Market Description
This market is a ranking competition in which human (who is alive as of Dec 14, 2025) are evaluated across three traits: Physical Strength, Intelligence, and Wealth.
Scoring System
I will select 5-10 human with best winning chance to rank.
Ranks 1 through 10 will earn 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 points respectively.
An option’s overall score is the sum of the points it receives across all three trait rankings.
The option with the highest overall score will be declared the winner of this market.
While personal preference and subjective judgment cannot be eliminated entirely, I will make a good-faith effort to answer questions and explain how I evaluate each trait and determine relative rankings.
I anticipate that cross intelligence comparison would be particularly subjective, if you ask me in the comments early on I will try my best to provide my answer to, for example, whether a specific chess world champion, fields medal winner, inventor, or hedge fund manager is considered more intelligent than the other option in my opinion.
Eligible Options
At a randomized closing time (to be announced), I will select the 5-10 options that I believe have the strongest prospects of winning.
Only these 5-10 options will be considered for all trait rankings and overall scoring.
I will make an announcement at least 2 days before the randomize closing period is set.
Market Resolution
The market will resolve based on the option that finishes with the highest overall score under the scoring system described above.
Notes:
If it is debatable whether certain human exist or is alive or not, I reserve the right to disqualify such option.
Update 2025-12-14 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): All three traits (Physical Strength, Intelligence, and Wealth) will be evaluated based on current levels as of the resolution date, not peak historical levels.
Update 2025-12-14 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Physical Strength will be evaluated primarily based on strength to move or carry objects (e.g., weightlifting capacity). Endurance activities like marathon running are considered a separate trait and will not be factored into the Physical Strength ranking. Skill in applying strength may matter at the margin (e.g., to the extent it affects how much weight someone can lift).
Update 2025-12-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Dr. Younghoon Kim has been disqualified from consideration due to concerns about legitimacy.
Update 2025-12-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): When selecting the 5-10 finalists for ranking, the creator will aim to balance the number of top candidates from each category (Physical Strength, Intelligence, and Wealth). The target is approximately 3 from each category or 2 from each category, provided there are enough options with decent prices from each category.
Update 2025-12-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For Intelligence evaluation: The creator considers top mathematicians to generally rank in the top 20% for chess ability among the general population, but does not believe Magnus Carlsen would rank in the top 20% for math ability. This reflects the creator's view that chess skill (involving memorization and constrained spatial reasoning) should not be placed on a pedestal relative to other forms of intelligence like mathematical ability or programming prowess.
Need some more African billionaires like Elon, Johann Rupert, Nicky Oppenheimer, Nassef Sawiris in here
How do you estimate intelligence here?
Raw IQ-like estimate (g-factor style)?
Or a broader definition?
I'm aware that the g factor/IQ explains variance across many cognitive dimensions, sometimes substantially, sometimes less so.
However, rationality is probably an important dimension that many people here implicitly weight when assessing intelligence, and IQ explains only a modest portion of rational thinking performance.
For example, how would you rate Elon Musk versus someone with a comparable IQ, but stronger epistemic calibration and more consistent rational decision-making?
It would be an unfathomable shame to give Mark Zuckerberg a 'Top Living Human' title, under any metric.
Tyson Fury:
10/10 strength: 127kg, boxing world champion, would wipe the floor with everyone on this list
7/10 wealth: 146 million dollar
7/10 intelligence: decent IQ to reach the top of elite boxing, received no KO / CTE
I added this absolute beast. I personally don’t like the guy, but he’s obviously very smart, used to be a wrestler in his youth, so I guess some of that raw strength should remain, and as long as a wealth gap doesn’t play a role, he should rank sufficiently high up there in wealth as well.
@Magnify criminally underrated. We all know he was several times Mr Olympia, a very successful actor and governor of a state with the GDP of a G7 country. But he already was a millionaire from starting a brick laying company. He also managed to cheat on his wife for years unnoticed and to even take photos with his illegitimate son under the Christmas tree. What more could a man accomplish?!
@KyleY or when he completely and permanently blew up his positive relationship with the most politically powerful person in the world for zero benefits, after spending years ensuring that the other side would forever hate him too
@khang2009 I find it interesting that of all the big tech billionaires Zuckerberg seems to be the only one with a great family life. It's especially interesting since he also is the one who gets most memed as "robotic".
Basically the big hidden factor here is how many individuals from each primary category you select for the final tally.
For example, if you select one strongman and several billionaires, some of those billionaires will get easy strongman points. Whereas if you select several strongmen, the billionaires will not get many strongman points.
It's very different to if you scored everyone on the list, or if you scored them via an independent scale rather than by relative rankings.
Even a single swap in the final 5-10 could quite likely change the winner.
@marvingardens This also means that "I will select 5-10 human with best winning chance to rank." doesn't quite work, since the choices affect each others' winning chances -- a lot.
@marvingardens Good comment. I am going do my best to balance the number of top candidates from each category. For example, I would aim for 3 from each category or 2 from each category. That's provided that there's enough options with a decent price from each category.
@AmmonLam Can you even clearly put everyone in a category? Someone who is strong in only one category should probably not be picked.
Also, I would like to propose Sergey Brin and Larry Page as candidates for the intelligence category (Stanford phds, etc)