I think that you might be confusing causation and correlation here. Countries that started to industrialize earlier have higher average IQ and higher GDP per capita. That would produce the effect you refer to. Whether or not the increased intelligence then contributes to further economic growth is a different matter.
What third factor producing both higher IQ and then industrialization are you suggesting?
Obviously you’re not suggesting anything as silly as the industrialization causes all observed IQ changes, because that simply doesn’t explain all examples, like East Asian countries:
A crucial question is whether IQ differences across countries are a simple case of reverse causation: Do high-income countries simply develop higher IQ’s? We address this question in a number of ways, but the most important is likely to be this simple fact: East Asian countries had high average IQ’s—at or above the European and U.S. averages—well before they entered the ranks of the high income countries. This is precisely the opposite of what one would expect if the IQ-productivity relationship were merely epiphenomenal.
East Asian countries had high average IQ’s—at or above the European and U.S. averages—well before they entered the ranks of the high income countries.
That suggests that the correlation would have been less at that earlier time, which suggests the idea that the correlation of average IQ and average income has varied over history. Perhaps it has become stronger with increasing technological level—that is, more opportunities to apply smarts?
That certainly seems possible. Imagine a would-be programming genius who is born now, versus born in the Stone Age—he could become the wealthiest human to ever live (Bill Gates) or just the best hunter in the tribe (to be optimistic...).
Based on their pioneering research two research questions were developed: does intelligence lead to wealth or does wealth lead to intelligence or are other determinants involved? If a nation’s intelligence increases wealth, how does intelligence achieve this? To answer them we need longitudinal studies and theoretical attempts, investigating cognitive ability effects at the levels of individuals, institutions and societies and examining factors which lie between intelligence and growth. Two studies, using a cross-lagged panel design or latent variables and measuring economic liberty, shares of intellectual classes and indicators of scientific-technological accomplishment, show that cognitive ability leads to higher wealth and that for this process the achievement of high ability groups is important, stimulating growth through scientific-technological progress and by influencing the quality of economic institutions.
I think that you might be confusing causation and correlation here. Countries that started to industrialize earlier have higher average IQ and higher GDP per capita. That would produce the effect you refer to. Whether or not the increased intelligence then contributes to further economic growth is a different matter.
What third factor producing both higher IQ and then industrialization are you suggesting?
Obviously you’re not suggesting anything as silly as the industrialization causes all observed IQ changes, because that simply doesn’t explain all examples, like East Asian countries:
That suggests that the correlation would have been less at that earlier time, which suggests the idea that the correlation of average IQ and average income has varied over history. Perhaps it has become stronger with increasing technological level—that is, more opportunities to apply smarts?
That certainly seems possible. Imagine a would-be programming genius who is born now, versus born in the Stone Age—he could become the wealthiest human to ever live (Bill Gates) or just the best hunter in the tribe (to be optimistic...).
Rindermann 2011: “Intellectual classes, technological progress and economic development: The rise of cognitive capitalism”; from abstract: