The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
How Well Does IQ Predict Income?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the ambitious original research website Human Varieties:

IQ and Permanent Income: Sizing Up the “IQ Paradox”
Posted by Dalliard

In his recent book Hive Mind, economist Garett Jones argues that the direct effect of IQ on personal income is modest, and that most of the benefits of higher IQ flow from various spillover effects that make societies more productive, boosting everyone’s income. This, he says, explains the “IQ paradox” whereby IQ differences appear to explain a lot more of the economic differences between nations than within them.

Jones does not say in his book what he thinks the exact effect of IQ on personal income is, but on Twitter he has asserted that “Fans of g would do well to look at the labor lit: 1 IQ point predicts just 0.5% to 1.2% higher wages.” He has also said that, in terms of standardized effect sizes, IQ accounts for only about 10% of variance in personal income (a correlation of ~0.32).

While I don’t doubt Jones’s overall thesis that the effect of IQ on productivity is broader than its effect on personal productivity or income, I think he understates the importance of IQ in explaining income differences between individuals. I analyzed a large American population sample and found a substantially larger effect of IQ on permanent income than previous investigations. It appears that the literature Jones refers to has failed to pay sufficient attention to various measurement issues. …

I used data from the NLSY79 which is an ongoing longitudinal study that follows the lives of a large sample of Americans born in 1957-64. Specifically, I used the nationally representative subsample comprising more than 6000 individuals.

This is the massive governmental study first made famous by The Bell Curve. It’s still going on. The Pentagon paid to have the sample take the military’s AFQT enlistment exam in 1980 to solve the disastrous misnorming problem of the Stripes era. The AFQT is an SAT-like test that correlates closely with IQ tests.

The NLSY79 contains income data collected from individuals annually until 1994 and every two years thereafter. Using these data, I calculated a measure of permanent income for each individual, following Mazumder’s recommendations to the extent that the data allowed it.

My permanent income measure is the average income calculated from up to nine biennial income reports from age 32 or 33 to age 47 or 48.

The slope coefficient for white men (the reference group) is 2.5% (95% CI: 2.2%-2.7%).

The Hispanic parameter estimates are not significantly different from the white ones, so the same equation applies to white and Hispanic men, although given the low sample size for Hispanics, this cannot be asserted very firmly. Black men, in contrast, have a significantly lower intercept and a significantly higher slope coefficient: each additional IQ point predicts 3.6% (95% CI: 2.6%-4.5%) more income for black men.

The R squared for the entire model is 23%.

That’s about an r = 0.48 for a model of AFQT, race, and sex.

When analyzed separately, IQ explains 20% of income differences in whites, 18% in blacks, and 16% in Hispanics. The correlations are 0.45 (white), 0.42 (black), and 0.39 (Hispanic).

In the social sciences, a correlation of 0.2 is often described as “low,” 0.4 as “moderate,” and 0.6 as “high.” So these correlations are moderate by social science standards, especially when modeling something like income, which people bring a lot of different factors to bear upon, such as smarts, education, work ethic, unique talents, skills, nepotism, personal relationships, sales talent, looks, regional differences in pay, health, etc. etc.

The slopes and correlations are lower for women, especially white women. (These are measures of individual income, not of family income — more white women are housewives without individual incomes.)

 
Hide 112 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. North Korea vs South Korea would seem to be a great way of showing the importance of environment over heredity when it comes to national wealth and income.

    • Replies: @Hail
    @anony-mouse

    Partly this comes from South Korea being lucky in having a much better benefactor (USA) than NK did (USSR). NK's real problems only began after the USSR collapsed.

    Replies: @Glossy

    , @phil
    @anony-mouse

    "North Korea vs South Korea would seem to be a great way of showing the importance of environment over heredity when it comes to national wealth and income."

    North Korea is an outlier. The economic system is so bad that it drags down wealth and income. East Germany vs. West Germany was also a good comparison. However, recent research indicates that, across dozens of countries, IQ is a better predictor of national income and wealth than factors in the social, political or natural environment, with IQ having an important biological component.

    Replies: @Santoculto

    , @Alastair Trumpington
    @anony-mouse


    North Korea vs South Korea would seem to be a great way of showing the importance of environment over heredity
     
    North Korea managed to develop nuclear weapons, while cut off from the rest of the world and in the middle of a famine.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @anony-mouse

    To an extent:


    In regards to North Korea: how’s that Sudanese nuclear weapons program coming along? Any 100-story hotels put up with the help of local engineering talent? Come to think of it, did even any of Dubai’s high-rise projects use local engineering talent? If the US government ever became so displeased with Congo-Brazzaville as to wish to contain it, how many troops would it need to use? 400? 4,000? 40,000? How long would they have to stay? How much money would have to be spent on this?
     

    Replies: @Trelane

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @anony-mouse



    North Korea vs South Korea

     

    What If we don't consider GDP and instead focus on other traits. They would be considered to be living in extreme poverty, as they are actually shorter in height from malnutrition. Do they transform into inner-city blacks behavior-wise from the poverty, or do they retain their innate Asian stereotypical behaviors? Are the streets clean, crime low, interactions polite, people industrious, single motherhood rare? If so, it shows that even with extreme canges to the environment, Koreans retain their inherited Asian personalities.
  2. @anony-mouse
    North Korea vs South Korea would seem to be a great way of showing the importance of environment over heredity when it comes to national wealth and income.

    Replies: @Hail, @phil, @Alastair Trumpington, @Anatoly Karlin, @Hippopotamusdrome

    Partly this comes from South Korea being lucky in having a much better benefactor (USA) than NK did (USSR). NK’s real problems only began after the USSR collapsed.

    • Replies: @Glossy
    @Hail

    South Koreans are being race-replaced by immigrants as we speak. Peter Frost has written about this at Unz.com. He has cited polls that showed South Koreans' undertanding of Koreanness gradually changing from an ethnonationalist model towards a multi-cultural one. The South Koreans didn't do this by themselves, their "benefactor" did it for them. The North condemns this in the strongest terms - "not a single drop of ink should be allowed to fall into the Han river", etc.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @AndrewR

  3. @Hail
    @anony-mouse

    Partly this comes from South Korea being lucky in having a much better benefactor (USA) than NK did (USSR). NK's real problems only began after the USSR collapsed.

    Replies: @Glossy

    South Koreans are being race-replaced by immigrants as we speak. Peter Frost has written about this at Unz.com. He has cited polls that showed South Koreans’ undertanding of Koreanness gradually changing from an ethnonationalist model towards a multi-cultural one. The South Koreans didn’t do this by themselves, their “benefactor” did it for them. The North condemns this in the strongest terms – “not a single drop of ink should be allowed to fall into the Han river”, etc.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    @Glossy


    South Koreans are being race-replaced by immigrants as we speak.
     
