Why's that? Why aren't the networks making most profit by appealing to as many people as possible because that increase in revenue outweighs the additional advertising price increase made possible by narrowly appealing to the stupidest demographic? And why might the stupidest demographic be the most profitable, as opposed to advertising to the smartest and richest demographics? 1% of a million loaves is a lot better than 100% of one hundred loaves.

Seen any TV ads lately? I'm kind of wondering if you're intending to win here by making an example.

Since you're on to the markers of real world success, how does your income compare to the median for people of your age, race, sex, and economical status of parents, anyway?

and why so many brilliant techies watch other people make fortunes off their work

I don't think making fortune is that much about not overestimating other people. Here's the typical profile of a completely failed start-up founder: someone with a high narcissism score - massive over-estimate of their own intelligence, massive under-estimating of other people's intelligence all across the board. Plus when they fail, it typically culminates in a conclusion that everyone's stupider.

edit: also with regards to techies watching others walk away with their money, there's things like this Atari story

There's a lot of cases of businesspeople getting more money, when the products are not user interfaces at all, but messy internals. Tesla and Edison are another story - Edison blew so much money on thinking that other people are stupid enough to be swayed enough by the electrocution of the elephant. He still made more money, of course, because he had the relevant money making talents. And Tesla's poor business ability (still well above average) can hardly be blamed on people being too stupid to deal with complex things that happen in enclosed boxes.