F·斯科特·菲茨杰拉德曾有一句名言說富人“跟你我之輩不一樣”。
而最近一些超級富豪的怪異舉動,確實(shí)有些“不同尋?!薄S腥藷嶂杂诿半U:有億萬富翁飛入太空,有人喜歡開賽車狂飆,還有人喜歡在不靠譜的觀光之旅中潛入幽暗的深海。有些人看起來并不成熟:例如,世界首富埃隆·馬斯克本可以給全世界做出無數(shù)貢獻(xiàn),或者輕松地喝杯鳳梨可樂達(dá)曬曬太陽,但他卻用自己寶貴的時間在網(wǎng)上討論離譜的陰謀論,或者挑戰(zhàn)另外一位富豪進(jìn)行鐵籠對決。
一個能積攢海量財富的聰明人為什么性格如此古怪?數(shù)億甚至數(shù)十億美元財富是否會讓人分心?或者說一個人擁有能賺到數(shù)十億美元財富的勇氣和創(chuàng)造力,是否更有可能性格有些奇怪?
多年來,不同學(xué)科的科學(xué)家們一直被這些問題所困擾,畢竟,富翁們(主要是男性)表現(xiàn)出來各種迷惑行為,甚至有心理疾病的傾向,這并非先例?;羧A德·休斯選擇儲藏自己的尿液;邁克爾·杰克遜耗費(fèi)數(shù)百萬美元,在自己的牧場和私人動物園里飼養(yǎng)了長頸鹿、鱷魚、一頭熊、大象和大猩猩;史蒂夫·喬布斯連續(xù)幾周只吃胡蘿卜和蘋果,盡管皮膚變成了橘色。從英格蘭的喬治三世到羅馬帝國皇帝卡利古拉,超級富有的君主們也被普遍認(rèn)為是“瘋子”。
探究這些沖動行為背后的根源是心理學(xué)和神經(jīng)學(xué)的研究范疇。有一些財富心理學(xué)家分析超級富豪,并幫助他們解決自身的罪惡感和焦慮。而神經(jīng)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)試圖在弗洛伊德和榮格思想的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合神經(jīng)學(xué)、認(rèn)知學(xué)、行為學(xué)和社會心理學(xué),以探究億萬富翁們心理背后的內(nèi)部原理。
但在解釋這些超級富豪們的怪癖行為時,少量研究給我們帶來的最好的結(jié)論,反而是一些并不令人意外的觀察結(jié)果。我們真的需要專業(yè)人士來告訴我們,那些身家超過2,500萬美元的富豪“更關(guān)注自我而不是他人”?超級富豪們對于自己內(nèi)部圈子以外的群體,例如為他們創(chuàng)造財富的員工,很難產(chǎn)生同理心,你會對此感到意外嗎?白手起家的億萬富翁更加自戀,更有掌控欲,或者好勝心更強(qiáng),這并不應(yīng)該讓我們感到吃驚。神經(jīng)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)領(lǐng)域的研究結(jié)論,可以用著名非科學(xué)家伯尼·桑德斯的話來總結(jié),他認(rèn)為億萬富翁們都有“精神問題”。
人們很容易嘲笑富豪們的怪癖,或者認(rèn)為占總?cè)丝?.1%的富豪們的問題不值一提。但隨著超級富豪們的生活變得日益極端,他們的問題也變得越來越極端。悲哀的是,“金錢買不到幸?!边@句諺語在一些富豪們身上得到了驗證,他們患上了一種名為“暴富綜合征”的疾病,癥狀包括易怒、失眠、偏執(zhí)、抑郁、焦慮和恐慌發(fā)作等。這或許可以解釋為什么許多人通過服用含裸蓋菇素的氯胺酮進(jìn)行自我藥物治療,讓混亂的大腦平靜下來,或者在泡在冰水里的過程中堅持藍(lán)莓飲食。
在2011年的一項心理學(xué)研究中,不幸福的億萬富翁們對波士頓學(xué)院(Boston College)財富與慈善中心(Center of Wealth and Philanthropy)的研究人員表示,他們面臨的問題之一是他們感覺無論多少財富都遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠。追求財富的過程永遠(yuǎn)沒有終點(diǎn)。這項研究的1,000名受訪者個人財富均不少于2,500萬美元。他們提到了焦慮、不滿意和缺乏財務(wù)安全感(令人費(fèi)解)等感受。
《大西洋報》指出,一位受訪者對研究人員表示,他的財富要達(dá)到十億美元才會有安全感,他猜測“人類的身體不會進(jìn)化到能夠妥善應(yīng)對當(dāng)前容易攝入的大量脂肪和糖分的程度,即使在身體不允許的情況下也會渴望再吃一個奶酪漢堡,同樣,人類也沒有進(jìn)化到可以應(yīng)對過多金錢,人會渴望更多財富,即使這些財富已經(jīng)變成了負(fù)擔(dān)而不能帶來舒適”。
