How smart are CEOs anyway?

Here is a new paper by Wai and Rindermann.  It seems to be saying that CEOs are quite smart, but perhaps not as smart as…journalists.  Hm..perhaps this may get some media pick-up, here is the abstract:

The path to becoming a CEO (and performance on the job) can be viewed as a difficult cognitive challenge. One way to examine this idea is to see how highly selected CEOs are in terms of education and cognitive ability. The extent to which Fortune 500 CEOs were selected on education and cognitive ability at an earlier age was retrospectively assessed at four time points that spanned 1996 to 2014 (Total N = 1991). Across the last 19 years, between 37.5% and 41.0% of these CEOs were found to attend an elite school which likely placed them in the top 1% of cognitive ability. People in the top 1% of ability, therefore, were likely overrepresented among these CEOs, at about 37 to 41 times the base rate. Even within each of the four samples, higher CEO education and cognitive ability was associated with higher gross revenue of the CEO’s company. Although Fortune 500 CEOs were highly selected on education and cognitive ability, when placed in the context of a broader array of occupations in the extreme right tail of achievement (e.g., politicians, judges, billionaires, journalists, academics, powerful people, and other business elites), CEOs were not at the top. This showed the wide cognitive ability range (and mental test difficulty) across various occupations that compose the U.S. elite. That Fortune 500 CEOs had similar education and cognitive ability selectivity over time shows that the CEO (and perhaps business) occupational and filtering structure has remained relatively unchanged across the last two decades.

I would gladly read more papers on this topic…

Comments

HSBC CEO says being gay was secret to his success.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915415

HSBC is a British bank. Buggery seems to be a thing with the British elite.

The poof in question in Portuguese.

One way to gather data on this question would be to have people who have known multiple CEOs rank order them in intelligence and see how much agreement there was.

For example, a fellow who worked for me in the marketing research business in 1986 at a very successful startup founded by an entrepreneur widley considered the smartest man in this sub-industry, then got hired by Microsoft, where he got to know Bill Gates. He called me up and told me that Bill Gates was much smarter than our old boss. I've never met Bill Gates, but I would trust my former underling's judgment.

Lots of people of good judgment have spent more than, say, 10 hours in meetings with both Bill Gates and with Steve Jobs. It would be interesting to interview a selection of senior executives, investors, and journalists who knew them both on the comparative cognitive strengths and weaknesses of the two business legends.

Don`t you think people are smart when they hold similar opinions to yourself?

Yeah, see but that needs actual effort. You can't sit at your desk & churn out a paper like that.

My experience from business meetings is that the person with the most power -- the person at the top -- has a huge advantage in terms of seeming the most intelligent. Their position gives them the broadest perspective and the best information resources. They also can learn though many of their underlings' experiences as they manage them. Decades of experience in a CEO position with just a "very intelligent" person would create quite an intimidating specimen to you average meeting attendee.

Not only that, but a book on wealthy people (not the Forbes reporter, but a professor, it's in my library somewhere) written a while ago concluded that many of them graduated from state colleges, and not Ivy League schools, though I'm sure the Ivy League people were 'smarter'. But smarts is not the only prerequisite to being successful, though that does not negate this paper.

My memory is still excellent, like the Class A chess player I am. I remembered the name, did a quick Google search, and here is the excellent book on wealth (better than Forbes' Richistan book R. Frank author, though less 'entertaining' since it uses dry wit and lots of statistics):

Money: Who Has How Much and Why Paperback – April 9, 1998
by Andrew Hacker (Author)

I think of Jobs strength as being not so smart that he could easy use poorly written software. Wozniac was the brain power in Apple.

I think of Jobs strength as being not so smart that he could easy use poorly written software and so he knew to demand more. Wozniac was the brain power in Apple.

Guy I worked with years ago worked directly for Bill Gates for a time. Said he was the most frighteningly intelligent man he'd met.

But putting journalists in the extreme right tail of achievement seems pretty odd. It's a craft, that's all, the craft of filling in the white spaces in between the ads. No one would be letting me do it if it were actually difficult....

Or maybe when you join a founder's company he's simply going to know more about the business, and combined with Gates's notorious temper it seemed frighteningly intelligent.

