen Hawkings is smarter than most physicists").

But for the record, I do think someone who earns and later loses $10 million dollars can still be smart the way you think someone who earns and then later loses a scientific reputation can still be smart. I just don't think your position rests on any more solid reasoning than mine. All the criticisms you can apply to my position I think apply equally to yours. I think I'm just more honest and transparent about it.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

But for the record, I do think someone who earns and later loses $10 million dollars can still be smart the way you think someone who earns and then later loses a scientific reputation can still be smart. I just don't think your position rests on any more solid reasoning than mine. All the criticisms you can apply to my position I think apply equally to yours. I think I'm just more honest and transparent about it.

No.

The primary criticism that I have applied to your position is that there is no demonstrated causal connection between being intelligent and being wealthy.

We've discussed a few ways that you could establish such a connection, for example, by inspecting a representative sample of wealth accumulators and finding that they mostly share a certain character trait that is generally accepted as an indicator of intelligence. For example, if you could show that you need to have a large vocabulary to become a billionaire, that would do it.

But you haven't shown it yet. We haven't even established what would be a representative sample, or what the relevant traits might be. You have speculation -- but no evidence -- and therefore no theory worth taking seriously.

On the other hand, I can demonstrate a fairly simple causal connection between being a physicist and being intelligent. We've previously agreed that obtaining a Ph.D. in physics from an accredited university is acceptable as a bright-line definition of "physicist," and it's certainly representative, since almost all physicists by any other definition (physics faculty, nobel laureates in physics, &c) will have that qualification.

In order to obtain a Ph.D. in physics from a university, you need to be accepted first. In order to be accepted, you need to take the GRE and obtain a sufficiently high score, and you also need to complete an undergraduate degree in a related field with a sufficiently high GPA. Both of those are usually considered to be indicators of intelligence.

In particular -- is Steven Weinberg, Physics Nobel Laureate in 1979, "intelligent"? Well, you might point out that saying "he's smart because he's a Nobel Laureate and Nobel Laureates get their prizes because they're smart" is circular. But I can prove without reference to his Nobel Prize that's he's smart. He was accepted (and graduated from) Princeton, which requires stellar test scores and grades. So, yes, he's smart. And based on that, I can conclude without circularity that at least some physics Nobel Prizes are given to smart people and therefore generalize that the rest probably are, too.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by drkitten

No.

The primary criticism that I have applied to your position is that there is no demonstrated causal connection between being intelligent and being wealthy.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Not that that demonstrates a causal connection, but I think it's a reasonable supposition that there is, in fact, a causal connection between becoming wealthy and intelligence. Accumulating and retaining wealth takes a host of talents. I find it reasonable to stipulate that one of those talents is intelligence. After all, I've never heard of a self-made millionaire who was retarded.

Personally, I don't think it's a particularly good measure. Many people are simply not that interested in wealth accumulation. If that isn't a goal they are trying to achieve, then not becoming wealthy doesn't indicate that they aren't intelligent. If fact, my opinion is that the very smartest people recognize that money won't buy happiness and focus their lives on other goals.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by Beth

If fact, my opinion is that the very smartest people recognize that money won't buy happiness and focus their lives on other goals.

I'm extremely skeptical of that. Because we live in a material world ripe with random dangers and conscious aggressions. Wealth seems like a rationally desirable buffer against such forces. Also, it's basically just the most liquid form of power for goal achievement. I think there is an opiate/sour grapes element to memes such as "money can't by happiness".

As I read once, money CAN buy happiness, things often ARE as easy as they look, and there are many, many, many free lunches in life.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by drkitten

In particular -- is Steven Weinberg, Physics Nobel Laureate in 1979, "intelligent"? Well, you might point out that saying "he's smart because he's a Nobel Laureate and Nobel Laureates get their prizes because they're smart" is circular. But I can prove without reference to his Nobel Prize that's he's smart. He was accepted (and graduated from) Princeton, which requires stellar test scores and grades. So, yes, he's smart. And based on that, I can conclude without circularity that at least some physics Nobel Prizes are given to smart people and therefore generalize that the rest probably are, too.

Come on. You too are cherry picking your examples and defining smart in a binary way again. I posited an intelligence spectrum, where people can be reassessed based on whether they maintain and expand their wealth over time. Similarly you imply an intelligence spectrum (someone who score high enough on the GRE and gets high enough grades along their way to their Princton PhD has reached a level of smartness). If we later discover fraud along the way we'd reassess that level of smartness by your measure. If someone later loses their wealth we'd reassess their intelligence along my measure. Your model shares the same weaknesses. I acknowledge the weaknesses in both. Do you?

[Beth]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

I'm extremely skeptical of that. Because we live in a material world ripe with random dangers and conscious aggressions. Wealth seems like a rationally desirable buffer against such forces. Also, it's basically just the most liquid form of power for goal achievement. I think there is an opiate/sour grapes element to memes such as "money can't by happiness".

Yes, a reasonable amount of wealth is healthy and desirable. But the excessively large amounts you are using as examples are far beyond what a single individual needs. Whether you believe it not, not everyone values having vast amounts of wealth. I know many intelligent people, some of whom I consider to be quite wealthy (particularly in comparison to me ), but they don't come close to Madonna's millions. They are not devoting their lives to acquiring more and more money but instead, pay attention to other things they value more.