這些個人的言論突出了富翁們面臨的問題,但有一個核心問題依舊沒有答案:為什么許多超級富豪生活卻一團(tuán)糟,為什么他們會行為怪異?后來另外一個學(xué)科基因經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)試圖利用上世紀(jì)末人類基因圖譜首次繪制完成以來可用的大量遺傳信息回答這個問題。這是一個全新的領(lǐng)域,2007年被命名為基因經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)。這個領(lǐng)域的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們認(rèn)為,有些人生來具有財務(wù)成功的遺傳傾向性,他們一直在尋找區(qū)分億萬富翁和普通人的“財富基因”。
他們的研究取得了一些進(jìn)展,但問題是:研究發(fā)現(xiàn),這種遺傳傾向性通??赡馨殡S出現(xiàn)混亂的個性品質(zhì)。出現(xiàn)這種現(xiàn)象的過程被稱為基因多效性,即一個基因位點(diǎn)會影響兩個甚至更多個性。研究顯示,受教育程度(被視為預(yù)測致富概率的指標(biāo))與精神分裂、孤獨(dú)癥、焦慮性障礙和其他癥狀之間存在一定的相關(guān)性。
加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校(UCLA)安德森管理學(xué)院(Anderson School of Management)和大衛(wèi)·格芬醫(yī)學(xué)院(David Geffen School of Medicine)教授丹尼爾·本杰明表示,事實(shí)證明,并不存在單一一種“財富基因”。他從事該領(lǐng)域的研究已經(jīng)有二十多年時間。在本杰明對受教育程度的研究中,他和同事并沒有在眾多基因組中大海撈針尋找一種基因,而是確定了3,952種獨(dú)特的“單核苷酸多態(tài)性”,而且他確定還有更多有待發(fā)現(xiàn)。他們假設(shè),通過從人類染色體中發(fā)現(xiàn)的這些與受教育程度有關(guān)的“單核苷酸多態(tài)性”,可以找到創(chuàng)業(yè)精神的遺傳學(xué)依據(jù)。單核苷酸多態(tài)性以令人眼花繚亂的聯(lián)結(jié)和組合發(fā)揮作用,形成各種各樣的人類多樣性,例如一種成為高管和買得起超級游艇的遺傳傾向性,與接受不著邊際的陰謀論的傾向性相結(jié)合。
不墨守成規(guī)能帶來大量創(chuàng)新,例如從奇亞寵物到個人電腦等。但它也會導(dǎo)致人們對現(xiàn)實(shí)產(chǎn)生令人擔(dān)憂的誤解。例如眾所周知,亨利·福特曾癡迷于《錫安長老會紀(jì)要》(Protocols of the Elders of Zion);靠枕頭發(fā)家的億萬富翁邁克·林德爾堅信一種關(guān)于投票機(jī)器的虛假說法;埃隆·馬斯克附和Q-Anon陰謀論等。
愿意接受稀奇古怪的新想法,比如一臺可以放音樂、拍視頻和翻譯斯瓦西里語的便攜式電話,這是創(chuàng)造財富的關(guān)鍵。本杰明博士表示,他們有理由認(rèn)為他和同事正在研究的單核苷酸多態(tài)性與超級開明的思想有關(guān)。他對《財富》雜志表示:“如果它的副作用是有特別靈活的頭腦,愿意尋求大量不同觀點(diǎn),我不會感到意外。有些個性可能有助于在商場上取得成功……但如果放到疫苗或其他問題的背景下,這些個性會讓人們認(rèn)為它們都是陰謀論。”
我曾詢問本杰明教授,未來是否會有人找到定義億萬富翁染色體的多基因索引。他說道:“我認(rèn)為會的?!北窘苊鹘淌陬A(yù)測在未來十年內(nèi),其研究的學(xué)科將會趨于成熟,即基因數(shù)據(jù)將被納入主流社會科學(xué)研究。因此,一個新時代或許將在不久之后降臨,直升機(jī)式育兒將在孩子出生前就已經(jīng)開始。
但考慮到獲得財富與心理問題之間可能存在的聯(lián)系,這種干涉是否合適?本杰明博士指出,這種胚胎選擇如果大規(guī)模進(jìn)行,會加劇不平等,而且可能產(chǎn)生其他負(fù)面后果:“可能有更多人出現(xiàn)精神問題?!比绻活A(yù)先編輯賺錢基因的后代,更有可能出現(xiàn)圍著一套豪宅徘徊、微劑量使用致幻劑LSD和發(fā)送語氣暴躁的推文等行為,又該怎么辦?