If Gates was asked something outside his specialty - like what are your thoughts on the Ottomans - would he sound intelligent?

Why would you ask him that?

Because it's outside a specialty in which he's expert. For me, the smartest people I know are those with a broad knowledge and the ability to synthesize ideas to create cogent arguments.

Are people with Aspergers intelligent or obsessive?

Being able to scratch the surface of many topics is an indication of intelligence, although perhaps not a lot of wisdom.

Being able to go deep into a topic is also an indication, it also generates more value, generates more knew knowledge, and advances humanity more.

Why is that relevant? The software business is very complex, dealing with on one extreme the emotional sales and expectations of the market, on the other extreme getting a complex piece of software out the door. It is very difficult and would take years to even understand the complexities involved.

What is intelligence worth unless it is applied successfully?

I'm certain that after a few years study and travel Gates would be able to come up with a coherent answer about the Ottomans. Whether he wants to is another question.

I think Tyler has made similar comments about meeting Gates. Although I don't think he went as far as using the word 'frightenginly'.

This is a well-flogged tale in the gambling world but it might be new to people here. Bill Gates was known to enjoy low-limit poker when he stopped through Las Vegas, and one day as he sat in a $4-$8 limit hold'em game at Bellagio, he received a note from Doyle Brunson. Doyle was seated in the glassed-in Bobby's Room, and the note was an invitation to Gates to come play $4000-$8000 with the high rollers. Gates responded with note saying, if you make it $4b/$8b, I'm in.

Yes, the inclusion of journalists as right-tail cognitive performers is pretty entertaining. They may be in the elite in the way professional athletes are - known and occasionally influential. But cognitive performance? The quality of the work output is demonstrably low and error-prone, and I recall from my college days that "J School" was the wise alternative for those that experienced difficulty in math, science, and business classes while also lacking artistic ability.

Now I would make an exception for bloggers...smart lot, there.

If journalists are so smart how do they keep fucking up college rape stories? An entire industry based on nonrandom samples of size N<10 should be looked upon with disdain.

Disagree it makes sense to look upon the whole industry with disdain like I do with, say, economics.

Here is an interesting interview with Atul Gawande. In one part he says the New Yorker's fact checking and review is much more rigorous than even the top medical journals. http://www.statnews.com/2015/11/11/atul-gawande-health-care-journalism/

They are particularly bad at science reporting. Why do you think that is?

About ten years ago, there was supposedly a NY Times conference of 150 veteran journalists and one asked those in the room to raise their hand if they had a science degree. I was surprised as many as three raised their hands.

Those at the top of the journalism field are most likely pretty smart, but also doing other things. Journalism itself can be done by anyone who's completed middle school; it hardly qualifies as an "elite" profession.

If they really are that intelligent and they are going into such a low margin business it is likely that they are zealots. It is exactly this zealotry that causes them to ignore factual issues which go against their narrative.

Knowing alot doesn't seem to go-in-hand with avoiding any strong opinions on what's known. It's the same reason those most knowledgeable of politics are also so damned ideological. Few are truly driven by knowledge for the sake of knowledge, or at least they're being drowned out by those with an end to their means.

Isn't reporting that CEOs were in the top 1% of cognitive ability kinda underwhelming? Top 1% is a *lot* of people. 99.9% of top 1% cognition cohort aren't CEOs.

It's like reporting Usain Bolt tested among the top 1% in fitness.

...underwhelming and of little practical value. It's a very indirect measure of CEO quality, at best.
CEO "output" is what one really wants to know and compare.

Being a "CEO" does not automatically mean one is a good, productive manger -- plenty of empty-suits hold the title of CEO. Lots of CEO's are merely passive caretakers of companies strongly built up by previous founders and highly skilled top managers.

Perhaps smart/educated people have better social/political skills to navigate upwards thru a bureaucratic company personnel structure, rather than superior business management skills.

Suspect we would all be underwhelmed if we could closely watch what a typical top corporate CEO does all day -- worthless meetings, paper shuffling, social interactions, golf.

"Top 1% is a *lot* of people."

Being in the cognitive top 1% is not really all that big a deal. Being in the financial top 1% is much more significant. Think of being smarter than 99 out of 100 people you meet going through an average day -- clearly not as beneficial or significant as being richer than 99 out of 100 people you meet on an average day.

