The Smartest People in the World

Who are the smartest people in the world? Can you even name one of the top 100?

I think that absolute intelligence is defined by complex problem solving. The ability to take huge complex ideas and comprehend them. The problem with this argument is that a person who simply studies a system long enough will have a much greater understanding of it than a newbie who does not know the intricacies of the system.

This occurred to me on a run and I started thinking... The smartest people I have ever met at my age where physics majors. How do I know? You can tell by the questions someone asks. Can I give an example? No, I'm sorry. All of the most complicated questions I can ever recall seeing my peers ask were far enough beyond me that I do not even remember.

Let me explain, stumping a professor does not entail being really smart. I've done that enough times. It is asking an expert a tough question in his or her specific field of research that they can answer, but only because they have years of experience in that field. The most prominent example I can remember was in a physics class when I was having trouble simply following along. One of the students asked a question that made the professor pause and turn. He started explaining the answer using words that completely confused me. I watched the student and he was nodding along as though everything made sense. These were people who seemed to do three dimensional gradients in their heads, which I can understand using a sheet of paper, and they were talking in a language which meant nothing to me. For those that are not rocket scientists, the ability to do gradients is about as hard the math ever gets. There is more complicated stuff but once you master that, you can do anything. At least it feels like you can do anything.

I considered the richest people in the world. However, after reading about Warren Buffet and Bill Gates I was not so sure being rich means you are the smartest. I stumbled on an article about the growing mathematic ability on Wall Street and the short-sighted growing income inequality in the United States and it seems that the very smartest people sure aren't the ones managing the money.

I considered bank robbers, like Ocean's 11, but that seems more dangerous than requiring the smartest people on the planet.

I considered IQ tests, but those are not always the best indicator of intelligence and they can vary based on your background. That is to say the more math you do the easier math questions will be. I did take three online tests to see how well I scored. I scored a 132, 120 and 125. On the 125 I scored 10/10 but it took me 6:20, apparently getting under 5:00 gives a better score. Also, the plight of Christopher Langan confuses me a bit after reading Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell. I would imagine that the smartest people all do some money management so that they enjoy at least some luxuries and are spared from some of the hardest physical labor.

I considered politicians. Briefly. In my opinion the job of President of the United States has to one of, if not the absolute, worst job on the planet. Just look at how presidents age in four or eight years. So much stress on one person. I understand the smartest people in the world might want to conquer the most difficult problems. At the same time, there is a good possibility that they see some futility in one person trying to change the world from such a public position.

So who are the smartest people in the world? I don't know. What profession would the smartest people in the world likely have? I don't know. How do you even define the smartest people in the world? I don't know. What do I know? Not enough.

Defining Hobbies

In interviews, and in person, I get asked what my hobbies are. I used to say all sorts of activities such as reading, rock climbing, blogging, painting, hiking, camping, whatever I put time into. However, I have narrowed my focus, at least in terms of what I define as a hobby, down to two: running and mountaineering.

What about blogging and painting and wood carving and reading Charles Dickens? Well I see those more as projects. My other activities are short term temporary recreation. Semantics, if you will, but there is a clear divide in my head about priorities. If given the choice between a great year of running leading up to a life altering race or a year of blogging leading up to something significant in relation to my blog, I would choose the running. It is the same for mountaineering. If given the choice between climbing Mt. Everest or writing a successful book about it, I would rather climb it.

I have said before, I love commitment. Calling something a hobby instead of a project or experiment means to me that I have made a commitment to work and play at it for years. While I may quite possibly blog, paint, and do other things consistently for decades to come, I have already been racing for a decade and I mountaineer at a fairly high level. I define mountaineering as the activities encompassing everything from urban buildering to summer alpine rock climbs to K2 in the winter. I have found, in my short time that when I focus on something or at least a small number of things that I tend to do much better than if I casually do a dozen things. A jack of all trades is a master of none.

So there they are, running and mountaineering. I have two hobbies. Now if only I could land a job...

So Incredibly Fortunate

An 87 year old on oxygen who volunteers to walk a mile to cash her check because she can't afford a cab. Half of the world lives on $2.50 or less a day, 80% on $10 or less a day. I have already made that much money in 2010 working seasonal jobs that do not require much education. How fortunate am I?

I often take what I have for granted. I buy another $80 pair of running shoes, another $45 tank of gas, another $4 mocha latte all without really considering if there is a way to get around it. How often do I actually consider how to save my pennies? Frequently now, but it was somewhat rare until 2010 and my subsequent unemployment came along.