    Interesting. Wikipedia suggests S Korea has taken almost 2 million immigrants over the past few years of which half are Chinese. Given her population of almost 50 million, this would put non Koreans at about 4 percent. Not exactly multicultural yet. And the lion's share of these immigrants are Chinese which would seem more culturally similar then say the immigrants the US is getting.

    However, the CIA World Factbook does not reflect this at all. It lists South Korea as 'homogeneous (except for about 20,000 Chinese)'. That is way off from Wikipedia.

    Replies: @shk12344

    , @AndrewR
    @Glossy

    Funny how commies in West Eurasia advocate anti-nationalism, mass miscegenation and displacement-level migrations while commies in East Eurasia advocate racial purity and strong nationalism.

  4. IQ fanaticism really does a disservice to the high IQ young crowd here. Career success in today’s feminized workplace and corporate bureaucracy seems to depend as much, if not more, on social skill, charisma, attractiveness and cunning.

    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life.

    Because in reality money is merely quantified social status. And that’s affected by a lot of things other than IQ.

    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @Harold
    @thinkingabout it

    Within ethnicities, IQ is positively correlated with social skill, charisma, attractiveness, cunning, and athleticism.

    , @helena
    @thinkingabout it

    Yes, this is explicit in the UK Market Research Society's classification system.

    A few years ago Social Class was relabelled Social Grade and the emphasis was shifted from Knowledge to Budget Management and Responsibility for Life. Previously a degree more or less signified AB. But with the shift from Class to Grade professions such as Environmental Health were downgraded to C, whereas Film Agent was upgraded to A.

    What is happening to the NHS is part of this process. Hospital Doctors who were previously considered pillars of the community, moral agents of society, are now being treated as 'just another set of manual skills'. GPs on the other hand are treated as Businesses and so keep their A rating.

    The word Vocation is always trotted out to justify low wages in caring professions. But those who gravitate towards occupations concerned solely with the production of Money, are also Vocational. Those are the careers that some people choose because they are interested in Money.

    , @Anonym
    @thinkingabout it

    IQ fanaticism really does a disservice to the high IQ young crowd here. Career success in today’s feminized workplace and corporate bureaucracy seems to depend as much, if not more, on social skill, charisma, attractiveness and cunning.

    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life.

    An interesting comment. I really don't like the words "emotionally intelligent", as the EQ concept seems just like it is designed to be the direct inverse of IQ and so give the so-called high EQ something to feel good about. I get a low EQ, but I relate well to others in real life. So it seems bogus to me.

    However, in general a high IQ can lead to relative financial success (unless inherited) through a few different methods:
    1) Business
    2) Employment for someone else
    3) A profession (usually somewhere between 1 and 2)

    The traits that are necessary for success in each of those differ. However, persistence, drive, some sort of longer-term planning seem to be necessary in each. Conscientiousness is also important. A bit of a clue socially and presentation-wise should really be able to be picked up by someone high IQ enough. There are books on the subject, people to talk to, it's not rocket science.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+do+well+in+an+interview

    If you show up for anything north of an unskilled labor job interview wearing tatty jeans and a band T-shirt, well, do not blame this on lack of social intelligence, charisma, attractiveness or cunning, not being a middle-school bully or a jock.

    Think ahead and don't create yourself a spotty work history... and if you have one, figure out a way to hide it or start at the bottom somewhere to build a solid work history. And don't get a PhD on a whim. You don't want to be an also-ran with a PhD. They earn less than Masters students do, generally. Get a degree with a job at the end. Do your research before you waste 4+ years of your life.

    A business brain and some measure of educated risk taking is necessary for success in business. Less so with employment.

    Some people are so brilliant they can succeed in spite of ignoring the above but they are the exception rather than the rule.

    Replies: @stillCARealist

    , @Truth
    @thinkingabout it


    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life
     
    Stop making sock puppets, Whiskey.
    , @27 year old
    @thinkingabout it

    Most of the bullies and jocks who do well in life are still above average IQ.

    I think this blog/comment section is pretty open about the fact that there is a "sweet spot" for IQ and income, beyond which higher IQ won't necessarily help and may even hurt.

    Ultimately, the people who make the most money (speaking specifically of regular office worker types) are the people who ask for raises the most and quit/go to a new firm if they don't get what they want.
    Not much to it really, although I personally have only just now figured that out after many frustrating years

    , @dc.sunsets
    @thinkingabout it

    They should have split out the IQ-Wealth study by occupation. It's pretty obvious that some occupations will reward high IQ more than others.

    Sales is an occupation where, quite frankly, persistence and consistent repetition often win far better than cutting-edge grasp of any particular part of the process. It was quite clear to me in 27 years of outside sales that being bright and persistent (IQ=110 or so) was actually more helpful than being very bright (IQ=143) and induced to forever try fine-tuning the process. Even when the customer base is probably fairly bright (physicians), repetition wins most often.

    So...high IQ is probably better for STEM fields while being of little benefit in plenty of other occupations, especially those where success is predominantly driven by inter-personal skill (charm), physical attractiveness or musical or athletic talent.

    , @Anonymous
    @thinkingabout it

    I disagree. The vast majority of the 'jocks' tend to peak in high school and do not do well in life. The idea of someone who 'peaked in high school' is a concept which I find abhorrent did not wish for my children, and yet it happens so often.

  5. @anony-mouse
    North Korea vs South Korea would seem to be a great way of showing the importance of environment over heredity when it comes to national wealth and income.

    Replies: @Hail, @phil, @Alastair Trumpington, @Anatoly Karlin, @Hippopotamusdrome

    “North Korea vs South Korea would seem to be a great way of showing the importance of environment over heredity when it comes to national wealth and income.”

    North Korea is an outlier. The economic system is so bad that it drags down wealth and income. East Germany vs. West Germany was also a good comparison. However, recent research indicates that, across dozens of countries, IQ is a better predictor of national income and wealth than factors in the social, political or natural environment, with IQ having an important biological component.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    @phil

    North Koreans tend to have short stature compared with the South Koreans. Japanese and Chinese before Westernization also tended to exhibit short stature than today. Does the average intelligence (cognition) of North Koreans is much smaller than the average cognitive South Korean ** The same happens with the Brazilians, at last, with any people experiencing an improvement in their food.

