I had once stated in the comment section of this blog that the correlation between IQ and income was higher in the U.S. than in the rest of the developed world. I had based this claim on various studies I’ve seen reported, but on page 103 of this book, it states that a meta-analysis showed the IQ-income correlation is no higher in the U.S..
I would have expected the IQ-income correlation to be higher in the U.S. because the U.S. is a country where you can get ridiculously rich. Understanding the value of money more fully, I would have expected high IQ Americans to be more motivated to pursue it, considering there was so much more to be made and that this would have increased the correlation between ability and income, but the studies fail to confirm this theory (though I doubt business income is well captured by such studies). I also would have expected the generous social safety nets in other developed countries to have disincentived a lot of smart people from working hard, making the IQ-income correlation lower in other developed countries.
But one of the commenters here has long argued that elites outside North America are more selected for IQ because the colleges recruit more based on test scores than on other criteria. This argument is ironic because while other countries do test for academic knowledge acquired in school, the college system in the U.S. is unique in that it uses the SAT, which was specifically intended as an IQ test according to a FRONTLINE article:
The design of the SAT was based on the IQ test (see historical timeline) The French psychologist Alfred Binet created the first test of intelligence in 1905. It was to be used to identify slow learners so that teachers could give them special attention. This test would later be known as the IQ test–IQ standing for “intelligence quotient,” or the ratio of mental to physical age.
Because the SAT was devised as a tool to identify talented students from underprivileged backgrounds, it was thought of as a test that would measure an innate ability referred to as “aptitude,” rather than abilities that these students might have developed through school.
“When these tests were originally developed,” said Harvard social policy professor Christopher Jencks, “people really believed that if they did the job right they would be able to measure this sort of underlying, biological potential. And they often called it aptitude, sometimes they called it genes, sometimes intelligence.”
You would expect the country that deliberately tried to recruit their elites using an IQ test to have a higher correlation between IQ and income than other countries that simply tested students on how much they learned in high school, but since how much you learn in high school is largely determined by your IQ, colleges in other countries probably did a good job screening for IQ in spite of themselves.
This demonstrates that societies end up selecting their elites for IQ whether they intend to or not. Even a society that was actively hostile to IQ, would still need elites with important skills to run their institutions, and since important skills are highly correlated with IQ, it’s almost impossible to recruit useful skills without also recruiting IQ.
Indeed the fact that brain size roughly tripled as apes evolved into people shows that nature itself was selecting for intelligence, millions of years before tests or even schools were invented.
Smart people tend to get to the top naturally.
It’s interesting that now that IQ testing is controversial, the college board wants to deny that the SAT is an IQ test. The frontline article reports:
According to the College Board, the SAT now does not measure any innate ability. Wayne Camara, Director of the Office of research at the College Board told FRONTLINE that the SAT measures “developed reasoning,” which he described as the skills that students develop not only in school but also outside of school. He pointed out, for example, that students who read a lot, both in and out of school, are more likely to do well on the SAT and in college. The College Board says that the best way to prepare for the SAT is to read a lot and to take rigorous academic courses.
Elite colleges get to have their cake and eat it too. They are benefiting from a test format created by IQ researchers in recruiting high quality students, yet maintaining their liberal street cred by denying IQ. But if they really believe the SAT is only measuring developed skills, then they should use tests that directly measure academic knowledge like other countries do. But they don’t, perhaps because deep down, they believe the SAT is a better measure of IQ than tests used in other countries, even though tests used in other countries still measure IQ despite not being designed for that purpose. But since the SAT is a more efficient measure of IQ, they are able to give test scores less weight, which allows elite colleges to give more weight to subjective criteria while still keeping the average IQ of their students high.
occupational status/prestige can be gamed and is not identical to income. many plumbers make more than lawyers, etc.
as far as i know it’s the same as the education required for the job. so teacher is higher status than salesman.
the data is old even if the studies are recent and the correlation independent of educational attainment was much smaller.
the paper pp cited was on IQ occupational status correlation not income. so an art museum docent might be higher than a crane operator or stuntman but make less. Fussell talks about this. so she really doesn’t have any new info on the IQ income correlation which is likely less than the IQ occupational status correlation. further incomes vary a lot with geography in the US. one might expect the same in any big country like Canada or Australia compared to a small country like Denmark or Belgium. high income in Manhattan or SF is a lot higher than high income in Oklahoma City. this geographic variability will tend to reduce the correlation from its “true” value.
the paper pp cited was on IQ occupational status correlation not income
I said on page 103 they talked income; before that they talked occupation status
then why does the link go to page 99?
and again the data is old. and bad. the intergenerational income elasticity was much less in the 70s.
The page’s are easy to turn & i thought the earlier pages were worth reading too
It’s possible that the data is outdated but probably applies to baby boomers who are the ones running the world
the study from one city Malmo might be closer to the “true” value in Sweden at the time it was done as it was done in only one city.
these guys are behind the times or dishonest. the correlation of father’s and son’s incomes is much higher than they suggest.
so what you see here is that:
1. the correlation between income and IQ is no lower in Sweden.
