
Why super-smart people may be drawn to a life of crime - randomname2
https://qz.com/923648/why-do-highly-intelligent-people-commit-crimes/
======
AndrewKemendo
_Many prevailing theories of intelligence suggest that people with lower IQs
are the ones most likely to break the law, since impulsivity, struggles at
school, lack of social bonding, and lack of foresight are all linked to
criminality._

...

 _the overall amount of crime in this range is still “much, much lower” than
among people with very low IQ scores._

In fact what I would expect you find is that these groups of people break
_different_ laws, not fewer.

The "low IQ" group likely have less capability of breaking say, regulatory
laws, by virtue of standing or access. They are more likely to break laws like
B&E, drug dealing, petty larceny, etc... that are more harshly and more
frequently prosecuted.

The laws that high performing, and High IQ people would be breaking,
securities, privacy, regulatory etc... might not be prosecuted at all, or at
most would lead to civil fines.

I think the bottom line is that "high IQ" people will tend to have more
capability to break white collar crimes, and will do so with better cover
(lawyers, special accounting etc...).

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
My anecdata suggests most drug dealers beyond the lowest tier street level
dealers are quite intelligent (and become more so as you move up the chain).

It's almost like drugs are a business and businesses take intelligence to run.

~~~
api
I find it funny that illegal drugs can be a 12-figure business globally and
yet people seem to think it's just street level gang bangers doing this. Now
who would have a vested interest in people thinking that? :)

I'm sure there are organizations that would easily make it to the Fortune 100
if they could be listed as such. They're also smart enough to let disposable
thugs break the street level laws. Real drug kingpins _never_ physically
handle product.

~~~
paganel
> I'm sure there are organizations that would easily make it to the Fortune
> 100 if they could be listed as such.

Case in point, a report from a couple of years ago claimed that the Calabria-
based 'Ndrangheta had a turnover of 53 billion euros, approximately 3.5% if
Italy's GDP. This is one of the articles discussing it:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/26/ndrangheta-
maf...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/26/ndrangheta-mafia-
mcdonalds-deutsche-bank-study)

------
VA3FXP
2 reasons: (1) Boredom - 'work' is boring and involves tedium. Smart people
try to avoid that. (dad joke: That's why it's called work and not play!)

(2) False idols - We have been told since we are children, "work hard, and get
ahead" or "you need an education to get ahead". We know this is only works to
a certain degree. The wealthy stay wealthy because the game is rigged. The
laws are tailored so that they can maintain wealth. They don't have to pay the
same amount of tax and there are multiple tax-loopholes that allow them to
keep their money. They get the public to pay for their expenses and are not
forced to share the wealth that they generate.

Smart people recognize this and do not want to play that game. Why should I
bust my ass to make some millionaire more money? It is obvious that the 'easy'
way to make money is to break the law. It's only the poor people who end up
getting caught/punished.

~~~
jackcosgrove
I generally agree with this, and would emphasize that wealth is not just due
to intelligence or academic achievement as some are led to believe. In fact,
accruing wealth has more to do with work ethic and simple living practiced
over a long time than being a wizard at something or getting credentials. The
whiz kids who make it big are a tiny fraction of all smart people. The rest of
the smart people have to grind it out over decades to assemble an inheritance
which will maybe afford their children the opportunity to generate wealth from
rents.

A lot of people frankly don't care enough about the lives their children, if
any, will lead, and want a wealthy lifestyle fast. As you pointed out, more
intelligent people also see how the system works and may resent it more.

------
sulam
My IQ tested in this range, and I've broken some laws that aren't entirely
common. I managed to get a copy of the master key to my campus and had
essentially unfettered access to all the buildings and rooms I wanted,
provided I was careful (for a while I shifted my waking time so that I was
able to take more advantage). I got into software development as a profession
by way of breaking into systems for several years. This was a time when the
only way to get the access I needed normally was to be in the major and I
wasn't.

I've never killed anyone, although I can think of one instance where I
considered it and would certainly have gotten away with it. It would have been
a big hassle, though, and honestly who wants that on their conscience?

At the end of the day it seems to me that I've only done the things other
people would have also done if the opportunity arose. I may be somewhat more
attuned to those opportunities than the average person, but in many cases they
arrived after a cascade of events that weren't specifically aimed at any kind
of criminality. At worst I was initially guilty of a high degree of
curiousity.

The only thing that _really_ resonates for me in this article is low
attachment, although I find it hard to really quantify that. I do seem to have
fewer friends than most people, but there are probably mathematical reasons
for that. I am confident in my ability to make friends, but don't feel like
making the effort usually. I have a busy life and can barely keep up with work
and family -- having more than a few good friends outside those two groups
takes more time than I have.

