Knowing the average IQ of rich folks is important because money is one of the most obvious and important signs of intelligence and adaptability, so for IQ to have validity and relevance, rich people should score high.
And yet the correlation between IQ and networth is only 0.16 (Zagorsky 2007).
In his book, The Millionaire Mind, Thomas Stanley interviewed hundreds of millionaires and asked them about their SAT scores and grades.
At the time the median millionaire was around the top 1% of wealth. If there were a perfect correlation between IQ and wealth, we’d expect they’d have an average IQ of 135 (35 points above the U.S. mean of 100) but given a 0.16 correlation between IQ and wealth, we’d expect they’d average only 0.16(35) + 100 = IQ 106
And yet, after adjusting for self-reporting bias, Stanley estimated they averaged 1100 on their SATs. Stanley argued this was mediocre and proved IQ has little to do with money, however for their era, an 1100 equates to an IQ of 120 (14 points higher than predicted from the IQ-wealth correlation). And while 1100 may sound low compared to the stratospheric SATs of Ivy League students, we must understand that Ivy League students are selected for their score on the SAT and thus regress precipitously to the mean on all other tests. By contrast millionaires are selected by life’s IQ test, and thus regress precipitously to the mean on the SAT. In other words, the SAT overestimates Ivy League students, but correctly estimates millionaires.
But why did the 0.16 correlation underestimate the IQs of millionaires? In my opinion it’s because for most people, net worth is largely a function of how much you spend, and since smart people realize money is useless unless you spend it, a lot of smart people will end up with low net worth, thus driving down the correlation.
However there’s a limit on how much you can spend on yourself, and so the more prosperous you are, the less spending habits correlate with net worth.
To avoid this complication, it’s better to think of millionaires not as people who have a lot of money, but as people who have made a lot of money (or their heirs). This allows us to use the correlation between IQ and income instead of the correlation between IQ and net worth.
The correlation between IQ and income is about 0.30 (Zagorsky 2007) , but increases to almost 0.4 when you look at permanent income (which is most relevant for predicting wealth) and increases to about 0.5 when you look just at white men (the group the vast majority of millionaires belong to). Using these correlations would have made the predicted IQ more accurate.
Pumpkin Person 
Yeah, you have to look at income. Net worth includes people who inherit, people who won the lottery, lawsuits for various reasons, etc. although there must be a definite correlation between net worth and iq, because the very dumb will p*ss it away or lose it, and you can earn it yourself, there are more confounding factors than with income.
generational wealth matters.
Looks plays a big role in determining someone’s success.
Height,.conscientousness, motivation, mental health, luck, connections are all super important in calculating the achievements of the average man’s life from his 1st day on earth until his last dying breath.
IQ might be the best predictor for high intelectual achievement, but for day to day mundane activities i’ll venture in saying that the other aforementioned traits are (equally) important for money, weatlh, and of course reproductive success.
Net worth can be obtained in a lot of haphazard ways as opposed to consistent income. Low iq people can inherit money, win the lottery, have a house that skyrockets in price, win lawsuits, etc. There is a correlation with iq, but it’s weaker. Income and investment, which require iq, can result in net worth. Really dumb people who lucked into net worth as above can lose their money quickly through bad management. These are ways iq correlates with net worth.
Income on the other hand is a day to day struggle and requires consistent good sense. Even people with exceptional talents must manage them. Good looks are important in entertainment and maybe for waiters or I suppose sex workers and exotic entertainers, lol, but not that I’d know anything about that! But good looks have to be managed well. I am nice looking, but I don’t think my looks have contributed anything to me financially. Sports figures might be the biggest exception to this, but even they have to be smart enough to stay out of jail or get fired for some other offense, so there is some correlation with iq even then.
looks are really important for sending a first impression. regardless the one thing that matters is resilience. coming back from something that wont stop you from prevailing.
Thank you loaded! Are you in fact “loaded?”
I am in fact highly teleological, not necessarily about wealth, but a continual accumulation of knowledge and artifacts in a structured manner, which has a spillover to wealth.
my parents are. im a little ant in a big world. this is the song i chose my username for WordPress blogs for. it goes hard.
my parents are assholes though. they dont believe in sharing wealth.
i think you have to look at smoothed incomes, say over three or four years, an note that many of the datasets have capped the possible highest levels of wealth and income at too low a rate.
i think you have to look at smoothed incomes, say over three or four years
I would take an average from different periods in life: income at 25, 35, 45, 55, 65 since some peak early or late.
i think future orientation defines a great mind. most wealthy people are able to look into the future and find themselves and place themselves in that timeline based on how they act in the present.
its beautiful.
