
Wealth does not make you smarter - jaredsohn
http://scripting.com/2014/01/31/beingWealthyDoesNotMakeYouSmarter.html
======
nostrademons
So, I'll agree that wealth does not make you smarter.

I think, though, that people are missing the broader point of Scott Adams'
piece: _what is being said_ is being buried underneath _how it was said_. And
yeah, it was pretty stupid of Tom Perkins to phrase things in a way that
invites everyone to immediately focus on _how_ he said things rather than on
his actual point.

But I'm neither wealthy nor famous, and I'll come out and say this: I believe
that the underlying emotional motives behind the protests in the San Francisco
are the same underlying emotional motives behind the Holocaust. In both cases,
you have people worried that their fundamental economic survival is
threatened, unaware of _why_ it's threatened or what to do about it, and
looking for a scapegoat (techies in SF, Jews in the Holocaust) to blame for
it. That does not mean that I believe there will be another Holocaust, or that
the magnitude of these two is anywhere close to equivalent. But I do think
it's worth focusing on the substance of people's concerns and addressing them
before it becomes a situation where such concerns are warranted.

~~~
lexcorvus
Perkins' analogy was tone deaf but, as you note, not completely out to lunch.
A much more apt analogy would have been to the French revolutionaries,
particularly the Jacobins. Characterizing the anti-tech protests as neo-Nazi
is a stretch at best; characterizing them as neo- _Jacobin_ isn't a stretch at
all. Indeed, with the rising popularity of publications like _Jacobin_
([https://www.jacobinmag.com](https://www.jacobinmag.com)), it's even a label
they might wear with pride. After all, what could possibly go wrong with
_liberté, égalité, fraternité_? Um, this?
[http://bit.ly/1n3dnrS](http://bit.ly/1n3dnrS)

~~~
melindajb
comparing it with the french revolution is appropriate in many ways. The
message should be clear--if they persist in their Marie Antoinette ways,
someone will pick up a brick. if that happens, we all lose, the middle class
in many ways worst of all. that's why this guy upsets me to no end. I don't
fault him being rich, I fault him and people like him, like the Kochs for
ruthlessly lobbying for lower taxes and less support for the poor.

~~~
nostrademons
I kinda like the French revolution analogy as well. French revolution wasn't
exactly a picnic for anyone involved either. (And it also ended up in a
military dictatorship and a state of total war in Europe...I _hope_ that
that's not where we're heading, but there are a lot of historical parallels
that lead that way.)

------
codegeek
"But I don't think being rich equates to being smart."

Possibly. It depends how one got rich. Did they inherit wealth from previous
generation ? They may or may not be "smart" by the book. But if you got rich
on your own (think entrepreneur, gambler whatever), then I am sure there is
some element of smartness involved but the important thing is to define
smartness. For example, are you smart with money management? Boom, you could
_possibly_ get rich over time if you do it right. stuff like that.

Overall, I think that being smart is necessary but not a sufficient condition
(hello logic class) to be rich on your own. What do you all think ?

~~~
Iftheshoefits
"Becoming rich" and "being smart" are entirely unrelated except by the
occasional chance correlation. The wealthiest people alive today either
started wealthy or born into affluence. Very few individuals ever "become
rich" when starting out in the middle- or lower classes, regardless of their
intelligence.

~~~
Crito
> _" The wealthiest people alive today either started wealthy or born into
> affluence"_

I would expect that depends on what bar we set for "rich".

Is the bar: _" 1%"er billionaires_? Then you are probably right.

Is the bar: _" SF Tech workers"_? Well newsflash, most google employees are
not trust-fund babies.

~~~
Iftheshoefits
That gets into Heritage Foundation semantics over "what does rich mean." Of
course we can shift the definition of "rich" around until everybody (or
nobody) is "rich," but I don't think that leads to any meaningful discussion
(unless the point of the discussion is, of course, to engage in a semantics
argument over that meaning).

~~~
Crito
Defining "rich" is important because if we don't do that, then we cannot have
a sensible conversation.

Anyway, _I_ am not the person that wants "rich" to be defined with such a low
bar. Rather it is the SF protesters and their supporters who are setting that
low bar. To them, the bog-standard tech worker is "rich", hence their
objections.

Personally, I prefer a much higher bar for rich. The _" 1%er billionaire"_ is
closer to my preferred definition.

------
danielweber
_Sometimes ordinary people, not rich, act like they 're inbred rich people. I
think that's what the Fox News phenomenon is all about, and why people vote
Republican_

Yes, people who have different beliefs than you are stupid and/or have been
tricked. It's not possible they genuinely have reasons for their beliefs.

