Face the facts: IQ is almost directly correlated with economic outcome in life. If you're stocking shelves, studying English, or cooking pizzas while dreaming of being a great writer someday, here's a wake up call:
YOU
ARE
NOT
INTELLIGENT
You're just pretentious!
If a smart person had any sort of literary talent, he would be making money from it.
how do you know its not the other way around?
That economic prosperity breeds high IQ?
Not even a marxist, just curious. I've not seen these studies, and would like to know more.
Is this what Veeky Forums is about? Trying to look intelectual in front of your friends?
Source: my unwashed ass
How is this Veeky Forums related?
I'm so dumb I didn't think of being born in a rich family.
>After Thales had several times criticized people's concern with managing a household and getting rich, they reproached him, saying that he was doing so like the fox, because he could not attain these things. He decided, for fun, to test this out; and making his learning stop for this once to the service of profit and gain, he set up a traffic which within a year brought in such riches that hardly in their whole lifetime could the most experienced in that trade make as much.
explain rich dumb people
Gotem
Not everyone is trying to be rich, OP. But this is bait, anyways. And not literature related. Saged.
Also, to add on top of it, and to make this more like Veeky Forums should aspire to be, and instead of having OP posting DFW memes and a provocative albeit potentially discussion-boosting "original" post, here's some more:
>It is the upper classes, people of wealth, who are the greatest victims of boredom. Lucretius long ago described their miserable state, and the truth of his description may still be recognized today, in the life of every great capital--where the rich man is seldom in his own halls, because it bores him to be there, and still he returns thither, because he is no better off outside;--or else he is away in post-haste to his house in the country, as if it were on fire; and he is no sooner arrived there, than he is bored again, and seeks to forget everything in sleep, or else hurries back to town once more. In their youth, such people must have had a superfluity of muscular and vital energy,--powers which, unlike those of the mind, cannot maintain their full degree of vigor very long; and in later years they either have no mental powers at all, or cannot develop any for want of employment which would bring them into play; so that they are in a wretched plight.
Can somebody explain the arguments for aristocracy and class to me?
From my perspective it seems as if the rich in our society are some of the dumbest and most base people around, whilst you're apt to find much more talented, intelligent, and generally "higher" men among the poor or middle class.The primary method of attaining wealth (inheritance), and the secondary method (the application of incredibly specific business related practices, in combination with plain luck) seem to do nothing more than make the autistic and stupid rich, and keep the exceptional individual destitute.
>how do you know its not the other way around?
>That economic prosperity breeds high IQ?
By following throughout their lives a group of people and recording their life outcomes, as well as regularly testing their IQ. In the social sciences, these are called longitudinal studies.
Mr President is that you?
have another, especially fit for >Now knowing what is good for oneself will be one kind of knowledge, but it is very different from the other kinds; and the man who knows and concerns himself with his own interests is thought to have practical wisdom, while politicians are thought to be busybodies; hence the word of Euripides:
But how could I be wise, who might at ease,
Numbered among the army's multitude,
Have had an equal share?
>For those who aim too high and too too much. Those who think thus seek their own good, and consider that one ought to do so. From this opinion, then, has come the view that such men have practical wisdom; yet perhaps one's own good cannot exist without household management, nor without a form of government. Further, how one should order one's own affairs is not clear and needs inquiry
>a 110 desperately tries to convince himself that he is smart for being poor and powerless
>IQ is almost directly correlated with economic outcome in life
no it isn't. sources say otherwise
should i just go full goethe bros
Every single person my age I know personally who is doing well financially had their parents support them financially all throughout college and often times for several years after college.
I don't know a single "self-made" success story. Yeah I know this is anecdotal evidence, but I'm really not thoroughly convinced even smart people can make themselves rich in 10 or even 20 years of working if they don't have some luck on their side.
>Face the facts: IQ is almost directly correlated with economic outcome in life
>correlated
It's because rich people have more free time because they don't have to work as much (or at all) so they have all the time in the world for their intellectual pursuits.
