I’m opening this topic due to some posts by another poster in a different thread. They basically were along these lines: He is early in life, makes tons of money, and therefore he knows more about his field than anyone else, so dispute him at your own peril. Of course, this is not the first time I’ve seen the, “I’m richer than you, so I know more” argument.
Does this argument have any merit? I am fairly young and make a very good living, but I would never think I know more about my field than, say some professor that studies it constantly although does not actually do the work. I may have some insights for him, but I’m sure he would still be able to teach me a few things. One of the things that strike me as wrong about this argument is the fact that I’ve seen so many strike it rich through pure luck. (And I don’t mean the lottery here.)
Oh, and by the way, the field in question was not physics or anything; it was business (trading, etc.)
It even has a fancy name! Argumentum ad Lazarum means arguing that those with more money are more likely to be right. It’s considered a logical fallacy.
So all that money doesnt pay for you to go to school? Learn through travel and experience? Fund and sponsor programs to learn more?
Sounds like $ envy to me. I started out like you all did, so why am I different? Luck? I think not, persevering in the face of failure is more likely it.
I dont want to appear to rub it in, PQ, but If I was such a failure and uneducated, why am I surrounded by all that I have?
A wife, a home, cars, money, and soon children. Once I was single, poor, and at one point homeless for a few weeks.
My own sweat, and tears created the drive in me. As far as I can tell, I have succeeded and want to help my children do the same as well, so that they never know the things I learned “down there”.
I think more than anything this thread should be renamed “Im bitter and Jealous, so Ill attack someone who has a better life by their own hard work”.
Yeah, NewtonsApple, there really IS a logical fallacy about more money equalling more intelligence. Shouldn’t you know that?
So there are no poor dumb people with wives, kids, houses? There’s nobody rich who didn’t work for it?
I think that the point is not that money make or prove you stupid, but that money does not mean that you are automatically intelligent.
I’m making a lot more money now than when I was in grad school. I’m not rich, but I’m comfortable. I’m smarter now than I was then (I think–if I weren’t, would I know), but I’m not several times smarter.
If I were, I would rule the world as Mentos, the super-powered freshh maker!
[QUOTE}So all that money doesnt pay for you to go to school? Learn through travel and experience? Fund and sponsor programs to learn more?[/QUOTE]
It’s my experience that spending all your time working to frantically make money cuts down on the amount of time you have to go to school or travel. I’m not sure how funding/sponsoring programs makes you either more informed or more intelligent.
Well, I stated in the OP I make a very good living; if you don’t want to believe me, that’s fine. I’m sure you persevered plenty, but that speaks more to your ambition and energy rather than your intelligence. Also, I often find that those who make more money than others early in life usually do it because they value it more, not necessarily because they know more.
I never said you were a failure or uneducated. I was merely pointing out that that you should not think you have all the answers just because you have plenty of money. Actually, I didn’t even say that, but that is what I was thinking.
I am very happy for you, but this hardly speaks to the issue.
This is a good attitude, but again, being informed or intelligent has nothing to do with being a hard worker or a good father.
I’m not at all bitter, and certainly not jealous, and I doubt you could have a better life than me, since I am as happy as could be. Anyway, once again, that’s not the point. What do you think there is about having money that means you are more intelligent than someone else? Do you think everyone with more money than you is more intelligent than you?
Newton: You really should try not attacking somebody first, and asking question later.
Gaudere is correct. It is, in fact, a logical fallacy.
However, I don’t think that means wealth can be entirely discounted depending on what you talking about.
If faced with two similar stock brokers. One is rich the other isn’t, my guess would be that the rich broker is either a much better broker or a crook.
Consider for a moment the serious flaw here.
It is NOT the fact that the person has money which made them more informed it is the FACT that they used the money to get an education, travel, etc.
Would you say that a person who has a million dollars and never leaves their house is more intelligent and well-informed simply because of the fact that they have money, compared to somebody who has $500,000 but has traveled the world? Absurd.
Having more money, acheived by non-luck means , is an indicator of success. It is not proof of overall general intelligence or informedness. It isn’t even absolute proof of superior specific knowledge. There can be other factors.