"If you're one in a million in China, there are a thousand people just like you."

I had a friend take a Facebook intelligence test and proudly inform me they're "in the top 96 percent." Yup.

Most CEOs being in the top 1% of cognitive ability is an underwhelming fact if you are looking at the chances of someone in the top 1% to be a CEO. It's a rather overwhelming fact if you are looking at the chances of someone in to the 50th percentile to be a CEO.

In other words intelligence is necessary but not sufficient.

CEOs do not need a lot of educational credentials since their performance as CEO is somewhat easy to measure. If they are successful, they do not. See additional degrees to get better jobs. And CEOs are the most successful of businesspeople, so there is your selection bias right there.

On the other hand, journalists are struggling for jobs right now due to the struggles of the written press as a business. Hence, only those with great educational credentials get jobs and, if you are not getting a decent job, it is likely that you will pursue additional degrees to improve your chances.

I saw something similar when I was a student in L.A. When I had part time jobs, a lot of my colleagues were aspiring actors. They were not getting jobs, so they would all be attending these workshops and acting courses to improve their CVs to see if they would get more attention from casting directors (if you want to know what a lot of those actors from cancelled TV shows are doing, they are teaching these courses and directing these workshops). I did not get to meet successful actors, but I would guess that they would not bother with additional courses or workshops. If you ran a similar study for them, you may conclude that unemployed actors are better performers because they have taken a lot more courses.

How do you define "successful?" In terms of being smart enough to get the job, yes they are successful. But it doesn't mean they are good at running the company. In a mature industry a CEO can basically just do what his predecessor did and it will probably do fine. It's still rare to encounter Steve Jobs who radically reinvents a company, or takes a company that was growing at 5% a year and sets it on a sustainable course to grow 10%.

I think it's less about the cognitive ability of the CEO and more about the industry they are in. I'll grant that CEOs are in the 1% cognitively, but by definition most companies are in average markets.

But it doesn’t mean they are good at running the company. In a mature industry a CEO can basically just do what his predecessor did and it will probably do fine -

Yeah, it's just that easy. And it's all PR tricks too.

I can't tell whether they actually measured cognitive ability. It sounds like they may be assuming that these folks are top 1% smart because they went to elite institutions. That would seem...flawed. How do we know students at elite schools (which ones?) are the top 1%, and not the top .1%, or the top 3%?

Also, what the hell kind of occupation is "powerful person"?

Wish this paper wasn't paywalled.

From my experience at one of those business schools, it's decidedly not restricted to the top 1%. Top 3-5% sounds more like it. Top 1% sounds more Big 3 consulting (former strategy consultant myself so I have a good perspective on that) and IB/PE domain (that it more hearsay/inference from looking at people who ended up there) which frankly the median top tier bschool student is not cut out for.

I doubt anyone has a finally enough calibrated intuitive sense of intelligence to distinguish between the 95-97th percentile and the bulk of the 99th percentile. I can believe people can tell the difference between the 97th percentile and +3 sigma, but that's a very different statement.

Right! Equating "Elite School" with "IQ" is just the kind of lazy correlation mining that plagues research these days. No one wants to do the hard work of producing real data. Big Data, indeed.

Maybe YOU should go around making top CEOs to take IQ tests.

Just get their SAT scores.

IQ and SAT are only moderately correlated in any particular epoch and the correlation is getting worse over time. Both because ever more people are studying for the SAT and because they keep on screwing with the test.

But "elite school" is just the type of signifier that especially appeals to eugenics boosters like Tyler. All the sperm in the sperm bank should be from Harvard boys and no baby conceived without it.

It depends on the meaning of "smart" and "success". For a CEO of a company concentrated in one business, growing from within based on product development, I suspect "smart" means a single-mindedness, a technical person, a hedge hog not a fox; but for a CEO of a company with interests in many businesses or built on a strategy of acquisitions and mergers, I suspect "smart" means a generalist, with a background in finance or law, a fox not a hedge hog. They are both "smart" but in different ways. As for the meaning of "success", it can mean new product development and with it the prospects for future revenue growth and profits, or it can mean the results in the latest financial statements and the recent performance of its stock. Here's a micro example of what I mean: I work with physicians, some the very best in their chosen specialties, highly regarded by their peers, "smart" and having lots of "success"; but those same "smart" physicians can be dumber than a box of rocks outside their chosen field.