Pumpkin share your honest and deep opinions of me. i have been a commenter on your blog for 4 years now and i want to know what your genuine expressions of me are.
it would be nice to know from the man himself.
Youre a stupid person.
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
while kanye is NOT at all paranoid about jews, he may be paranoid about the size of pete davidson’s penis.
Charlamagne further claimed that West, 45, continued going “on and on” until he allegedly began “screaming on the phone” about Davidson’s penis.
“‘My wife is out here f–king a white boy with a 10-inch penis, and you won’t help me? My wife is out here f–king a white boy with a 10-inch penis, and you telling me that’s your friend but you’re supposed to be culture?’” West allegedly “screamed” at him.
now we know why pete davidson is “strangely irresistible” to women.
like lion he’s from staten island and half jew and his jew dad was blue collar, a firefighter.
jonah falcon also a jew with a yuge penis.
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
white man pivilege. john holmes…still not a jew.
The 10-inch penis is a myth based on an Ariana Grande song (who dated Davidson). Keep in mind Ariana Grande is barely 5 feet while he is 6’2”. I mean he might have a large penis, I don’t really know.
Also his lovely natural wife Kim K is on widely dispersed film getting rammed by a black dude with an above average peter. He probably is deep down bothered by that as well but dismisses it because “He black like me!”
personality is probably a lot more difficult to understand than intelligence. intelligence is straightforward the person who requires the least amount of assistance from heuristics wins.
personality is very complex. if you meet a high regarded persona it might not always be the case forever. people fluctuate too much. it is probable cause.
falcon is a poor person…by choice. and…he’s gotta be somewhat NOT stupid because…
he graduated from bronx science. this was the high school which the sitcom Head of the Class was based on.
Admission to Bronx Science involves passing the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test. Each November, about 30,000 eighth and ninth graders take the three-hour test for admittance to eight of the nine specialized high schools. The test is extremely competitive, with only 800 of the 30,000 applicants being accepted to Bronx Science each year.
that the effect of IQ is 100% mediated by credentials is also confirmed by the much higher correlation between occupational prestige and IQ.
for example: a doctor once said to my mother, “your son is an actuary. he must be a genius. we had these actuaries…” she didn’t tell him i’d also made the high score in the country on the first exam. but the doctor made a lot more money.
in the US i believe medical doctor is the highest prestige occupation. higher than investment banker or c-suite executive.
so billionaires are proud to say, “my children didn’t go into the family business. they all became doctors.”
but among doctors i doubt the highest earning, surgeons, have the highest IQs. according to dean edell they do have the biggest egos. they’re much more goyish for some reason…spatial IQ probably.
conservatards will say professors are liberals because they think rich pipo are stupid.
that’s one reason. but there are many others. and compared to professors most rich pipo are stupid. they’re not making that up.
my IQ is so high i’m going to spend my whole life trying to make as much money as i can. or my IQ is so high i’m going to start a new company which will change the world.
shut up. you’re a moron.
especially if he’s a rich musician, to find its value.
^i’m going to make a lot of money but i’m not going to do that by taking a bunch of math classes.
when he was in high school there was a mexican kid who had perfect scores in almost every exam. the bullies were sending him over to bully falcon. falcon was able to “see” how stupid the other kid was. so he went up to him and threatened him. the kid turned pale and ran. he was so scared that falcon was able to get into a free lunch program.
that public school food can have strange affects on one’s anatomy…if you know what i mean.
*effects
what an idiot!
for example i started writing: “that public school food can affect one’s anatomy…”
or maybe santo’s english has miraculously improved?
but i’m not mexican, unlike ron burgundy. i’m a smidgen spanish via direct immigration from spain to the US prior to the civil war like admiral farragut and paul morphy. most basque just look like regular wypipo.
funny too. my cousins have an italian surname. and they’re blond, blue eyed and 6’3″. but the name is from northern italy and it came to the what would become the US in the late 17th c. one of their same name ancestors was a professor at yale in the 19th c.
of course, all of these things are all relative and can be said differently to different groups in different times.
it would be naïve to say that this is their defining essence. yes it is but that is an equally flawed proposition.
what rr is advocating is the use of such words by either folks like myself or by their opposites. depending on the context.
having said that i would like to add that the default rule of thumb in any civilization is “invent yourself a new truth. always. that is the fundamental foundation of everything.” changing the truth based on your friends is a vicious undertaking.
the prevailing rule in every society is to “be realistic”. this can be stated as “live within the truth.”