    This difference is caused by environmental differences * How severe are the conditions in North Korea that can cause phenotypic changes of great magnitude * Will the Cubans who were born in the 90s did not have deficits caused by the 'special period' '**

    I read a story once it was shown cognitive differences between a group of North Korean children who fled with their families to South Korea. How homogeneous is the bell curve of the Korean population *

    The East Germans feeds so bad compared to West Germans to present cognitive differences, as some studies have shown *

  6. A lot of smart people become academics, political writers, journalists, non-profit employees, etc. In other words, they choose lower paying jobs that give them status or let them do what they’re interested in. For example, I’d bet a lot of bloggers here would’ve made more money if they’d gone into welding.

    If you ranked jobs by some combination of income and status, then the correlation with IQ would be higher.

    • Replies: @Harold
    @Hepp

    The sociological term is ‘occupational prestige’ or ‘job prestige’ and I remember reading somewhere that it does correlate better with IQ than income does.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Hepp


    would’ve made more money if they’d gone into welding
     
    Have you ever spent an entire day welding? Have you had a 'sunburn' because your shirt was too thin to shield you from the intense radiation resulting from welding? Ever had "Arc Eye?"

    There is a very good reason why welders are paid a premium for their work. And why bloggers blog, and why "A lot of smart people become academics, political writers, journalists, non-profit employees." Status may not hurt, but it is not a necessary condition. The cushy path is sufficient.

    Replies: @Hepp

  7. If 1 IQ point is good for about 1% more income, 20 or 30 is pretty nice to have.

    But there’s more to it than that. I doubt it’s linear. And there are more variables in a job than pay alone.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    @Wilbur Hassenfus


    If 1 IQ point is good for about 1% more income, 20 or 30 is pretty nice to have.
     
    It comes at a cost; high IQ people probably have a high level of self-expectation and this is a burden of not living up to one's expectations.

    I also suggest that high IQ people may actually do poorly as saver/investors. Market prices do not obey objective, rational rules and it's my experience that very smart people often make the dumbest moves with their money. It's the corollary to the well-known fact that physicians have a high frequency of fatal private aviation accidents.

    High IQ people will very frequently be square pegs. I refer to those in the 1-in-200 (i.e., eligible for Colloquy) to 1-in-1000 (i.e., eligible for the Triple Nine Society) and higher (these are four to twenty times more selective than Mensa.) This, too, is a trade-off to higher average lifetime income. This isn't due to social ineptitude so much as how boring most people seem.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets

    , @dc.sunsets
    @Wilbur Hassenfus

    The sweet spot for corporate America is about 110-120. Higher than that, people will notice (and resent you, trust me.)

    In my experience, people much above the cutoff for Mensa (132, or 98th percentile) have some degree of difficulty relating to others. The one true genius I knew was so bored with life that last I saw he worked at a Drivers Facility doing road-tests for drivers' licenses (and he was a serious lush.)

    As an aside, it's quite clear to me that people have two tracks for cognition. Except when deciding between the 12 oz can of stewed tomatoes at 90 cents and the 29 oz can at $1.80, people make most of their decisions in the emotional seat of the brain (which has nothing to do with IQ) and use the neo-cortex (the seat of IQ) to simply rationalize it.

    This may partly explain why:
    1. Two very smart people can disagree violently about some controversy.
    2. Very smart people are very good at arguing in favor of utter idiocy.
    3. Rule by "experts" yields so many absurd policies.
    4. A lifelong farmer who never graduated high school has more insight into economics than someone who graduated from University of Chicago with Ph.D. in econ.

  8. I resent the assertion that intelligence could affect income. It is inconceivable that smarter people make more money than dumber people. Absolutely out of the question. A country with smarter people could never be more successful than a country of dumber people. The richest people in the world are not smarter than anyone else. The fact that Bill Gates has an IQ of 170 is just a coincidence.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @ArchibaldMcGillicuddy

    Note that Gates got his wealth from holding the property right to MS-DOS and the network effect it obtained by being preloaded on IBM and other hardware manufacturers' PCs when PC clones were unleashed on the market. Gates was the son of a prominent Seattle lawyer and was aware of the immense network effect that was available with certain property rights. He bought the DOS operating system, which would be valued at billions, from an ordinary programmer named Tim Paterson for $75,000.

    Replies: @Anon7, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @AnotherDad

  9. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It seems that very high IQ types aren’t as interested in making money as moderately high IQ types. They tend to pursue academia or other fields. Also corporations, like any other human organization, tend to be very political and smarts alone without political skill is not enough to attain and hold executive positions. The smartest guy might be the best guy to run the company, but that’s assuming that everyone automatically gets on board with the program, and that’s generally never the case. People will actively try to sabotage the program, not just for personal gain but just for the hell of it, unless they’re kept in line by politically adept management.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    The highest income individual in the sample scored around 124.

    Replies: @415 reasons, @Anonymous

    , @helena
    @Anonymous

    I always said, when I was a lecturer, that the students who did best in their careers were the 2.2s because they spent their university years networking not sitting in the library.

    The difference is down to 'analytical' intelligence versus 'holistic' intelligence - society is moving away from analysis (no such thing as race) and towards 'placing the flower in group B' (see Jayman's post about that experiment). And the reason for the shift seems to be the lack of people with analytical intelligence.

    And it all seems to be connected with tribalism/clannism versus a shift to the Commonweal.

    Commonweal living frees the mind to analyse. And analysis is where science came from.

    But Money comes from holistic thinking. Imagine an analytical person doing a boot-sale - each item gets sold for no fixed price and for no fixed reason. The moment of sale is a psychological guessing game that depends on Perception not a priori reasoning.

    Replies: @Threecranes

  10. @Anonymous
    It seems that very high IQ types aren't as interested in making money as moderately high IQ types. They tend to pursue academia or other fields. Also corporations, like any other human organization, tend to be very political and smarts alone without political skill is not enough to attain and hold executive positions. The smartest guy might be the best guy to run the company, but that's assuming that everyone automatically gets on board with the program, and that's generally never the case. People will actively try to sabotage the program, not just for personal gain but just for the hell of it, unless they're kept in line by politically adept management.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbunznqJzxs

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @helena

    The highest income individual in the sample scored around 124.

    • Replies: @415 reasons
    @Steve Sailer

    It seems like it might be more interesting to look at higher incomes and higher IQ. I.e. What is the likelihood that someone 3 standard deviations above the mean in income has a very high IQ or vice versa. Also seems like you might want to look at the correlation between IQ and log income since incomes have a distribution that is highly right skewed

    , @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    That's probably around the sweet spot. Anything too much higher and you're probably too interested in other things or less relatable to other people.

    Ted Cruz seems to have about 30 pts on the other candidates and seems to have made it this far through his intellect and careful planning and strategizing. But he also seems to be disliked by many for that very reason. He comes across as insincere and calculated.

