Post: #1

Quote:Research has shown that a person's position in the economic pecking order can have a lasting effect on cognitive development. But can it also affect the size and shape of the brain?

A new study suggests that a family's socioeconomic status correlates with the surface area of children's brains, regardless of genetic ancestry, race and other
factors.

Not only does mom and dad's salary appear to account for variability in surface area of children's brains, but a small raise for those on the low­ or middleincome
scale seems to have a disproportionately bigger effect on children's brain size and scores on cognitive tests, according to the study, published online in the
journal Nature Neuroscience.

"We’ve known for a long time that cognitive development, school performance and productivity in adult life can be impacted by socioeconomic status, but now
we’re actually seeing it in the brain,” said Elizabeth Sowell, a developmental neuroscientist at the Saban Research Institute at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, and lead investigator of the study.

Still, exactly how parental income might determine brain development is uncertain ­ many factors come along with income, and each may turn out to have a role.

“Money can buy better education, homes in areas further away from freeways; It can buy guitar lessons. It can buy after­school programs; it can buy better
healthcare, better nutrition," Sowell said. "It’s all of those things that money can buy that lead to more enriched experiences for children in wealthier families.”

Those experiences physically reshape the brain over time. Researchers were particularly interested in changes in surface area, which have been associated with the way the brain improves connectivity through a process somewhat analogous to adding insulation to wiring.

They used a pediatric database that includes brain images, genotypes, cognitive tests and developmental history for more than 1,000 young people, ages 3 to 20.

That database, known as the Pediatric Imaging, Neurocognition and Genetics project, also includes information on parental income and education.

Both income and education correlated with brain surface area, particularly in areas associated with language, reading and executive function. But further
analysis showed that only income uniquely accounted for the variance in surface area, the study found.

Both Income and surface area also correlated with four tests of cognition, the study found.

Perhaps as important, genetic ancestry and race did not prove to be decisive factors, according to the study. Those factors often wind up intertwined with
socioeconomic status, the authors said.

So are we damned by our parents' income? Not quite, the researchers say. Not only are there notable exceptions ­ lots of poor achieve high education goals ­ butsmall investments at critical periods can have big effects, the data suggest.

"We think that if we could make changes to enrich environments that we could alter development," Sowell said.

Interested in expanding your mind? Follow me on Twitter: @LATsciguy

http://www.latimes.com/science/scienceno...story.html

Post: #2

Of course there is a correlation between nutrition and IQ.

One cannot overstress the importance of high quality nutrient dense nutrition, supplements during pregnancy (starting 2 months before pregnancy) and the subsequent high quality food in early childhood, breast feeding and first years. Not only is nutrition here relevant but also lack of toxins or toxic food.

Guess what social and economic strata of society will have access and knowledge of those improved living standards in this essential period of brain development?

However potentially you can have equal high quality factors attained by a wholesome conscious rural lifestyle that may be even superior to most upper class families. Still - on average the wealthier family will have higher education, better food, less toxins in environment and food, thus provide a better environment for proper development of the brain.

In addition you have better education and mental stimulation starting at age 5 or before and the differences in upbringing are exacerbated even more. Also keep in mind that the underclass has the most difficulties with drug- and alcohol abuse, smoking, crappy eating habits, lack of exercise, sub-standard housing, emotional stress etc.

Thus there is no surprise that this contributes to the low social mobility in countries like the US, where extremes are stronger than in the EU.

Post: #3

This is ass-backwards

IQ is real and heritable and correlated with brain size.

People with higher IQs and larger brains make more money.

The smaller brain sizes among those who are poor has much more to do with being poor because you have a lower IQ, correlated with having a small brain.

Being poor and moving up the economic ladder indicates a higher IQ than the station you were born into, correlating with a bigger brain size.

Post: #4

Looking at the paper...