^^^gibberish^^^
you’re too dumb to even know what “the truth” means.
you sound like an anal “philosopher” making a fool of himself.
there are two reasons something is hard to unnuhstan:
1. because it’s hard to unnuhstan.
2. because it’s gibberish and can’t be unnuhstood.
because low IQ and egomaniacal autism anal “philosophers” accuse everyone they can’t unnuhstan of 2.
2 ONLY applies to some late 20th c french “philosophers” and their epigones in english departments. Fashionable Nonsense was a great book. the sokal affair was fantastic. i agree 100%.
Environmentalists just don’t make any sense intuitively. I think most have to be brainwashed to be an environmentalist.
The reason you can increase your ability at (non trivia) IQ test items is
1. You learn the correct techniques for actually arrive at the right answer (as in you learn the best algorithms) or
2. You learn how to better utilize your brain’s natural ability towards that specific item (you learn to focus).
For memorizing number sequences, algorithms aren’t that useful. The best one’s I’ve heard is associating stuff with rhymes or stories/journeys. So basically, it’s about associating numbers with things that are more memorable. But this is less about knowing the algorithm and more about being willing to focus on that algorithm, so it comes mostly down to no. 2 above.
Knowing the algorithm, is equivalent to culture because you must be exposed to it. Red = girl, blue = boy is cultural knowledge. (Figuring out the algorithm uses processing but knowing the algorithm involves simple retrieval).
Focusing and application involves using the brain’s processing ability. Number sequences are pretty culturally fair because they simply involve memorizing quantifiable amounts of data with no prior association to anything culturally learned.
The point is all of these are quantifiable… either you know an algorithm or you don’t… either you can apply it, or you can’t… either you’ve remembered a number or you haven’t. There’s no room for a magical immeasurable mind when it comes down to remembering specific facts.
Regardless of whether some people have more knowledge that IQ tests utilize and some have more “street knowledge”, you either have knowledge or you don’t.
Basically, if you don’t believe some things just come down to raw processing power there’s no reason not to have 20 TVs on, while you’re reading, while you’re also writing, etc. Because the concept of focusing finite mental attention does not matter when you learn everything from the environmental exposure and have an immeasurable ability to adapt to it.
If cultural knowledge is measurable, it is concrete, and so knowledge can be concrete, and so it can correspond with concrete facts of biology and processing.
I finally read RR’s article. Not going to post on his site. So posting it here. A large use of time but helped clarify things for myself:
“The fact of the matter is, IQ tests don’t even meet the minimal theory of measurement since there is no—non-circular—definition of what this ‘general cognitive ability’ even is.”
Intelligence, being the ability to acquire and apply knowledge. Knowledge is a mapping of one concept to another (or one concept to a reference like a word – which is of course a concept itself).
By mapping a vocabulary word to its definition, you display your knowledge of two concepts mapping to each other.
Creation of knowledge is creation of a concept (but that itself will be defined in terms of other concepts). so anything you know is a concept in reference to other concepts.
We objectively agree on many things, including length.
However, testing your ability to logically deduce answer-concepts from test item concepts within a given context that gives the rules to get to the answer-concept is measurable.
Unfortunately, we all exist within different conceptual (cultural) frames.
To the extent our culture differs, we either do not know a particular fact (factual knowledge) or do not understand the context (don’t understand the map or have a different mapping).
To give an absolute reference for IQ would require the set of all concepts conceivable (including their mappings/relations which are concepts).
Unfortunately we can only get small samples of this set to test with, that happen to have pretty good predictability in other apparently nonrelated fields!
Actually, the fact that we CAN’T know everything possible is actually evidence for a PHYSICAL mapping.
Because the set of all knowledge cannot be localized into one brain or person, meaning that there is a FINITE, CONCRETE, QUANTIFIABLE boundary on one’s knowledge that corresponds to the physical location of that knowledge (the brain).