    Replies: @Anonym, @AndrewR, @Dan Kurt, @Boomstick

  11. Height in the US does count for a great deal in the business world, if you are a man. In Japan and Israel, in my work experience, this is not the case. The current chief of the Israeli military, for a public example, a high prestige job, looks very short, as was Ehud Barak. For some reason I cannot imagine either of them becoming a US general. Heights of CEOs compared to the average height in the country would be a fascinating study.

    Looks certainly count in the corporate world if you are a woman but much less so if you are a man, in my experience.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Cwhatfuture

    I imagine height helps there too, relative to their means.

    In general, height helps, but there are always some aggressive short men who punch above their height.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Cwhatfuture


    Height in the US does count for a great deal in the business world, if you are a man.
     
    Height goes far in Hollywood, too. But not necessarily the height of the skeleton.
    , @AndrewR
    @Cwhatfuture

    Name one butt-ugly Fortune 500 exec.

    A man doesn't have to be beautiful but he oughta at least be average looking to get ahead. Ted Cruz is an admitted exception to this rule.

    Replies: @Anonym

  12. Income and IQ correlate a lot in the IQ interval between 80 and 110. About 70% of common folk have an IQ in this range. For them, IQ actually means a lot because the correlation with SES is so high here.

    But for simple people with an IQ 110 their SES doesn’t increase at all with higher IQ scores–they’ve hit the ceiling as far as IQ and SES are concerned. To do well as a IQ>110 person one needs social maturity, good mental health, ambition, self-confidence, etc….more IQ points alone aren’t going to help normally.

    I think this was demonstrated decades ago. It’s very obvious. Linda Gottfredson and Chris Brand showed this effect clearly in the 1990s. Sailer wrote about it back then. What’s changed? Nothing.

    • Replies: @Trelane
    @Trelane

    Comment doesn't make sense. Editing error. Apology.

    , @Chet
    @Trelane

    Threshold is everything here.
    Analysis must be broken into segments for the strength of the correlation to be demonstrated.
    Didn't Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen deal with this?
    Compare person A -too dull to hold a job, to person B -bright enough to graduate from college and be fully employed. How much extra income from a 1 point IQ increase in each case?
    A: none, B: slight but measurable.
    Don't forget about the meaty bottom half of the bell curve.

  13. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    The highest income individual in the sample scored around 124.

    Replies: @415 reasons, @Anonymous

    It seems like it might be more interesting to look at higher incomes and higher IQ. I.e. What is the likelihood that someone 3 standard deviations above the mean in income has a very high IQ or vice versa. Also seems like you might want to look at the correlation between IQ and log income since incomes have a distribution that is highly right skewed

  14. @anony-mouse
    North Korea vs South Korea would seem to be a great way of showing the importance of environment over heredity when it comes to national wealth and income.

    Replies: @Hail, @phil, @Alastair Trumpington, @Anatoly Karlin, @Hippopotamusdrome

    North Korea vs South Korea would seem to be a great way of showing the importance of environment over heredity

    North Korea managed to develop nuclear weapons, while cut off from the rest of the world and in the middle of a famine.

  15. @thinkingabout it
    IQ fanaticism really does a disservice to the high IQ young crowd here. Career success in today's feminized workplace and corporate bureaucracy seems to depend as much, if not more, on social skill, charisma, attractiveness and cunning.

    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life.

    Because in reality money is merely quantified social status. And that's affected by a lot of things other than IQ.

    Replies: @Harold, @helena, @Anonym, @Truth, @27 year old, @dc.sunsets, @Anonymous

    Within ethnicities, IQ is positively correlated with social skill, charisma, attractiveness, cunning, and athleticism.

  16. @Trelane
    Income and IQ correlate a lot in the IQ interval between 80 and 110. About 70% of common folk have an IQ in this range. For them, IQ actually means a lot because the correlation with SES is so high here.

    But for simple people with an IQ 110 their SES doesn't increase at all with higher IQ scores--they've hit the ceiling as far as IQ and SES are concerned. To do well as a IQ>110 person one needs social maturity, good mental health, ambition, self-confidence, etc....more IQ points alone aren't going to help normally.

    I think this was demonstrated decades ago. It's very obvious. Linda Gottfredson and Chris Brand showed this effect clearly in the 1990s. Sailer wrote about it back then. What's changed? Nothing.

    Replies: @Trelane, @Chet

    Comment doesn’t make sense. Editing error. Apology.

  17. @anony-mouse
    North Korea vs South Korea would seem to be a great way of showing the importance of environment over heredity when it comes to national wealth and income.

    Replies: @Hail, @phil, @Alastair Trumpington, @Anatoly Karlin, @Hippopotamusdrome

    To an extent:

    In regards to North Korea: how’s that Sudanese nuclear weapons program coming along? Any 100-story hotels put up with the help of local engineering talent? Come to think of it, did even any of Dubai’s high-rise projects use local engineering talent? If the US government ever became so displeased with Congo-Brazzaville as to wish to contain it, how many troops would it need to use? 400? 4,000? 40,000? How long would they have to stay? How much money would have to be spent on this?

    • Replies: @Trelane
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Anatoly, can you and Paul Craig Roberts publish a cogent 9/11 conspiracy theory paper for us to laugh at?

  18. @Hepp
    A lot of smart people become academics, political writers, journalists, non-profit employees, etc. In other words, they choose lower paying jobs that give them status or let them do what they're interested in. For example, I'd bet a lot of bloggers here would've made more money if they'd gone into welding.

    If you ranked jobs by some combination of income and status, then the correlation with IQ would be higher.

    Replies: @Harold, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    The sociological term is ‘occupational prestige’ or ‘job prestige’ and I remember reading somewhere that it does correlate better with IQ than income does.

  19. @Cwhatfuture
    Height in the US does count for a great deal in the business world, if you are a man. In Japan and Israel, in my work experience, this is not the case. The current chief of the Israeli military, for a public example, a high prestige job, looks very short, as was Ehud Barak. For some reason I cannot imagine either of them becoming a US general. Heights of CEOs compared to the average height in the country would be a fascinating study.

    Looks certainly count in the corporate world if you are a woman but much less so if you are a man, in my experience.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @AndrewR

    I imagine height helps there too, relative to their means.

    In general, height helps, but there are always some aggressive short men who punch above their height.

  20. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @ArchibaldMcGillicuddy
    I resent the assertion that intelligence could affect income. It is inconceivable that smarter people make more money than dumber people. Absolutely out of the question. A country with smarter people could never be more successful than a country of dumber people. The richest people in the world are not smarter than anyone else. The fact that Bill Gates has an IQ of 170 is just a coincidence.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Note that Gates got his wealth from holding the property right to MS-DOS and the network effect it obtained by being preloaded on IBM and other hardware manufacturers’ PCs when PC clones were unleashed on the market. Gates was the son of a prominent Seattle lawyer and was aware of the immense network effect that was available with certain property rights. He bought the DOS operating system, which would be valued at billions, from an ordinary programmer named Tim Paterson for $75,000.