2. IQ is no less heritable in Sweden
3. YET correlation of father’s and son’s income IS MUCH less in Sweden.
Intergenerational income mobility is usually measured by a simple linear regression model in which the
logarithm of the child’s income Ychild (in adulthood) is a function the logarithm of the parent’s income
Yparent [might be both parents or one idk]
ln(Ychild) = α + β1 ln(Yparent) + ε (1)
The regression coefficient ß1 is the so-called income elasticity.
meritocracy in practice means that one’s position is determined by competitive and objective exams.
the idea that any existing society is like Nature herself is ABSURD and JUVENILE. the modern “free” market economy has absolutely nothing in common with hunting and gathering.
it is interesting, as Swank has noted, that the IQ mongers aren’t really in favor of meritocracy in the above sense at all, but rather sympathize with their captors, the bourgeoisie, and are always at pains to point out the correlation between income and IQ, never mind that the correlation between income and wealth, that is class, is much less.
which is it? are hereditists and IQ mongers true believers in test scores or true believers in the status quo?
if leaders economic and political were selected by competitive exam alone would the world be a better place? has any hereditist ever asked himself that question?
Meritocracy is the best recipy for NO class mobility in a few generations. So to keep the charade working a little less meritocracy is best.
In Denmark we don’t test that much for admission. We just teach the stuff and whoever still hangs in there at advanced levels get the grade. I suspect some smart but lazy people, or people who don;t know they are gifted are wasted, but the system is working for us.
America has lots testing because the stakes are so high and America is very competitive. You have thousands of applications for relatively few slots at America’s most prestigious universities, an the difference between rejection and acceptance can mean millions in potential wages. We also see lots of testing in America for special gifted schools as well
Yeah, stakes are high. Funny though that on graduate level americans are no special compared with danes, despite all that. I imagine that tests lead to slightly more meritocracy, or not. Nature triumphs over any schoold system.
‘I would have expected the IQ-income correlation to be higher in the U.S. because the U.S. is a country where [a few] can get ridiculously rich’
Fixed the post.
The SAT is an achievement test anyway, esp post 1994. However, like many IQ tests, it measures shallow knowledge. AP exams are better, in the US. People who have smarts feel like frauds for acing SATs, LSATs, GMATs, et-ATs, and people hamstrung by the peculiarities of these tests feel cheated. Not enough meat.
‘ Even a society that was actively hostile to IQ, would still need elites with important skills to run their institutions, and since important skills are highly correlated with IQ’
Seems inaccurate past 115. Here are “elite” skills: tall, rich, attractive, ambitious (wants money/success/power/whatever). Those correl with around that type of IQ and basic competence to do most anything save hardcore theoretical STEM.
‘The College Board says that the best way to prepare for the SAT is to read a lot and to take rigorous academic courses.’
TCB TCB’s and tells the truth. It is VERY easy to improve any score on these tests. Rigorous academic courses — ones you really chew on and can chew on and develop the ability to chew — make the SAT a joke. But I don’t know how common good AP courses are.
But most students aren’t learning how to mentally dive into the deep end of anything. Instead, they lily-pad over several kiddie pools. Tests that include EVERYTHING you have learned over months or a year….will give you high quality students.
that is a lie, unless they are talking about the SAT subject tests or the newest tests. no amount of studying can boost your verbal section score
Children on average improve their score by about 30 points when retaking the test. I’m pretty sure that’s just enough to barely outstrip measurement error. 1/25 students improves by 100 points or more.
You are right except for iq needed. The top 21 nazi leaders at Nuremburg had a median iq around 129. The 25 to 75 percentile had an iq between 124 to 134. That seems like the sweet spot for leadership roles.
But then again, we don’t have the iqs of those who got away with this or those that massively profitted during the war with ambigous nazi connections. They were the real geniuses.
You are right except for iq needed. The top 21 nazi leaders at Nuremburg had a median iq around 129. The 25 to 75 percentile had an iq between 124 to 134. That seems like the sweet spot for leadership roles.
The fact that top leaders have IQs around 130 doesn’t nessecarily prove that’s the sweet spot for leadership. An IQ of 160 could in theory have a greater per capita probability of rising to the top, but they are so vastly outnumbered by people with IQs below 130 that the latter will have much more absolute representation among elites, even if their proportional representation is much less
I highly doubt 2SD is necessary for effective leadership. 115 is more than enough for most professions.
Well that contradicts with your belief that the best rise to the top. If 150 iq guys were best for leadership, it would have been reflected in the stats.
If 150s are the best leaders, there will be more 150s per capita than 130s. The average IQ of elite leaders could still be 130 though because the average reflects absolute representation, not proportional representation
Per whole population capita or per “the leadership” capita. Either way, seems very unlikely that this would occur.
If the top 21 had 25-75 percentile cut-offs of 124-134, there simply were not many, if any, 150 IQ leaders.
That is a strawman, pp. Of course, higher iq with everything else equal would make one preform better. But all things aren’t equal.
‘That is a strawman, pp. Of course, higher iq with everything else equal would make one preform better. But all things aren’t equal.’
