I cannot comment on the math, but intuitively this seems wrong.
Zagorsky (2007) found that while IQ correlates with income, the relationship becomes increasingly non-linear at higher IQs and suggests exponential rather than logarithmic returns.
Sinatra et al. (2016) found that high-impact research is produced by a small fraction of exceptional scientists, significantly exceeding their simply above-average peers.
My understanding is that empirical evidence points toward power law distributions in the relationship between intelligence and real-world impact, and that intelligence seems to broadly enable exponentially improving abilities to modify the world in your preferred image. I’m not sure why this is.
The most straightforward explanation would be that there are more underexploited niches for top-0.01%-intelligence people than there are top-1%-intelligence people.
I cannot comment on the math, but intuitively this seems wrong.
Zagorsky (2007) found that while IQ correlates with income, the relationship becomes increasingly non-linear at higher IQs and suggests exponential rather than logarithmic returns.
Sinatra et al. (2016) found that high-impact research is produced by a small fraction of exceptional scientists, significantly exceeding their simply above-average peers.
Lubinski and Benbow in their Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth found that those in the top 0.01% of ability achieve disproportionately greater outcomes than those in (just) the top 1%.
My understanding is that empirical evidence points toward power law distributions in the relationship between intelligence and real-world impact, and that intelligence seems to broadly enable exponentially improving abilities to modify the world in your preferred image. I’m not sure why this is.
The most straightforward explanation would be that there are more underexploited niches for top-0.01%-intelligence people than there are top-1%-intelligence people.
I don’t dispute these facts.