Basically, what the authors did was test statistical models with child (ages 3-20) cortical surface as the y-variables, and age, sex, different scanners, "genetic ancestry factor" (African, American Indian, East Asian, European, Oceanic, Central Asian), parental education, and family income as x-variables.

They show three such models in Table 2.

They found that family income and parental education were robustly associated with child cortical surface areas and suggested that greater child cortical surface areas could be induced by higher parental education and income, which enable the purchasing of "more nutritious foods," establishing of "more cognitively stimulating home environments," living with better childcare and in safer neighborhoods, "with more opportunities for physical activity and less exposure to environmental pollutants and toxic stress."

Note the variable they didn't have/use: Parental Cortical Surface Area!

Parental education and income are likely just proxies for parental cortical surface area.

Larger parental cortical surface areas <==> Higher parental IQs <===> Higher parental education & higher parental income

And children inherit their parents' cortical surface areas.

Quote:Perhaps as important, genetic ancestry and race did not prove to be decisive factors, according to the study. Those factors often wind up intertwined with
socioeconomic status, the authors said.

This segment was unclear and maybe misleading, perhaps intentionally so.

Indeed, the authors did not find that the associations between cortical surface areas and education/income were merely artifacts of genetic ancestry and race. However, their models did reveal that, net of both (and each) parental education and family income, children of African genetic ancestry had smaller cortical surface areas than those of European genetic ancestry. This effect (African vs. European) was consistently more robust than both education and income as variables, and much more robust than that between Europeans and any of the other genetic ancestry factor levels (Table 2).

The work of the authors suggests that African vs. European genetic ancestry is more robustly associated with child cortical surface area than both (and each) parental income and parental education. The authors strive for a politically correct conclusion (e.g. better parental education and better parental income improves child brain morphology), but their models show something very politically incorrect.

Post: #5

Another study trying to answer age old questions.
I gave my wife an IQ test and about shit myself. About 30 points less than myself. No wonder we got problems.

Post: #6

(03-31-2015 04:18 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  People with higher IQs and larger brains make more money.

Looking at the top of the various fields

Who's smarter?

Business Majors or Physics Majors?

Who makes more money?

Business Majors or Physics Majors?

What about VC and Angel Investors in Silicon Valley versus the Developers, Data scientists and Software Architects?

So why in the most important and most competitive fields does your theory continue to fail and fail hard?

Is there something wrong with real world data?

Has to be, because nothing can be wrong with the theory...right?

WIA

Post: #7

(03-31-2015 04:45 PM)Kabal Wrote:  Note the variable they didn't have/use: Parental Cortical Surface Area!

Exactly. No doubt this 'research' was funded by the Left. If they can give their propaganda the gloss of being 'scientific', they'll be able to drive it further. This ties in nicely with their 'redistribution of wealth' regime.

No doubt this has something to do with it:

Quote:The Saban Research portfolio depends upon the strength of our investigators. The 2011 Merit Awards recognize those who increased our funding from federal sources.

http://www.chla.org/site/apps/nlnet/cont...=11582729.

I'm guessing it's easier to get federal funding from a leftist government if you provide 'research' that fits their ideological agenda.

Post: #8

I'm not sold. This whole paper reads like an argument in favor of big time welfare.

Post: #9

confusing causality with correlation?

Post: #10

(03-31-2015 10:40 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:18 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  People with higher IQs and larger brains make more money.

Looking at the top of the various fields

Who's smarter?

Business Majors or Physics Majors?

Who makes more money?

Business Majors or Physics Majors?

What about VC and Angel Investors in Silicon Valley versus the Developers, Data scientists and Software Architects?

So why in the most important and most competitive fields does your theory continue to fail and fail hard?

Is there something wrong with real world data?

Has to be, because nothing can be wrong with the theory...right?

WIA

There is a misconception that highly-specialized, highly-theoretical, and highly-academic individuals are the most intelligent group there is. I once thought this too, and thought that they are somehow being treated unjustly because of their relative low pay.