“There is no theory or definition of intelligence therefore there CAN BE no ‘measure’ of it. ”
It’s like when people say there is no coherent definition of God and free will, but people still seem to believe in it.
But we know what knowledge is. We know how to measure whether someone has it and can write it down. Intelligence is generally defined as measuring knowledge or ability to solve problems.
“Therefore, if all facts cannot be stated using a physical vocabulary and if the mind cannot be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties, then there can, logically, be no such thing as ‘mental measurement’—no matter what IQ-ists try to tell you.”
But both are describable in abstract conceptual terms. And all physical and mental vocabulary falls under the set of abstract/conceptual vocabulary. (Otherwise, we couldn’t say they were both words… and concepts and words are countable)
“Different physical systems can give rise to different mental phenomena—what is known as the argument from multiple realizability.
Because the same experiences (qualia/concepts in-themselves) are the same concepts within the same context (the same emotional experiences part of the same context – that being emotions). But we don’t measure concepts-in-themselves (qualia), we measure knowledge, which is more like understanding the mapping of concept to concept.
“Thus, since psychological traits/mental states are multiply realizable, then it is impossible for psychology to reduce to mental kinds to reduce to physical kinds—the mental kind can be realized by multiple physical states.”
It could be that those same mental states are experiencing the same thing because inherent similarites exist in different physical states. To prove nonreducibility, you have to also argue that different mental states can be realized from the same physical state.
“Psychological states are either multiply realizable or they are type identical to the physio-chemical states of the brain. That is a kind of mind-brain identity thesis—that the mind is identical to the states of the brain.”
Need not be identical but heavily correlated up to the level of communicability.
“Although they are correlated, this does not mean that the mind is the brain or that the mind can be reduced to physio-chemical states, ”
But everything mental can be reduced to concepts or experience, and since experience cannot be put into words and have you feel that experience, no experience can be gleaned from the environment.
So how does physical phenomena give rise to mental phenomena if they don’t share a mutual conceptual framework, since raw experience (qualia) is irreducible to the physical and communicates no knowledge/information but itself anyway?
“as Putnam’s argument from multiple realizability concludes. If type-physicalism is true, then it must be true that every and all mental properties can be realized in the same exact way. But, empirically, it is highly plausible that mental properties can be realized in multiple ways. Therefore, type-identity theory is false.”
What is a mental property? Qualia, or processing?
“Psychophysical laws are laws connnecting mental abilities/psychological traits with physical states. But, as Davidson famously argued in his defense of Anomalous Monism, there can be no such laws linking mental and physical events. There are no mental laws therefore there can be no scientific theory of mental states. ”
But there are conceptual laws, and science deals in concepts.
“Science studies the physical. ”
Science studies the physical through abstractions used to interpret sensory data (themselves abstract experiences – qualia). All conceptual and concretizations of the abstract.
“The mental is not physical. Thus, science cannot study the mental.”
What is the physical? What makes it different from the mental? That’s what you’re missing.
“Indeed, since there are no bridge laws that link the mental and physical and the mental is irreducible to and underdetermined by the physical,”
But heavily correlated, which is pretty damn important when it comes to IQ and is basically why the environmentalist theory is filled with holes.
“it then follows that science cannot study the mental. Therefore, a science of the mind is impossible.”
And yet, we are using our minds to study the physical which implies that they share commmon concepts that map to each other.
Science inherently uses the mind to study the physical. Yet the physical does not impact the mind? How does the environment acculturate us?
It could be the magical link between the mind and physical is the purely abstract realm of concepts, and that the mind and physical are both different ways of the realizations of the same concepts?
The fact that the we are made of physical, concrete matter, and the fact that the brain is shown by basically every experiment or anecdote known to man to correspond with thought and cognition, and the fact that everything that exists must be conceptual by definition of it existing in some form, it would be the best and most parsimonious conclusion that the brain’s physical organization greatly determines our ability to mentally process different concrete, physical data.
“Further note that the claim “IQ is heritable” reduces to “thinking is heritable”,”
Yes it’s what explains our intelligence compared to our hominid ancestors and the Great Apes.
“Thinking is a mental activity which results in a thought.”