這種育兒困境依舊是假設(shè),但它提出了一個有趣的問題:如果說超級富豪們的獨(dú)特性以及做出奇怪舉動的傾向,都源于他們的遺傳代碼,那么這種怪異的組合是否可能是他們能夠獲取財富的原因,而不是財富對他們的影響?如果答案是肯定的,那么億萬富翁們的特立獨(dú)行,應(yīng)該是人們追求而不是避免的品質(zhì)。
當(dāng)然,在當(dāng)今世界,有些人生來就享有大量特權(quán)和機(jī)遇,而有些人卻要面對艱難險阻和重重障礙,因此在任何人的成功故事中,基因只發(fā)揮了一小部分作用。任何與成就有關(guān)的觀念如果過于相信生物決定論,還可能演變成令人討厭的優(yōu)生學(xué),而這個領(lǐng)域存在各種扭曲的觀念和種族主義。
此外,本杰明教授指出,雖然他對遺傳學(xué)很感興趣,但在人類行為方面,有許多因素的影響與遺傳學(xué)特征一樣強(qiáng)大,可能使超級富豪們出現(xiàn)行為混亂。就連行業(yè)巨頭也難以逃避同輩壓力的影響,他們希望不被其他億萬富翁落在身后。
本杰明表示:“如果你的朋友們要去外太空,你也會有這樣的念頭。”他若有所思地說道:“或許,是因為無聊吧?!保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng))
翻譯:劉進(jìn)龍
審校:汪皓
F·斯科特·菲茨杰拉德曾有一句名言說富人“跟你我之輩不一樣”。
而最近一些超級富豪的怪異舉動,確實(shí)有些“不同尋?!?。有人熱衷于冒險:有億萬富翁飛入太空,有人喜歡開賽車狂飆,還有人喜歡在不靠譜的觀光之旅中潛入幽暗的深海。有些人看起來并不成熟:例如,世界首富埃隆·馬斯克本可以給全世界做出無數(shù)貢獻(xiàn),或者輕松地喝杯鳳梨可樂達(dá)曬曬太陽,但他卻用自己寶貴的時間在網(wǎng)上討論離譜的陰謀論,或者挑戰(zhàn)另外一位富豪進(jìn)行鐵籠對決。
一個能積攢海量財富的聰明人為什么性格如此古怪?數(shù)億甚至數(shù)十億美元財富是否會讓人分心?或者說一個人擁有能賺到數(shù)十億美元財富的勇氣和創(chuàng)造力,是否更有可能性格有些奇怪?
