If You’re So Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?

It’s often assumed that those who have accumulated great wealth without the benefit of a sizable inheritance must possess a little extra something when it comes to brainpower. Surely, anyone who’s managed to build a fortune from modest beginnings must have a mental edge that provides them access to inner realms of intelligence the rest of us can only envy. But new research shows that, when it comes to being rich, being smart has nothing to do with it.

The study, conducted over a period of 25 years by Ohio State University’s Center for Human Resource Research, found no correlation between a high I.Q. and an individual’s net worth. Indeed, those of below-average intelligence were likely to be just as wealthy as their high-I.Q. peers.

Nor were those with high I.Q.’s more likely than the dimmer bulbs among us to be free of financial difficulties: Their superior intelligence did not protect them from the maxed-out credit cards, missed payments and personal bankruptcy that beset a large portion of Americans.

Far more than I.Q., emotional intelligence—or E.Q.—may turn out to be the true indicator of success, financial and otherwise.

Indeed, a detailed look at the study reveals that those with high I.Q.’s may actually be less able to manage their finances than the average bear. Why? Because it turns out that high I.Q. does correlate with higher income: Each point in I.Q. increase was found to correspond with $202 to $616 in additional income per year. And so someone with a very high I.Q.—say, 130—earns between $6,000 and $18,500 more annually than someone with an average I.Q. of 100. And yet, even with that income advantage, the high-I.Q. crowd cannot manage to save or build their wealth, since they end up no wealthier than the less-smart, lower-earning crowd. The study notes that, of those with an I.Q. of 125 and above, a full 6 percent still run up their credit cards to the max.

Smart or not so smart, it seems that, in a democracy, debt is the great equalizer.

Article continues below
More from Politics
STAR OF DAVID OR 'PLAIN STAR'?   If you thought "CP Time" was impolitic, on July 2 Donald Trump posted a picture on Twitter of a Star of David on top of a pile of cash next to Hillary Clinton's face. You'd think after the aforementioned crime stats incident (or after engaging a user called "@WhiteGenocideTM," or blasting out a quote from Benito Mussolini, or...) Trump would have learned to wait a full 15 seconds before hitting the "Tweet" button. But not only was the gaffe itself bad, the attempts at damage control made the BP oil spill response look a virtuoso performance.  About two hours after the image went up on Trump's account, somebody took it down and replaced it with a similar picture that swapped the hexagram with a circle (bearing the same legend "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!"!). Believe it or not, it actually got worse from there. As reports arose that the first image had originated on a white supremacist message board, Trump insisted that the shape was a "sheriff's star," or "plain star," not a Star of David. And he continued to sulk about the coverage online and in public for days afterward, even when the media was clearly ready to move on. This refusal to just let some bad press go would haunt him later on.
Donald Trump More Or Less Says He’ll Keep On Tweeting as President