Money; the affect on IQ and EQ.

[pioneer]

Money is sort of the water, that waters the many gardens within culture. Money is very organic. Any aspect of culture can grow with this water. The purpose of this topic is to present an experiment, to determine the affects of watering the IQ and EQ (emotional quotient) with this cultural water.

 

The angle I had in mind is best explained with a thought experiment. Say we had two men, both with an IQ of 100. One of the men has to work without resources, the other is given $1M. The problem we give them is to build a house. The man without resources may form a crude shelter out of a cardboard box. The man with the money can ask around and get himself directed to a builder, who will then use the money to build his house. After they are both done, we ask strangers who has the higher IQ. Most people would subjectivity assume the one with the nice house, that he built, has the higher IQ. Technically, he did not build anything, but sort of leased the higher IQ of others, to subjectivity boost his IQ.

 

As an example of money and EQ, say we have two men who are both grouchy and rude. One has no resources in this experiment, and the other is given the $1M. The first person may be seen for who he is. The second man can hire someone who is willing to tell him that he is strong and misunderstood, for a day's wage. In both experiments, the objective testing may not change. But the money can cause an enhancement that appears to subjectively boosts IQ, EQ.

 

Let us run this experiment from a slightly different angle. We start with two millionaires, both with very respectable IQ's and EQ's, who travel in similar social circles. We ask one of the millionaires, for our experiment, to pretend he lost all his money in a bad investment. The basis of this experiment is to determine whether, his objectively tested IQ, EQ, will see a subjective lowering. The odds are, if he gained any previous subjective enhancement, that would be lowered due to the bad judgement. The question is, would subjectivity cause a a further subjective lowering to below his objective IQ and EQ? For example, he may be removed from the A-list, but put on the B-list; social probation. But would being on the B-list cause a subjective lowering in his IQ, EQ, below objective measures?

 

I presented this because it is controversial and ripe for opinions.

[Sisyphus]

So in other words, "do we tend to overestimate the intelligence and social skills of rich people?" Is there more to the question than that?

[Mr Skeptic]

The true IQ of rich people tends to be higher than that of poor people. There are various aspects that influence IQ including nutrition and education, where the rich people have an advantage. Also a person with a high IQ will be likelier to get rich (though that is by far not the best indicator).

 

If what you are asking is whether we overestimate the IQ of rich people, then yes.

 

If you are asking whether artificially changing a person's resources or perception of himself can change his IQ, I would also say yes. In general self-image would have a larger impact on IQ (and EQ) than resources.

 

Also, I think EQ is incredibly badly defined currently.

[dichotomy]

If what you are asking is, what subjective loss/gain of IQ and EQ is caused by money, in two individuals of comparable IQ and EQ. I would say objectively, none. And subjectively, the individual's own mind dictates what loss/gain is achieved.

[pioneer]

I am not trying to equate money with the objective measure of IQ or EQ. What I was saying money can cause a subjective affect. Being subjective it doesn't change the hard numbers, but can alter perception subjectivity within the observer and also possibly subjectively within the person.

 

Picture a hypothetical scenario, where an asteroid hits the earth and disrupts culture, such that money is no longer of any value. The logistics are all messed up and everyone is just trying to cope and survive. Nobody wants to lease out IQ or EQ because they need it for their own survival. In this scenario, all the subjectivity is gone. If one needs food, shelter or even motation to cope, one is on their own. The objective numbers are more important, than any subjective change due to money. Whether one was rich or poor, if they have the IQ and EQ, they would have advantage.

 

The carpenter may be able to build a good shelter. Another person may try to buy this shelter, but since money has no value, he can not buy the shelter and get the credit for ingenuity. But what he could do, is go back and get a gun and threaten the carpenter. Before money, force was the means to inflate the IQ and EQ. If he can force him to leave, he now has the best house. The stragglers see his new house and subjectively give him credit for being the most on the ball.

 

Violence and fear was the original subjective enhancer of IQ, EQ. One could use violence and fear to lease out the IQ and EQ of others, to create subjective enhancements. In older days, wealth was often centralized to prevent money from changing the social subjectivity away from the king. Money was an evolution way to do the same thing. It did not use fear to lease IQ, EQ, but catered to desire. This is a more efficient way, since it gave the leasee something work harder for; subjective enhancement. This allowed more subjective inflation so more can share in it. If you take away b the subjectivities of desire and fear, then we are back to the disrupted culture above, without money, violence, with only objective IQ, EQ left.

