We also can't reliably test IQ scores over 130, a fact which I wish I'd learned sooner than a decade after getting a test result of 148.
Most humans are motivated to help other humans; the exceptions often end up dead, either in combat (perhaps vs. military, perhaps vs. police), or executed for murder, or as a result of running a suicidal cult like Jim Jones. But not all of them, as seen in the hawks on both sides of the cold war. "Better dead than red" comes to mind.
> Also gaining power / wealth / influence only seems a little connected to intelligence
Trump inherited a lot and reportedly did worse than the market average with that inheritance, so I'm not sure you can draw inference from him using that inhereted money to promote himself as the Republican candidate, beyond the fact that it means other valid rich people (i.e. not Musk because he wasn't born in the US) don't even want to be president — given the high responsibility and relatively low pay, can you say they're wrong? They've already got power and influence. Musk can ban anyone he wants from Twitter, the actual POTUS isn't allowed to do that. And given Musk's diverse businesses, even if he was allowed to run, he'd have a hard time demonstrating that he wasn't running the country to benefit himself (an accusation that has also been made against Trump). Sure the POTUS has a military, how many of the billionaires are even that interested in having their own given what they can do without one?
We also can't reliably test IQ scores over 130, a fact which I wish I'd learned sooner than a decade after getting a test result of 148.
Most humans are motivated to help other humans; the exceptions often end up dead, either in combat (perhaps vs. military, perhaps vs. police), or executed for murder, or as a result of running a suicidal cult like Jim Jones. But not all of them, as seen in the hawks on both sides of the cold war. "Better dead than red" comes to mind.
> Also gaining power / wealth / influence only seems a little connected to intelligence
On the contrary, they are correlated: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence
Trump inherited a lot and reportedly did worse than the market average with that inheritance, so I'm not sure you can draw inference from him using that inhereted money to promote himself as the Republican candidate, beyond the fact that it means other valid rich people (i.e. not Musk because he wasn't born in the US) don't even want to be president — given the high responsibility and relatively low pay, can you say they're wrong? They've already got power and influence. Musk can ban anyone he wants from Twitter, the actual POTUS isn't allowed to do that. And given Musk's diverse businesses, even if he was allowed to run, he'd have a hard time demonstrating that he wasn't running the country to benefit himself (an accusation that has also been made against Trump). Sure the POTUS has a military, how many of the billionaires are even that interested in having their own given what they can do without one?