How many things do I do, frequently, that is just not possible in other parts of the world? I run, which is very accessible, but it can be hazardous to your health in some places and many places after dark. I go to church without being taken to a prison camp and killed. There has not been any civil war in the US recently. We live in a country that allowed me to get an excellent education. In many places that would not be an option. We live in a country with paved roads so people can travel more than a thousand miles a day in a car. We live in a place where fuel for our cars is, to use an expression, dirt cheap.

I live in a time and a place where epidemics of AIDS, cholera, malnutrition, polio, influenza, bubonic plague, lead poisoning, and starvation are not issues for me. My family could survive for weeks on the food in our house. Fresh potable water is just not an issue in this country. There are potable water spickets run by solar power and windmills in some very remote places.

There are so many gifts and advantages that I have enjoyed that I feel guilty sometimes. I sincerely hope that I will be able to contribute to others what has been given to me.

It's Not Rocket Science: Week 29

The highlight of last week was by far the interview I had on Friday. After searching for the perfect position it seems that perhaps this position would be ideal for me. However, for the sake of possible rejection I will not go into details about what might be. Suffice to say, it went well, in my opinion, and I would very much like to work there.

Apart from that I only applied for a few jobs, received no invitations to interview, or much less a job offer.

I ran 47 miles this week, which was an improvement over last week. I was on track to run over 50 miles but Saturday I had problems. It started on Thursday and Friday while I was wearing my dress shoes. They have arch support and that inflamed the plantar fascia on my right foot. So when I returned home and went for a run Saturday I wore my Vibram Five Fingers. I was moving along fine until just before two miles I had a very acute pain on the outside of my right ankle. It hurt very badly, so I turned around and ran and walked back home. My leg is totally fine now. I think that since I have not run in Vibrams since August or July, my feet were weak again and prone to injury. The fix is wear the Vibrams with no support and hope my feet can handle it.

I did some more painting. I painted two metaphorical modern paintings. I painted them in "The Style" or De Stijl. In the words of my sister, "That's all you painted on this whole canvas... That's such a waste."

Cincinnati Chili

Everywhere I go, they have a food they claim as unique, individual, and the best of whatever anywhere. Boston Clam Chowder, Manhattan Chowder, Maryland Crab Cakes, Sheboygan Brat Fry Outs, Cincinatti Chili, Kansas City Bar-B-Que, Seattle Samon, Costa Rican Gallo Pinto, Pakistani Dahl, Kansas Steak, and New Orleans Cajun are the few off the top of my head that I remember. Every one of them has involved a person telling me that they make the best.

The fascinating part is that people want to tell you how awesome their home is. All you have to do is ask. I admit, I get nervous interacting with other people and talking to strangers. Staring into my cell phone is a safe way to pass the time and avoid getting out of my comfort zone.

To get past that I tell myself that they want to talk as well, but are similarly nervous about starting a dialogue. Then I just ask one open ended question. A yes or no question would not work. Asking for a recommendation of some sort is a great conversation starter. Asking how they recommend I spend my money (food, fun, time...) is another good one.

Take that first step, that first move. You never know what you will discover.

The Problem with Social Security

The problem is that it is nearly 20% of the United States 2010 fiscal year budget spending. (Image below from Wikipedia.)

The solution is raise the age needed for a social security beneficiary to collect full benefits. This has already been done a little by increasing the retirement age to collect full benefits from 65 to 67 for those born in 1960 or later. For those born 1943 to 1955 the age to collect full benefits is 66, which is where we are now. Of course under all ages it was and is possible to collect partial benefits beginning at age 62. 

The problem with this sacred cow is the risk of what is happening in France right now. Now the changes that are being proposed in France are already in effect and working here in the US. However, Social Security is still the single largest spending in the budget. Also, culturally, according to the New York Times article linked above, there is a feeling that young people need to participate in some form of "social movement" at some point in their life. It seems that the violent protests occurring are really only a very small fraction of the total strikes and protests occurring in France. Most demonstrators are doing so peacefully. 

The solution to raising the age needed to collect without risking massive economic complications is something that I do not know. I feel that most politicians do not know either, otherwise they would have implemented more changes. 

There are many other spending areas, as seen on the budget above, that could likely be reduced billions of dollars, with corresponding risks of protests. Many of those areas of spending I personally feel could be reduced significantly with positive long term effects. I feel that politicians have a pretty difficult job.