+1 for Rayward's intuition. F.M.(Mike) Scherer, a well known IO economist at the Kennedy school did a study of CEO education and firm performance. What he found was that better performing firms in the tech space were managed by CEOs with an engineering/technical degree, and were more able to assess and analyze risk than CEOs with an accounting or finance background. As for CEOs in general, one group did beat accounting types, so Mike said, and that was: firms headed by a person with a law degree. See, bet you didn't see that one coming.

A prime example is General Motors, which was run by finance executives until its bankruptcy.

This part is true: "That Fortune 500 CEOs had similar education and cognitive ability selectivity over time shows that the CEO (and perhaps business) occupational and filtering structure has remained relatively unchanged across the last two decades." But is that a problem with corporations or the other institutions?

It seems to me that signaling has become a larger factor in politics and journalism. Between 1948 and 1984, only one president had an Ivy League degree. Since 1988, every president has attended either Harvard or Yale.

It isn't quite a signaling problem. Presidential politics is infested with Harvard and Yale graduates. The thing is, almost no other prestige school has that kind of presence in presidential politics. Over the last sixty odd years, there've been a few Duke graduates (Richard Nixon, Ron Paul...), a few Princeton graduates (Steve Forbes, Bill Bradley, Ralph Nader...), a couple from Columbia (Pat Buchanan, BO), a couple from Stanford (Henry Jackson, Frank Church), a couple from Georgetown (Bilge Clinton, Pat Buchanan), one from Dartmouth (Nelson Rockefeller), one from Emory (Newt Gingrich), one from BC (John Kerry, Yale Law) and none at all from Penn, Cornell, Brown, Tufts, Brandeis, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie-Mellon, U of R, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Rice, Northwestern, University of Chicago, Washington in St. Louis, Notre Dame, or the Claremont Colleges. Not a one has had a degree from a high-class polytechnic (Cal Tech, MIT, RPI), and the only ones who attended high class private colleges (Pat Robertson, Michael Dukakis, Hildebeast) also had law degrees from Harvard or Yale. The 'public ivies' like Berkeley and University of Virginia have one alumnus in the bunch, Jerry Brown (who also went to @!% Yale).

Of course, presidential runs today are very expensive, which means that success requires (1) someone like Bill Clinton (OMG), (2) someone like Mitt Romney, (3) someone like FDR or JFK, (4) a demagogue, or (5) a sycophant. I expect we will see a large number of FDRs and JFKs in the years to come, many of whom will be sons (and daughters) of graduates of schools other than Harvard and Yale (such as UVA and Berkley) who have made fortunes and whose children can afford public service. In the meantime, I fear (4) and (5), each of which is well-represented in the current campaign.

which means that success requires (1) someone like Bill Clinton (OMG), (2) someone like Mitt Romney, (3) someone like FDR or JFK, (4) a demagogue, or (5) a sycophant

Oh, shut up. None of the first three are authentic taxon which could be defined antecedently, and the 4th and 5th always means 'the other guy'.

That's not limited to tech. Engineering is the most common undergrad degree for F500 CEOs. At the F500 company I work for, nearly all the top managers have engineering degrees. Oddly (to me at least), their graduate degrees tend to be law rather than business.

those same “smart” physicians can be dumber than a box of rocks outside their chosen field.

Ask any flight instructor, the very worst student pilots are PhDs.

CEO's of large companies have to be very good manipulators of people, both to get there and then to stay there for any length of time. Like any cognitive skill it's correlated with general intelligence, so yes they are more likely to be intelligent as well.

How much intelligent is the problem? And "correlated" doen't mean that someone in the 1% top of manipulative ability will be in the 1% top of IQ.

herbal pills health chinese good cheap credit card paypal powder link

I think that smart and cognitive ability for the purposes of this article are being used in an inconsistent way. I would not say that smart/cognitive ability necessarily translates to quick thinking, excellent multi-tasker, excellent risk assessment, excellent grand-scale trend-anticipator, and excellent utilizer of people -- which I would say are the key ingredients to a successful large-corp CEO (though it is more likely in-place network, savvy, and cultural fit -- which is far from smart/cognitive ability). Smart and cognitive ability 'should' be used to refer to a very specific and narrow, highly abstract skill set that was incredibly difficult to build and is incredibly difficult to maintain. When this is successfully applied to real life application and integrated over the long term. This person is smart with highly developed cognitive ability - say a nuclear physicist or micro-biologist, etc.