 

Depending on which motivation is being used, fear, desire or objectivity, the subjective evaluation of social IQ, EQ, will change social distribution. In fourth world countries, where economics is not well developed, old time fear is used. Brutality gives one a top position, as though this primative action has subjectively enhanced IQ-EQ. The top dog may forcefully or monetarily lease the expertise of advisors and yes men and women.

 

If you look at the leader of North Korea, if we took away the fear-money to reduce him to objectivity, he is an average Joe. If we add back the subjective inflation, he is a world leader. I am not making any moral judgement, only that human evolution must have a reason for giving these subjective enhancements such an important role in social dynamics. One explanation is that humans are more subjective than objective. The importance is this, caters to the strong suit of the average human.

[Sisyphus]

What you're describing is basically a Marxist-type economic model, except for some reason you're fixated only on intelligence and social skills (sorry, IQ and "EQ") as labor multipliers.

[pioneer]

Sorry this is long, but I was on a roll.

 

What I am trying to describe is the subjectivity within culture, where objective standards do not have to line up with subjective standards. Money is one means that allow subjective to exceed objective, but since humans are more subjective than objective, this baseline of subjectivity appears objective.

 

Let me give a real life example. Britney Spears is in the American Tabloids due to her child custody battle. When she was younger, she was a media entertainment darling. She was subjectively inflated to star status and earned the wealth from her star status to reinforce her subjective enhancement. For many young girls she was the subjective high bar to emulate.

 

Now that she is a young woman, the tabloids are sort of trying to cancel out the subjective enhancement to show the young woman, as she really is. She was always that same person, but the celebrity and wealth inflated that. But the inflation, although subjective, reinforced her own subjective assessment of herself, and may have helped her performances. It was not so much the inner Britney was different, but her mask was shinery.

 

The tabloids have subjectively gone the other way in that they have not only cancelled out the subjective enhancement, but have been able to depress her objective scores for her IQ, EQ. For example, say one took an IQ test and scored 135. The next day we give a similar test, but with different questions. This time we have someone with a drum looking over your shoulder. They beat the drum while you take the test. Unless you have the focus of a Zen master, the distraction will change the results. It is not that the IQ decreased, only the test parameters have subjectively change. Originally, Britney's drummers would beat the drum and give answers. But now the drummer is trying to mess her up and distract her.

 

Ironically, all that Britney had to do, was lease out the EQ and IQ of good nannies and teachers and then accept credit for a well adjusted child. She tried to do it like a working mom, using her own objective skills. Without the proper social inflation she sort of fell short of the subjective standards. The child's father will have the money to lease then needed EQ and IQ and will be given the credit for raising a child who will turn out well. That is unless the tabloids try to depress that subjectivity with distractions.

 

Truth = objective data in culture

 

Truth, although a philosophical concept, is analogous to the objective data that a scientist creates in the lab. This raw data, if reliable, is useful to the scientist, to help him extrapolate other objective relationships. But with humans more subjective than objective, the data in not always objective, but can be presented in a way that allows a subjective enhancement. For example, dress for sucess, does not change the objective IQ, EQ. This is used to create a subjective enhancement, which works, since most people are more subjective than objective. Money makes this easier. One could also use force, to break into a store, to create the same affect.

 

Relative to the objective data outputting from the person, the objective data has been fudged. It is sort of like a scientist, after his experiments, taking away some bad data points and only presenting selective objective data. One is not lieing about the data, since the data was collected under the proper experimently protocol. We are only presenting the best real data. So if we assume this data is true, which is sort of is, the objective conclusions can change. That is the entire purpose of this enhancement.

 

Humans being mostly subjective, are not confined to objective output. That would not fit into the ambience of subjectivity. One would not go into an interview dressed like they are most of the time, when they are being themselves. This would be too objective. One needs the subjective embellishment. It is not easy to be totally objective in the subjectivity of culture, since the majority will think their subjective baseline is what is objective. Full objectivity may appear subjective relative to this baseline.

 

If one went to an interview dressed in their favorite home sweats, this is who you are objectively. But that would be interpretted as someone who is subjectively rebellious. One may even get depressed subjective evaluation for their IQ and EQ, scores based on this objective data. One is sort of obligated to play by the rules of the cultural subjectivity, unless you have money, then the same depressed subjective scores can get a subjective boost. Hugh Hefner can walk around in a night robe. But if the average person did the same thing and could not inflate, it is different.

