The median earned income of young adults (roughly early 30s) at different IQ levels in the mid 1990s:
Extremely Bright (About IQ 135): $47,500
Very Bright (About IQ 125): $36,000
Bright (About IQ 115): $27,000
Normal (About IQ 100): $21,000
Dull (About IQ 85): $13,000
Very Dull (About IQ 75): $7,500
I created this chart by synthesizing two sources. The data for the Very Dull to the Very Bright comes from Charles Murray (see Table 2-1) who looked at the 1993 income of five cognitive classes when they were about 32 (28 to 36). The income data for the “Extremely Bright” comes from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth which I noticed just happened to collect data from about the same year and age group as Murray’s data, thus allowing me to extend his chart into the gifted range. The study reported that by their early 30s, mathematically precocious kids had median incomes of $50,000 to $60,000 for men and $40,000 for women. Averaging both sexes I obtained $47,500 and used this as the median for this entire gifted group.
Pinning down the exact IQ of this gifted group is difficult because they were selected at age 13 based on Math SAT scores and were subdivided into those in the top 3% (math IQ 128) to the top 0.01% (math IQ 156), but a Math IQ of 142 seems like a good estimate for the group as a whole. And since Math IQ probably correlates about 0.8 with overall IQ, I estimated their overall IQs to be about 80% as extreme as their Math IQs, thus an overall IQ around 135.
47,500, even in the 1990’s, is nothing impressive — it’s about 86,000 today. So, these income facts just seem to make the general case that’s already floating around in the blogosphere: if you’re an idiot you’ll probably be poor, if you’re smart you are about as likely to get rich as a “normal.”
Creativity is far more important than IQ in getting rich. Also, one must usually have the constitution for risk-taking, which is probably negatively correlated with “IQ.” Notice I do not say intelligence and instead say “I.Q.”
So, these income facts just seem to make the general case that’s already floating around in the blogosphere: if you’re an idiot you’ll probably be poor, if you’re smart you are about as likely to get rich as a “normal.”
No these numbers show that high IQ is about as much of an asset as low IQ is a liability. The income difference between the smart and the average is about as big as the income difference between the dumb & average.
You are incorrect because you are looking at quant rather than qual. The quality of life difference between 13k and 27k is huge. Between 27k and 47k, not so much.
You need bigger jumps in cash to make equivalent strides in life quality, the more income you have.
Unsurprisingly the biggest jump occurs between not having enough to meet basic needs and enough to do so. The second biggest is enough to meet basic needs + a little bit extra. And it’s smaller from there.
The post was about IQ & income, not IQ & life quality
Income as a measure of wealth. And jumps in income are not all equal measures of the over abundance we associate with wealth.
So if you want to disassociate income and wealth, fine. Your point just loses all force.
Otherwise, like I said….the wealth disparity here is greatest between average and below average IQ.
The fact that being more gifted than 99% of the population only gets you to 47k makes the other side’s point.
So if you want to disassociate income and wealth, fine. Your point just loses all force.
How so?
Otherwise, like I said….the wealth disparity here is greatest between average and below average IQ.
Speculation
The fact that being more gifted than 99% of the population only gets you to 47k makes the other side’s point.
47.5 k is more than double what an average IQ person of that age & era made and a third more than top 5% (IQ 125) made. This obliterates the conventional wisdom that IQ doesn’t matter above 120.
It isn’t speculation. The jump between low and average is a big jump because it is a line of substinance. The same cannot be said of the income increase between average and high.
So what you are doing here is falsely equating the two jumps in income. They are not equal in terms of effect.
54k vs 86k, does anyone think there’s that much of a difference between the two? In status in prestige?
They are both solidly middle class.
25k and 54k, not so much.
‘How so?’
It loses all force because the only correlation people would care about is a correlation between IQ and an affluent life — or “wealth.” If you’re not using income as a proxy for this correlation, then it becomes a point no one cares about. No one cares about slapping a “this could be you!” sticker on an overworked doctor 500k in school debt alone who lives paycheck to paycheck despite earning 200k a year.
54k vs 86k, does anyone think there’s that much of a difference between the two? In status in prestige?
They are both solidly middle class.
25k and 54k, not so much.
Complete speculation based on absolutely nothing.
Whether or not an income jump is big or small is a function of whether it crosses a critical threshold (can I afford a car? can I afford a house? can I afford to send my kids to private school ? can I afford pladtic surgery? can I afford a private jet? can I afford to fund my own genetics research lab? ). These thresholds are constantly changing and vary enormously from person to person.
But the high IQ person has the potential to make millions ; the dull person not so much unless he’s an athlete or a reality TV star.
‘Complete speculation based on absolutely nothing.’
No, you are apparently ignorant of income levels, what they measure, and how the relationship of income to what income can measure changes as income rises.
By the academic models, both incomes are solidly middle class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States#Income
‘These thresholds are constantly changing and vary enormously from person to person.’
Maybe so, but the level of income required to meet basic needs is fairly universal and less a matter of preference than necessity. That is why the jump from “not meeting basic needs” to “meeting basic needs” is the biggest jump — it is probably the most objective.
