Robert Hansen (RH) posted Oct 25, 2013 11:09 (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9312629): > > Another perfect example. Is it unreasonable that > smarter parents are more successful in their careers > and thus make more money and that intelligence has a > hereditary factor, thus their children do better in > school? > Well, I agree that smart people are often successful in their careers and often do make more money (than less smart people).
But the relationship between intelligence and money is not necessarily 'isomorphic', so to speak. (I.e. 'more intelligence' DOES NOT NECESSARILY translate into 'more money').
For instance, I've also seen quite stupid people being extremely successful in their careers and making much more money than people indubitably more intelligent.
This is most often seen in the political field in India, where some extremely stupid people have often made plenty of money - usually by extremely foul means. [Sometimes, the more intelligent people do happen to take *the rules of society (written and unwritten)* more seriously than do the less intelligent ones. But perhaps we should actually be drawing some distinctions between the characteristics of 'intelligence' and 'the smarts'].
Of course, this (relationship between 'the smarts' and 'money') also has much to do with specific societal conditions obtaining here in India which, I believe may have been transcended (to an extent; by no means entirely, as I understand) in the USA. I.e., the relationship between 'more intelligence' and 'more money' *may be* - to an extent - simpler and more direct in the USA than it is in India. (I do not pretend to be an expert on socioeconomic conditions in the USA). > > How about this. We have been so successful with > getting eduction to the masses that all that is left > in the most blighted areas are those most resilient > to education. > How about this: If the above makes any sense to ANYONE (even to RH), I'd be most grateful for an explanation. I would point to the second sentence in that paragraph as being extremely stupid (so to say or at least 'to write'). On further consideration, I observe that it reflects not *real stupidity* but merely a deplorable lack of awareness and understanding on RH's part of his own language (English, US variant). > >I realize if I had made this statement > about penicillin and super bugs you would be going > "oh, wow, that is so weird but reasonable", but > probably not so much in the context I made it in. > Nope. No one in his right mind ever would have made such a statement (about education and intelligence OR about penicillin and super bugs). It is just weird and idiotic. > > If this was math you wouldn't be this sloppy with > your reasoning but make it a social issue and > rationality is all of a sudden not important, or even > real. > Indeed. "Sloppy" being the operative and quite correct word. > >We are supposed to just go with emotion I > guess. > Nope. We are supposed to write what we wish to mean.
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING! Not GOADING!")