It has only been after researching business and entrepreneurs that I have changed my mind on this completely. All else being equal, intelligence is a major component of successfully making money, but it is certainly not enough by itself. You also need a risk-appetite (which the student-types don't have), and ambitious high energy (which for them only generally amounts to academic pursuits like reading books, trying to solve complicated maths problems, trying new experiments in their lab etc). That is - for the most part, the research physicists risk-appetite is nil, and their ambition is 'to write good papers', compared to the entrepreneurs million-dollar bets and drive to beat all his competitors.

One thing to note is that the research physicist, and I have known some, is obsessed with just that - physics. Almost the entire capacity of their mind is devoted to physics. They have little invested in social skills, other interests and pursuits, and understanding the world generally. I once had a conversation with one particularly obsessed physicist, who was borderline manic in his obsession. I asked him "why don't you do other things?" and he replied "but physics explains the universe, it is everything", to which I responded "no, it's just the basis of everything".

Sometimes theoretical and specialized types grow themselves some balls and get out there into the 'real world'. One example is James Harris Simons, who taught mathematics, and was trying to solve complicated esoteric maths problems, before leaving that behind and starting a hedge fund, which then earned him a net-worth of $1.1B.

So to answer your questions, the successful business majors and VCs are just as intelligent as the physics majors and the data scientists, but are more broadly intelligent (wise) than specifically intelligent (nerdy), and have higher risk appetite and energy+ambition.

Post: #11

If academia is so dead-set against the idea of a correlation between race and innate intelligence, why control for race in studies like this?

Post: #12

As others have mentioned, the fact that they did not measure the parents' cortical surface area is ludicrous. It's like doing a study about what familial factors affect offspring height and neglecting to note how tall the parents were. The only PhD these researchers merit is in intellectual phaggotry.

Post: #13

Sonsowey's point was about IQ, a flawed metric if there ever was one, and how having a higher one equals more money.

It doesn't. Indeed, if anything a really high IQ is a hindrance to making gobs of money.

Typically the people with the highest IQ are not in the C-Suite. The people with the most hands on experience and the wisdom that comes from seeing lots of permutations of the field are also not in the C-suite.

Neither the smart nor the wise reap the material benefits of their labor and knowledge.

Rarely does "merit"/Smarts/Hard work/experience bring wealth or power.

And you can see this throughout history.
You can see this in the news.

WIA

(03-31-2015 11:45 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:40 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:18 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  People with higher IQs and larger brains make more money.

Looking at the top of the various fields

Who's smarter?

Business Majors or Physics Majors?

Who makes more money?

Business Majors or Physics Majors?

What about VC and Angel Investors in Silicon Valley versus the Developers, Data scientists and Software Architects?

So why in the most important and most competitive fields does your theory continue to fail and fail hard?

Is there something wrong with real world data?

Has to be, because nothing can be wrong with the theory...right?

WIA

There is a misconception that highly-specialized, highly-theoretical, and highly-academic individuals are the most intelligent group there is. I once thought this too, and thought that they are somehow being treated unjustly because of their relative low pay.

It has only been after researching business and entrepreneurs that I have changed my mind on this completely. All else being equal, intelligence is a major component of successfully making money, but it is certainly not enough by itself. You also need a risk-appetite (which the student-types don't have), and ambitious high energy (which for them only generally amounts to academic pursuits like reading books, trying to solve complicated maths problems, trying new experiments in their lab etc). That is - for the most part, the research physicists risk-appetite is nil, and their ambition is 'to write good papers', compared to the entrepreneurs million-dollar bets and drive to beat all his competitors.

One thing to note is that the research physicist, and I have known some, is obsessed with just that - physics. Almost the entire capacity of their mind is devoted to physics. They have little invested in social skills, other interests and pursuits, and understanding the world generally. I once had a conversation with one particularly obsessed physicist, who was borderline manic in his obsession. I asked him "why don't you do other things?" and he replied "but physics explains the universe, it is everything", to which I responded "no, it's just the basis of everything".

