Claiming that you can get a dean of Harvard or the chairman of the CCP with an IQ of 100 seems to me a pretty implausible claims and you do nothing to argue why your readers should believe it.
Gwern’s summary of the IQ research suggests that IQ generally does correlate with the good things and there’s no mention that that stops at 100.
Writing a long article on how intelligence isn’t important without engaging with the research literature that supports intelligence being important feels out of place for LessWrong.
Claiming that you can get a dean of Harvard or the chairman of the CCP with an IQ of 100 seems to me a pretty implausible claims and you do nothing to argue why your readers should believe it.
I think you might have taken that to literally, the way I worded the claim is:
Intelligence is not causal for any markers of social status or money, though it is correlated.
I would argue, if you look at his writing & upbringing, that someone like Mao or Stalin were indeed pretty close to the mean of the distribution… but that’s besdies the point.
It’s likely that people in the 0.0001% of any hierarchy are in the top 1% of intelligent people, but unless that correlation can be bough to 0.0001% to 0.0001%, there’s 3 zeros to account for there.
It’s clear based on the intelligence research that the most rich people in the world, for example, are not the highest IQ people in the world.
But I didn’t want to go on citing IQ research partially because IQ doesn’t fully reflect what we think of as “intelligence”. So the claim “Warren buffet is not the most intelligent person in the world, because intuitively we see people which seem to be much smarter” doesn’t seem to be weaker than the claim “Warren Buffet is not the smartest person in the world because he score 126 on an IQ test”… one invites a subjective judgement of intelligence, the other invites a subjective judgement of how much IQ reflects intelligence.
Finally, I agree I should have present more clear evidence if this was meant as an academic article, but it was not, it was meant as a “Take a look at this perspective”. I couldn’t have done that if I endeavoured upon a meta-review of IQ research.
If you can site sourced that claim IQ is causal for obtaining status or wealth, as in, more causal than say, the family or country you were born in, I will retract my claim. All the literature I have read indicates it’s correlated, but it’s correlated up to a point and it acts more like a filter (i.e. all professors have an IQ of over 100, but the professor’s IQ isn’t strongly correlated with how many citations he gets, what his salary is, or how many grants or nobel prizes he receives)
Bill Gates scored 1590 out of 1600 on his SAT which is an IQ of ~150. From what I read about Warren Buffet’s IQ it’s in the 150 range as well.
The amount of Jewish Americans is 2% at the same time they make 35% of the top 400 richest people. Higher Jewish IQ seems to me like the best explanation for it. If you don’t want to argue for Jewish conspiracy, IQ seems to be the prime causal vector.
Hmh, fair enough, I would say SAT scores and tabloid speculations are not necessarily evidence, and the very high ashkenazi IQ + success rate in spite of hostile environments is indeed true.
All things considered, I was talking mainly out of memory, I will probably removed/redact this post and maybe try my hand at it again if I manage to dig through the data and if there’s indeed a case to be made that high intelligence is correlated but not causal or required for success on various measurable “social metrics”.
See my answer to ChristianKl, my understanding was that high IQ on it’s own is not a good predictor of equivalent success on any social hierarchy.
That is to say, a high IQ is more likely in people that are successful in societal-terms (money, status… etc), but not required or correlated (i.e. a billionaires IQ is not correlated with his ranking compared to other billionaires, and assuming there’s a mean “X” of billionaires IQ, there’s likely many more people at “X” that are not billionaires, or even successful in any other particular social hierarchy).
However, as per my reply there, I think I don’t have the literature to back up the claim, hence why I’ve retracted the post. I haven’t found evidence to the contrary, but since many people seem to disagree with this, I think I’d be fair for you not to trust that stance unless you find some evidence to back it up or I come up with said evidence at a later point.
Claiming that you can get a dean of Harvard or the chairman of the CCP with an IQ of 100 seems to me a pretty implausible claims and you do nothing to argue why your readers should believe it.
Gwern’s summary of the IQ research suggests that IQ generally does correlate with the good things and there’s no mention that that stops at 100.
Writing a long article on how intelligence isn’t important without engaging with the research literature that supports intelligence being important feels out of place for LessWrong.
I think you might have taken that to literally, the way I worded the claim is:
Intelligence is not causal for any markers of social status or money, though it is correlated.
I would argue, if you look at his writing & upbringing, that someone like Mao or Stalin were indeed pretty close to the mean of the distribution… but that’s besdies the point.
It’s likely that people in the 0.0001% of any hierarchy are in the top 1% of intelligent people, but unless that correlation can be bough to 0.0001% to 0.0001%, there’s 3 zeros to account for there.
It’s clear based on the intelligence research that the most rich people in the world, for example, are not the highest IQ people in the world.
But I didn’t want to go on citing IQ research partially because IQ doesn’t fully reflect what we think of as “intelligence”. So the claim “Warren buffet is not the most intelligent person in the world, because intuitively we see people which seem to be much smarter” doesn’t seem to be weaker than the claim “Warren Buffet is not the smartest person in the world because he score 126 on an IQ test”… one invites a subjective judgement of intelligence, the other invites a subjective judgement of how much IQ reflects intelligence.
Finally, I agree I should have present more clear evidence if this was meant as an academic article, but it was not, it was meant as a “Take a look at this perspective”. I couldn’t have done that if I endeavoured upon a meta-review of IQ research.
If you can site sourced that claim IQ is causal for obtaining status or wealth, as in, more causal than say, the family or country you were born in, I will retract my claim. All the literature I have read indicates it’s correlated, but it’s correlated up to a point and it acts more like a filter (i.e. all professors have an IQ of over 100, but the professor’s IQ isn’t strongly correlated with how many citations he gets, what his salary is, or how many grants or nobel prizes he receives)
Bill Gates scored 1590 out of 1600 on his SAT which is an IQ of ~150. From what I read about Warren Buffet’s IQ it’s in the 150 range as well.
The amount of Jewish Americans is 2% at the same time they make 35% of the top 400 richest people. Higher Jewish IQ seems to me like the best explanation for it. If you don’t want to argue for Jewish conspiracy, IQ seems to be the prime causal vector.
Hmh, fair enough, I would say SAT scores and tabloid speculations are not necessarily evidence, and the very high ashkenazi IQ + success rate in spite of hostile environments is indeed true.
All things considered, I was talking mainly out of memory, I will probably removed/redact this post and maybe try my hand at it again if I manage to dig through the data and if there’s indeed a case to be made that high intelligence is correlated but not causal or required for success on various measurable “social metrics”.
Can you unpack that a bit more, particularly on the money side of the claim of only correlation but no causation?
See my answer to ChristianKl, my understanding was that high IQ on it’s own is not a good predictor of equivalent success on any social hierarchy.
That is to say, a high IQ is more likely in people that are successful in societal-terms (money, status… etc), but not required or correlated (i.e. a billionaires IQ is not correlated with his ranking compared to other billionaires, and assuming there’s a mean “X” of billionaires IQ, there’s likely many more people at “X” that are not billionaires, or even successful in any other particular social hierarchy).
However, as per my reply there, I think I don’t have the literature to back up the claim, hence why I’ve retracted the post. I haven’t found evidence to the contrary, but since many people seem to disagree with this, I think I’d be fair for you not to trust that stance unless you find some evidence to back it up or I come up with said evidence at a later point.