~~~
0xfeba
> I managed to get a copy of the master key to my campus and had essentially
> unfettered access to all the buildings and rooms I wanted

Wow, your campus used one lock type and the same master key for all buildings?
That's great foresight and coordination across multiple levels of business,
construction and maintenance teams. What about older buildings with completely
different types of locks? They switched those out as new buildings came up, or
are all the buildings new?

~~~
owenversteeg
It's possible they were at a college campus that had electronic entry for most
buildings - there are a lot of those these days, and some have been operating
over the whole campus for 10-15 years. Graduate school + edge of this range
and they could be in their mid-40s now.

~~~
sulam
I'm a lot older than that, sadly. ;)

------
VLM
When a culture and economy are in general decline, lots of equations
indoctrinated into kids along the lines of "do ABC, get XYZ" will be broken,
and the smart kids will feel ripped off and at the same time have the agency,
time preference, and logical thinking skills to achieve XYZ anyway, just
perhaps while bending the rules.

~~~
saxonklaxon
The most dangerous one being when educated, middle class young men can't find
wives or a middle class income. Then _revolutionary_ forces start to brew.

~~~
anonnyj
Memes and waifus may be working towards making that particular reaction less
potent in developed countries.

~~~
cryoshon
on the contrary, the rage surrounding the opposite sex is a core element of
the alt right's platform. couching discontent via memes is still expressing
it.

------
lordnacho
What about the simple idea that being smart means you find more opportunities
to commit crimes where you won't get caught? Is that addressed? It seems to
square with the fact that high IQ people commit fewer crimes; they'd also find
more legit opportunities to enrich themselves.

~~~
pixl97
> It seems to square with the fact that high IQ people commit fewer crimes;

Do you see the problem with your statement here. The word crime is a selection
bias filter. You automatically assumed that high IQ people committed less
crime and immediately discounted they get caught less for crime.

These styles of biases are rife in law enforcement communities. For example
the idea that (poor|ignorant|minority) groups do more drugs than the average
person. Therefore the police search those groups more and when they find drugs
it is a justification for their behavior. Meanwhile studies outside of law
enforcement show that illegal drug use across all spectrums of wealth, IQ, and
race are similar.

Also, another similar observation is the saying "You're likely to be murdered
by someone you know 70% of the time". The problem with that statement is it
only take in account _solved murders_. The other 33% (or way higher in some
places) of cases that are unsolved are not counted in that statistic. If we
had perfect information on who committed a murder we might say that "50% of
the time you are murdered by someone you know". This may have a major
influence on how cases are handled. Juries are lead to believe that in the
majority of cases it is someone the murderer knew and they become biased
against the charge. If it was a 50/50 thing a jury may not be as willing to
pin a conviction on circumstantial evidence. That said, it may also be that
those 70% of murder cases that convict someone the victim knew are correct and
murdering someone you know is a good way to get caught.

tl;dr, be careful using law enforcement statistics. Systemic bias in law
enforcement procedure can make them invalid.

~~~
lordnacho
>> In comparison, intelligent people have traditionally been seen as less
likely to commit crimes, and this view of brainpower as a protective factor
against offending has been bolstered by many studies over the decades.

No idea whether those studies have accounted for your comments, but you'd
think if they're academic studies they would have?

------
Pitarou
What utter garbage. Not to put too fine a point on it, this isn’t a survey of
the high IQ population; it’s a survey of high IQ losers.

The sample is drawn from a high IQ club. You won’t find many Nobel laureates,
brilliant engineers and so on in these clubs. Why would they bother? They have
nothing to prove and better things to do with their time.

Broadly speaking, people join a high IQ club because their performance on
standardized tests is the ONLY thing they have going for them.

And by the way, the average IQ of the sample was 149, so many must have been
below that score. Smart, but not exactly Hannibal Lecter.

