Yup, there’s the problem with using money as a metric for intelligence – the marketability for the former differs vastly from the one of the latter.
I’d say that there’s a kind of inverse relationship at play here, somewhat. If Rogan is intelligent enough to have been so successful, shouldn’t that mean he is less likely to believe false things?
All it boils down to is, how one thinks of what is enough to call somebody intelligent. Income is a very tricky indicator, as it would be trivially easy to come up with a list of people virtually anybody would say are clearly more intelligent than Rogan, but have nowhere near his income.
Then you can say “ah, but he is merely intelligent enough to not ever be called stupid”. Well, I’d say somebody can do enough stupid things to be called stupid, especially in a particular context, regardless of the fact that they are succesful.
To me, in this particular case I fall on the side of thinking Rogan is more stupid than malicious, although being morally bankrupt often comes easy for people who I think can justifiably called stupid, no matter their achievements in any field. (See “Trump, D.” for reference.)