Why do you think that more and more income provides diminishing returns to so-called happiness?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/map-happiness-benchmark_n_5592194.html
It’s because the biggest boost comes from keeping yourself fed and a roof over your head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_economics#Individual_income
Once you get to that point, take a look at what activities people spend their money on to make them happier. Now consider the kind of money it takes to fuel successful indulgence in those activities — far more than 86,000 dollars.
Happiness is not exactly wealth, but the amount of wealth required to increase happiness after meeting the basic threshold increases very fast for each additional increment of happiness. That is why the class differentials are so large. That is why the middle class is a fairly narrow spread.
‘But the high IQ person has the potential to make millions ; the dull person not so much unless he’s an athlete or a reality TV star.’
So does the average IQ person?
There’s a level of smarts that goes into being rich, but past a normal level of smarts, other factors matter more: A) your credentials, B) your physical attributes, C) your creativity, and D) (probably most important) your constitution for taking risks. D) is probably most important. Wealth to be gained by social climbers is always found in a longshot.
There’s a level of smarts that goes into being rich, but past a normal level of smarts, other factors matter more: A) your credentials, B) your physical attributes, C) your creativity, and D) (probably most important) your constitution for taking risks.
Those other factors influence income across virtually the full range of IQ; not just for high IQ people.
‘Those other factors influence income across virtually the full range of IQ; not just for high IQ people.’
No. If you’re a dummy those other factors matter far less.
By the academic models, both incomes are solidly middle class.
An arbitrary arbitrary reified category
Why do you think that more and more income provides diminishing returns to so-called happiness?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/map-happiness-benchmark_n_5592194.html
It’s because the biggest boost comes from keeping yourself fed and a roof over your head.
Or it’s because you have to work harder and harder to make more money. Or it’s because people who are genetically unhappy are more motivated to get rich because by definition they’re never satisfied. Or it’s because rich people are smart enough to see how depressing the world is.
There’s a lot of confounding variables that could be at work.
No. If you’re a dummy those other factors matter far less.
Not true. Many low IQ people have done extremely well for themselves using other factors..
‘An arbitrary arbitrary reified category’
It’s only reified if you do not believe a lifestyle encapsulated by the term “middle class” actually exists in a meaningful way.
‘Or it’s because you have to work harder and harder to make more money. Or it’s because people who are genetically unhappy are more motivated to get rich because by definition they’re never satisfied. Or it’s because rich people are smart enough to see how depressing the world is.’
Well I have evidence behind my assumption, though. The biggest boost comes from meeting the necessities. The things that increase happiness after that are expensive. The amount of money it takes to indulge in those “things,” to the point of getting a substantial increase, is available to people firmly in the upper class.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/money-might-buy-you-happiness-if-you-spend-it-right/article12005553/?page=all
‘Not true. Many low IQ people have done extremely well for themselves using other factors..’
And? Name some of these people who are allegedly “low IQ” or “dumb.”
People can also have an overabundance of the other factors (for example, an extremely attractive — think a model’s model — individual).
just a few months ago peepee was claiming that the very smartest people IQ > 150 tended to do worse than average.
she’s as consistent as Jensen.
the BBC will bring her back.
While higher income seems to predict higher IQ all the way up to billionaire level; it’s possible that higher IQ stops predicting higher income somewhere around 150, and the relationship may even reverse. I’m open minded to the possibility but we just have no good data on the incomes of people quite that smart.
However the popular Malcolm Gladwell notion that the correlation breaks down as low as 120 appears completely wrong.
—You are incorrect because you are looking at quant rather than qual.
Unusually silly comment Swank. Look, it’s hard to make money, so it is typically not about how much you wish to make to enjoy that “quality”, it’s about how much you manage to make to reach that quantity.
It’s not hard to make money. Whoever told you that is an idiot.
A panhandling bum and high-powered manager are different only in means rather than ends.
And by qual I mean wealth.
Speaking of silly, holding up 47k or 86k as an example of how much high IQ matters in gaining wealth is silly.
No one factors in debt that usually accompanies the credentials required to score that income. What about the type of work that tends to accompany these professions? Unless you’re good at salesmanship you’re just a smart monkey who’s there to make other people rich.
Measurement of creativity, density of novel or unusual ideas per day.
Top 1% of IQ makes about 86k a year.
Top 1% of yearly income is about 390k.
Being exceptionally intelligent is not so great an advantage. Would be rather have an average IQ and be born to a family in the top 1% of income or be in the top 1% of IQ and be born to a family making an average income? It’s obvious which is better for your future success.
Yeah lol the chart proves the opposite point of the post.
Low iq = poor but high iq no guarantee of bring rich.
Only because you’re defining poor far more broadly than you’re defining rich.
Not really. Poor = struggle to meet basic needs. Rich = arbitrary level where you have surpassed your basic needs many times over.
Income tells us more about being poor than it tells us about being rich.
A high percentile of income can help us. The exact point where rich begins is arbitrary but we know it’s a relative measure, so knowing an incomes place will help.
86k is not a particularly high percentile. Enough to be decently middle class but not close enough to being rich.
Top 1% of IQ makes about 86k a year.
Top 1% of yearly income is about 390k.
