There are two distinct classes in life; one that emphasizes the superficial, and the side that emphasizes the practical.

Wealthier people are much more apt to emphasize the superficial (because they have the luxury of being impractical), while people from the lower economic (and often times, intellectual) classes emphasize the practical, simply because that's what has the most immediate meaning in their lives.

It's possible, though, to find successful, intelligent people (even women) who are practically minded and don't emphasize the superficials. They aren't common, but they're definitely out there. It's also possible to find people who are capable of making millions and are actively in the process of doing so, even though their motivations for climbing the economic ladder aren't "standard" inasmuch as they're only out to fund an expensive car and Grade-A ass- the superficials.

One of the cooler things about Chicago is that it's one of the most practically-minded Alpha cities out there... On the train into town, you cannot distinguish the commodities trader from the ironworker from the convict. Practical mentalities you'd encounter here would be totally alien in a place like San Francisco or New York City, where the cultural ethos is very, very different.

lol at your golf budget

LOL at your analysis as to why and your ability to contribute to a discussion.

You do realize that hunting and golf are not year round activities, right?

That is the aspect I find interesting. How people who are unhappy have completely unrealistic expectations about what a windfall would mean for their life. Obviously I know it is ******ed to try this but I find it interesting to see how **** of a life people are willing to accept just so they don't have to work and how long they will insist on it being possible in light of people pointing out that it isn't. I'm in no way interested in the outcome or conclusion since I know it is ******ed just how people react.



Since when has low income been associated with the intellectual class?

Bolded phrase is the key there.

There are those that choose to take the train and then there are those who are "above" sharing the space with other people.

There is also the very likely possibility that a very clear distinction does exist and that Watchmaker simply lacks the ability to detect it.

Intellect doesn't correspond to income by default (which is why I caveated) but broadly speaking, I think it's safe to say that higher income people posses a stronger intellectual acuity than lower income people and if you were to make a graph that corresponded income with intellectual acumen across a large sample, the trend-lines would correlate, save for a few outliers.

Also, addressing the context in which it was said, lower intellectual classes tend to be a tad more practical, if for no other reason than that's what's most easily understood.

What "distinction" are you talking about?

Oh, wait, wait... I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Upon further examination, it seems you just suck at reading comprehension..

I said:

Meaning, people from the lower economic and lower intellectual classes.
You responded with:

Meaning that you comprehended it as my associating "the intellectual class" (Like, "intellect" cannot be classified; it exists as a classification in and of itself to which one either belongs or doesn't...) with low income.

LOL.

The most obvious would be clothing. I suspect that you would not be able to pick out a Prada coat from a Sears coat for example and that would clearly set the two people apart on this practicality measuring stick.

I don't really follow your intellectual argument I just find it funny that lower income would be associated with the intellectual class when traditionally academia is associated with the financially elite.

I also don't understand the connection you are trying to make between intelligence and being pragmatic. Being pragmatic is almost always a function of necessity or odd mental disorder. Given the means most people choose to be impractical. A recent example being Susan Boyle who I kept hearing about so googled recently. Interestingly in her post success pictures she is quite fond of Burberry although I'm certain when she was poor and living in rural England she would have thought it insane to pay $180 for a scarf.

See above. You're going off a cliff here... and as far as my being able to distinguish a Prada coat from a Sears coat, you're actually correct- I probably couldn't, but that isn't because I myself cannot afford whatever coat I please. It's because I don't emphasize certain things, as is fairly standard where I come from. Keep in mind; this is coming from a guy who occasionally wears a five figure wristwatch, so I think you're trying to create an imaginary box that doesn't fit most people as neatly as you're trying to make it out and is probably reflective of whatever narrow cultural dynamics you personally happen to be exposed to, as opposed to being a broader truism.

Lastly, I completely disagree that what's "correct" in the presence of money is impracticality and extravagance and that anyone who doesn't emphasize 'luxury' just because they can afford it has a mental disorder. While this behavior might be common, it's a function of lower-instincts and rooted largely in personalty dysfunctions, chiefly the pathological desire to 'impress'. Just because something is standard and common doesn't make it any less grotesque. The human animal has many failings, this being one of them. Lotto-Winner-From-The-Trailer-Park-Syndrome probably isn't the best starting point to analyze lifestyle choices, nor are the spending patterns of newly minted NBA superstars.

Dear Poor Man's Phone Booth -

The reward of an accomplishment is 1 part internal recognition and 1 part societal. We can debate the dysfunction of individuals who believe a Prada bag is impressive but its a horrible generalization to say that the desire 'to impress' is a personality dysfunction.