    • Replies: @Anon7
    @Anonymous

    "... Gates was the son of a prominent Seattle lawyer and was aware of the immense network effect that was available with certain property rights."

    You should also mention his mother, who was also an important influence in Gates' wealth accumulation:


    Beyond the Seattle area, Mary Maxwell Gates was appointed to the board of directors of the national United Way in 1980, becoming the first woman to lead it in 1983. Her tenure on the national board's executive committee is believed to have helped Microsoft, based in Seattle, at a crucial time. In 1980, she discussed with John Opel, a fellow committee member who was the chairman of the International Business Machines Corporation, her son's company. Mr. Opel, by some accounts, mentioned Mrs. Gates to other I.B.M. executives.

    A few weeks later, I.B.M. took a chance by hiring Microsoft, then a small software firm, to develop an operating system for its first personal computer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates
     
    That "born on third base" idea is not just a clever metaphor, it can overcome a lot of deficiencies. Along with Gates' 170 IQ are his obvious aspy traits. I saw a video showing him attending a conference with Steve Jobs. While Jobs was obviously relishing this social environment, Gates was rocking back and forth, obviously agitated.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Anonymous

    Gates's father was a prominent Seattle attorney who specialized in defending corporations from anti-trust lawsuits. Of course, Malcolm Gladwell omits this and the details you've mentioned when he was writing about him along the lines of "imagine if inner city youths had had the opportunity in 1968 to have a hand up with more computers. You'd probably see more programmers who were persons of color by now."

    If "if" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd have Christmas every day.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    Note that Gates got his wealth from holding the property right to MS-DOS and the network effect it obtained by being preloaded on IBM and other hardware manufacturers’ PCs when PC clones were unleashed on the market.
     
    Not quite right. Not from "holding the property right", but from developing, milking, exploiting and extending the property right.

    While usefully able to run on Intel's new processor, there wasn't any tremendous value--nor any "invention" (in fact Patterson just cloned the CPM API)-- in 86-DOS, until Gates licensed it to IBM and they used it for their PC. In fact, IBM first approached the CPM folks, but they screwed up--didn't realize the business opportunities ahead--and dropped the ball. Absent Bill Gates no one now--except a few old nerds--would have ever heard of DOS as some other system--purchased from someone or developed in house in IBM would have been on the IBM PC and become the standard.

    What happened didn't "just happen". Your "PC clones were unleashed on the market" hides the essential: It was precisely the availability of MS-DOS--that Gates had both sold IBM DOS and maintained rights to sell it himself; i.e. that clones were really clones and could run exactly the same software written for IBM PCs (that people were using in their office)--that created the standard. This along with the Moore's law technological advances drove down costs, and moved computing from something just for businesses or geeks to being tractable and affordable by the masses.

    Gates then built on this foundation by embracing GUI, with apps like Excel, with Windows--determining when to break from IBM--and bundling up the productivity apps into the easy to use Office. It is these decisions--leveraging and building on what got rolling by selling DOS to IBM--that made Gates filthy stinking rich. It was not "holding" a property right and collecting some sort of rent on DOS. And this program--Gates' decisions\business--helped push out simple, cheap and affordable computing to millions and millions of people--a huge leveraging of human potential.

    And yes, Gates' ability to see these opportunities, and exploit the network effects to expand them had a buttload to do with him being a smart guy. Most folks, even most other smart folks--like me--would have found some way to screw it up. (Not jump on the original opportunity to provide an OS to IBM, not exploit the clone opportunity, or to exploit it, then sit on it and try and collect rent or fail to grasp the opportunities--GUI, Windows, Office, etc.)

    Of course Gates' limousine liberal politics are stupid. His foundation has been a rathole of waste--along with some potentially useful (long term) things like targeting malaria. Smart folks can believe stupid stuff. Smart folks can be very sharp and insightful in one domain and be ho-hum swillers of dubious conventional wisdom (or even unconventional crackpottery) in another.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonym

  21. @Anatoly Karlin
    @anony-mouse

    To an extent:


    In regards to North Korea: how’s that Sudanese nuclear weapons program coming along? Any 100-story hotels put up with the help of local engineering talent? Come to think of it, did even any of Dubai’s high-rise projects use local engineering talent? If the US government ever became so displeased with Congo-Brazzaville as to wish to contain it, how many troops would it need to use? 400? 4,000? 40,000? How long would they have to stay? How much money would have to be spent on this?
     

    Replies: @Trelane

    Anatoly, can you and Paul Craig Roberts publish a cogent 9/11 conspiracy theory paper for us to laugh at?

  22. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    The highest income individual in the sample scored around 124.

    Replies: @415 reasons, @Anonymous

    That’s probably around the sweet spot. Anything too much higher and you’re probably too interested in other things or less relatable to other people.

    Ted Cruz seems to have about 30 pts on the other candidates and seems to have made it this far through his intellect and careful planning and strategizing. But he also seems to be disliked by many for that very reason. He comes across as insincere and calculated.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Anonymous

    Ted Cruz seems to have about 30 pts on the other candidates and seems to have made it this far through his intellect and careful planning and strategizing. But he also seems to be disliked by many for that very reason. He comes across as insincere and calculated.

    I would be very surprised if Cruz had 30 points on Trump, let alone any advantage at all. You don't enter politics, a sphere you're an absolute neophyte in, rewrite the rules completely by beating people who earn a fortune guiding political campaigns, going against established names who also have hundreds of millions of dollars dedicated to defeating you, dominate the media and have it working for you instead of against you when it is working as hard as it can to defeat you, and be merely IQ 13o. Trump may be crass, but no doubt he's a genius.

    Courtesy of Steve... sizes up, sees through and defeats Baron Cohen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUTnu1MaeX0

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Harold

    , @AndrewR
    @Anonymous

    Cruz clearly has Asperger's syndrome in addition to having a nasally voice, a homely Irish face and a nauseating obsession with Israel. It's amazing he has any supporters at all.

    , @Dan Kurt
    @Anonymous

    Read the book Greatness: Who Makes History and Why by Dean Keith Simonton PhD (Author), ISBN-10: 0898622018. There is a chapter on this topic.

