It's clear there are many different types of intelligence, which is a good thing in terms of survival of the species since it results in division of labor and incredible diversity in creative endeavors. However, linking intelligence to income is a very tricky thing because societal values are involved here. Why do professional athletes make more money than scientists? The answer is because society--wrongly, I believe--makes value judgments establishing a hierarchy determining which skills are most and least valued. The highest paid are not necessarily those contributing the most to humanity. Also, sometimes there is a necessary give and take, such as with the stereotypical genius who is very unskilled in getting along with other people. Some of that may come from the fact that the genius thinks in a manner inherently different from most other people and therefore has trouble relating to them and vice versa. Mozart died penniless partly because he had trouble relating to other people, yet he produced some of the greatest music of all time. Would it be better if he had been "better adjusted" but didn't give the world that music? We also need to realize there is a huge amount of unrecognized talent and intelligence out there. I know many very creative types like myself who just are no good at business and finance. In many cases, especially Hollywood, the people who make a lot of money are the ones with skills in marketing more so than those with skills in performing.

I happen to be one of those people who can act in "word removed" type ways and get away with it, largely because I have actively cultivated a reputation as an eccentric. It's not due to looks or wealth so much as the freedom that comes with branding oneself as a creative type. Whether that constitutes a form of intelligence--I have no idea.