多年來,不同學(xué)科的科學(xué)家們一直被這些問題所困擾,畢竟,富翁們(主要是男性)表現(xiàn)出來各種迷惑行為,甚至有心理疾病的傾向,這并非先例?;羧A德·休斯選擇儲藏自己的尿液;邁克爾·杰克遜耗費(fèi)數(shù)百萬美元,在自己的牧場和私人動物園里飼養(yǎng)了長頸鹿、鱷魚、一頭熊、大象和大猩猩;史蒂夫·喬布斯連續(xù)幾周只吃胡蘿卜和蘋果,盡管皮膚變成了橘色。從英格蘭的喬治三世到羅馬帝國皇帝卡利古拉,超級富有的君主們也被普遍認(rèn)為是“瘋子”。
探究這些沖動行為背后的根源是心理學(xué)和神經(jīng)學(xué)的研究范疇。有一些財富心理學(xué)家分析超級富豪,并幫助他們解決自身的罪惡感和焦慮。而神經(jīng)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)試圖在弗洛伊德和榮格思想的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合神經(jīng)學(xué)、認(rèn)知學(xué)、行為學(xué)和社會心理學(xué),以探究億萬富翁們心理背后的內(nèi)部原理。
但在解釋這些超級富豪們的怪癖行為時,少量研究給我們帶來的最好的結(jié)論,反而是一些并不令人意外的觀察結(jié)果。我們真的需要專業(yè)人士來告訴我們,那些身家超過2,500萬美元的富豪“更關(guān)注自我而不是他人”?超級富豪們對于自己內(nèi)部圈子以外的群體,例如為他們創(chuàng)造財富的員工,很難產(chǎn)生同理心,你會對此感到意外嗎?白手起家的億萬富翁更加自戀,更有掌控欲,或者好勝心更強(qiáng),這并不應(yīng)該讓我們感到吃驚。神經(jīng)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)領(lǐng)域的研究結(jié)論,可以用著名非科學(xué)家伯尼·桑德斯的話來總結(jié),他認(rèn)為億萬富翁們都有“精神問題”。
人們很容易嘲笑富豪們的怪癖,或者認(rèn)為占總?cè)丝?.1%的富豪們的問題不值一提。但隨著超級富豪們的生活變得日益極端,他們的問題也變得越來越極端。悲哀的是,“金錢買不到幸?!边@句諺語在一些富豪們身上得到了驗證,他們患上了一種名為“暴富綜合征”的疾病,癥狀包括易怒、失眠、偏執(zhí)、抑郁、焦慮和恐慌發(fā)作等。這或許可以解釋為什么許多人通過服用含裸蓋菇素的氯胺酮進(jìn)行自我藥物治療,讓混亂的大腦平靜下來,或者在泡在冰水里的過程中堅持藍(lán)莓飲食。
在2011年的一項心理學(xué)研究中,不幸福的億萬富翁們對波士頓學(xué)院(Boston College)財富與慈善中心(Center of Wealth and Philanthropy)的研究人員表示,他們面臨的問題之一是他們感覺無論多少財富都遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠。追求財富的過程永遠(yuǎn)沒有終點(diǎn)。這項研究的1,000名受訪者個人財富均不少于2,500萬美元。他們提到了焦慮、不滿意和缺乏財務(wù)安全感(令人費(fèi)解)等感受。
《大西洋報》指出,一位受訪者對研究人員表示,他的財富要達(dá)到十億美元才會有安全感,他猜測“人類的身體不會進(jìn)化到能夠妥善應(yīng)對當(dāng)前容易攝入的大量脂肪和糖分的程度,即使在身體不允許的情況下也會渴望再吃一個奶酪漢堡,同樣,人類也沒有進(jìn)化到可以應(yīng)對過多金錢,人會渴望更多財富,即使這些財富已經(jīng)變成了負(fù)擔(dān)而不能帶來舒適”。
這些個人的言論突出了富翁們面臨的問題,但有一個核心問題依舊沒有答案:為什么許多超級富豪生活卻一團(tuán)糟,為什么他們會行為怪異?后來另外一個學(xué)科基因經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)試圖利用上世紀(jì)末人類基因圖譜首次繪制完成以來可用的大量遺傳信息回答這個問題。這是一個全新的領(lǐng)域,2007年被命名為基因經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)。這個領(lǐng)域的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們認(rèn)為,有些人生來具有財務(wù)成功的遺傳傾向性,他們一直在尋找區(qū)分億萬富翁和普通人的“財富基因”。
他們的研究取得了一些進(jìn)展,但問題是:研究發(fā)現(xiàn),這種遺傳傾向性通常可能伴隨出現(xiàn)混亂的個性品質(zhì)。出現(xiàn)這種現(xiàn)象的過程被稱為基因多效性,即一個基因位點(diǎn)會影響兩個甚至更多個性。研究顯示,受教育程度(被視為預(yù)測致富概率的指標(biāo))與精神分裂、孤獨(dú)癥、焦慮性障礙和其他癥狀之間存在一定的相關(guān)性。