    Dan Kurt

    , @Boomstick
    @Anonymous

    I think Cruz's background in debating works against him. He's used to working on a debate platform and in a courtroom, while a lot of political campaigning is done on cameras or face to face. The camera is a lot more intimate and his rhetorical and body language come across as exaggerated, and therefore insincere.

    It's similar to the differences between stage acting and film acting.

  23. iSteveFan says:
    @Glossy
    @Hail

    South Koreans are being race-replaced by immigrants as we speak. Peter Frost has written about this at Unz.com. He has cited polls that showed South Koreans' undertanding of Koreanness gradually changing from an ethnonationalist model towards a multi-cultural one. The South Koreans didn't do this by themselves, their "benefactor" did it for them. The North condemns this in the strongest terms - "not a single drop of ink should be allowed to fall into the Han river", etc.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @AndrewR

    South Koreans are being race-replaced by immigrants as we speak.

    Interesting. Wikipedia suggests S Korea has taken almost 2 million immigrants over the past few years of which half are Chinese. Given her population of almost 50 million, this would put non Koreans at about 4 percent. Not exactly multicultural yet. And the lion’s share of these immigrants are Chinese which would seem more culturally similar then say the immigrants the US is getting.

    However, the CIA World Factbook does not reflect this at all. It lists South Korea as ‘homogeneous (except for about 20,000 Chinese)’. That is way off from Wikipedia.

    • Replies: @shk12344
    @iSteveFan

    Most of those Chinese immigrants are ethnic Koreans from China. There are also significant number of mail-order wives from Southeast Asia.

  24. “In the social sciences, a correlation of 0.2 is often described as “low,” 0.4 as “moderate,” and 0.6 as “high.” So these correlations are moderate by social science standards, especially when modeling something like income, which people bring a lot of different factors to bear upon, such as smarts, education, work ethic, unique talents, skills, nepotism, personal relationships, sales talent, looks, regional differences in pay, health, etc. etc.”

    You forgot luck.

  25. @iSteveFan
    @Glossy


    South Koreans are being race-replaced by immigrants as we speak.
     
    Interesting. Wikipedia suggests S Korea has taken almost 2 million immigrants over the past few years of which half are Chinese. Given her population of almost 50 million, this would put non Koreans at about 4 percent. Not exactly multicultural yet. And the lion's share of these immigrants are Chinese which would seem more culturally similar then say the immigrants the US is getting.

    However, the CIA World Factbook does not reflect this at all. It lists South Korea as 'homogeneous (except for about 20,000 Chinese)'. That is way off from Wikipedia.

    Replies: @shk12344

    Most of those Chinese immigrants are ethnic Koreans from China. There are also significant number of mail-order wives from Southeast Asia.

  26. @Cwhatfuture
    Height in the US does count for a great deal in the business world, if you are a man. In Japan and Israel, in my work experience, this is not the case. The current chief of the Israeli military, for a public example, a high prestige job, looks very short, as was Ehud Barak. For some reason I cannot imagine either of them becoming a US general. Heights of CEOs compared to the average height in the country would be a fascinating study.

    Looks certainly count in the corporate world if you are a woman but much less so if you are a man, in my experience.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @AndrewR

    Height in the US does count for a great deal in the business world, if you are a man.

    Height goes far in Hollywood, too. But not necessarily the height of the skeleton.

  27. @thinkingabout it
    IQ fanaticism really does a disservice to the high IQ young crowd here. Career success in today's feminized workplace and corporate bureaucracy seems to depend as much, if not more, on social skill, charisma, attractiveness and cunning.

    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life.

    Because in reality money is merely quantified social status. And that's affected by a lot of things other than IQ.

    Replies: @Harold, @helena, @Anonym, @Truth, @27 year old, @dc.sunsets, @Anonymous

    Yes, this is explicit in the UK Market Research Society’s classification system.

    A few years ago Social Class was relabelled Social Grade and the emphasis was shifted from Knowledge to Budget Management and Responsibility for Life. Previously a degree more or less signified AB. But with the shift from Class to Grade professions such as Environmental Health were downgraded to C, whereas Film Agent was upgraded to A.

    What is happening to the NHS is part of this process. Hospital Doctors who were previously considered pillars of the community, moral agents of society, are now being treated as ‘just another set of manual skills’. GPs on the other hand are treated as Businesses and so keep their A rating.

    The word Vocation is always trotted out to justify low wages in caring professions. But those who gravitate towards occupations concerned solely with the production of Money, are also Vocational. Those are the careers that some people choose because they are interested in Money.

  28. INSIDE OUT.

    So annoying. Lasted 15 min and FF the rest.

    Why wasn’t boredom one of the personalities?

    Helicopter psychology.

    I think millennies talk the way they do cuz they were weaned on Pixar movies.

    Pixarese must go.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Anon

    "INSIDE OUT.

    So annoying. Lasted 15 min and FF the rest."

    I haven't seen that movie (and likely wouldn't, unless the life of someone I cared about was at stake), but I was flabbergasted by the fact that (according to NPR), the five personality traits were fear, anger, joy, sadness and...DISGUST! Seriously, disgust as one of the five principal human traits?!? That they are feeding such misanthropic filth to little girls, makes them basically the psych equivalent of child molesters.

    Replies: @Anon

  29. @Anonymous
    It seems that very high IQ types aren't as interested in making money as moderately high IQ types. They tend to pursue academia or other fields. Also corporations, like any other human organization, tend to be very political and smarts alone without political skill is not enough to attain and hold executive positions. The smartest guy might be the best guy to run the company, but that's assuming that everyone automatically gets on board with the program, and that's generally never the case. People will actively try to sabotage the program, not just for personal gain but just for the hell of it, unless they're kept in line by politically adept management.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbunznqJzxs

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @helena

    I always said, when I was a lecturer, that the students who did best in their careers were the 2.2s because they spent their university years networking not sitting in the library.

    The difference is down to ‘analytical’ intelligence versus ‘holistic’ intelligence – society is moving away from analysis (no such thing as race) and towards ‘placing the flower in group B’ (see Jayman’s post about that experiment). And the reason for the shift seems to be the lack of people with analytical intelligence.

    And it all seems to be connected with tribalism/clannism versus a shift to the Commonweal.

    Commonweal living frees the mind to analyse. And analysis is where science came from.

    But Money comes from holistic thinking. Imagine an analytical person doing a boot-sale – each item gets sold for no fixed price and for no fixed reason. The moment of sale is a psychological guessing game that depends on Perception not a priori reasoning.

    • Replies: @Threecranes
    @helena

    "The moment of sale is a psychological guessing game that depends on Perception not a priori reasoning."

    Precisely. That's the reason I was only a decent poker player. I could figure all the odds, but wasn't worth beans when it came to bluffing or calling bluffs.