Thinking involves the experience of thinking + the purpose of thinking – which is processing information (solving problems) or creating new information (creativity).
The experience is not measurable, the information processing and creation is.
“If thinking is a mental activity which results in a thought, then what is a thought? A thought is a mental state of considering a particular idea or answer to a question or committing oneself to an idea or an answer.”
Yes it’s the state of considering an idea, which has two parts- the experiential (qualia, feeling), and the processing.
“These mental states are, or are related to, beliefs. When one considers a particular answer to a question, they are paving the way to holding a certain belief. So when they have committed themselves to an answer, they have committed themselves to a new belief.”
Yes but believing has an experiential aspect and a purely descriptive aspect (that one is in the state of holding the belief).
“Since beliefs are propositional attitudes, believing p means adopting the belief attitude that p. So, since cognition is thinking, then thinking is a mental process that results in the formation of a propositional belief. Thus, since thinking is related to beliefs and desires (without beliefs and desires we would not be able to think), then thinking (cognition) is irreducible to physical/functional states, meaning that the main aspect of test-taking (thinking) is irreducible to the physical thus physical states don’t explain thinking which means the main aspect of (IQ) test-taking is irreducible to the physical.”
Thinking is not irreducible to the conceptual however. And neither is the physical… which is why we can talk (use conceptual references) about the physical.
You’re confusing the experience of adopting a belief or thinking with the mental state of adopting that belief. I can adopt beliefs without experiencing it.
Physically, belief just describes a state of one’s likely actions towards a given experience of something.
If I believe X, I will feel or do some other action in response. If a dog believes a bell means the food is coming it affects his actions.
The reason beliefs seem only mental is because we have an experiential aspect to our mental life, and we can think conceptually.
Again, everything physical and mental is reducible to the conceptual.
“As Wade (2010: 5) notes, the knowledge that people and society are the object of study “creates a reflexivity, or circular process of cause and effect, whereby the ‘objects’ of study can and do change their behavior and ideas according to the conclusions that their observers draw about their behavior and ideas.””
If there is no objective measure of knowledge, how do they know that?
Could it be that words have meanings that can actually be known and that certain things are objectively true, and by taking a large enough sample we can get a good measure of how much a person is able to cognize objectively true things?
“The current social context influences the psychological discourse and the psychological discourse influences the current social context. The a priori beliefs that one holds will influence what they choose to study.”
If they are apriori, where did they get them? Not the culture, because that is not apriori, is it? You realize your explanation of culture itself is circular?
“The [IQ] tests do what their construction dictates; they correlate a group’s mental worth with its place in the social hierarchy. (Mensh and Mensh, 1991)”
Right… that’s kind of the subject of the debate isn’t it.
“Richards (1997) in his book on racism in the history of psychology, identified 331 psychology articles published between 1909 (the first conceptualization of the ‘gene’, no less) and 1940 which argued for biology as a difference-maker for psychological traits while noting that 176 articles for the ‘environment’ side were published in that same time period.”
Right… how has treating everyone as equal in ability worked out?
White people who apparently run the sciences put East Asians and subsets of whites, Jews, higher.
And these same groups are even wealthier and in more positions of power in white countries everywhere.
Even if you want to argue they exhibit culture, where did they get this culture? Why do they do better everywhere?
Regardless of empirical data, from basic principles, we can see that the environmentalist theory is inconsistent and incoherent.
“Subtests within a battery of intelligence tests are included n the basis of them showing a substantial correlation with the test as a whole, and tests which do not show such correlations are excluded.”
Oh, The horror of someone trying to use measures that seemed to actually lead to the most culture-fair, pure knowledge items.
“From this, it directly follows that psychometry (and psychology) are not sciences and do not ‘measure’ anything (returning to (i) above). ”
What’s amazing is when you look at correlations from other apparently unrelated tests on a holistic basis, you keep seeing the same patterns as what are widely agreed for national IQs. Seems like they’re measuring something.
“The same, she notes, was the case regarding IQ differences between men and women—Terman eliminated such differences by picking and choosing certain items that favored one group and balanced them out so that they scored near-equally. ”
Psychology is not a science that studies anything – But let’s use psychological studies to show how they study nothing because their studies are circular and inconsistent. But then how do they prove people acculturate?
“In Nazi Germany, Jewish psychologists were purged since their views did not line-up with the Nazi regime.”