Thus, I don't think wealth accumulation is particularly good measure of intelligence though I agree that it does require intelligence to acquire and retain wealth.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by Beth

Thus, I don't think wealth accumulation is particularly good measure of intelligence though I agree that it does require intelligence to acquire and retain wealth.

I agree with the bolded part, but look closer at Dave's hypothesis. He doesn't seem to understand that having wealth is neither a sufficient or necessary condition for being intelligent.

AS

[russingram]

Originally Posted by Yahzi

You may also note that Dave continually ignores the single most common method of becoming a millionare... inheiritance.

this didn't sound right to me, so I did some googling:

Quote:

According to TNS Financial Services' 2004 Affluent Market Research survey, there are an estimated 8.2 million American households with assets, excluding primary residences, worth over $1 million. That's a 33 percent increase over the 6.2 million millionaire households in 2003.

Drs. Stanley and Danko listed other characteristics of these 8.2 million millionaire households. Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth. More than half never received as much as a dollar in inheritance. Fewer than 25 percent received "an act of kindness" from a relative greater than $10,000, and 91 percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 from the ownership of a family business.

Being first-generation rich is not new for Americans. Drs. Stanley and Danko say, "More than 100 years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth."

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by russingram

this didn't sound right to me, so I did some googling:

Nice work Russingram.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

I agree with the bolded part, but look closer at Dave's hypothesis. He doesn't seem to understand that having wealth is neither a sufficient or necessary condition for being intelligent.

AS

I agree that Beth should look closer at my hypothesis. I've been consistently clear that I think it's the best measure of the ones I've seen, not a perfect measure. That AmateurScientist would mischaracterize my position when I've been clear and consistent in articulating it indicates to me that it is AS that "doesn't seem to understand".

[Dave1001]

EDIT (Double Post)

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by Beth

Yes, a reasonable amount of wealth is healthy and desirable. But the excessively large amounts you are using as examples are far beyond what a single individual needs. Whether you believe it not, not everyone values having vast amounts of wealth. I know many intelligent people, some of whom I consider to be quite wealthy (particularly in comparison to me ), but they don't come close to Madonna's millions. They are not devoting their lives to acquiring more and more money but instead, pay attention to other things they value more.

Thus, I don't think wealth accumulation is particularly good measure of intelligence though I agree that it does require intelligence to acquire and retain wealth.

I'm not sure. I suspect the smartest among us are playing a game of persistence -aiming to beat mortality now and against future threats to their existence. Even though they may not be transparent about this. From this perspective, there's not really a rational upper limit for them for resource accumulation, although there may rational reasons to hide actual resource accumulation (one of the reasons I don't think apparent resource accumulation is a perfect measure of intelligence -perhaps the smartest are just better at hiding their current accumulated resources).

But this is getting pretty speculative, even by the standards of this discussion.

[andyandy]

Quote:

Rising house prices have doubled the number of millionaires in the UK over the past three years, say researchers.
There are now 425,000 millionaires in the UK, up from 230,000 in 2001, according to the Centre for Economics & Business Research (CEBR).

A 64% rise in house prices in the same period has contributed to the creation of so many new millionaires.

One in every 20 households in London is now worth £1 million or more, CEBR researchers said.

CEBR defines household wealth as people's property, investments and other assets, minus any debts, such as mortgages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3598878.stm

Quote:

Over a ten-year period from 1992 to 2002, the following five cities showed the highest rises in house prices (per square metre): Brighton (215%), London (190%), Bath (167%), Belfast (165%) and Oxford (161%).

http://www.hbosplc.com/media/pressre...3-05-24-00.asp

millionaire status (and affluence) in the UK is strongly linked with those who were fortunate enough to get on the property ladder in the last decade.....
so can we conclude that those who did so are more "intelligent" than twenty-somethings who could not?

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by andyandy

so can we conclude that those who did so are more "intelligent" than twenty-somethings who could not?

Why do people want to conflate best measure with perfect measure? Should that sort of argument against strawman be taken as a compliment to my actual position?

Once again, this argument can apply to more politically correct -for this message board- ways to compare intelligence such as getting a phD in physics (which probably correlates better with people who have had similar head starts in life relevant for that particular achievement).

[Yahzi]

Originally Posted by russingram

this didn't sound right to me, so I did some googling:

I googled too, and could not find any data to support my claim. At least it was described as a common myth, so I'm not egregiously wrong. But the "Merrill Lynch/Capgemini report" seems definitive, so I will happily concede that America's social classes are more fluid than I had believed.

If Dave were to do this research, he would see that every discussion of wealth mentions the fact that wealth is distributed far more narrowly than any other attribute: half the wealth is owned by the top 1% or so. There is a power law in effect here, concentrating wealth in small circles; the same such effect is not observed in IQ scores.

Of course, this argument was never about data. But thank you for the correction.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

Why do people want to conflate best measure with perfect measure? Should that sort of argument against strawman be taken as a compliment to my actual position?

if wealth accumulation is the best measure of inteligence that you can come up with, then perhaps you should just dismiss the whole concept of "intelligence" as meaningless - such are the inherent weaknesses in such an association.....

[bpesta22]

I think it proves Yahzi's world view is theology.

Certainly doesn't seem to be based on data