  30. @thinkingabout it
    IQ fanaticism really does a disservice to the high IQ young crowd here. Career success in today's feminized workplace and corporate bureaucracy seems to depend as much, if not more, on social skill, charisma, attractiveness and cunning.

    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life.

    Because in reality money is merely quantified social status. And that's affected by a lot of things other than IQ.

    Replies: @Harold, @helena, @Anonym, @Truth, @27 year old, @dc.sunsets, @Anonymous

    IQ fanaticism really does a disservice to the high IQ young crowd here. Career success in today’s feminized workplace and corporate bureaucracy seems to depend as much, if not more, on social skill, charisma, attractiveness and cunning.

    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life.

    An interesting comment. I really don’t like the words “emotionally intelligent”, as the EQ concept seems just like it is designed to be the direct inverse of IQ and so give the so-called high EQ something to feel good about. I get a low EQ, but I relate well to others in real life. So it seems bogus to me.

    However, in general a high IQ can lead to relative financial success (unless inherited) through a few different methods:
    1) Business
    2) Employment for someone else
    3) A profession (usually somewhere between 1 and 2)

    The traits that are necessary for success in each of those differ. However, persistence, drive, some sort of longer-term planning seem to be necessary in each. Conscientiousness is also important. A bit of a clue socially and presentation-wise should really be able to be picked up by someone high IQ enough. There are books on the subject, people to talk to, it’s not rocket science.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+do+well+in+an+interview

    If you show up for anything north of an unskilled labor job interview wearing tatty jeans and a band T-shirt, well, do not blame this on lack of social intelligence, charisma, attractiveness or cunning, not being a middle-school bully or a jock.

    Think ahead and don’t create yourself a spotty work history… and if you have one, figure out a way to hide it or start at the bottom somewhere to build a solid work history. And don’t get a PhD on a whim. You don’t want to be an also-ran with a PhD. They earn less than Masters students do, generally. Get a degree with a job at the end. Do your research before you waste 4+ years of your life.

    A business brain and some measure of educated risk taking is necessary for success in business. Less so with employment.

    Some people are so brilliant they can succeed in spite of ignoring the above but they are the exception rather than the rule.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    @Anonym

    My dad was quite high IQ and invented some pretty neat goodies. But he never made money until he teamed up with a great salesman and business guru. It was the team that made the financial boon. Individually all those guys were just average income, but together they built a successful and prosperous business.

    Here's the pieces:
    1. ingenious inventor
    2. big mouth salesman
    3. business mind who puts the structure around those two

    oh, and 4. patient wives.

    Replies: @Anonym

  31. @thinkingabout it
    IQ fanaticism really does a disservice to the high IQ young crowd here. Career success in today's feminized workplace and corporate bureaucracy seems to depend as much, if not more, on social skill, charisma, attractiveness and cunning.

    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life.

    Because in reality money is merely quantified social status. And that's affected by a lot of things other than IQ.

    Replies: @Harold, @helena, @Anonym, @Truth, @27 year old, @dc.sunsets, @Anonymous

    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life

    Stop making sock puppets, Whiskey.

  32. @phil
    @anony-mouse

    "North Korea vs South Korea would seem to be a great way of showing the importance of environment over heredity when it comes to national wealth and income."

    North Korea is an outlier. The economic system is so bad that it drags down wealth and income. East Germany vs. West Germany was also a good comparison. However, recent research indicates that, across dozens of countries, IQ is a better predictor of national income and wealth than factors in the social, political or natural environment, with IQ having an important biological component.

    Replies: @Santoculto

    North Koreans tend to have short stature compared with the South Koreans. Japanese and Chinese before Westernization also tended to exhibit short stature than today. Does the average intelligence (cognition) of North Koreans is much smaller than the average cognitive South Korean ** The same happens with the Brazilians, at last, with any people experiencing an improvement in their food.

    This difference is caused by environmental differences * How severe are the conditions in North Korea that can cause phenotypic changes of great magnitude * Will the Cubans who were born in the 90s did not have deficits caused by the ‘special period’ ‘**

    I read a story once it was shown cognitive differences between a group of North Korean children who fled with their families to South Korea. How homogeneous is the bell curve of the Korean population *

    The East Germans feeds so bad compared to West Germans to present cognitive differences, as some studies have shown *

  33. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    That's probably around the sweet spot. Anything too much higher and you're probably too interested in other things or less relatable to other people.

    Ted Cruz seems to have about 30 pts on the other candidates and seems to have made it this far through his intellect and careful planning and strategizing. But he also seems to be disliked by many for that very reason. He comes across as insincere and calculated.

    Replies: @Anonym, @AndrewR, @Dan Kurt, @Boomstick

    Ted Cruz seems to have about 30 pts on the other candidates and seems to have made it this far through his intellect and careful planning and strategizing. But he also seems to be disliked by many for that very reason. He comes across as insincere and calculated.

    I would be very surprised if Cruz had 30 points on Trump, let alone any advantage at all. You don’t enter politics, a sphere you’re an absolute neophyte in, rewrite the rules completely by beating people who earn a fortune guiding political campaigns, going against established names who also have hundreds of millions of dollars dedicated to defeating you, dominate the media and have it working for you instead of against you when it is working as hard as it can to defeat you, and be merely IQ 13o. Trump may be crass, but no doubt he’s a genius.

    Courtesy of Steve… sizes up, sees through and defeats Baron Cohen.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonym

    I support Trump, but I think you and people in general have a cognitive bias to attribute more positive qualities to people you favor, and less of them to people you don't favor.

    Trump is smart, but it hasn't been primarily his intelligence that has made him successful in this campaign. It's been his personality, confidence, social skills, and independence that have enabled him to exploit and run with an obvious winning political issue i.e. immigration.

    In terms of raw intellect, Cruz seems to be smarter than Trump, but obviously has less of the other qualities and perhaps most importantly, lacks the independence Trump enjoys.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Boomstick

    , @Harold
    @Anonym

    Trump did well but he didn’t ‘defeat’ Baron Cohen. Baron Cohen was playing an idiot and got an opportunity to act amusingly idiotic. Success.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Cwhatfuture

  34. Then there’s the difference between income statement and balance sheet.

    Perhaps the with the latter one can find some stronger correlations.

  35. It all depends. Doctors usually make more than nurses and doctors usually have higher IQs than nurses. In any hierarchical profession those at the highest level have the highest IQs and make the most money. Attorneys make more than paralegals.

    Countries that have sophisticated technology where there is high tech finance and so on obviously have more high IQ better educated workers than countries that have primitive economies like Haiti. But even in Haiti people like physicians and surgeons make more money than the rest of the population. Unfortunately they often have a tendency to emigrate overseas to earn even more.