For example, would you automatically trust a 60 yr old multi-millionaire over a 25 yr old who is just starting out? If you would, then you would be a fool. Much wiser to listen to both of their advice, and examine their advice by an objective means, rather than comparing bank accounts. The 25 yr old is only starting out, of course he doesn’t have much money, that doesn’t mean his new and fresh ideas might not be better than older and outdated ideas.
Well, heck, If I made millions in widgets, and we are talking about the widget industry, then, yes, money is an indication of an understanding of the industry.
But that only applies to widgets. Making $10 billion in car sales doesn’t make you an expert in quantum physics.
Ah, but Mr. Zambezi, if you made millions in widgets, and someone else has a smaller business and has only made a few hundred thousands in widgets, does that necessarily mean that the millionaire knows more about widgets? I agree that money is some indication of understanding of a particular industry, but only in that you need a certain knowledge base to work in the industry at all. Who’s to say that Dr. X, who has studied widgets his whole life but has never actually built a business around them, does not know more about widgets than the guy who did? It could really go either way.
Of course, I’m in full agreement about widget/quantum physics thing.
Ask any honest company president and he/she will tell you that the smartest people in the business are not the most successful. in fact, being “too smart” is a definite drawback in sales. For one thing, if you come off smarter than your customer, you don’t make friends. For another, the smarter you are, the more you tend to find problems with your own product.
I don’t want to get into little homilies here, but the most successful people in business, politics, or any place else are those with enough brains to understand what’s going on, and enough attitude, ambition and assertiveness to do something about it.
Money is the result of meeting the market. It is like the shock you get when you stick your finger in the electrical socket. It might have to do with intelligence but it needn’t.
Dire example: (The) Donald Trump.
Effective to varying degrees in a narrow spectrum of wheeling and dealing. Smart or educated? Nah, not a chance. He’s cunning and has an uncanny “greed gague” instinct for people. But in any wider context he’s as dumb as a mud on a fence.
There’s a distinction between “having money” and “earning money”. A lot of very wealthy folks inherited the pile but in terms of intelligence/drive/effectiveness, they’re morons. Ever notice how few “monied dynasties” last here? Granted some families, e.g. the Fords, inherited so much it takes a few generations to gut it. But very few throw off descendents who actively build on what they inherited.
Those who create their own wealth, earn it “the old fashioned way” by sweat, sly dealing, hustle, grit, etc. are another case. But even then, they know one area of life very well that may–or more usually, may not–translate to other concerns.
So there’s an argument to made that inherited wealth offers opportunity for education, achievement, etc. but more often results in sapping initiative–at least to build, though rarely in protecting what’s already owned.
On the other hand, creators of wealth have the initiative but are so busy earning that broader intellectual pursuits usually aren’t very high priority. They have a deep expertise in a narrow field.
There is not even a really solid defintion for what constitutes intelligence, so this question is pretty well impossible to answer. I think that people who have earned a fortune have indicated that they have more than successfully negotiated a number of life’s hurdles. Does this mean they are smart? Well, if solving lots of problems in an exemplary manner means you smart, then yes!
Of course, you could solve lots of problems and not make any cash doing it (a prof of physics, for example) - and you would still be smart. So no, having money or even earning money does not mean you a smart, but I think its a clue.
I can’t believe no one has mentioned this yet - how rich is Cecil Adams? If intelligence=money, then Cecil should be the richest man in the world. Somehow I have the feeling that Cecil is not about the edge Bill Gates out of one of the top spots.
I don’t think it would be much trouble to compile a list of obviously intelligent, well-informed people who weren’t/aren’t stinking rich. Albert Einstein comes readily to mind.
Probably even easier to make a list of people who have plenty of money and are complete idiots in many, many ways. Howard Hughes might be a good place to start.
Sacred cows make the best hamburgers. - Mark Twain
Looking at the question posed in the original post, I would be skeptical of accepting the “money = good businessman” argument early in anyone’s career. A short term gain may be the result of good business sense or it may be the result of luck. Long term performance would tend to be a better indicator of good business sense, and that simply can’t be attained “early in life”. Also, while wealth may be a good “first order” approximation of business acumen, it isn’t the last word. Bill Gates is probably a good business man, but he was also fantastically lucky to get in on the PC revolution at exactly the right time.
I mean the “long term indicator” can’t be attained early in life (since you haven’t lived long enough), not that good business sense can’t be attained early in life.