~~~
rwj
If two parties disagree, then one side (or both) must be wrong. Someone has
made a mistake (or been fooled...). This doesn't justify becoming arrogant,
but trying to identify errors in the reasoning of one or both parties is
certainly part of rational debate.

~~~
joshyeager
Or they could have different incentives, relationships, or resources. It is
completely possible for two parties to be simultaneously correct and yet
totally incompatible.

------
keithwarren
He was doing real good up until the last paragraph, then he threw in some
playground BS and called half the country stupid because they don't agree with
him. It added nothing to his point, in fact it detracted from it.

~~~
adaml_623
It may have detracted from his argument but it isn't playground BS and you
shouldn't call it such. If you parse each of his sentences he quite likely
means them in a serious way.

The fact is that many poor Americans seem to oppose the implementation of some
government policies designed to help them as poor people. This is a very
frustrating phenomenon from a liberal perspective.

------
dfraser992
This is a good article - kudos to Dave Winer. It hits upon a crucial factor in
the psychological divide between the "poor" and the "rich". I am remembering
now of articles on how the psychological distance between economic classes is
a factor in how the upper classes behave. One, there was an article on how the
rich in India treat everyone else as nothing but chattel. Ok, it's India with
its caste system, but economic class is tied to other social status categories
as well. The second is how the children of the upper upper classes are
effectively taught that everything in life is nothing but essentially a
financial transaction, and if you aren't gaining the upper hand, or a profit,
then you are a loser. This they learn from their interactions with their
parents. I think this was a 'Atlantic' article, IIRC. The psychological
implications are obvious.

To add to this, I've been in the UK for 6 years now and have had some dealings
with the upper middle classes - not quite rich, but the 'aspirational' rich
whose focus is on maintaining their status and ever climbing upwards. This
sort of thing goes on in America, sure, but ... I guess I'd say most of the UK
is 'working class', which corresponds to 'middle class' or lower in American
terms - but the strivers whom Thatcher idolized / glorified tend to be very
nasty people, be they Labour or Tory. Rich people who know their place, who
know that their wealth is nothing but effectively a roll of the dice and who
are able to understand ... "humanity" and whose values are not predicated upon
their status, and exploitation of everything they can exploit, but on an
understanding of humanity at large, -- I can deal with such people, I respect
them (if they respect me).

It is the sociopathic types, whom Thatcher and Bliar (misspelling deliberate)
are a prime example, who are the problem. Perkins sounds like such a person -
unable to empathize with the Other and willing to see their point of view. I
can empathize with the rich, both the decent ones and the assholes, and I
condemn the assholes, not because they are rich, but because of their actions
and their values that are the cause of their actions.

------
chadwickthebold
If any rich people would like to get closer in touch with the rest of
humanity, I would like to offer my services by taking one half (50%) of your
money. You will then be less rich and more happy and I will be less poor and
more happy.

~~~
bananacurve
Money is root of evil today, but if you ask for any rise it's no surprise,
they're giving none away.

~~~
PeterWhittaker
Doong chinkachink dung dung dung dung

(Well, that's as close as I can get to that particular riff. It's hard to
spell a riff. Especially one that sounds like a cash register.)

------
RankingMember
I agree that wealth allows you a greater degree of freedom to be isolated from
the rest of humanity. Really, though, I think (as he alludes in the final
lines) that this isn't a uniquely-"rich guy" issue. The not-rich who are
sequestered geographically (rural areas) or people who shut themselves away on
purpose are in equal danger of being out of touch with reality. These people
are the ones most-susceptible to the subtle perspective-distortions of media,
whether they originate from Fox News or MSNBC.

~~~
smtddr
_> >wealth allows you a greater degree of freedom to be isolated from the rest
of humanity._

Not just giving you the freedom to be isolated; it pretty much forces it. You
almost cannot live among the middle class if you're rich. Imagine living in
some middle-class area then suddenly you win the lotto; 674 Million dollars.

It would take the strongest of will-powers to stay where you are and not move
to some millionaire neighborhood; if only for safety-reasons. And you probably
don't need your fulltime job anymore. And to learn how to maintain that money,
you'll probably have to spend more time with people of the same financial
level. Suddenly, most of your time is with the elite rich in your neighborhood
& meetings & parties. Any friendships you had previously will probably fade
away slowly, except the _closest_ friends you've known since you were a kid or
something. You just won't have that much in common to talk about anymore. Dan
will be joking about how he really wanted the white yacht, but his wife wanted
the light-grey one while you sip coffee at a cafe in paris or something.

Or... the most humble way you could maybe do it is...
[http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com/](http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com/)

I like to think I'd be like Jerry if I'm rich, still mellow and can enjoy
sitting down at a humble coffee-shop chattin' about life.

~~~
Edmond
I think it is fairly easy to live amongst middle-class folk regardless of how
much money you have. It is a matter of knowing how to live rich (it takes
skills:) )... I think you can easily find upper-middle class towns and
neighborhoods where you can live amongst normal people without concern for
your safety.