Sometimes theoretical and specialized types grow themselves some balls and get out there into the 'real world'. One example is James Harris Simons, who taught mathematics, and was trying to solve complicated esoteric maths problems, before leaving that behind and starting a hedge fund, which then earned him a net-worth of $1.1B.

So to answer your questions, the successful business majors and VCs are just as intelligent as the physics majors and the data scientists, but are more broadly intelligent (wise) than specifically intelligent (nerdy), and have higher risk appetite and energy+ambition.

Post: #14

(03-31-2015 10:40 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:18 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  People with higher IQs and larger brains make more money.

Looking at the top of the various fields

Who's smarter?

Business Majors or Physics Majors?

Who makes more money?

Business Majors or Physics Majors?

What about VC and Angel Investors in Silicon Valley versus the Developers, Data scientists and Software Architects?

So why in the most important and most competitive fields does your theory continue to fail and fail hard?

Is there something wrong with real world data?

Has to be, because nothing can be wrong with the theory...right?

WIA

Here they link SAT scores with income later in life, nowhere is there a case where people earning a lower SAT score earn less money later in life.

SAT is correlated with IQ score.

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/...about-you/

Your narrow exception does not even seem to be true.

http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-r...y-you-back

Here it lists the top majors by the amount of money they earn. Science majors earn more money than business majors.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimat...ege-major/

Here we see IQ estimates by major. Unsurprisingly, physics majors have higher IQs than business majors. And they earn more money. So your idea is not correct.

If you are only looking at the very top people in an industry, sure, the captains of industry beat out the top scientists for earning power. However the top business people, or the top VCs, are by no means stupid. You're talking of a difference between two people who are both very smart and undoubtedly have very high IQs. I have no evidence to suggest that Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk etc. don't have incredibly high IQs.

The idea that IQ itself is a flawed metric is bunk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%2...metrics%29

There are over 100 years of data showing that there is such a thing as general intelligence, "g" in psychometric research. IQ tests are correlated with "g", general intelligence. People with higher IQ scores or higher general intelligence make more money in life. You can read about it or ignore it as you like.

Post: #15

IQ is associated with higher lifetime earnings even among those with IQs over 135, as identified at age 10. So we have two things working against IQ here as a predictor of earnings:
a) Range Restriction (looking at those that are above 135)
b) Childhood Testing (IQ tests are more accurate are on adults).

Yet despite a) and b), the relationship between childhood IQ and lifetime earnings is robust:



Conversely, among those who were born in the bottom quintile of family income, higher adolescent AFQT scores (AFQT scores have a correlation to IQ of .8) are associated with greater chances of moving out of the bottom quintile. This association works for both blacks and whites (and also means that, when AFQT score is adjusted for, blacks and whites have similar chances of making it out of the bottom quintile):



IQ works as a predictor for income, and works well.

Furthermore, moving beyond income, higher IQs are associated with more future patents and more future STEM publications, among those in the top 1% of SAT-M scores identified prior to age 13 and who eventually obtain doctorates (so we have a) and b) in full effect here, as well):



One could go on and on with such studies and graphs illustrating the reliability and validity of IQ not just as a metric, but as a predictor.

Post: #16

After reviewing the evidence, I concede my point.

Well fought guys.

WIA

Post: #17

IQ is pretty overrated, It's better to be someone who understands big-picture market forces and sector growth as opposed to dominating academic drivel.

I knew a lot of smart Indians / arabs / Africans who are the brightest so they go to an American university, major in math/ physics, but at the end of the day if there's no profitable company needing to hire them then it just doesn't fucking matter.
Contrast that with a roughneck who has a highschool diploma making $100,000, you realize its more important to research sectors, trends and future growth instead of giving a fuck about academia.