Of course, 21st century America has not moved on from then. Apparently social sciences can move on from Freud but not Nazism….
“Clearly, what psychologists choose to study, since society influences psychology, is a reflection of a society’s social concerns.”
Not going to disagree there.
“The Berka/Nash measurement objection is one of the most lethal arguments for IQ-ists.”
It’s either true or not true that IQ tests measure anything objective. “Most lethal” is an oxymoron and basically admits it’s not really lethal.
“Since there is no theory or definition of what is being ‘measured’, and if the tests were constructed first before the theory, then there will necessarily be a built-in bias to what is being ‘measured’ (namely, so-called ‘innnate mental potential’).”
Oh yes, no one had the definition of what it meant to “know things” before IQ tests. (sarcasm)
“Since it is logically impossible for psychology to reduce to physical structure, and since all facts cannot be stated using a physical vocabulary nor can the mind be described using material terms that only refer to material properties, then this is another blow to the claim that psychology is an ‘objective science’ and that some’thing’ is being ‘measured’ by their tests (constructed to agree with their a priori biases). ”
There’s no “blow”. It either defeats IQ or it doesn’t.
You admitting that it doesn’t prove IQ as a false measure mean you admit you don’t know what knowledge is or how it is transmitted physically or mentally, which is why you can’t say your argument is decisive (and also because it isn’t).
“The relationship between psychology and society is inseparable—it is a truism that what psychologists choose to study and how and why they formulate their conclusions will be influenced by the biases they already hold about society and how and why it is the way it is.”
Again where do they get their beliefs in the first place? Through the environment right? Which means the environment leads people to believe in IQ. (I’m talking about the ACTUAL ORIGIN of their beliefs, your argument depends on their beliefs and society already existing yet tells us they somehow both influence each other – it’s circular.)
You can’t explain the origin of beliefs in a metaphysical sense, yet you believe that they only come from the (pre-built) social environment for some reason. Why?
“Hereditarianism, then, stays what it was when it was formulated—a racist theory that attempts to bilogicize and justify the current social hierarchy.”
Cringe. Be a little more honest if you are such a studious scholar. You’re obviously capable of logical arguments and have a large vocabulary.
There are plenty of people who are hereditarians and are NOT racist and believe OTHER people and groups are smarter than THEM!
“one should not accept the claim that mental abilities can be genetically transmitted/inherited;”
So one should accept that mental abilities are environmentally transmitted? How does mental ability, or conceptions, transmit itself from raw sensory experience like color, sound, smell, taste, or touch? They can’t.
We have a conceptual instinct and language instinct. No reason not to believe this genetic endowment can’t be faster in certain people.
“one should not accept the claim that psychology is an objective ‘science’ due to the reflexive relationship between psychology and society.”
Well yeah, that’s why I don’t spend my years reading psychology papers and try to observe things from other perspectives and sometimes philosophically, from first principles.
Also, the replication crisis is pretty indicative of that.
“The arguments given show why hereditarianism should be abandoned—it is not a scientific theory, it just attempts to naturalize biological inequalities between individuals and groups (Mensh and Mensh, 1991; Gould, 1996; Garrison, 2009).”
Gould just made shit up like the “Nonoverlapping Magisteria” to support his metaphysical conclusions. Would never trust what he says on this.
And you’re lack of charity to hereditarians despite how much BS they go through is really astounding. It doesn’t really make you popular.
i would say humans have an ability to observe through their senses and learn and then rearrange information existing in their brains.
i like how you use the concept behind algorithms to help you understand this because some people use less effort and are still more effective than someone who doesnt. it is a constant growth advantage the other has on the lesser intelligent individual.
I appreciate you trying to read all that, lol.
“i would say humans have an ability to observe through their senses and learn and then rearrange information existing in their brains.”
Yeah definitely. My problem with the environmentalist paradigm is that the brain already needs a way to intrepret data, because pure experience of the qualia type is not enough to interpret it. You can’t interpret raw colors. You have to compare them, and use pre-existing contexts to categorize what you’re seeing. They assume we get our intrepretations from the environment, without explaining how we could interpret data in the first place if we are born blank-slate with no interpretations. Because you already need to be able to interpret stuff to minimal level, to start interpreting it on more complicated ones (where differences in culture lie).