It is even easier if you move to a big city where wealth doesn't isolate.

Personally I have never gotten the appeal of rich people moving to exclusive
areas, I think I would feel very boxed-in in such environments...but again I
have never been rich :)

~~~
danielweber
One of the common themes of "The Millionaire Next Door" was people with large
amounts of wealth living in simple middle-class neighborhoods.

------
windupgirl
Lovely piece. Really. I know from my own personal experience that the time in
my life where I most successful by the society surrounding me standard I was
also the most unhappy. Sure, financial wealth helps you in certain areas in
life and alleviates some worries, but in the long run others can creep in
instead and you don't end up happier. It's that mix of being appreciative of
other people from all walks of life and finding gratitude for what you have
that I think can help you be happier. My thoughts anyway. Great piece.

------
ergoproxy
I'm a big fan of Rowan Atkinson's TV series _Blackadder_. It follows the
Blackadder family over many generations. "As the generations progress, each
Blackadder becomes increasingly clever and perceptive, while the family's
social status steadily erodes." Source:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackadder](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackadder)

I used to work on Wall St., and in my experience wealth and intelligence
aren't correlated. Luck is more important. Family's socioeconomic status is
important. What school one got one's degree from has something to do with it
(but _not_ good grades or what one's degree was in). And, unfortunately, being
"ethically challenged" was often the key--scammers and fraudsters have a much
easier time making the Big Time.

RE: Tom Perkins... In any economic downturn, there will be scapegoats. The
poor scapegoat the rich. The rich scapegoat the poor. Social conservatives
scapegoat foreigners, non-Christians, women, gays, non-whites...anyone not
like themselves. It's not simply that nobody likes to take personal
responsibility or that it's easier to blame the other guy...

In the West we associate self-criticism with depression and anxiety, and we
seek to suppress it. Source:
[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124511712673817527](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124511712673817527)

Worse, self-criticism is associated with Maoist Communism. Source:
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/28/china-
se...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/28/china-self-
criticism-mao/2883605/)

However, there's certainly a tradition of self-criticism in the West, rooted
in its canonical texts: "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s
eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7:3-5&ve...](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7:3-5&version=RSV)

My point is that we need to be a little more self-critical and a little less
quick to scapegoat others for our problems. A little self-criticism might go a
long way to making us both smarter and wealthier!

------
djs123sdj
I have a hard time understanding how an self-admitted very wealthy person
living in a 2 bedroom Manhattan apartment, differs significantly from the one
living in Woodside estate. He's choosing an ascetic life, but the fact is that
he can, without stress, afford many of the basics that the non-wealthy
struggle to afford.

Middle and working class grown ups with families don't care about hot tubs and
parties, but the things they struggle to afford: decent schools for their
children, their mortgage, etc, are things that he never would have to worry
about. His decision to live in Manhattan with less stuff doesn't change that
reality for them, and I question whether it really puts him in touch with
their reality.

Bringing up his personal life choice detracts from the valid point that the
wealthy can isolate themselves from the concerns of everyone else if they
choose to.

And his argument about wealth vs. smarts is attacking windmills ... nobody
seriously believes that having more wealth makes you smarter.

Edit: lost second half, re-added. Edit2: wording tweak

~~~
Iftheshoefits
> nobody seriously believes that having more wealth makes you smarter.

There are comments in this very thread that indicate there are people who do.
Anecdotally, I personally know several "well off" people who very seriously
believe that being wealthy implies being smart.

------
maxerickson
As originally stated, Godwin's law was an observation.

Any thread about fascism that gets shut down by someone chirping 'Godwin'
can't have been that interesting to begin with.

Edit: It's even a sardonic observation, lamenting the quality of effort that
has someone screaming "NAZI" over some piffling matter.

~~~
nullc
Thank you for pointing out that its a sardonic observation, this goes too
often omitted— and it's an omission that had irritated Mike Godwin greatly.

------
thesimpsons1022
idk why but it really bothered me when he threw in a "imho" in the middle of
the article. the rest was well written and it felt out of place and made him
lose some credibility.

------
sokrates
Related: Being smart doesn't automatically make you wealthy.

------
jobu
For anyone else out there that had no idea what this article was talking
about, here is the link to the editorial by Tom Perkins that started this:
[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230454950...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304549504579316913982034286)

------
crimsonalucard
I'd rather be wealthy than smart.

~~~
rahimnathwani
_I 'd rather be wealthy then smart._

Did you mean:

I'd rather be wealthy _than_ smart.

OR

I'd rather be wealthy _, then_ smart.

?

EDIT: crimsonalucard corrected the typo in their comment

------
debacle
Wealth doesn't make you $x, but it's nice.

------
brryant
Before I clicked through I thought the subtitle would be, "you don't need to
be smart to be wealthy". Still sort of applies.