The middle sweet spot is where entrepreneurs live and thrive. I know a lot of smart engineers who had a 3.6, but when the price of oil drops to $48 no oil company will hire them so they are just as fucked as a lib arts major.

If you can logically solve IQ test problems and dominate academia, the more important test is the real world market forces which determine your income and employability.

That's why a drop-out entrepreneur who understands demand can make a lot more money than a 'smart' academic shill who doesn't really understand corporate operations. It's better to be street smart.

Most high-IQ people are just good worker bees to the innovative entrepreneur who sees the big picture.

Look at all the Ph.D.'s on food stamps. They are confused why their life is shitty. "But Im smart! Someone should be paying me more!" They don't understand they LACK A MARKETABLE SKILL. They did everything they were told to do (in academia), but they don't know anything someone is willing to pay for.

Some old couple in my town has 4 snowcone carts, they made over $50,000 in the summer just selling snowcones to people who stop. Most academic 'smart' people don't understand consumer behavior and demand.

Post: #18

(04-02-2015 12:21 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  After reviewing the evidence, I concede my point.

Well fought guys.

+1. A rare and mature mindset to have in this world.

(I'm going to write down my viewpoint as well. Love this subject.)

Post: #19

I'm on a budget. I can only afford to buy this one:

Post: #20

(04-02-2015 12:45 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  IQ is pretty overrated, It's better to be someone who understands big-picture market forces and sector growth as opposed to dominating academic drivel.

I knew a lot of smart Indians / arabs / Africans who are the brightest so they go to an American university, major in math/ physics, but at the end of the day if there's no profitable company needing to hire them then it just doesn't fucking matter.
Contrast that with a roughneck who has a highschool diploma making $100,000, you realize its more important to research sectors, trends and future growth instead of giving a fuck about academia.

The middle sweet spot is where entrepreneurs live and thrive. I know a lot of smart engineers who had a 3.6, but when the price of oil drops to $48 no oil company will hire them so they are just as fucked as a lib arts major.

If you can logically solve IQ test problems and dominate academia, the more important test is the real world market forces which determine your income and employability.

There are several problematic aspects of your post.

1. You conflate academia with IQ. There is tremendous IQ heterogeneity in people who have nominally obtained the same degree, whether it be Bachelor's or PhD--as you move down the rankings or stratify it by subject. For example, once you control for SAT-scores (SAT-scores are highly correlated with IQ), earnings differentials between attending different schools disappears.

2. You are conjecturing from anecdote. The smart Indian/Arab/African math/physics majors I know/have known are by far more economically successful, on average, than the rednecks I know/have known.

3. The stylized anecdote you pose ("smart Indians / arabs / Africans who are the brightest... roughneck who has a highschool diploma making $100,000... its [sic] more important to research sectors, trends and future growth instead of giving a fuck about academia"), even if we played along and accepted it, reduces to a vacuous statement, like saying "I know some tall people who are bad at basketball, and there are the Muggsy Bogues' and Earl Boykins' out there who are awesome at basketball. Height is overrated as a predictor of making it into the NBA."

The reference groups are selected ex-post, and the comparison says nothing about the predictive power of IQ for income success (or the predictive power of height for making-it-into-the-NBA chances [increased height increases your chance of making it into the NBA exponentially, and more on height and the NBA as an metaphor for IQ]).

4. You provide no empirical support for "IQ is pretty overrated, It's better to be someone who understands big-picture market forces and sector growth." I could claim "IQ is pretty overrated, it's better to be someone who is blessed by God," and have the same level of empirical support. You need to support your claim by showing that the "[understanding] of big-picture market forces and sector growth" explains a greater degree of variation in outcomes and more robustly than does IQ. Furthermore, you would also need to show that "[understanding] of big-picture market forces and sector growth" can be measured ex-ante as a cohesive, consistent concept for observing associated income outcomes--like IQ--not just something identified ex-post.