“i like how you use the concept behind algorithms to help you understand this because some people use less effort and are still more effective than someone who doesnt. it is a constant growth advantage the other has on the lesser intelligent individual.”
Yeah, and as science advances we kind of see the world in a different way than our ancestors not just because of different sensory data but because we are trained to draw inferences on better algorithms. But I mainly wonder how we get our algorithms and interpretations in the first place… with the environmentalist it’s as if they believe the data can simply create the interpretation itself, which is the same as saying 1/0 in a computer’s storage can create a program. A 1/0 can never mean anything to a computer unless it already has a operating system that defines what each bit means. Because we fundamentally don’t know how our OS actually works, we are in the dark as to how much is pre-interpreted and how extra layers of interpretation (culture) can be created.
But given we can have objective knowledge and a fundamental basis of our OS is logical and it associates data together and then further evaluates those data against other stored data for consistency, we can say that logic and consistency are basic to our knowledge. And probably a lot of objective paradigms can be built on our logic and consistency instincts (maybe this is part of the language instinct) after processing information from the environment such as mathematics. Since mathematics is objective, and many other conceptual paradigms are objective, it seems they would be rediscovered by humans all over the world. They’re discovered by animals in some sense, or at least built in. So why wouldn’t they form somewhat culture-fair tests?
well there is the common definition of intelligence as self awareness and then there is the one i liken to truth which is processing. the mind has the ability to process many things but the ones that are most useful have a necessity towards being integrated first.
at the end of the day everything is a risk. risk relies on conditioning oneself from the past and then operating within it.
Pumpkin i think a comment of mine was lost here can you check? i responded to Lurker with something.
“If there were a perfect correlation between IQ and wealth, we’d expect they’d have an average IQ of 135”
This doesn’t seem right to me. Shouldn’t the least smart of them be on the 135 level? If millionaires are the top 1%, some of them are much higher.
But you said “the median millionaire,” so maybe some of them are lower than 1% so you’d be right.
i hope my comments get to the right people.
ive noticed this blog attracts a lot of the degenerate varieties. why is that? most of the people here have severe issues.
i mean i certainly do too but i feel like most of the other commenters are worse off than me. in a lot of ways.
anal “philosophy” claims clarity. but does it ever ask “what is ‘clarity’?”
communication is not like breathing or chewing gum.
especially when the communicandum is rare and rarified as pink diamonds.
one may make sense of nonsense as long as it is short and consistent. but the senses one may make of such are multiple.
“clarity” is like chomsky’s “concision”. it’s neoliberalism making a vicegerency of philosophy professors.
when pipo write in NATURAL SCIENCE or in philosophy, they write FOR THEMSELVES. “this makes sense to me, therefore it makes sense.” BUT obviously this can mean it doesn’t make sense to everyone else.
1. kant’s “transcnedtal idealism” which entails “der ding-an-sich”/the thing in itself as what “occasions” phenomenal expereince.
2. german idealism = fichte, schelling, hegel = this “thing in itself” idea is stupid but itt’s super hard to COMMUNICATE how and why it’s stupid.
3. russell has autism and says: let’s just be autistic. let’s adopt the “scientific world view” and pretend we’re as clever as actual scientists…
(because i, russell, am TOO STUPID too unnuhstan british idealism. and then let me promote this german jewish homosexual witttgenstein as jesus to my john the baptist.)
even though the “scientific world view” was originally just a “for the nonce” and pragmatic pov FOR natural science. AS DETAILED AD NAUSEUM BY KANT!
No net worth is a better measure than ‘permanent income’. We earn money so we can take time off and enjoy it, not to have the maximum level of income every year.
Also a person can have great income if he is willing to take on a lot of debt.
The association between wealth and IQ must be much lower than being tall and a good basketball player.
Puppys does all the math bits and then when he is forced to sprinkle on a bit of social reasoning…he bombs.
You really think smart people show they’re smart by spending as much as possible?
You know what that is?
It begins with the letter ‘a’.
No dumbass, I’m saying it’s smart to spend money. That’s what it’s there for. Your misinterpretations of everything I say is what starts with a letter a.
1. kant’s “transcendental idealism” which entails “der ding-an-sich”/the thing-in-itself as what “occasions” phenomenal experience.