~~~
tajen
> Smart, but not exactly Hannibal Lecter

H.L. is a fictional character with IQ 200, and Einstein is only 160, so who
would qualify as an "Hannibal Lecter" for you? If the average is 149 and the
group is spread in a gaussian curve with exactly one Einstein, then the dumb
guy of the group will be 138.

Which is under 1% of the population, especially in US where the average IQ is
98. So the first 3 paragraphs of your criticism are well-reasoned, but I
wonder why you feel the need to down-play the smartness of that group with
your first and last sentence.

~~~
Pitarou
> Einstein is only 160

I don't believe Einstein is ever recorded as having taken an IQ test.

In any case, IQ scores quickly lose their meaning when you get to 160 or
above. Try taking a physical fitness test designed to make fine distinctions
across the general population, and extending it to Olympic athletes. The
athletes would just laugh at you.

> Which is under 1% of the population, especially in US where the average IQ
> is 98. ... I wonder why you feel the need to down-play the smartness of that
> group with your first and last sentence.

It's the use of words like "super-smart" that bugs me.

A US male in the top height percentile would be about 6'4". Tall, but no André
the giant.

------
brilliantcode
Here's what I disagree about the article. That white collar crimes are
committed by high IQ people.

It's the socioeconomic lineage that gives you to access to such position where
it's very easy to commit crimes that the law is not designed to punish. Much
of the written laws are around hauling violent criminals away from
civilization.

While high IQ could empower someone to feel that they can get away with white
collar crime, such disposition are innately built from their lack of
attachment that arises from being isolated from poverty and all the bullshit
that comes with non-upper class life.

You go to an elite school, meet other friends who think rules for tools, they
go onto work at powerful positions, it's all too simple to collude and create
secret societies to further their collective monetary ambitions.

It really seems to be true what they say. There are rules for those who made
it (because they create the rules) and conditions and terms for those who
didn't make it (you follow the rules). It almost seems to me like the whole
system is a sham.

Imagine if Ghengis Khan discovered the best way to conquer people and other
nations is not by force but by credits and materialism. In a chaotic and
lawless reality, law is created by individuals who impose their power on rest
of society. We are so entrenched that we are "right" and rest of the world is
"wrong", we've become a slave because we are told we are free to make our own
decisions-limited by powerful men who play God.

------
adrusi
The study looked at members of high-iq societies and alumni from elite
universities primarily, which is going to select for a disproportionate amount
of people who consider their high-iq important to their personalities.
Intuitively, I'd expect high IQ to be correlated with narcissism, and in this
group even more so. Narcissists are going to be more likely to commit crimes.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
A little searching and I don't see any evidence that IQ is related to
narcissism. That seems intuitive to me - narcissism is unrelated to the real
world, they don't have to be actually better than anybody to _believe_ they
are.

~~~
DFHippie
The claim is that membership in high IQ societies, not high IQ itself,
correlates with narcissism.

------
YCode
I suspect the two pragmatic points to take away are:

> Many of Oleson’s respondents discussed the alienating effects of their high
> intelligence; social maladjustment could be a possible explanation for their
> elevated crime rates.

> Another issue is that the bulk of his gifted cohort was recruited from a
> private high-IQ society, and people who join such clubs might not represent
> highly intelligent people in general.

To that last point, this has the same vague smell of the kind of study whose
participants were from the college it was sponsored by and so as he says it
should be taken as preliminary and I'd add with a large grain of salt.

~~~
FabHK
In particular, I'd venture that well adjusted high-IQ people are less likely
to join a high-IQ society than more alienated people.

------
eyeownyde
Can you help me reconcile these two quotes?

 _But Schwartz stresses that the overall amount of crime in this range is
still “much, much lower” than among people with very low IQ scores._

 _“Not only does it mean that elites are just as likely to lie, cheat, and
steal as anyone else,” Oleson writes_

Do these people simply disagree, or am I misinterpreting one of them?

------
foldr
I think there's a presupposition here that's worth challenging. Smart people
aren't morally superior to dumb people; they're just smarter. They're drawn to
crime for the usual reasons: greed, selfishness, lust, etc. etc.

------
booleandilemma
_But Schwartz stresses that the overall amount of crime in this range is still
“much, much lower” than among people with very low IQ scores._

The smartest criminals don't get caught.