Regards.

Golf is. Every course that I've seen include a member fee and a cost per round. The ball budget is exceedingly low as well. Even when you're discussing buying used balls and what not. Equipment also wears. Drivers lose their pop, so theoretically if you didn't mind playing with exceedingly worn items, you could give it a go. The clothing is also pricey as most places have a dress code. So tack on $5 a year for Goodwill polo shirts.

Also, when something has high fixed costs but also considerable variable costs. Its typical to quantify these elements separately instead of just lumping the entire mishmash together. Or atleast making some sort of reasonable approximation rather than just citing a ridiculous fixed amount for a "season of golf".

If that is what you meant then it isn't my reading comprehension that needs improving but rather your writing.

I never said anything about your ability to afford anything but simply that the homogeneous groups you think you see might not be as homogeneous as you believe since you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. That you got so defensive though is interesting.

Bumfights vs. aristocrat, how appropriate.

It seems that everyone who has or could live a work-free life for an extended period in adulthood is arguing that $1m wouldn't be enough. The only ones arguing otherwise don't have experience in the area and are throwing out conjectures and generally talking out of their asses.

For most people, $1m wouldn't be enough to live a fulfilling life.

Dear Profoundly-Overvalues-His-Own-Competence

The reward of any given accomplishment might be equal parts internal and "societal" to you, but the formula is different for others, ranging all the way up to people who would value it as 2 parts internal recognition and 0 parts societal.

Best Wishes

Are you seriously going to make me articulate the grammatical rules involved here? Really? Just admit you made a minor mistake, or ignore it happened altogether and move forward in the discussion. Don't take a contrary position that is demonstrably incorrect just to save face.

No, you didn't say anything about my ability to afford things, but you did challenge my ability to perceive basic elements of wealth-based status, and reduced the entire process down to ones ability to distinguish a Prada coat from a Sears one (awful criteria), I didn't get defensive, but rather pointed out that different people emphasize different things (to use the earlier example, you'd probably be a lot more 'impressed' by a Rolex than I would) and that a lot of things that are considered to be 'standard' amongst the well-to-do set aren't necessarily based in anything other than their desire to impress other people. I'd argue that people who bear their lives liable to the opinions of other people are more mentally fragile than those who don't and just because extravagance is a common outcome upon the acquisition of wealth doesn't mean it's a desirable outcome.

What are you trying to argue? That for some people this is how it works and $1m would be more than enough?

No one is saying otherwise.

But '2 parts internal and 0 parts societal' is a tiny fraction of society, because as humans we are naturally wired to vie for social acceptance. Males compete for status in every society ever known, and this competition is an integral part of the engine that drives us forward. While I wouldn't go as far as Henry in labeling those that don't aspire to status mentally dysfunctional, it's definitely not the norm.

Arguing that Chicago doesn't have social stratas like other cities is pretty ******ed.

Even if I concede some people are purely motivated by internal recognition (which I won't because thats moronic), that still doesn't establish the 'desire to impress' as a personality dysfunction.

Further, your arguments regarding Chicago are also horrible generalizations.

Yes.

Actually no. The claim was that these people are all the same and that the rich are no different than the poor. Obviously if someone is wearing a $2600 coat they are not the bastions of practicality that you implied they are and they are different than the convicts on the train.

No. People always spontaneously break into irrelevant rants about what they can afford without it being rooted in insecurity.

Then why bother asking for numbers if you know them already? Dick move imo.

So when the golf course is under 2 ft. of snow it is still playable? Mmm, ok.

Because you need to understand how to logically form arguments and use reasonable assumptions when you say things? Asking someone to substantiate their opinions isn't dick. It'll show the logical how're they're being ******ed. And the illogical will continue to stand by their opinions in the face of evidence to the contrary.

It doesn't snow where I live in the US. Golf is a year round activity. Anyway, this is more favorable to your argument as we can deduct the fixed costs over a larger period than with a short season. If you can play golf for 7 months, and I can play for 12, the fixed costs are going to spread over a larger number of entertainment hours. This is pretty self-evident, but given your "analysis", seems to be eluding you.

But whatever. Clearly asking someone to prove their asinine assumptions is a "dick move".

No, asking someone a question that you already think you know the answer to for the sole purpose of arguing with that person when their reality doesn't conform to yours is a dick move.

$600 in total expenses for an 8 month season at a course that doesn't charge its members a per round fee is totally reasonable.

How much are these places to become a member? Is there any yearly membership or other restrictions? Perhaps I'm too high brow for this silliness, but I've never seen anything of the sort.