2. german idealism = fichte, schelling, hegel = this “thing in itself” idea is stupid but itt’s super hard to COMMUNICATE how and why it’s stupid.
3. russell has autism and says: let’s just be autistic. let’s adopt the “scientific world view” and pretend we’re as clever as actual scientists…
(because i, russell, am TOO STUPID too unnuhstan british idealism…
and then let me promote this german jewish homosexual wittgenstein as jesus to my john the baptist.)
even though the “scientific world view” was originally just a “for the nonce” and pragmatic pov FOR natural science. AS DETAILED AD NAUSEAM BY KANT!
So I went off my meds for about a month and the result was catastrophic. After about 2 weeks I noticed I was thinking/worrying a lot about certain things to the point it was getting hard to concentrate or do anything. Within a month I was basically back to where I was 6 years ago and my vision was going black and I had that paranoid/OCD soup going on in my head. Every moment was agony.
Look, at least I now realise what the meds were doing for me. I thought time had healed me but I was wrong.
that’s nice peepee.
you still haven’t told me who that retard is.
so you’re worried about kanye’s “health”. what a girly man like fredo cuomo.
i come from the racist part of europe…israel.
my family is upper middle class. we enjoy being millionaires but it isnt an extreme amount of wealth not that i know of at least.
some paranoid people i knew thought i was an oil-company owning billionaire though.
there’s an OBLIVIOUSNESS to the HIERARCHY of TRUTH by anal philosophers.
they confuse facts in the OJ case with God.
almost all of them will say, “i don’t believe in God because there is no evidence.”
as if evidence had anything to do with it.
IDIOT!
for them whatever i say will be riddles or meaningless, gibberish.
sad.
Even anecdotally youre reasoning sucks. When we think of the greatest geniuses of all time like Einstein, Von Neumann, Da Vinci, etc …none of them were wealthy.
They were all employees or contractors.
Shakespeare was.
and when (((we))) think about geniuses why do (((we))) mention von neumann and not euler, gauss, and NEWTON?
you lack a functioning brain Mug how can you even speak?
But the top hedge fund managers are geniuses. Thats true too.
they could be but they aren’t. theory vs reality.
in other words, what a hedge fund manager does could be the single hardest thing to do intellectually, but no hedge fund manager actually does this. the closest is BUFFETT.
you are so incompetent Mug its unbelievable.
The side effect of these meds now its that random parts of my body keep tensing and my hands are shaking and I can’t concentrate. WTF is this?
I would say not all CEO’s are smarter than professors. Actually I’d say professors are smarter. But certain types of professionals like doctors and actuaries are as smart as professors.
actually i remember now…but it’s hearsay…
so many years ago my mom told me what her doctor said.
“we all wanted to be actuaries (because they billed so much).”
yes. consulting actuaries can make more than most doctors theoretically, but what the doctor probably didn’t unnuhstan is that the bill for the actuaries he saw had to cover the wages of the actuaries he didn’t see in addition to rent etc..
so my dad billed $200 per hour before he quit. and an md working for kaiser might think this meant he made 400+k per year.
uhhh…no!
my dad never “cleared” much more than 150k. what would that be today? 200k?
and he gave up being a lawyer at that exact time.
and my dad was an idiot in some ways but he had a talent for the law. his problem was he hated being a lawyer.
he was offered much higher paying jobs and he said no because he was an idiot. he quit being a prosecutor because he thought the sentencing was immoral. it was way too long.
my mom was the same. she was offered the head job at one of her company’s branches for 2x the money but she didn’t want to move to seattle and she thought managers didn’t do anything.
the idea that someone might turn down more money is inconceivable to peepee.
as chomsky said commenting on The Bell Curve…
“what they say would be true if all anyone wanted was to make as much money as possible. but that’s not all anyone wants, especially if they’re smart.”
“what they say would be true if all anyone wanted was to make as much money as possible. but that’s not all anyone wants, especially if they’re smart.”
There are things more important than money but most of them vary from person to person, while the value money adds is universal, making it the most objective measure of success we have, while still being a grossly imperfect measure. That’s why the correlation with IQ is only 0.45 and not 0.8.
Mug how good are you at math?
Many of the high IQ people I went to school with are upper middle class STEM people.
The people that get really rich are business owners and thats not necessarily the same people. Some people can’t stand the risk of starting a business or think its too much effort.
nuff said.