5. And "real world market forces" reify IQ:

(04-02-2015 12:45 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  That's why a drop-out entrepreneur who understands demand can make a lot more money than a 'smart' academic shill who doesn't really understand corporate operations. It's better to be street smart.

Most high-IQ people are just good worker bees to the innovative entrepreneur who sees the big picture.

Most people are just worker bees to someone, so that says nothing about relative probability. And the most successful, "innovative" entrepreneurs (those who were amongst the founders of eventual corporate monoliths that eventually employ hordes of worker bees) are disproportionately high (if not very high) in IQ (Bezos, Gates, etc.). So, the "innovate entrepreneur" example reinforces the importance of IQ.

I can similarly replace "street smart" with "blessed by God" and have the same level of empirical support. Again, you need to show that "street smart" is a cohesive, consistent concept that can be measured ex-ante to predict outcomes--like IQ.

(04-02-2015 12:45 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  Look at all the Ph.D.'s on food stamps. They are confused why their life is shitty. "But Im smart! Someone should be paying me more!" They don't understand they LACK A MARKETABLE SKILL. They did everything they were told to do (in academia), but they don't know anything someone is willing to pay for.

This is just the endowment effect ("I have a PhD, why am I not rich?"), and does nothing to diminish the link between IQ and income. As discussed, there is tremendous IQ heterogeneity amongst PhD-holders.

(04-02-2015 12:45 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  Most academic 'smart' people don't understand consumer behavior and demand.

[Citation needed]. Consider perhaps a lot of them do, but their objective function includes other things than income. Think of IQ more as a call and/or put option on income.

Now, I would never say IQ is everything, but as a single metric it's remarkable in its versatility, reliability, and robusticity in explaining and predicting a wide range of outcomes, as I have shown in this thread. When you say things such as, "IQ is pretty overrated, It's better to be someone who understands big-picture market forces and sector growth," that's a much taller claim than something like "IQ is perhaps the single most important metric, but it is not always a sufficient condition for high income, it's also key to understand big-picture market forces and sector growth," which would be much more appropriate. Especially when, as discussed above, "[understanding] big-picture market forces and sector growth" as a metric, much less as a predictor, is lacking in ways that IQ is not, unless you can show otherwise.

Post: #21

Your study linking IQ and income is based off men born 1954 - 1968. The boomer generation who had the highest levels of income and standard of living across the board.

Manufacturing, new technologies, etc.... its no secret 1950-1990s was a boom time in the American economy. Lots of virgin territory and new ideas to start businesses.
A business degree was actually valuable back then.

In 2015....with automation, globalization, outsourcing, patent-factories like Apple, high taxes, etc..... following the 'correct' path of academic intelligence is a lot less likely to land you a good job much less wealthy than it was in the 70s-90s.
Its at the point now where creativity and basic observation of consumers can land you with a higher income than a college degree.

A well placed Mexican restaurant, an under-water welder, a roughneck, etc can earn far more money than someone with a masters in psychology who scored a 33 on their ACT.

I conflate IQ with academia because those types of kids who score high almost always get scholarships or some sort and use school as their confidence and achievement platform. In other words, they thrive in academia. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I think you give yourself the best chance at a high income by having useful utility in your labor.

The fact that theres really no way to measure 'understanding big picture market forces' is precisely why entrepreneurs are so rare and get so rich. You want to break it down to simple formulas like in academia but there's no way to. It's your impulse is to try and measure an entrepreneur's mind but you really can't, so you revert to basic academia tests like IQ, SAT, etc...

Given the large amount of unemployed college graduates, law school graduates, etc... having an above average IQ is not as profitable as it once was.

Yes, I realize there are law school grads with an IQ of 120, and some with 150 and it varies widely, but professional type jobs across the board are getting cut.

Wall street investment banks have laid off tons of workers over the past 6 years, those people probably have IQs 140+

Post: #22

Frankly I don't even need an IQ study to tell me that intelligence and income/wealth gets correlated.