But they’re still in their early 30s
$390 K is the top 1% in household income. The top 1% is individual income would be much much less, especially in your early 30s
WHAT THE TOP 1%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50% MAKE IN AMERICA
Based on the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 database below, here’s how much the top Americans make:
Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048
http://www.financialsamurai.com/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/#sthash.XxAZLIAH.dpuf
Again, that’s household income not individual income
How so?
http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toptaxes.jpg?46c570
It lists itself as a summary of individual income tax data….
$135 K puts you in the top 1% of young adults
http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/the-top-1-percentand-01-percentof-every-age-group-in-america/382094/
Generally agrees with this chart:
…which is a lot more than 86k….
“A income of $ 86,000.00 for ages 27 to 31 ranks at: 83.88%”
http://www.shnugi.com/income-percentile-calculator/?min_age=27&max_age=31&income=86000
“A income of $ 57,000.00 for ages 27 to 31 ranks at: 66.99%”
http://www.shnugi.com/income-percentile-calculator/?min_age=27&max_age=31&income=57000
“A income of $ 26,000.00 for ages 27 to 31 ranks at: 26.34%”
http://www.shnugi.com/income-percentile-calculator/?min_age=27&max_age=31&income=26000
They simply are not that different. Like I said…
To lie is important have ”malignant creativity”.
Quality is more important than quantity. Generally, creative genius tend to have above iq but not super higher iq. Cooijmans suggest if super higher iq people tend to be ‘super normal’ ones.
related to Paul Cooijmans, this is very interesting :
http://www.paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html
Although he severely underestimates the abilities of the >110 range. Many high school kids can write a cogent article and I doubt they all have IQs above 130.
By cogent article he means a piece of actual scholarship. No, many high school children cannot do this.
And that entire chart is arbitrary anyway.
Yes, I noticed that too. When it contradicts claims that IQ tests are not reliable and all other texts, using them as parameter. He even uses the criterion of IQ to deny the possibility (real) that functional autistics might be some kind of genius, just the iq test. I mean, you do not have the job of studying the personality and intellectual, artistic and technical achievements of the people. Just measure your IQ.
Perhaps using a religion/denomination iq and their respective median household incomes would make a much clearer fit.
I remember reading somewhere that Jews and Hindus have the same proportion of family incomes over $100000 (46-49% I believe) and that fits in line with SAT score averages of both groups being practically the same. As you said before, Jews and immigrant Indian Americans have roughly the same IQ.
Arguably, the 2 most gifted groups in MBTI, INTP’s and INTJ’s, make less than ENTP’s and ENTJ’s, respectively. Personalities get in the way of fully describing the link between IQ and income, which is the main point people keep bringing up.
HIgh SAT scores = more money, or at least a greater probability of attaining the top 1% of wealth. Dissidents introduce caveats like student loan debt, but higher income earners also get more credit at lower rates than poorer people. There’s an interesting article about how expensive it is to be poor.
‘HIgh SAT scores = more money, or at least a greater probability of attaining the top 1% of wealth.’
Goddammit, this does not meaningfully follow. I will grant that the difference in P > 0 and not much more.
More credit at lower rates? ….AND? Higher income earners can have higher debt — that is what you just said.
One way smart people go from upper-middle class to super-wealthy is through getting funding to create a business. To get this funding, you need good credit, business connections, and collateral. Poorer, less intelligent people tend to have none of these. Debt can be used to create wealth,
Oh, I know what cultural meme you’re tapping into. It just fails to capture reality. Can does not mean usually or likely. And “creating a business,” even a successful one, does not take one from upper middle class to super wealthy.
the median should be a perfectly straight line if IQ and income have a joint bivariate normal distribution.
the slope should be around .3.
although Meng has it as .e.
but mathematically incompetent low IQ people like peepee are still impressed by this linear relationship.
which simply ceases to be linear above IQ 115.
but because there’s so little info on this group again the low IQs think the relationship continues.
the median should be a perfectly straight line if IQ and income have a joint bivariate normal distribution.
the slope should be around .3.
Wrong! Only if both scores are expressed in equal units (i.e. Z scores) would the slope be the same as the correlation. The fact that both variables are normally distributed would not be enough. And income isn’t normally distributed, especially at the extremes.
but mathematically incompetent low IQ people like peepee are still impressed by this linear relationship.
If my IQ is low, then yours must be negative, because you need me to correct your math.:-)
but because there’s so little info on this group again the low IQs think the relationship continues.
Because none of the information agrees with you, you simply dismiss it.
peepee,
the info AGREES with me.
the study of mathematically precocious youth AGREES with me.
Meng just gave a link to a meta analysis showing it was only .2!
get over this obsession.
if the relationship remained linear peepee and with rho only .5 or whatever you think it is, it would mean that the 100 richest people on earth would have a mean/median IQ of…
100 + 15*.5*Phi(1 – 100/7.125 b) = ?
what is that peepee?
I can’t find a normal dist calculator for that.
First of all that question contains wrong assumptions; the world IQ average is 90 not 100.