If Gates is so smart, why does he back such loony left wing causes? Why is his software so poor?

Just what are we talking about anyway, knowledge of his business and industry?

Also, this is a screamer" " Across the last 19 years, between 37.5% and 41.0% of these CEOs were found to attend an elite school which likely placed them in the top 1% of cognitive ability. ". someone has not spent much time with Ivy leagers. Do you really think that the Ivy leages really represent the top of IQ in the nation. We are in trouble if they do, for they are but a tiny subset of the population.

Moreover, the Ivies have given us such "geniuses" as John Kerry, both the Obamas, and the Clintons. Hardly high "cognitive ability" in any sense other than getting to first to the taxpayer funded gravy-train.

What we should probably look at for CEO is how their families are connected, our what contacts they have made in their own lives.

Really, the notion that CEOs are smarter than those who are under them shows that someone has had little personal experience at higher levels in corporations or in their internal and external governance and political tumult. It is an absolutely hilarious construct given the reality of things.

It is telling that we hold people like Gates to be "super duper intelligent". IT say more about us than it does about him.

They

"If Gates is so smart, why does he back such loony left wing causes?"
"If he is so smart, why doesn't think like me?" We can as well ask why, if you are so smart, you are not as rich as Gates. At least, one of these standards is tied to objective outcomes. And top scients have backed loony left wing and right wing (but then it is OK) causes, yet it would stupid to say they didn't need high intelligence to master their intellectual activities.

"We are in trouble if they do, for they are but a tiny subset of the population."
Coincidentally, it is exactly what 1% means. But maybe the money 1% is John Q. Public.

I have very little political overlap with Kerry, the Obamas, or the Clintons, but from reading your comment it's plain that on any normal measure of cognition they would each turn you upside down and mop the floor.

1. Kerry, no. He was a rank-and-file Boston attorney who gave up practice after about six years. He was given mostly administrative and PR work at the Suffolk County prosecutor's office before the DA lost patience with him and fired him. His law practice was a partnership with one other attorney and was eccentric: criminal defense law and nothing else. His law school grades were unremarkable. His college grades were unremarkable. Congressional seats in Massachusetts are generally safe for Democrats. He had one challenging election - a primary contest in 1984. His shtick in Congress was committee investigations rather than legislation.

2. Michelle Obama: arguably, no. She quit practicing law in 1991 and her license lapsed to inactive status in 1993. It's difficult to make sense of what she ever did all day in the various bureaucratic positions she was hired for with the Chicago city government and the University of Chicago over the period running from 1991 to 2008. We do know that her husband was chairman of a crucial subcommittee while she was employed by the University of Chicago Hospitals, that she received a fat raise when he was elected to Congress, and that her handsomely paid position was so crucial to the organization that it was eliminated when she left it and moved into the White House.

3. Barack Obama: arguably no. Pro-rating p/t and seasonal work, he was employed in law offices for all of about 3 years and was a lecturer at the University of Chicago for all of five. He was never offered a partnership at the 12 person firm at which he worked and never published any scholarly articles.

4. You've forgotten that Hildebeast flunked the DC Bar exam and that it was quite handy that the state commissions she argued in front of during her years at the Rose Law Firm were appointed by...her husband.

5. Bilge Clinton never managed to earn a degree in Britain.

Come on, Art. Clinton emerges from podunk Arkansas to become a Rhode Scholar and Yale Law grad, and your best analysis of his cognitive ability is "didn't get a degree in Britain." None of the other cheap shots is much better, and I don't even like these people.

Clinton emerges from podunk Arkansas to become a Rhode Scholar and Yale Law grad,

Dr. George McGovern (clergyman's son from small town South Dakota) and Dr. Newton Leroy Gingrich (Army sergeant's son) were both college teachers. Dr. Alan Keyes was another army sergeant's son. Wesley Clark also grew up in Arkansas, but, unlike BC, actually prospered in demanding trade outside of electoral politics. Rick Santorum and Paul Tsongas were both working-class born and bred, which Bill Clinton was not.