Wow, and I thought Veeky Forums was supposed to be smart
Face the facts: IQ is almost directly correlated with suicidal tendencies in life. If you're living life, studying happiness, or enjoying yourself while dreaming of being a growing old someday, here's a wake up call:
YOU
ARE
NOT
INTELLIGENT
You're just pretentious!
If a smart person had any sort of sturdy belt, he would be hanging from it.
You shouldn't gauge reality in general by people you know, it's not accurate and ultimately means nothing.
A study recently came out showing millennials make 20% less than boomers did at their age. There are serious economic/demographic problems out there but 1) they're brushed under the rug and covered up, and 2) this is being done because the results are intentional.
Well I acknowledged it was anecdotal evidence. However at the same time it seems like my anecdotal evidence lines up pretty accurately with whatever study it is you're referencing.
Not literature related. Sage and reported.
There's a correlation between poverty and brain damage. Also education has always been important to the health of a nation, but for the elites that's an externality.
eh that kinda reinforces OP's point
that is: if intelligent people are capable of easily acquiring riches, why do we see so many poorfags on Veeky Forums? It's not like they enjoy being poor
I've always had a suspicion this was true. Based on my observations:
1. literary type personalities were hardly in stem related fields
2. my high IQ friends never concerned themselves with literary works
3. my high IQ friends were mostly boring, emotionless drones that could solve problems very quickly
4. my high IQ friends often had very linear and simplistic personalities that were great for linear, logical problem solving roles
5. these logical problem solvers are currently in demand in this society
6. hence why all the stem nerds seem autistic and one dimensional
7. my literary friends were often driven by passion and emotions
8. these personalities were not adept with maths or science related logical reasoning
9. these personalities were often complex and rich
10. they were also the type to enjoy simple things in life like a sunset or a poem
All in all, I think OP has a point. I think IQ is inversely related to the creative types which is why women (more emotional) dominate the arts field while men (more logical, higher IQ) dominate stem. They also earn more money.
Just my observations as someone in stem who should probably be in a history course instead.
However, one thing I don't understand is why women generally have relatively comparable IQs to men if men are biologically more logical and systematic than women? Apparently, the highest IQ ever recorded was a woman too.
National success is determined by mean IQ. This is why importing low IQ brown people is nothing other than a disastrous policy, there's literally no benefit.
Thales did it for fun. He didn't do it to be rich. Afterwards, it's back to the philosophical life (poor in relative means but in no way poor since his opinion of "poor" is not aligned with the norm).
Thales, and other philosophers like Seneca or Aristotle or Epictetus will say that they are not poor. A man is only poor if his opinion of himself is poor.
>It's not like they enjoy being poor.
Yes, they do enjoy what you call being "poor." At least that's what they advocate. Now if we go to Shakespeare, Melville, Montaigne, or even Schopenhauer again, we'll see opinions saying that no matter what the stoics say, it's pretty damn hard to be stoic, and to live with this "poverty."
Women dominate the arts in sheer numbers maybe, but not in any other measure.
yeah, when you say women "dominate the arts field," it's as if you're saying women are superior to men in art. Just because there are more women as liberal arts majors does not mean anything. More than half (being generous) of these women like young adult, and more than half of the men sc-fi and fantasy. Gauging all of this off academia is not a good way of going about it.
Why is he posed like such a douchebag?
Economic success is correlated with intelligence tests, but intelligence tests are not correlated with wisdom or morality.
There's a purpoted correlation between IQ and creativity up until some point; after this threshold, creativity seems to be more influenced by personality than anything. What probably happens is people who aren't really enamored or apt at STEM end up going to the liberal arts because, you know, everybody needs a degree! [via college scam] That doesn't mean they're particularly creative or that STEM people lack creativity and "complex and rich" personalities: it's just the current arrangement of our society, with high demand for intellectual jobs, the sciences and technology. Pynchon was an engineering student for a while.
Regarding gender and IQ: the average IQ of men and women is similar, however there's way more variance to the male IQ spectrum than females. There are both more male geniuses and retards.