The Marginal Tax

There is a lot of hoop la going on in the US right now about taxing rich people. So I decided to do a little research. Let's start with Wikipedia's slim but informative description of tax rate. Basically it says that you are taxed one rate up to a certain income and a different rate on the remaining (marginal) income. What this means in the US now is that up to a certain level (I believe it's 373k for a married couple, a single person, and the head of a household) your income is taxed at one rate and above that it is taxed at another, generally higher rate. Now in the US tax is charged a different rate on different incomes. That is to say the first $8,375 is at 10% then from $8,375 to 34,000 for single people is charged at 15%. For example, if I made 30k in this year my effective tax rate would be ($3243.75 + $837.50 = $4081.25) 13.6%. Which is to say it is still advantageous to make more money and get into the next tax bracket, you will not be set back by a higher tax rate.

The very highest rate is referred to as the marginal tax rate. Now the proposed non-renewing of former tax rate cuts I believe will be affecting the "lower" tax rates down to $250,000 as well. Throughout US history it is has varied from 92% to a lowly 7%. At 92% that means that only 8% of the money earned above a certain level is actually kept by the person who earned it. Sounds pretty terrible right? Well, imagine a theoretical titan of industry in the last century. This particular individual owned a company worth tens of millions. He had the capability to give himself a huge bloated salary. However, instead of "losing" hundreds of thousands of dollars every year through taxes he simply reinvested it in his business. That entails spending more on his business. More equipment, more people. So a person could become a multimillionaire or even a billionaire while still having a salary of only a few hundred thousand dollars per year because of what he or she owned, such as a business. At the end of the day does it matter if your corporation owns the private jet and you are the only one that uses it or if you own it?

So this means that for rich business owners their investments are limited by their ability to run the business. Instead of investing in foreign corporations and commodities they must essentially invest in their company or companies. If they continue to give themselves huge salaries they will be giving much more to the government. Which is really not a bad thing is it?

So who is hurt by raising the marginal tax? It would in part be those titans of industry and business. Instead of tens of millions of dollars in income and bonuses that they are then able to invest as they please they would have much smaller incomes and that money would be reinvested in their company. Which means a whole lot less investing in foreign organizations from personal investors. They would be forced, from an investing point of view, to invest in themselves. Who else would the marginal tax increase hurt? People who do not own a large part of the company that pays them. This would probably apply to management people who make lots of money in large corporations yet do not own much of the corporation. One option is to reduce their salaries to avoid paying taxes. In that case these skilled managers would likely strike out on their own into a smaller company where they could own a significant share of the company. By being high up in a company the benefits (jets, company luxury cars, lodging, travel, boats) that they previously enjoyed from their personal salary would still be available to them simply owned by the corporation. On the other hand salaries could remain the same and they would simply play more taxes and take less money home. To be honest, that is taking a huge financial hit in many cases. For someone that is smart enough, or hires the right financial planners and advisors, maybe even career advisors, I am sure that his or her quality of life will not decrease because of a marginal tax increase.

Taking a tangent, an interesting lesson that many wealthy or powerful or political should not forget is the history of revolutions. A few examples of notable revolutions are the French Revolution. Another example is the Russian Revolution of 1917. A nice Thomas Jefferson quote states,

"The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors."


Let us take a closer look at that. "The purpose of government is...", pretty self explanatory, then "... to enable..." that is not to give, or grant free of charge but to provide the opportunity. To me that means governments will tax the people. The quote follows, "...the people of a nation..." not the just people that have wealth. It follows, "...to live in safety and happiness." note that safety is mentioned first and I submit than happiness is the opposite of fear, whatever that fear may be. The second sentence is quite simple as well. A person can live without a government, although it may be difficult at times, but a government can not exist without people.


 In other, very harsh and direct words, the government exists because we want it to exist. Our government does what we think are in our best interests. We may not always agree what is in our best interests. For example, why do people speed when they are driving? The point being that at the end of the day, or year, or career, we agree with the decisions that our government is making. If they are not making decisions for our well being what is their purpose? 


I submit that a high marginal tax is a very good idea. By the world's standards living on more than $10 a day puts you in the top 20%. That's $3650 a year. So limiting the amount that a person can take home over $373,000 is not very limiting in the world context. If the marginal tax is going to put a cramp in people's style they might want to consider how they manage their finances. 


Expedition Behavior rule #3: Do Not Complain. About anything. Ever. Notice that people who complain about money or a change in money either have some money or once had some money. People who are really in need complain about food and water. Thus I say, if I have something to tax, tax me!