Lets focus on the U.S. where the IQ-income correlation is 0.4 (much higher than in socialist countries sampled by mengs meta analysis) Let’s assume the median self-made billionaire is +5 normalized Z scores (one in a couple million) in income. That would imply a mean IQ of +2 Z scores (IQ 130) which sounds quite plausible
let’s not assume peepee. let’s actually do the math.
self made billionaire? ca 400/300 m = .000000133
“socialist countries”?
if you think there’s a socialist country in the OECD, you’re retarded.
you’re a triresome nigger peepee. you really oughta get your gay bowl syndrome checked out.
and forget about what you moronically call “socialist” countries.
the NYLS did not find an income IQ correlation of .4.
and neither did the GSS.
the GSS test is only a joke to you because you’d score a 5 out of ten.
verbal IQ is:
1. more g loaded
2. more heritable
3. more of both even when corrected for its higher reliability
the emperor has no clothes peepee.
IQ tests are the biggest con ever.
let’s not assume peepee. let’s actually do the math.
self made billionaire? ca 400/300 m = .000000133
My God you’re an idiot. First I had to explain regression slopes to you, and now, not only are you too mathematically illiterate to convert rarities into Z scores, but you’re too dumb to calculate the rarity in the first place. You don’t divide by 300 million because only the ADULT U.S. population is relevant to the IQ-income correlation, dumbass. Swanknasty understood this in our discussion below, but you’re just a dumb fuck who can’t talk about anything complex without getting your facts wrong and your logic muddled. You couldn’t publish a peer reviewed paper if your life depended on it.
if you think there’s a socialist country in the OECD, you’re retarded.
Oh shut the fuck up you ideological cunt. You’re the last person to be calling anyone retarded.
And your idea of an insult is calling people black and gay (with the N word to boot). So not only are you stupid and mathematically illiterate, but you’re a vile racist homophobe to boot. No wonder your own father wants nothing to do with you. What a fucking embarrassment you’d be to any family.
verbal IQ is:
1. more g loaded
2. more heritable
3. more of both even when corrected for its higher reliability
And you have no understanding of why, because you’re a moron. But you love those crystallized tests because they’re the only part of your brain you haven’t damaged beyond repair with alcohol.
who told you my father wants nothing to do with me?
making stuff up again.
like “socialist” countries in the OECD.
peepee,
they’d never have let your parents in.
ACTUALLY PEEPEE ALL OF THE MATHS YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTAND IS FROM ME.
YOU HAVE THE MATHEMATICAL SOPHISTICATION OF A SEVENTH GRADER.
peepee,
you don’t know what “ca” means.
YOU HAVE A LOW IQ. BOTH VERBAL AND MATHEMATICAL. WHAT’S LEFT?
ACTUALLY PEEPEE ALL OF THE MATHS YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTAND IS FROM ME.
LOL! You are insane.
yeah peepee you’re definitely a crazy ass nigger.
likely raised by his parents to hate blacks who were darker skinned than he was.
likely from some Caribbean shit hole where the light skinned blacks think of themselves as superior.
very sad.
you don’t know what “ca” means.
Of course I know what “ca” means. I didn’t rise to the top of the HBD blogosphere in record time without being smart as all hell. But even with the ca you were the way hell off.
Again, I’m the smart one, and that’s why I own this blog. You’re just a cunt who comments.
the top of the HBD blogosphere?
more crazy ass nigger shit.
Actually I love and respect people of all races and colors, and was raised to do so, but I embrace HBD because it makes life more interesting; like a science fiction movie.
the gay bowel syndrome (GBS) is no laughing matter.
get it checked out pronto.
the gay bowel syndrome (GBS) is no laughing matter.
You would know.
a black HBDer is like a Jewish Nazi peepee.
being light skinned goes far in Jamaica, but in America you’re still just a nigger.
all of your heroes:
Murray, Jensen, Lynn HATE YOU.
a black HBDer is like a Jewish Nazi peepee.
Idiotic analogy
being light skinned goes far in Jamaica, but in America
Seeing as I’m not in America nor do I have a drop of black blood, your comment makes no sense. You seem to have me confused with Jayman
Murray, Jensen, Lynn HATE YOU.
Murray was never a hero, and Jensen would have loved me even if I were black; he was genuinely motivated by science, not racism.
so claimed Michael Jackson.
furthermore as Chomsky noted, if your sole ambition is to make as much money as you can then the higher the IQ the better, but few who aren’t morons have that as their sole ambition.
MBA students have the LOWEST GRE scores.
money can’t buy happiness or IQ.
too bad for peepee.
I’ve never even needed to work, but I was making that median wage in the 90s.
poor Chris Langan was living on 6 k per year in the 90s as a part time bouncer until he made a little on a tv show after Esquire did a story on him.
if not for that story the guy’d be pretty poor still.
he’s not typical of high IQ folks, if he’s really one of them.
BUT if the correlation and the linearity were maintained peepee,
people like Langan WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST!
“On the surface, Zagorsky’s analysis confirms the findings of previous studies linking higher intelligence with higher income. “Each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year,” he says. For example, a person with a score of 130 (in the top 2%, in terms of IQ) might earn about $12,000 more per year than someone with an average IQ score of about 100.
On the surface, people with higher intelligence scores also had greater wealth. The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100.