Now you don't need to get to top 1% of MENSA levels to feel the income bump.

You also have to account for all the below-average men who are scattered in prisons, who die early on, who become drug addicts etc. The military high ranks, CIA, FBI don't even let you into higher positions if you don't pass a certain IQ range. There are entire intelligence units which only men above a certain IQ can get into.

What some people here might mistake is education and IQ, which is correlated, but not necessarily. If you took a look at MENSA you would come up with this demographic:

http://mwm.us.mensa.org/faq/people.html

Quote: In education they range from preschoolers to high school dropouts to people with multiple doctorates. There are Mensans on welfare and Mensans who are millionaires. As far as occupations, the range is staggering. Mensa has professors and truck drivers, scientists and firefighters, computer programmers and farmers, artists, military people, musicians, laborers, police officers, glassblowers � you name it. There are famous Mensans and prize-winning Mensans, but there are many, many whose names you wouldn't know.

American Mensa Ltd. Demographics

64.4% male, 35.4% female (0.2% won't say)
54% between 30-49 years of age, 14% under 29, 0.32% over 80
31.2% in first marriage, 29.82% never married, 13.32% divorced once, 9.53% in second marriage after a divorce
Just over half have no children, 12.4% have one child, 18.66% have 2, 9.95% have 3, 4.37% have 4, 1.29% have 9+
about 30% earn $20-40,000, 10% earn $50-75,000, 9% earn $40-50,000 and about 0.5% earn more than $250,000.
17.93% Master's degree or equivalent, 17.56% four year graduates, one in 11 are Ph.D.s.

Quote:41% work in private industry, 13% in government, 13% self employed.
88% European ancestry.
49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion
14% only children, 19+% older of two, 12.5% younger of two, 11.5% oldest of three, 6.8% middle of three, 5.8% youngest of three, 9.7% oldest of more than three, 10.8% middle of four or more, 4.4% youngest of four or more
Computer-related occupations 10%, 3.75% own their own business, Electrical Engineers are 2.6%, 7.5% are in education, 3% lawyers, 0.11% judges, 0.02% are in astronomy.

Now this is MENSA, but before that level you have the entire army of men who are in their 115-130s of IQ with a mind certainly powerful enough to climb the upper echelons of the corporate and business world.

Somehow I doubt that most successful people have average or below average IQs. Most who I have met are way smarter except for some exceptions. So essentially I think there is merit to both sides of the argument, since you could argue that only 0,5% of US MENSA members make more than 250.000$, but on the other hand you would have to go through each and everyone over an IQ of 120 who has never done a MENSA test in his life.

In addition you have the entire female side of the equation whose earning power correlates more with beauty than with intelligence. A bottle girl, model or trophy wife is going to make 50 times more than the average high intelligence girl out there. Most women accumulate wealth on their backs and knees either as a wife or doing wifely work professionally.

So essentially to get something definitive, we would have to exclude women and test a huge part of the population which has never been assessed.

Post: #23

I think the problem with arguing over the IQ/earnings issue is that it makes an assumption that more money is universally equally preferred. Note one other common observation on this board: that men tend to prefer a more spartan lifestyle and only get driven into compulsive wealth acquisition by the demands of their female spouses and their squirrel-like brains. Either that or they have something to prove and it's ego that's pushing them to make more and more money.

Perhaps at really high IQs priorities change, and the desire to impress others abates or even standards for what is considered impressive shifts. I certainly don't give a shit about McMansions or BMWs, and my mother says I'm the smartest person there is.

Post: #24

(04-03-2015 03:38 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  Your study linking IQ and income is based off men born 1954 - 1968. The boomer generation who had the highest levels of income and standard of living across the board.

Manufacturing, new technologies, etc.... its no secret 1950-1990s was a boom time in the American economy. Lots of virgin territory and new ideas to start businesses.
A business degree was actually valuable back then.