True. A negative association exists between IQ and risk-taking, for example.
Janos, the relevant question is not what percentage of elite leaders have IQs around 130 vs 150 (obviously there will be more 130s because they’re so much more numerous)
The real question is what percentage of 130s become elite leaders vs what percentage of 150s do
So the fact that elite leaders average IQ 130 does not prove 130 is the sweet spot. But if the odds of becoming an elite leader are highest for 130s, then it’s the sweet spot
But for all we know the odds could be even higher for 150s but it still rarely happens because 150s are so rare
IQ tests measure intelligence like a ” blindly ”, as those restaurants where people eat with the lights off.
People, when they have the opportunity, CHOOSE its areas seeking careers, only it will not be of random way (as some people believe and transform this false randomness in ” culture ” as a justification), but by a limited range of (generally) similar possibilities .
It is assumed that there will be more justice or meritocracy, in places where people are selected for their areas of expertise.
Moreover, the US is a country with a huge immigrant population and is increasingly represented within the elite. This phenomenon does not occur on the same scale in most European countries, even in countries like France.
In the US, the competition is ferocious and generally favors the most manipulative types.
Meritocracy anywhere in the world is far from perfect. And according to that college students have learned in college, we can say that even in countries where people are evaluated by their academic performance, real meritocracy is still utopia.
I believe that there is a cognitive-class problem solvers who are experts in solving problems in society and any traditional test performance is unlikely to capture perfectly the natural talent of this group.
Here is a twin study on the heritability of political orientation: http://goo.gl/kUkb3u
The heritability trumps the figures for shared and non-shared environment. Assortative mating is discussed in particular as a cause for this.
This probably also explains the correlation of IQ with certain political attitudes.
On the question of self employment, income and iq: the top one percent of self employed make 50 percent of all income made through self employed while self employed as a whole make slightly less at the median than hired full time workers.
If wealth and iq directly correlate, that means the top one percent are 50 times smarter than the median.
I also can’t stress this enough; hard work gets an individual to the top. HOWEVER…LUCK counts most because in the case of a CEO, think about it. CEOs have NINE figure salaries. WHY do they go to work year after year? They have more money than they will ever need! And it’s not like they “take it easier” over time.
They have a passion for “CEO-ing.” This passion enables them to PUT IN THE TIME required. And then, they are LUCKY that what they love also happens to be a career-track to the top.
IQ does not correl with income so highly because anyone with smarts only does what they want to do. And anyone with smarts who does what they do not want to do will never become that good at whatever they do anyway
lol 9 figures is over 100 million dollars. not a single CEO made that much unless they founded the company . the average CEO makes considerably less
Blankfein made 68m last time i checked. not that much considering GS claimed 13b in profits. but i don’t know if that’s total compensation or just cash. there’s even a word “optionaire” to describe a CEO who makes 100s of millions from options. one of GS’s former heads Henry Paulson is an optionaire, 800m+ iirc.
so are options expensed? was that part of SOX? they didn’t used to be. but salaries over 1m can’t be expensed iirc.
‘not a single CEO made that much unless they founded the company’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hammergren total earnings > 100 million. But yes, I guess that isn’t his salary.
And regardless…let me REVISE DOWN to 8! You apparently believe there is some HUGE quality-of-life difference between 9 and 8 figures. The point I made still stands.
What do you mean by hard work? Knowing when to shut up? When to step on someone? When to make shady back door deals and when to be honest? These things take more intelligence than luck.
Yes. Putting yourself in many tough social situations, like the ones you have described, and “getting good” at handling them (or behaving like a psychopath!) will go a long way.
And I totally disagree that learning to make those decisions takes a lot of smarts. In the presence of moderate smarts, a lot of experience and effort counts for more than most anything else.
That’s why I don’t think Oprah’s deflection is anything special. It’s the ROUTINE practice, SOP, of any chump in a suit.
while I DON’T believe the rape allegations surrounding Cosby, the fake Doctoral thesis allegations make me wonder. Sam Simon said that Cosby paid two Fat Albert writers to write the thesis. If Cosby made a 500 on the SAT and flunked 10th grade THREE times….then that sounds about right.
Lol the Cos apparently berated a football player’s 2.5 GPA.
To the extent that the SAT is an IQ test, it is underutilized as such by colleges because their admissions offices weight the SAT differently, depending on the group to which the applicant belongs and other factors (whether their parents are alumni or celebrities). By weighting, I mean de facto weighting: there is probably no formula. It is just that colleges like Harvard often take an applicant with average SAT scores if that person is an athlete or has parents who are likely to make large donations. Harvard’s own Steve Pinker, the famous neuroscientist, complained about this practice recently in The New Republic. He said American elite colleges use “eye-of-newt” procedures to select their students–underhanded, strange, secretive measures, like a sorcerer concocting some potion. As a Canadian, PP, you are a bit naive about us Americans: we are far less meritocratic than you guys. So the IQ-income correlation shouldn’t be expected to be strong stateside.
Americans themselves are even more in the dark than foreigners. America has the ost rigid clas structure in the developed world, yet Americans believe it has the least rigid class structure.