I was hoping that you had a paper that didn't appear there, as the authoritative ones I see there seem to indicate that there is a minor correlation at best.
Yeah, I saw those plots. I didn't personally find them startling, though. To me, they show a weak correlation (that is stronger as you go lower in income, as you note).
That's an incredibly strong correlation by social science standards (seriously, one number correlates that well with something as complicated and path-dependent as income?), which is also weak enough to be completely useless for an individual trying to make decisions. There is no contradiction, because social science is incredibly hard.
Oh yeah, it's minor for sure. Personally, I believe it's more of a "being wealthy means you do better on IQ tests" effect than "IQ measures how much money you will make."
I was mainly getting that point out of the way so the poster I was replying to wouldn't get hung up on my evil liberal agenda.
Considering my characterization of my own point earlier,
>Being too afraid to generalize the wealthy as competent causes yourself to miss an personal actionable moral lesson about goal-oriented behavior. It is entirely possible to make this judgement, and learn from it, without demonizing the poor as incometent or subhuman.
I wouldn't call your viewpoint evil, but I'd like you to characterize where I'm arguing from in your own words. Seems like you think I've jumped into the looney bin.
Putting too much emphasis on IQ is a bit distasteful, because people can't change their IQ very much. But conscientiousness is worth advocating for. To me, it seems like the left-leaning opinion is so afraid to make judgements between people's measurable differences that they want to immediately shame people for recognizing those differences.
> Putting too much emphasis on IQ is a bit distasteful
I wouldn't say "distasteful". I'd say "inaccurate". It's not clear what, exactly, IQ actually measures and it's up for debate if it measures intelligence in any meaningful way.