>iq is associated with attaining goals
>the only goal is wealth
>you're not intelligent if you don't attain this arbitrary goal
Shit tier bait op
IQ is also associated with success in education, job performance, health...whatever it is your goal, you probably need a big ol' brain in order to achieve it
no.. How banal. Not falling for this bait. Try harder.
I meant what said. I'd wager that the discrepancies between male and female achievements in the arts field are probably due to IQ too.
Also have you guys noticed how some nations, like the Asian countries seem to care very little for creative pursuits? I think perhaps a higher IQ is correlated with less emotions/empathy. That's why a lot of them seem quite materialistic, opportunistic and sometimes even sociopathic.
Asia's shortcomings in the arts are a reflection of Asian people as a collective lacking empathy and conception of the numinous. Their works of art lack 'that spark of emotive connection' because the people lack the internal awareness and emotional volatility that permit European art to communicate on a more profound and abstract level, just as they lack the ability to relativise their experience of reality. The results – as women are incapable of making art about anything other than their vaginas, so too are the Asians incapable of making art about anything other than being Asian.
>I think perhaps a higher IQ is correlated with less emotions/empathy. That's why a lot of them seem quite materialistic, opportunistic and sometimes even sociopathic
I don't think this has any truth to it. You can't compare different races like that because of the vastly different evolutionary environments. High morality/empathy are simply traits more prevalent in Europeans, they don't appear more or less on a generalized IQ cline.
The truth still holds with westernised Asians. Just look around your local university. How many of them are involved in the arts compared to the maths/sciences or even commerce?
But that wasn't the part I was talking about. It's obvious Asians aren't creative, but where you went wrong was making a general statement about IQ when lack of creativity/empathy is related to how they evolved.
*rolls eyes involuntarily*
Why are you so preoccupied with how intelligent people are?
Just write what's in your head dummy. External validation is overrated.
It's not black and white like you assume it to be you ignorant youngfag
>tfw you're so intelligent you end up writing a 1200 page autistic rant about how just being a WASP (pref. calvinist) is literally the only way to truly experience bliss then you end up killing yourself after you realize people thought you were being ironic
98%
This is the only good post in this thread. OP is a manchild.
It's actually interesting, there are some people who have no problem with making millions and losing it all, and doing it over and over again. I really wonder what it is.
any Veeky Forums on this?
Go to bed, Captainredpill
>The earlier American research literature, up to 1970,
on the relationship of intelligence to earnings among individuals was summarized by Jencks
(1972) who concluded that the best estimate was expressed by a correlation of .35. Later
studies have confirmed this conclusion. Brown and Reynolds (1995) examined the relation
between IQ measured in early adulthood and earnings approximately 12 years later for samples
of 24,819 whites and 4,008 blacks and reported correlations of .327 and .126, respectively.
Hunter and Hunter (1984) report correlations between .25 and .60 for different types of
occupations. Murray (1998) has examined the National Longitudinal Study of Youth sample for
the relation between IQ measured in adolescence and income in the late twenties to mid-thirties
and found a correlation of .37
~.3 is a pretty weak desu.
what an awful thread why does anyone bump this
> Intelligent
> Believing IQ tests are good indicators of intelligence
pick one user
I think you misunderstood the anecdote. The point is that (many) intelligent people could (probably) be financially successful, but have no desire to do so. The economic ends which completely drive so many people are not appealing at all to some.
This.
>"The Romans regarded poverty as consisting not in not having many things, but in wanting many things."
Let us suppose that ideas conveyed in written word are more important than the physical vessel by which its author subsists
Is this idea even considered real and possible anymore? I should think we are all conditioned to want a marriage sponsored by the government acknowledged by our immediate lame family, ...
critiquing moderniy as DFW does can be artful, as in his obliviion stories...but what about an alternative
I hold that dear in my heart
There is a real alternative to this nightmare
I dont care if you say this world is "the best we've had"
Stop comparing and listen to your heart
And of course, be skeptical about the idea of a lack of comparing
Such is the nature of logical analysis
Heart is otherwise
Singular
Absolute
Authoritarian
Ready and Willing
Easy and
Fun.