加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校(UCLA)安德森管理學(xué)院(Anderson School of Management)和大衛(wèi)·格芬醫(yī)學(xué)院(David Geffen School of Medicine)教授丹尼爾·本杰明表示,事實(shí)證明,并不存在單一一種“財富基因”。他從事該領(lǐng)域的研究已經(jīng)有二十多年時間。在本杰明對受教育程度的研究中,他和同事并沒有在眾多基因組中大海撈針尋找一種基因,而是確定了3,952種獨(dú)特的“單核苷酸多態(tài)性”,而且他確定還有更多有待發(fā)現(xiàn)。他們假設(shè),通過從人類染色體中發(fā)現(xiàn)的這些與受教育程度有關(guān)的“單核苷酸多態(tài)性”,可以找到創(chuàng)業(yè)精神的遺傳學(xué)依據(jù)。單核苷酸多態(tài)性以令人眼花繚亂的聯(lián)結(jié)和組合發(fā)揮作用,形成各種各樣的人類多樣性,例如一種成為高管和買得起超級游艇的遺傳傾向性,與接受不著邊際的陰謀論的傾向性相結(jié)合。
不墨守成規(guī)能帶來大量創(chuàng)新,例如從奇亞寵物到個人電腦等。但它也會導(dǎo)致人們對現(xiàn)實(shí)產(chǎn)生令人擔(dān)憂的誤解。例如眾所周知,亨利·福特曾癡迷于《錫安長老會紀(jì)要》(Protocols of the Elders of Zion);靠枕頭發(fā)家的億萬富翁邁克·林德爾堅信一種關(guān)于投票機(jī)器的虛假說法;埃隆·馬斯克附和Q-Anon陰謀論等。
愿意接受稀奇古怪的新想法,比如一臺可以放音樂、拍視頻和翻譯斯瓦西里語的便攜式電話,這是創(chuàng)造財富的關(guān)鍵。本杰明博士表示,他們有理由認(rèn)為他和同事正在研究的單核苷酸多態(tài)性與超級開明的思想有關(guān)。他對《財富》雜志表示:“如果它的副作用是有特別靈活的頭腦,愿意尋求大量不同觀點(diǎn),我不會感到意外。有些個性可能有助于在商場上取得成功……但如果放到疫苗或其他問題的背景下,這些個性會讓人們認(rèn)為它們都是陰謀論?!?/p>
我曾詢問本杰明教授,未來是否會有人找到定義億萬富翁染色體的多基因索引。他說道:“我認(rèn)為會的?!北窘苊鹘淌陬A(yù)測在未來十年內(nèi),其研究的學(xué)科將會趨于成熟,即基因數(shù)據(jù)將被納入主流社會科學(xué)研究。因此,一個新時代或許將在不久之后降臨,直升機(jī)式育兒將在孩子出生前就已經(jīng)開始。
但考慮到獲得財富與心理問題之間可能存在的聯(lián)系,這種干涉是否合適?本杰明博士指出,這種胚胎選擇如果大規(guī)模進(jìn)行,會加劇不平等,而且可能產(chǎn)生其他負(fù)面后果:“可能有更多人出現(xiàn)精神問題?!比绻活A(yù)先編輯賺錢基因的后代,更有可能出現(xiàn)圍著一套豪宅徘徊、微劑量使用致幻劑LSD和發(fā)送語氣暴躁的推文等行為,又該怎么辦?
這種育兒困境依舊是假設(shè),但它提出了一個有趣的問題:如果說超級富豪們的獨(dú)特性以及做出奇怪舉動的傾向,都源于他們的遺傳代碼,那么這種怪異的組合是否可能是他們能夠獲取財富的原因,而不是財富對他們的影響?如果答案是肯定的,那么億萬富翁們的特立獨(dú)行,應(yīng)該是人們追求而不是避免的品質(zhì)。
當(dāng)然,在當(dāng)今世界,有些人生來就享有大量特權(quán)和機(jī)遇,而有些人卻要面對艱難險阻和重重障礙,因此在任何人的成功故事中,基因只發(fā)揮了一小部分作用。任何與成就有關(guān)的觀念如果過于相信生物決定論,還可能演變成令人討厭的優(yōu)生學(xué),而這個領(lǐng)域存在各種扭曲的觀念和種族主義。
此外,本杰明教授指出,雖然他對遺傳學(xué)很感興趣,但在人類行為方面,有許多因素的影響與遺傳學(xué)特征一樣強(qiáng)大,可能使超級富豪們出現(xiàn)行為混亂。就連行業(yè)巨頭也難以逃避同輩壓力的影響,他們希望不被其他億萬富翁落在身后。
本杰明表示:“如果你的朋友們要去外太空,你也會有這樣的念頭?!彼粲兴嫉卣f道:“或許,是因為無聊吧?!保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng))
翻譯:劉進(jìn)龍
審校:汪皓
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously noted that the rich are “different from you and me.”