But when Zagorsky controlled for other factors – such as divorce, years spent in school, type of work and inheritance – he found no link between IQ and net worth. In fact, people with a slightly above-average IQ of 105 , had an average net worth higher than those who were just a bit smarter, with a score of 110″
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11711-smarter-people-are-no-better-off.html#.Up4uT_Yp1fk
Unless you’re really rich, net worth is a poor measure of financial success because a lot of high income people enjoy life by spending everything they earn. Money is meant to be spent & smart people realize that
despite its failing the US does work for its whites.
or at least it used to.
white Americans have a higher median wealth than almost all other developed countries.
the Aussies are #1.
that’s the NYLS.
it found an even weaker correlation between wealth and IQ than between income and IQ. which is surprising as one can join the ranks of the top 1% in individual wealth in the US, $2 m, fairly easily even as a truck driver if he saves almost everything for 20 years.
one reason is that at least in the US income varies a lot by geography. so it’s possible to make a lot and live in an expensive area and save little.
but 5% on 20 m is 1 m.
uhhh…drrr…
Net worth is a far better metric for financial success than income past basic subsistence. Even if what you’re saying is true, the ability to still be in the black despite maintaining a lavish lifestyle is a true marker of wealth. If you could stop working and maintain your lifestyle for X amount of years, the length of that time versus the next guy is the best measure of wealth. You can calculate that from net worth.
Also there are about 492 billionaires in the US with a > 25 pop of around 200 million which puts the z score somewhere around 4-4.5, which comes out to ~124-27 IQ. That’s not particularly high at all.
idk, I already showed you the percentiles. 54k vs 26k is a huge difference. 54k and 86k simply not that big of a difference.
There are probably 300 SELF-MADE U.S. billionaires so maybe one in 700,000 working age adults. The median would thus have an income at the one in 1.4 million level (Z score +4.73), so expected IQ Z score of +1.9 (roughly IQ 130). That’s extremely high (same as the average Harvard grad scored on the WAIS) but still low enough to allow for all the other factors you’ve mentioned that influence wealth
Net worth is a problematic measure of success because it penalizes people who enjoy life or give to charity and rewards stingy cheap people who do nothing but save.
The best measure is cumulative earnings
huh?
it’s impossible to get money from money if you don’t save.
highest cumulative earnings should correspond to total wealth at death almost perfectly.
It really isn’t that high, though putting both attributes into perspective. The only difference between your average billionaire and your average joe is 15 IQ points, perhaps less? And this is assuming your correlation, which I believe is still far too high.
Net worth is a great measure of wealth. Individuals who can give to charity and can “spend” while maintaining high net worth are more wealthy and high class than those who can’t.
A high income striver with the same net worth as a low income individual is only as wealthy and arguably lower class as the lower income individual. Especially if the lower income individual just lives off his money’s interest. There are exceptions, sure, but generally…
peepee is a college drop out. maybe he listens to a lot of rap.
it’s not arguable.
conspicuous consumption, a term coined by Veblen, even in Veblen’s time was and even more so today is LOW CLASS.
and it’s a problem for economic growth, but not a problem in an absolute sense.
eternal economic expansion isn’t only suicidal in an ecological sense, it requires that people be bred lower and lower like peepee.
the most valuable company in the history of the world is Apple. it’s market cap is greater than Exxon’s, the former Standard Oil.
yet it’s a fashion company for people with bad taste led by a self-confessed sodomite and formerly by a technically incompetent salesman.
as Waugh said, “this is the age of hooper (peepee).”
all the decent people have been outbred by the scum.
peepee is a college drop out.
I wish I had dropped out. Or better yet, not attended in the first place.
It really isn’t that high, though putting both attributes into perspective. The only difference between your average billionaire and your average joe is 15 IQ points, perhaps less?
The average Joe has an IQ of 100. Average self-made billionaire, probably 130. That’s a 30 point gap (the difference between average and mentally retarded).
And this is assuming your correlation, which I believe is still far too high.
If anything 130 underestimates the IQ of the average self-made billionaire. 35% of the Forbes 400 is Ashkenazi Jewish, an ethnic distribution which would imply an average IQ of 143,
http://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/estimating-the-iq-of-billionaires-the-homeless-from-ethnic-demographics/
and several self-made billionaires reportedly have perfect or near perfect old SAT scores (IQ 170). If anything 130 is a conservative estimate.
Net worth is a great measure of wealth. Individuals who can give to charity and can “spend” while maintaining high net worth are more wealthy and high class than those who can’t.
So someone with $10 million in assets but $11 million in temporary debt is less financially successful than a homeless person with zero assets and zero debt? The latter has a better net worth.
The way I look at it is whose had the better life? Someone who made three million dollars and spent two million of it, or someone who’s made two million and never spent a dime. I’d say the former, but the latter has a better net worth.
A high income striver with the same net worth as a low income individual is only as wealthy and arguably lower class as the lower income individual. Especially if the lower income individual just lives off his money’s interest. There are exceptions, sure, but generally…
There’s no right or wrong answer. The bottom line is that IQ correlates better with income than it does with net worth, but that probably changes at the high end when net worth begins to better reflect income since people can’t easily spend away 9 figure incomes.
Oh by average Joe I meant your average middle class, ie 115.
Self-made billionaires also have a penchant for ruthless self promotion. So I take purported perfect SATs with a grain of salt.
Your homeless person example is very misleading. Homeless individuals tend to have debt. Homeless individuals cannot meet their basic needs — that’s what I was talking about earlier.
