butterflydreaming (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
butterflydreaming) wrote2010-10-07 07:12 pm
butterflydreaming) wrote2010-10-07 07:12 pm
Entry tags:
Writer's Block: She's a brainiac on the floor
[Error: unknown template qotd]
I *am* super-smart. Since I'm not averagely rich, I'd take it.
I don't think very well of those who would be okay with "average" smarts if it meant they could be super-rich. Way to be shallow. I would be willing to be vastly more intelligent even if it meant that my material goods would be less. I suspect that the correlation would be intentional. Most of the recent answers to this question were the choice for smarts, saying that smarts would lead to riches. The assumption that material wealth is the intelligent person's choice is pretty sad.
As wealth increases beyond the level of basic comforts, it acquires cost of its own. Notice how many rich folk are misers? Think of the cost of upkeep for fancy houses and cars, not to mention keeping up with the society of the wealthy. And it's not as if you could really remain in mainstream society if you had bursting bank accounts, unless you never did anything with it, in which case -- what is the point? It might even be a tough thing to keep the friends you had pre-riches. Even suppose that you could remain anonymous as a philanthropist, at the very least the I.R.S. would know, which would mean that your tax preparer would need to know, and if you have a tax preparer you may as well have a lawyer, and the law firm would advise you to invest your money, which means more lawyers and "people"... and so on. Next thing you know, you're involved in politics.
No, I think being super-smart would mean figuring out how to finally be free of the entanglements of material things. Having average wealth would be more than enough.
I *am* super-smart. Since I'm not averagely rich, I'd take it.
I don't think very well of those who would be okay with "average" smarts if it meant they could be super-rich. Way to be shallow. I would be willing to be vastly more intelligent even if it meant that my material goods would be less. I suspect that the correlation would be intentional. Most of the recent answers to this question were the choice for smarts, saying that smarts would lead to riches. The assumption that material wealth is the intelligent person's choice is pretty sad.
As wealth increases beyond the level of basic comforts, it acquires cost of its own. Notice how many rich folk are misers? Think of the cost of upkeep for fancy houses and cars, not to mention keeping up with the society of the wealthy. And it's not as if you could really remain in mainstream society if you had bursting bank accounts, unless you never did anything with it, in which case -- what is the point? It might even be a tough thing to keep the friends you had pre-riches. Even suppose that you could remain anonymous as a philanthropist, at the very least the I.R.S. would know, which would mean that your tax preparer would need to know, and if you have a tax preparer you may as well have a lawyer, and the law firm would advise you to invest your money, which means more lawyers and "people"... and so on. Next thing you know, you're involved in politics.
No, I think being super-smart would mean figuring out how to finally be free of the entanglements of material things. Having average wealth would be more than enough.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Though this may be what you are saying and I'm missing the emphasis.
no subject