And indeed, some of the recent antics of the super-rich have been… sure, let’s call it “different.” There’s the extreme risk-taking: billionaires jettisoning themselves into space, careening around in race cars, or plunging themselves into the darkest depths of the sea on questionable sightseeing tours. Then there’s the seeming immaturity: Elon Musk, for example, the wealthiest man on earth, could be doing untold good in the world—or simply basking in the sun sipping pi?a coladas—but instead he spends his days arguing online about wild conspiracy theories, or challenging a fellow plutocrat to a cage fight.
What makes a person with the savvy to amass such a spectacular fortune so erratic? Is there something about that pile of millions or billions that drives a person to distraction? Or is anyone with the guts and creativity to make billions just more likely to be a little strange in the first place?
These are questions that have stumped scientists from various disciplines for many years—after all, today’s crop of very rich guys (and they are mostly guys) are hardly the first to exhibit puzzling behavior, sometimes appearing to tip into mental illness. Howard Hughes hoarded his urine; Michael Jackson spent millions to bring giraffes, alligators, a bear, elephants, and apes to live at his ranch and private zoo; and Steve Jobs munched on nothing but carrots and apples for weeks, despite his skin turning orange. Filthy rich monarchs from England’s George III to the Roman emperor Caligula were widely considered “mad.”
Probing the origins of these impulses has been the purview of psychology and neurology. There are wealth psychologists to analyze the super rich and help them deal with their guilt and angst. Neuroeconomics, meanwhile, attempts to take Freud and Jung a step further by combining neuroscience, cognitive science, behavioral science, and social psychology to lay bare the inner workings of the billionaire’s mind.
But when it comes to explaining the strange behavior of some of these ultra-high-net-worth individuals, the best that all this shrinkage has been able to come up with is a rather un-startling set of observations. Did we really need a professional to tell us that those worth more than $25 million are “focused more on themselves than on others”? Does it come as a surprise that the super-rich may struggle to feel empathy toward groups outside their inner circle—such as the legions of workers that create their wealth? It should not, perhaps, shock anyone that the self-made billionaire may possess an extra shot of narcissism, that they like to be in control, or that they are extremely competitive. The field’s conclusions could be summed up by the famous non-scientist Bernie Sanders, when he observed that billionaires have “psychiatric issues.”
It’s easy to mock, to break out the world’s tiniest violin for the problems of the top tenth of the 1%. But as the lives of the super-rich have increasingly veered into extremes, so have their problems. The adage that “money can’t buy happiness” has proved tragically true for the gilded victims of what has come to be known as “Sudden Wealth Syndrome”—who suffer from irritability, insomnia, paranoia, depression, anxiety, and panic attacks. That may be a part of why so many soothe their reeling brains with ketamine, self-medicate with psilocybin, or submit to an unwavering diet of blueberries between dunks in an ice bath.
Part of the problem, unhappy multimillionaires told researchers from Boston College’s Center of Wealth and Philanthropy in a 2011 psychological study, is the feeling that no amount of wealth feels like enough. There’s never a point where one can stop craving more. The study’s 1,000 respondents, each worth at least $25 million, described feelings of anxiety, dissatisfaction, and—perplexingly—financial insecurity.
One respondent told researchers that he would not feel secure until he had amassed a billion dollars, the Atlantic noted, hypothesizing that “just as the human body didn’t evolve to deal well with today’s easy access to abundant fat and sugars, and will crave an extra cheeseburger when it shouldn’t, the human mind, apparently, didn’t evolve to deal with excess money, and will desire more long after wealth has become a burden rather than a comfort.”
