Satt's Paradox (SP) - smarter people have more money to spend than dumber people... yet... the vast majority of movies/shows on Netflix are dumber rather than smarter. This economic paradox is "fun" on so many different levels... 1. Is SP even real? If it isn't, then there's no paradox. And you can't resolve a paradox that doesn't exist. 1a. How is smartness being defined? 1b. Is it even true that smarter people have more money to spend? Kinda maybe? The huge debate/concern regarding increasing income inequality seems somewhat relevant. 1c. Is it even true that the vast majority of shows/movies on Netflix are dumber rather than smarter? Personally, I consider The Man From Earth, which I saw on Netflix, to be a good example of a smarter movie. It was full of history, science, philosophy and thoughtful discussion on religion. From my perspective... it was the best (that I know of) mix of entertainment and education. And it seems like there's a real shortage of shows/movies in this category. If you know of any others... then please don't hesitate to mention them! Given enough eyeballs, all Easter Eggs are shallow. 2. If SP is real, more or less, then how would you explain/resolve it? 2a. Perhaps smarter people demand far less entertainment than dumber people do? The opportunity cost of spending 2 hours watching a movie is far higher for a brain surgeon than it is for somebody who earns the minimum wage. 2b. Perhaps smarter people prefer dumber entertainment? If you get paid to use your brain all day, then maybe you prefer your entertainment to be mindless rather than mindful. 2c. Perhaps smarter people prefer nonfiction to fiction? 2d. "I'm not saying that television is vulgar and dumb because the people who compose the Audience are vulgar and dumb. Television is the way it is simply because people tend to be extremely similar in their vulgar and prurient and dumb interests and wildly different in their refined and aesthetic and noble interests." - David Foster Wallace 3. Assuming that the supply of smarter entertainment does indeed fall considerably short of demand... and assuming that this is a problem... then how could this problem be solved? I think I might have resolved SP and come up with the logical explanation/solution (verdict)... but if I share it... then maybe it will influence your own verdict? Of course I'd like to hear your thoughts on my verdict... but I'd also like to know what you come up with on your own. It's entirely possible that yours will be better than mine! This means that I'd prefer it if you allocated (at least initially) your intelligence to coming up with your own verdict. So I'll share my verdict here. This way, if you're so inclined, you can post your own verdict and then see how it compares to mine. You might have to ignore the replies at first as well... just in case anybody addresses my verdict.
It is quite simple. The media is one of the most important tools in which the wealthy control the thinking and the opinions of the poor.
At the risk of sounding completely racist, Satt's paradox applies more to Jewish people than anyone else. They earn more money, but they also have to earn more money, to buy all those things to avoid feeling miserable (which is a genetic trait). Other races can be much happier with less.
There is no paradox. While there is a correlation between intelligence and earning power, it is not absolute. Bill Gates is no dummy, but he has no where near the IQ of Stephen Hawkins, yet Hawkins makes a lot less money. Plus, I think most of us can agree that in politics at least, intelligence has very little bearing on being able to do one's job. Also, it doesn't matter how smart you are if you just don't care about making money. You also need to realize that the "smartness" of a movie is totally subjective, so what you may see as dumb others may see as smart and vice-versa.