What do you mean temporary debt? You’re just describing a hypothetical unlikely exception case as though it harms a general guideline.
Regarding who had the better life….spending your money doesn’t equate to a better life. Someone who doesn’t have to work and lives solely off of their money is the winner in this society, between those individuals you listed.
The correlation between high IQ and wealth is weak. Look at the percentiles…..86k vs 54k, 54k vs 26k. It’s all right there…
Lol you just have to be willing to take risks no one else wants to take. And usually on shitty terms.
Smart people don’t like risk either.
Phil Ivey is the number one poker player…not some rocket scientist.
You only need to be smart enough to give people an excuse to pull the rich person’s slot machine lever.
Lol you just have to be willing to take risks no one else wants to take. And usually on shitty terms
More often getting rich is about seeing opportunities other people can’t see.
Smart people don’t like risk either.
It’s not a risk of you’re smart enough to predict the outcome
Oh by average Joe I meant your average middle class, ie 115.
That’s upper middle class; professional college graduate IQ level
54k is not upper middle class and 115 IQ is not average graduate professional IQ.
And no it’s still risk when you can predict the outcome lol. Poker is a great example and most investment involves an even higher random component.
You don’t have to see opportunity no one else can see. You have to take the big risk on that opportunity.
Most people cannot do this.
115 IQ is not average graduate professional IQ.
115 is a bit above average for a college grad
And no it’s still risk when you can predict the outcome lol.
Risk means uncertainty. If you can predict the outcome you’re certain.
Poker is a great example and most investment involves an even higher random component.
Real life is far more competitive, complex and novel than poker
You don’t have to see opportunity no one else can see. You have to take the big risk on that opportunity.
People get rich doing both, or either, at different times to different degrees. There’s no one size fits all formula. Lots of variables are involved; IQ is just one of them. And so is risk taking.
Ok we’re talking past each other. Let’s just agree that 115 iq is not so spectacular or rare?
Ummm no one can predict outcomes to such a degree that removes all uncertainty. AINEC.
Lol which is why poker is a great example. The tightest mathematical knowledge of the known knowns WILL NOT take you to the top. That is why David Sklansky slinks by on book sales.
I guarantee you the opportunities to get rich are readily apparent. The problem is an absence of people willing to take the risks.
Look at your own income data…the spread between high and average is small.
it really is not hard to make money. it is very easy and does not involve much higher intelligence. If you want money you convince people to give you their money. That’s it. That’s all. That’s the big secret.
besides peepee’s already said what he does for a living.
he deals with things and not information.
so he’s at best a high prole.
It’s extremely hard because money is the one thing virtually everyone wants so convincing others to give you theirs is challenging.
what almost all of your loser friends want peepee,
does not equal what almost everyone wants.
peepee,
you have yourself proven how easy it is to take money from babies.
Money is meant to be spent…
the above sentiment is a defining one of the lower classes.
presumably peepee spends his money on male prostitutes and crack.
‘It’s extremely hard because money is the one thing virtually everyone wants so convincing others to give you theirs is challenging.’
Promise them more money later in exchange for them giving you the money now.
…
Next?
‘Money is meant to be spent…’
Meanwhile, at the Super Elite League
http://media.giphy.com/media/11caEgnSDg0avS/giphy.gif#superfriends%20laugh%20gif%20500×418
as the RC writer Wills said,
“I’ve never wanted to own anything except books.”
it’s not as if everyone with a very high IQ wants to be rich or is willing to make the necessary sacrifices.
the low correlation isn’t just due to decreasing utility of IQ.
it’s also due, as Chomsky noted, that most people including high IQ people simply don’t care that much how much they have as long as it’s enough.
i’m sure drug companies employ more MBAs than scientists, for example. and the MBA is 100% parasite, and 100% stupid.
Promise them more money later in exchange for them giving you the money now.
People aren’t that dumb.
he deals with things and not information.
What in the world are you talking about?
so he’s at best a high prole.
What an elitist cunt.
you have yourself proven how easy it is to take money from babies.
I’ve taken money from you?
the above sentiment is a defining one of the lower classes.
Reification.
presumably peepee spends his money on male prostitutes and crack.
Not into guys, prostitutes, or crack, but your obsession with homosexuality is revealing.
Yes they are that dumb. Proles pull slot machine levers. Rich people invest.
Yes they are that dumb. Proles pull slot machine levers. Rich people invest.
Well maybe you don’t have to be smart to be rich, you just have to be less dumb than others. Since IQ is graded on a curve, you’ll still likely score high.
so you are a black lesbian?
I was right.
People with money tend to hate risk which is precisely why the one ticket to a higher class is to capitalize on one long shot or another.
You take on the risk. You take money as a risk tax. If you bomb, which you most likely will, the upper class individual can hedge in many different ways — selling your loan your stock etc etc etc. you bear the brunt of the consequence and the upper class individual gets most or at least a lot of the spoils.
Crude analogy but it’s the system.
Small gamble is the vetted long term investment: Ivy League debt straddled grad who will make you rich over 20 years. Big gamble is the innovative idea-driven entrepreneur….