Those reams of personal testimony highlighted the problem, but left the central question unanswered: Why are so many extremely rich people miserable, and why do they act so strangely? Lately another scholarly genre, genoeconomics, has risen to attempt to answer the question using the trove of genetic information that has become available since the end of last century, when the human genome was first mapped. Scientists in this new field—its name was coined in 2007—suggest that some people are born with a propensity for financial success, and they have been searching for a “wealth gene” that separates billionaires from the rest of us.
They have made some progress, but here’s the rub: Such a genetic propensity, it turns out, appears to often be coupled with the likelihood of disordered personality traits. That’s via a process known as pleiotropy—the phenomenon in which one genetic locus affects two or more traits. Research has shown some correlation between educational attainment (seen as a proxy for likelihood to get rich) and a predisposition to schizophrenia, autism, anxiety disorders, and other conditions.
It turns out that there’s no one “wealth gene,” says Daniel Benjamin, a Professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management and the David Geffen School of Medicine, who has worked in the field for two decades. In Benjamin’s studies of educational attainment, instead of a single genetic needle in the genomic haystack, he and his colleagues have identified 3,952 distinct “single-nucleotide polymorphisms”—and he’s sure they haven’t yet found them all. The assumption is these SNPs (pronounced “snips”) associated with educational attainment, out of the millions in the human genome, tell us something about the genetic basis of an entrepreneurial spirit. SNPs work in bewildering conjunctions and combinations to create all sorts of human diversity—which may include, for example, the pairing of a propensity toward C-suites and superyachts with an openness to wild conspiracy theories.
Thinking “outside the box” has certainly led to plenty of innovation, from the chia pet to the personal computer. It has also led to some alarming misunderstandings of reality—Henry Ford’s infamous obsession with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; pillow multimillionaire Mike Lindell’s fixation with a false narrative about voting machines; Elon Musk’s flirtations with Q-Anon.
A willingness to embrace bizarre new ideas—perhaps a portable phone that can also play music, shoot a movie, and translate Swahili?—could be the key to making a fortune. And there’s reason to think that the SNPs Dr. Benjamin and his team is studying are associated with a kind of extreme open-mindedness, he says. “I wouldn’t be surprised if a side effect were being especially intellectually flexible, seeking out lots of different kinds of opinions,” he tells Fortune. “These are probably characteristics that are helpful for being successful in the business world… When you apply it in the context of vaccines or whatever it starts to look like conspiracy theories.”
I asked Professor Benjamin if at some point in the future, someone will come up with the polygenic index that defines the genome of a billionaire. “I think it’s going to happen,” he said. Professor Benjamin estimates that within ten years, this science will reach maturity, in the sense that genetic data will be incorporated into mainstream research in social science. So it may not be long before the phenomenon will usher in a new era of helicopter parenting that begins before birth.
But given the possible association of wealth acquisition with psychological distress, is such meddling advisable? Dr. Benjamin points out that this kind of embryo selection, if it were to happen on a large scale, could increase inequality, and it could have other negative consequences: “There might be more people with certain psychiatric conditions.” What if this progeny pre-programmed for money-making zeal is also more likely to end up wandering around a mansion, micro-dosing LSD and sending peevish tweets?
This still-hypothetical parental dilemma raises an intriguing question: If the peculiarities of the super-rich are locked within their genetic code alongside tendencies to outlandish compulsion, might these combined oddities be the cause of their wealth, not its effect? In that case, the billionaire’s strangeness might not be something to be shunned, but sought.
Of course in a world where some people are born with enormous privilege and opportunity, and many others face massive barriers and disadvantages, genetics can only play a bit part in a success story. Any notion of achievement that rests too heavily on biological determinism also runs the risk of veering into the unsavory field of eugenics, with all its distortions and racism.
Besides, Professor Benjamin points out despite his interest in genetics, when it comes to human behavior, there are plenty of forces just as powerful as heredity that might be driving the super-wealthy toward chaotic behavior. Even titans of industry aren’t immune to peer pressure—the desire to keep up with the billionaire next door.
“If your friends are going to outer space, then that’s what you want to do,” Benjamin says. “Perhaps,” he muses, “it’s boredom.”