 

 

I would like to go back the previous scenario about the natural disaster, which disrupts culture, so money is no longer able to inflate EQ and IQ. The person who took the house by force, used the laws of the jungle to get their subjective enhancement. A stranger walking by, might assume subjective enhancement. He stops to talk with the new home owner and asks him about his house. The home owner is not confined to objective data output and may not want to say that he stole it. Instead he may lie and say he built it. There is no way to check this data, so the stranger takes it a face value, and objectively concludes his original subjective enhancement evaluation, actually has a basis in objective reality.

 

The new home owner could also output different data that is half true or half objective. He may say that I didn't build the house but my friend did, and he gave it to me. This data may depress the subjective evaluation. He would still get a boost for having a nice shelter, but not the same amount. If the data output was fully objective and he said, I didn't build anything but used a gun to forcefully take the house, the subjective evaluation may be dependant on the subjectivity of the person. He may still inflate the IQ numbers for his ingenuity but depress the EQ number for being a brute.

 

Because of the importance of subjectivity in culture, total objective output may not allow one to achieve the subjective baseline. But people are too smart for one to totally fudge the output data. So the compromise is spin and embellishment. Force can be used to create embellishment. But money allows one to lease embellishment and subjective spin.

 

Here is how I see the net social dynamics, and why these are important. The spin and embellishment, being subjective, does not allow an objective steady state to form. The data is not objective enough for that purpose. However, it adds chaos, while objectivity is trying to crystalize out. It is sort of the heat that causes the diamond to slowly form. If the objective diamond was to crystalize out too fast it would have defects. Instead the subjectivity keeps the pot warm so it can to build slowly to perfection. The human imagination is not limited to cause and affect, but along the subjective way, bit and piece of objective reality will also appear.

 

Even in science we generate data but will also use subjective spin and embellishment. This may come in conflict with other subjective spin and embellishment. But as time goes on, a new piece of the diamond will crystalizes out and remain. Later we may notice a defect and need to heat the pot again withmore spin and embellishment to correct the defect. Science 1000 years from now, may be quite different than today. To assume what we do today is the final answer is the subjectivity in science. Some will remain, but the subjective baseline of culture does not give one an objective baseline to help objectively determine the amount of spin.

 

For example, if a scientist found the perfect job with the pay needed for all the social subjective enhancements they ever wanted, part of their drive will be to protect the green milk coming from that cow. This is human nature. Very few will be so objective as to put themselves out of this good job, if the data said so. There is more to scientists than just objectivity, there are also subjective needs. It is easier to be objective if it does not adversely affect subjectivity.

 

As for me, I sort of place myself between a rock and a hard place. It sort of a simulated natural disaster, where I was not able to make use of the subjective enhancements to help inflate my numbers. This position is below the subjective baseline of culture. This was an objective place to examine IQ and EQ, since the position did not allow normal inflation. After a while a more objective baseline formed. I am adding a little spin and embellishment to boost my numbers. Objective truth or data does not always work at the cultural baseline or where it becomes more inflated.

[pioneer]

Sorry to make this even longer, but I added another scenario

 

Say we we came up with an idea for a new fastfood chain. We have a new type of burger that is very tasty. To expand the business one needs to advertise. A purely objective add would not work affectively. One could not just present tech specs and an objective analysis of customers. This would be too objective to expand the business for more money. Instead we need to advertise at the subjective level. One may need to lease IQ/EQ for an affective add. The add may be a nice looking family having fun in one your shiny clean staged resturants, eating the foot tall burger made of plastic food so its keeps it loft. Money is subjective so to get people to trade money, one needs to make them feel subjectively, they are getting a good deal, so they are happy to make that trade.

 

Our subjective add works and our business begins to expand. The needs of business are far more objective; we need a large supply of burger materials which are good, reliable and at the best price point. So we put the account out for bid. The companies all send their best sale people to close the deal. The best sales people are not just objective, although they will have objective data on hand if it is necessary. They need to use theiir subjective skills to make the buyer feel good about giving them money. They could use any number of things, including inflated promises of a constant supply, or a weekend stay at the supply company condo. This has subjectivity little to do with the objective needs of supplies, but it can help in some cases. If the subjectivity is good, and the purchaser feels good about giving up his money, more money is made by everyone.