In 2015....with automation, globalization, outsourcing, patent-factories like Apple, high taxes, etc..... following the 'correct' path of academic intelligence is a lot less likely to land you a good job much less wealthy than it was in the 70s-90s.
Its at the point now where creativity and basic observation of consumers can land you with a higher income than a college degree.

A well placed Mexican restaurant, an under-water welder, a roughneck, etc can earn far more money than someone with a masters in psychology who scored a 33 on their ACT.
...

Given the large amount of unemployed college graduates, law school graduates, etc... having an above average IQ is not as profitable as it once was.

Yes, I realize there are law school grads with an IQ of 120, and some with 150 and it varies widely, but professional type jobs across the board are getting cut.

Wall street investment banks have laid off tons of workers over the past 6 years, those people probably have IQs 140+

More just-so stories, conjecture, goal post-shifting.

Instead of excuse-making with the cohort, show that a decoupling between IQ and income occurred near or after the 90s.

Someone could use your characterization, even if accepted, of the 50s to 90s to 2015 to argue for a strengthening of the IQ/income correlation.

And 140+ IQ people laid off from Wall Street generally end up doing just fine relative to dumber people. Just like smart people who lost jobs from the Dot Com boom end up doing just fine relative to dumber people. A lost job is temporary--IQ is for a lifetime.

(04-03-2015 03:38 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  The fact that theres really no way to measure 'understanding big picture market forces' is precisely why entrepreneurs are so rare and get so rich. You want to break it down to simple formulas like in academia but there's no way to. It's your impulse is to try and measure an entrepreneur's mind but you really can't, so you revert to basic academia tests like IQ, SAT, etc...

So why not God's Blessing or Magical Pixie Dust? Same degree of evidence as "understanding big picture market forces" (none), similarly are ex-post narratives. No support whatsoever that they're characteristics that are "better to have" than IQ.

You have still shown zero evidence of anything.

(04-03-2015 03:38 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  The fact that theres really no way to measure Magical Pixie Dust is precisely why entrepreneurs are so rare and get so rich. You want to break it down to simple formulas like a non-believer but there's no way to. It's your impulse is to try and measure an entrepreneur's mind but you really can't, so you revert to heretic tests like IQ, SAT, etc...

Fixed it for you.

Sounds like you keep spewing because you have a chip on your shoulder and/or inferiority complex against academics (the continual focus on degrees and academics, the attempted ad hominems ["You want to break it down to simple formulas like in academia," "so you revert to basic academia tests"]), not because you have a well-informed perspective on IQ and income.

As I've already addressed before, "rare" and "rich" entrepreneurs are overwhelmingly, disproportionately, high in IQ--supporting the importance of IQ.

People in the general population with IQs between 115 and 145 outnumber 145+'s 117 to 1. Using a left-point lower than 115 would yield an even more skewed ratio.

Yet, one would struggle hard to come up with the names of 351 (=117 * 3) "rich" and "rare" entrepreneurs with IQs under 145 to offset just Gates, Zuckerberg, and Bezos.

Even if one believed having an IQ over +145 increased one's chances of being a "rich" and "rare" entrepreneur by "only" 4 times over that of being between 115 and 145, one should be able to name at least 88 (~= 351 / 4) or so "rich" and "rare" entrepreneurs under +145 IQ to offset just Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos.

5 times? ~= 70.
10 times? ~= 35.
etc.

And there's many more 145+ "rich" and "rare" entrepreneurs (Thiel, Brin, Musk...), which would scale up the figures above.

Post: #25

i'm not going to read the original paper.... but what i'll say is from personal experience.... my son is 7 i can afford to send him to a good school in the country he lives.... because of this he can speak 3 (very different) languages fluently

so if it's about money buying intelligence i would have argued against it 8 years ago, but now i've seen the results of my money..... it's been a good investment although not cheap