<html><head></head><body><div><span data-mailaddress="foozler83@gmail.com" data-contactname="William Flynn Wallace" class="clickable"><span title="foozler83@gmail.com">William Flynn Wallace</span><span class="detail"> <foozler83@gmail.com></span></span> , 15/4/2015 7:18 PM:<br><blockquote class="mori" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:2px blue solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="mcntgmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Two points: there is a positive correlation between IQ and manic depression, definitely a hindrance to success. Most companies know that there is a high turnover rate with above average IQ people in lower level jobs. </div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>But manic depression is a minority problem even among high IQ people. </div><div><br></div><div>The real issue for companies is simply that smart people have way more options, so a higher turnover should be expected if there are potentially better jobs. And smart people also have a larger range of goals: good pay is no guarantee that it is optimal for them. The first philosophy PhD I met worked with me in the post office. Smart people can often find fulfilment in idiosyncratic places. But as an employer, figuring out whether the double doctorate would-be street cleaner would love the job or not before the fact is hard, and in many cases carries a cost. </div><div><br></div><div>In many ways saying smart people have problems is like complaining that any other advantaged group has problems: sure, there are both universal problems they cannot escape, and special problems that group has. The real question is whether the special problems actually outweigh the advantage. Which I think we all more or less agree is not the case for intelligence. </div><div><br></div><div><br>Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University</div></body></html>