Clinton manage to earn a Georgetown degree, a Yale Law degree and won a Rhodes scholarship. Seems impressive enough.

My point was that he'd rather overstated his case.

The comparison was any of the people on the list with the crafter of the initial comment. I have no idea why you're bringing in a laundry list of other politicians who might be smarter.

All right, I'll explain it to you: Clinton looks less impressive when you place him next to a half-dozen other national politicians, none of whom crossed your mind.

No one in this thread suggested these people have unsurpassed intelligence. If you're going to be condescending, at least try to follow the argument.

Bill Clinton was obviously brilliant. Not the most truthful person but brilliant.

Why guess at CEO IQs when you can use measurements?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2436765

Looking back in a few years time, this paper will also remind people that Sweden was once a land with a European IQ distribution.

H/T hbdchick

This whole thing founders on the notion that attending an elite college puts you in the top 1% in cognitive ability.

Eh, yes and no. The median grades and test scores for Ivies almost certainly qualify. The legacy and affirmative action cases probably still make the top ~5%, if I had to guess, and the further corporate filtering to CEO should help get rid of the riffraff.

The people who say "yeah but so-and-so was an idiot!" (see this thread)--haven't spent much time around actual idiots.

On the other hand, I'd almost be more impressed with the cognitive abilities of people who rose to CEO without the Ivy imprimatur. Paul O'Neill, for example, was a Fresno State guy and pretty clearly smarter than his (legacy) Ivy boss.

Paul O’Neill, for example, was a Fresno State guy and pretty clearly smarter than his (legacy) Ivy boss.

And you've interacted with both. Paul Fired-for-Cause O'Neill also attended the Claremont Colleges and Indiana University and was a lateral hire for corporate jobs after a position in the Ford Administration.

Art, you seem to lose your head when somebody insults a favored pol. If your contention is that GWB is smarter than O'Neill, it doesn't take personal friends/colleagues of theirs to laugh you out of the room.

I have no favored pols. It's an article of faith among both liberals and alt-right types that it's blatantly obvious that George W. Bush is an idiot. That's an attitude, not a serious evaluation, and it says something about the people propagating it, not about Bush or O'Neill.

O'Neill's career is interesting because he was a federal lifer and had no background in business 'ere the age of 42 when he was hired for an upper management position at International Paper. I'd be interested to know what they saw in him.

GWB is not an idiot, even if he wasn't a great speaker, and certainly has an IQ above 100.

But it's pretty rich of Art to rag on datroof for not having 'interacted' with the people he is judging, right after listing and confidently appraising about 20 different people he has never met. Typical Art though.

" a broader array of occupations in the extreme right tail of achievement (e.g., politicians, judges, billionaires, journalists, academics, powerful people, and other business elites)"

The "right tail of achievement"? Individuals in those occupations (politician is an occupation?) not only occasionally give the appearance of having achieved something, they're also on the right tail of disastrous decisions and policies. In a relatively free market context every successful CEO will have climbed over the bodies of his competitors, who are thus necessarily losers, to at least some extent. For every CEO of General Motors there are scores of CEOs of Auburn, Hudson, Studebaker, Cord, etc.

student loans cheap colleges success money good lowest rates ask future nice instalments succeed only 2020 college great link

I had two comments deleted yesterday while Guest61's stood. To be fair, he is concise and polite.

I had a comment deleted too yesterday. Clearly people who do not belong to the authors' clique have it tougher.

Guest61 is a Mercatus fellow, no doubt.

The brilliance of what this website has become is that it is increasingly hard to discern between human trolls and spambots.

That was a good sentence by Observerbot.

I was worried about retirement, thinking I would not be able to save enough, but I learned how to trade Forex, and it changed my life. Now I work at home and make lots of money, maybe you should give it a try. Here's how to learn how to trade link

In my experience, there's a "smart enough" threshold for something like a big company CEO, but I'm pretty sure it's below 125 IQ.

Most people above 125 IQ lack one or many crucial requirements for such a job.

Start-up CEOs are probably more right tail and quirky/obsessive but leading a large complex organization is about WAAAYYY more than IQ.