Smart people understand the game and often choose not to play as best they can. The ones who aren’t knee deep in mythos…
whatever your talent, if you’re alienated, if you think the whole thing is stupid you’ll just be a time server, get along with as little effort as possible.
true believers are likely to be not too bright, but drinking the Kool-Aid sure is good for your bottom line.
conservative economics has non-laughable explanation for the income of the pure capitalist.
what is his skill?
what is his labor?
what is his talent?
he does nothing other than hire agents fro his capital.
in DK intergenerational income elasticity is .15. that is, father’s income has almost relation to son’s. yet if anything IQ is MORE heritable in DK than in the US.
for some typically perverted reason peepee thinks this is a vice. or due to “socialism”.
what countries’ stock markets have done as well or better than the s & P since 2009?
Germany
DK
Sweden
High intelligence – but no drive, or some mental condition manifesting as rejection of the societal system – yes, there are examples. But, even examples such as Langan don’t overthrow the general rule.
There is no general rule. The theory is busted.
it’s pointless.
peepee has a low iq.
it’s irremediable.
she’s black.
and a self-hating black lesbian who hates the black in her but loves the white.
I’ll be happy to straighten you out peepee. I moonlight as a gigolo.
but it’s $2000 an hour.
but peepee might be right that the IRS data on household income is misleading.
1. some of it may be non-recurring, like big capital gains
2. even the richest census track of the Upper East Side of Manhattan did not have a median household income > $300,000 in the most recent census. but maybe people lie to the census.
To understand what are the biological traits that can make a person become a millionaire, you should look for profiles that are more disabling to this ”material realization”.
For example, I saw a study that clearly shows that ADHD tends to considerably reduce the chances of being rich.
In a series of videos on ” cultural ‘differences’ between East Asians and Westerners (read, white people from English-speaking countries), has a very interesting piece that shows that East Asian people are better studying when they do silent, study mentally. In contrast, the caucas … Westerners are best studied when they do it out loud.
Education is a proxy for higher income, especially for the upper middle class. Eliminating self-made entrepreneurs and entertainment (mèrdia), it is almost mandatory to have a college degree to earn more money.
I think that if the ” western ” need to study aloud to better understand (decorate) the lesson, and if there is a spectrum between the three major racial trunks, the distribution of behavioral and cognitive traits, then black people need even more than Westerners (on average) to study aloud to better understand the material.
Note that the black socities tend to have oral cultures (such as the American Indian cultures). The emphasis is on conversation, dialogue. People who are better to talk, interact socially or impose domination, were more selected among blacks during its evolutive adaptation.
Just as ADHD of all races, blacks may be more distracted by the environment than whites and East Asians and need study with out load voice to understand better or equal east asians and whites (whites probably are very diverse with learning styles).
Completing my thought when we perform tests, we do it quietly. To memorize something well, Caucasians and blacks are more likely to study aloud, then to regain the knowledge required in the exam, it should also happen.
However, this blog is about psychology and not just about IQ. When you connect a biological factor (intelligence) to environmental (social status and monetary amount), you need to do a more extensive review on the subject, taking into account environmental factors and biological factors, all of them, or you get capture.
If we were machines, then there would be no problems to measure our ability just by iq. The problem is not IQ, which is a good measurement of ability, although it is almost useless in individual terms, almost … The problem is the interpretation.
IQ = intelligence. More money = intelligence.
All aspects that define human intelligence is despised. Empathy, global cognitive perception (ability to understand reality, to capture the bigger picture), problem solutions…
We have to be rational. If the wealthiest people were smarter, we would not be going through situations that are going on in our respective nations. I got the impression that the cognitive elites fail everywhere.
In Japan, the cognitive elite watches the rapidly aging Japanese population and the most we can do is repeat the measures of monetary incentive for fertility that have been adopted in some European countries, without much success.
I favor that we have less humans, 2050, but based on demographic balance and not based on demographic erosion.
My fellows high iq college are technically clever but stupid in wisdom. And it seems to be very common this type of combination for people with high IQ.
Nepotism is common in higher social classes. Besides favoring relatives, is also very common the formation of interest groups in high places. Politics is almost completely occupied by psychopathic types. The entertainment also has a lot of this kind. A person who is worried about becoming rich just for herself, and does almost no good to the society in which he lives, is what ?? At least, ”no wisdom personality” (broader degrees of psychopathy) or psycho.
I’m not suggesting that at least 30% of the rich people are psychopathic, I’m saying. The problem for many of you, is to capture these behaviors to more functional levels of the spectrum. It is easy to recognize a serial killer stupid, very difficult (for you guys) is to recognize the very high functioning.
Not much if you notice that they are not caring about what happens outside their extravagant mansions and in bad taste.
and Japan has lower taxes and a smaller government than the US. yet it’s got a very low GINI and high income mobility.
Japanese executives are not paid like American executives.
It used to be in Japan that promotion was solely based on seniority.
so the motivation to perform was social rather than selfish. your work group would let you know if you were failing them.
Japan has the longest life expectancy outside of silly countries like Monaco and Andorra.
Japan is the most evolved human society.
Yes, I know, I have not denied that Japan was one of the most developed nations of the world. I just stated that its cognitive elite, until now, did not seek any effective measure to contain the demographic erosion that threatens the very existence of the country. In all, the Japanese people themselves seem to be the most responsible for the success of the nation and not just their rulers, both. As I said in a previous post in this blog, intrusive government, well administered, can greatly improve the appearance of a society, as in the case of Barbados. It would be interesting to think what would happen if the Barbadians were left alone to solve their problems and manage the society.