 

Now we have our demand and our steady supply. To scale up, we need to build our factory and warehouse. We also need to get a subjective brochure on the rapid money making possiblities with this new franchise opportunity. We haven't sold many yet but we have our graphs. This will also involve salemen to help people feel good about the new opportunity. Once the factory building project is in motion, it becomes very objective, since it needs to conform to building codes and has to be able to meet the needs of production. The engineers and craftmen, needed to make this possible, make a good wage leasing out their IQ. But it may not be as much as those who are involved in the various salemanships.

 

Once the factory is up and running, again we need objectivity. We need the production lines to follow procedures and QA to keep good records. But within the company, promotion for more money, often involves the subjectivities associated with company politics. For example, one person may objectively realize this burger may not be healthy for kids to eat all the time, but the company needs them to eat it all the time. To take an objective stand will not work out well. One can think it, but one needs to use the subjective party line if their ambition is more money. Don't think about health, but the tasty joy of eating the new buddy burger.

 

To increase productivity, so the company can make more money, we need to make the employees feel happy about working at the plant. We can pump in music or provide a company park for lunch, etc. We can also provide ways to motivate, such as production bonuses. Or one can set up a competition between shifts, for simple subjective bragging rights, that we will be displayed conspicuously on a large banner at the front door.

 

As the company grows and the number of franchises increases, one will eventually go head to head with the big guys who are also competing. At first you were a subjective mosquito on their giant back. They may not have collected any objective logistic on the rise of this company but were basking in the subjective glow of being in the fortune 500. But now you are a monkey on their back as the competition hits their bottom line. They may have to add some extra subjective heat, with better adds. This may buy them more, than objectively putting the money in better supplies. They may even crank up the subjective heat in a more underhanded way by calling on a friend on the zoning board to hault all new building. You need to lease the IQ-EQ of lawyers to help paint a prettier picture. One may even have to go over the local's head and lease a lobbyist to go to the state assemble. The correct subjective campaign contribution can get him to see eye to eye (wink) so he will subjectively fight on your behalf.

 

The objectivity is important to run the business logisitics in an efficient manner. But the money makers are in the parallel subjectivies. A better add, more aggressive sales, lawyers, lobbyist, etc., can make a company more money than putting that same money into the objective things. Objective is needed when these are maxed out and new ideas or process improvements are needed to give the company a competitive edge. The new objective idea, can then be used to re-spark the subjective train.

 

Useful Application

 

Humans are very subject and money is the water of culture, which benefits by human subjectivity. A good application of this is the rising costs of medical insurance. One can sort of assume, since there is a lot of money in the entire industry, there is also a lot of subjectivity. It could not make as much if it was an entirely objective industry.

 

If one looks at medicine and health, with cool reason, without any subjective sentiment, one can draw certain logical conclusions. The first conclusion is the medical state of the art improves with time. The second is better medical advances should imply people are getting healthier. Based on this, the cost of medicial care and treatment should going down, flat, or increasingly slightly to compensate for inflation, since healthier people mean a lowered need for all the good and services. But if you look at the actual curve, the costs are increasing faster than is predicted.

 

An analogy would be GM introducing a brand new model auto. The first year, because it is a complex machine, the maintanence bill may be X. GM will look at the data and try to make product improvements so X is lower the following year. If X increased in year two, one would be stumped. One would conclude either they have made their product worse, or they have subjectively altered the maintanence schedule to make more money. This could require more diagnostic testing, irregradless of actual need. They could also change the oil, transmission, brake fluid schedule, so these now need to be replaced sooner than was previously objectively required.

 

Medical care is one area where subjectivity is easy to emploit, since one is dealing with fear and not just desire. One may postpone desire, but fear is a nagging subjectivity that can only be relieved with the proper tweak. The tweak, in turn, is decide by the industry that is making the money. I am not blaming doctors. The insurance and legal industries will add their own subjectivities to the doctors, to make money, causing them to react.

 

One possible study, if someone wishes to pursue, would be to compare a few objective criteria, like life expectancy and infant mortality, between countries where medical care is socialized and somewhat rationed, to capitalistic countries where everything is readily available. If there is no difference, than the expanded treatment is there for subjectivity-money. It would be a beginning to determine the subjective costs of medicine. This is the fat that can trimmed since, medicine is science and should be objective. But the industry is composed of subjective humans.