> but leading a large complex organization is about WAAAYYY more than IQ

It's about IQ, and a lack of cognitive defects (eg: a measure of self control, some willingness to put in hours, an ability to socialize).

Only academics care about such useless comparisons...everyone in the real world cares about results.

Definitely only academics. Well and also the public sector. But that's about it...oh and large firms in the private sector. Oops, forgot to mention small firms in the private sector. And maybe social groupings of individuals and also mate selection. Other than that nobody really cares.

I spent thirty years in the private sector in both large and small firms and I don't remember any interest in the chief executives' IQs...only results.

The alt-right reminds one of Gatsby's father comparing the house to the photos his son had sent. The photo was real. The house a mere representation.

Always remember the 15 th of November. It is the 126th anniversary of Brazil's Republic. "God shed His grace on thee. And crown thy good with brotherhood. "

Today's discussion: the difference between intelligent and cunning.

As each profession requires different mental intelligences, how was that cognitive ability measured in earlier periods of the elites ? Other than for analytical and logical abilities -are there any standardized tests? Study seems too broad based for measures it is using

തത്ത്വചിന്ത ഒരു പഠനപദ്ധതിയല്ല ജീവിതരീതയാണെന്ന് എപ്പിക്റ്റീറ്റസ് കരുതി. പുറംലോകത്തെ സംഭവങ്ങളൊക്കെ വിധിയുടെ നിശ്ചയമനുസരിച്ച് സംഭവിക്കുന്നതാകയാൽ നമ്മുടെ നിയന്ത്രണത്തിനപ്പുറത്താണെന്നും, എന്നാൽ സംഭവിക്കുന്നതിനെയൊക്കെ നിർവികാരമായ ശാന്തിയിൽ സ്വീകരിക്കുവാൻ നമുക്കാകുമെന്നുമാണ് അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ ചിന്തയുടെ മുഖ്യനിലപാട്. അതേസമയം, ഓരോരുത്തർക്കും അവരുടെ കർമ്മങ്ങളെ പരിശോധിച്ച് കണിശമായ സം‌യമനത്തിലൂടെ നിയന്ത്രിക്കാനാകുമെന്നതുകൊണ്ട്, വ്യക്തികൾ അവരുടെ പ്രവർത്തികൾക്ക് ഉത്തരവാദികളാണെന്നും അദ്ദേഹം പഠിപ്പിച്ചു. നമ്മുടെ നിയന്ത്രണത്തിനപ്പുറത്തുള്ളതിനെ നിയന്ത്രിക്കാൻ ശ്രമിക്കുന്നതിൽ നിന്നും കഴിവിൽ പെട്ടതിനെ നിറവേറ്റാതിരിക്കുന്നതിൽ നിന്നുമാണ് ദുഃഖം ജനിക്കുന്നത്. വിശ്വനഗരത്തിലെ പൗരന്മാരെന്ന നിലയിൽ നാം നമ്മുടെ സഹജീവികളായ മനുഷ്യരോടുള്ള കടമകൾ നിറവേറ്റണം. ഇത്തരത്തിലുള്ള ജീവിതം നമ്മെ സന്തുഷ്ടിയിലെത്തിക്കുന്നു.

I might have put that differently.

politicians, judges, billionaires, journalists, academics, powerful people, and other business elites)

One of these things is not like the others.

None of them are similar. First of all, power is basically an illusion. People will blow off laws they don't like an individual politicians have little ability to influence legislative outcomes, although collectively they have some. Academics have little influence outside of academia. The worst they can do is kick out students, and they won't get paid if they do that. With the Internet, everyone can just put up a blog and pretend to be a journalist. Judges are basically politicians but only have influence over people that come into their jurisdiction.

They are a small minority of smart people and on average are probably only a little bit smarter than the rest of the population.

I was not aware that billionaire was an occupation. How does one apply for such a position?

I have an instructional guide. Please send a check for $1m to Old Pink, care of the Funny Farm, Chalfont.

Journalists seem stupid but that is only because their craft is to attract eyes not to educate. Not dissimilar to politicians the are very intelligent but they have to use their intelligence to get votes, much less so to govern intelligently. If you think either is stupid they might be fooling you.

Comments for this post are closed