These liberals are the real racists. I see no difference between those who applauded Hitler or Stalin. Are no differences in essence, they are all equal.
And I see no reason to think that a black person can not accept some facts about differences (on average) between the races.
You are mistaken if you think that most black people do not know about IQ, differences in intelligence. Most of them can not be contextually intelligent to perform technical and utility functions, but does not despise his instinctive wisdom. They know very well …
I also want to understand if the city of Detroit, after being placed under liberal administration, improved the lives of black people …
Apparently not.
“The way I look at it is whose had the better life? Someone who made three million dollars and spent two million of it, or someone who’s made two million and never spent a dime. I’d say the former, but the latter has a better net worth.”
http://www.amazon.com/The-Marshmallow-Test-Mastering-Self-Control/dp/0316230871
The Mashmallow Test.
People making more and spending more -conspicuous consumption- nouveau riche- sports and entertaining sars with working class background – the wealth will not last.
Peple making more and spending with percentage of earing – moderate life style – aggressive investment-more earning from investment (capitalism game)- graudual increasing earning and spending through life- mashmallow test passing- upper& upper middle class background like Gates or Buffet – the wealth lasting and growing forever (until they die).
People passing the mashmallow test tend to have higher IQ any way.
When your investment (passive) income is above house hold median, you can call yourself finanically independent. If passive income is above six digit, you can live some luxury life without concern. If your passive income is over million, you can do a lot of charity and self-acutualized work.
Job income is less secure than investment (passive) income.
Bearing in mind, IQ correlated with income, not equal to income.
Yes it is somewhat analogous to the marhmallow test, but many high income people choose to spend all their money while they’re still young enough to enjoy it.
Typical for lottery winners.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/26/levi-johnston-broke_n_1547941.html
This explains why some people are doomed to be poor no matther what opportuny present to them.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/27-year-old-millionaire-anton-ivanov-financessful-184823184.html
This guy is classic mashmallow test winner. But his IQ might be ok high. Certainly his head looks big.
Hey, P.P.
Check this out on GWAS, GCTA: http://jasoncollins.org/2014/11/04/genome-wide-association-studies-and-socioeconomic-outcomes/
The rest, swank, duke, michael, can educate themselves
Very educational link. Thank you.
The problem is always the interpretation.
Social status is not genetic. Relates to genetics, the same way that low IQ is related to low social status. If you did understand it, great.
It is a correlation. Suggest that social status is genetic and it is natural that we should accept what it is, is very stupid and simplistic.
Personality traits and types of intelligence, is related to higher social status and greater monetary amount. It is a demonstration of being smart, very superficially, but it is still just that.
But for those who have the pride african-Canadian billionaire, billionaire just because it is, I’m almost certain that I will not have success.
Pingback: Income above 150 IQ | Pumpkin Person
Pingback: Hypocrites who deny linear IQ income correlation | Pumpkin Person
Simply want to say your article is as astonishing. The clearness in your put up is just nice and i
could assume you are a professional in this subject. Fine together with
your permission allow me to grasp your feed to keep updated
with drawing close post. Thanks one million and
please continue the gratifying work.
Thank you so much for the kind words. I’m not a professional, but I have a strong interest in these topics.
A couple things about this post. First, thanks for sharing this data.
Second, I could be wrong, but from a quick read, the details of how they selected the students in the 70s seem vague. Could there be selection bias? The original study that likely documented the selection is behind a paywall: “Academic achievement in mathematics and science of students between the ages 13 and 23: Are there differences among students in the top one percent of mathematical ability”. How do the possible confounds of higher IQ individuals coming from more enriched backgrounds affect this income data? Because there is a feedback effect, wouldn’t higher IQ individuals also benefit from an enriched environment, on average, which would have an effect on income? In other words, how do you separate the income gains attributable to IQ from the environmental effects on both IQ and income? Are the effects negligible? Did Murray control for this when he did his study?
Third, I was wondering if it would be possible to estimate the difference in income between Q1 and Q4, and then the correlation between income and IQ between IQ 130 and 150, or whatever the two groups are. The only data that is given is the percent above median in each cohort. My meager mathematical instincts suggest to me that this is impossible because to calculate the average of each group you would need to assume normal distribution (virtually impossible at high income levels) and know the standard deviation of the income data. Could you do it anyway?
Finally, I lol’d at the arguments in this comment section. You have the patience of a saint. Ignore if you’ve already addressed these things, I couldn’t get through all the comments.
How do the possible confounds of higher IQ individuals coming from more enriched backgrounds affect this income data? Because there is a feedback effect, wouldn’t higher IQ individuals also benefit from an enriched environment, on average, which would have an effect on income? In other words, how do you separate the income gains attributable to IQ from the environmental effects on both IQ and income? Are the effects negligible?
The effects are generally assumed (at least by HBDers) to be negligible by adulthood and virtually zero by later adulthood, but the study is simply about the correlation between IQ and income, not its cause
The only data that is given is the percent above median in each cohort.
Not sure which data you’re describing
it’s a moot point as another later post of yours reports more detailed data on a similar sample.