    It is, however, interesting that even in high IQ countries like the United States and the UK, a large number of doctors have to be imported.

    • Replies: @helena
    @Jonathan Mason

    Blair's government restricted the number of nurses that could be trained in the UK thereby forcing the NHS to recruit abroad. I've only heard this mentioned once in the media and there was no mention of the cap having since been lifted. It's posssible the same was done with medical training.

  36. @Anonymous
    @ArchibaldMcGillicuddy

    Note that Gates got his wealth from holding the property right to MS-DOS and the network effect it obtained by being preloaded on IBM and other hardware manufacturers' PCs when PC clones were unleashed on the market. Gates was the son of a prominent Seattle lawyer and was aware of the immense network effect that was available with certain property rights. He bought the DOS operating system, which would be valued at billions, from an ordinary programmer named Tim Paterson for $75,000.

    Replies: @Anon7, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @AnotherDad

    “… Gates was the son of a prominent Seattle lawyer and was aware of the immense network effect that was available with certain property rights.”

    You should also mention his mother, who was also an important influence in Gates’ wealth accumulation:

    Beyond the Seattle area, Mary Maxwell Gates was appointed to the board of directors of the national United Way in 1980, becoming the first woman to lead it in 1983. Her tenure on the national board’s executive committee is believed to have helped Microsoft, based in Seattle, at a crucial time. In 1980, she discussed with John Opel, a fellow committee member who was the chairman of the International Business Machines Corporation, her son’s company. Mr. Opel, by some accounts, mentioned Mrs. Gates to other I.B.M. executives.

    A few weeks later, I.B.M. took a chance by hiring Microsoft, then a small software firm, to develop an operating system for its first personal computer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates

    That “born on third base” idea is not just a clever metaphor, it can overcome a lot of deficiencies. Along with Gates’ 170 IQ are his obvious aspy traits. I saw a video showing him attending a conference with Steve Jobs. While Jobs was obviously relishing this social environment, Gates was rocking back and forth, obviously agitated.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anon7

    Right, that was the IBM PC, which was pre-loaded with Microsoft's PC-DOS and released the following year in 1981. The IBM PC was phenomenally successful, and virtually wiped out all the other architectures except for Apple, and standardized the PC platform. It became the PC standard, and other manufacturers and developers were forced to make hardware and software compatible with it and the Microsoft OS.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_of_the_IBM_PC_on_the_personal_computer_market

  37. @helena
    @Anonymous

    I always said, when I was a lecturer, that the students who did best in their careers were the 2.2s because they spent their university years networking not sitting in the library.

    The difference is down to 'analytical' intelligence versus 'holistic' intelligence - society is moving away from analysis (no such thing as race) and towards 'placing the flower in group B' (see Jayman's post about that experiment). And the reason for the shift seems to be the lack of people with analytical intelligence.

    And it all seems to be connected with tribalism/clannism versus a shift to the Commonweal.

    Commonweal living frees the mind to analyse. And analysis is where science came from.

    But Money comes from holistic thinking. Imagine an analytical person doing a boot-sale - each item gets sold for no fixed price and for no fixed reason. The moment of sale is a psychological guessing game that depends on Perception not a priori reasoning.

    Replies: @Threecranes

    “The moment of sale is a psychological guessing game that depends on Perception not a priori reasoning.”

    Precisely. That’s the reason I was only a decent poker player. I could figure all the odds, but wasn’t worth beans when it came to bluffing or calling bluffs.

  38. @Glossy
    @Hail

    South Koreans are being race-replaced by immigrants as we speak. Peter Frost has written about this at Unz.com. He has cited polls that showed South Koreans' undertanding of Koreanness gradually changing from an ethnonationalist model towards a multi-cultural one. The South Koreans didn't do this by themselves, their "benefactor" did it for them. The North condemns this in the strongest terms - "not a single drop of ink should be allowed to fall into the Han river", etc.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @AndrewR

    Funny how commies in West Eurasia advocate anti-nationalism, mass miscegenation and displacement-level migrations while commies in East Eurasia advocate racial purity and strong nationalism.

  39. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    That's probably around the sweet spot. Anything too much higher and you're probably too interested in other things or less relatable to other people.

    Ted Cruz seems to have about 30 pts on the other candidates and seems to have made it this far through his intellect and careful planning and strategizing. But he also seems to be disliked by many for that very reason. He comes across as insincere and calculated.

    Replies: @Anonym, @AndrewR, @Dan Kurt, @Boomstick

    Cruz clearly has Asperger’s syndrome in addition to having a nasally voice, a homely Irish face and a nauseating obsession with Israel. It’s amazing he has any supporters at all.

  40. @Cwhatfuture
    Height in the US does count for a great deal in the business world, if you are a man. In Japan and Israel, in my work experience, this is not the case. The current chief of the Israeli military, for a public example, a high prestige job, looks very short, as was Ehud Barak. For some reason I cannot imagine either of them becoming a US general. Heights of CEOs compared to the average height in the country would be a fascinating study.

    Looks certainly count in the corporate world if you are a woman but much less so if you are a man, in my experience.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @AndrewR

    Name one butt-ugly Fortune 500 exec.

    A man doesn’t have to be beautiful but he oughta at least be average looking to get ahead. Ted Cruz is an admitted exception to this rule.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @AndrewR

    Soros is likely worth more than a good chunk of the non-founding fortune 500 executives net worth's put together. You may argue that Soros could be uglier but at least google image search agrees with me independently. Type in "ugly rich guys" and there he is.

    But all else being equal one has to be extra brilliant to achieve wealth over better looking people.

  41. There is a mountain of econometric evidence showing a positive but relatively limited relationship between IQ and adult earnings after adjusting for education and other aspects of personality (see Zax and Rees 2002, Gensowski and Heckman 2013, Bowles 2001, many more) with a correlation far lower than that posited here. Also, AFQT is an achievement test that incorporates personality characteristics, not an IQ test, and is not properly used in place of IQ as an earnings predictor.

    There is an IQ-only obsession in a certain corner of internet blogs, which goes against not just the research but common sense and experiential observation. I suspect it has to do with the many high-IQ but low earnings/generally unsuccessful people in the blog world, and also perhaps with a belief that IQ is more genetically linked than other personality differences between human populations (there is no evidence that it is). There is also a tendency to view ‘The Bell Curve’ as somehow a reliable work of social science, even though James Heckman completely obliterated the book substantively with months of its publication.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @MQ

    It's a good thing that after a brief period in the 1960s when the liberals came to power, the Gap was quickly fixed and rainbows and unicorns broke out. Those feckless charlatans Hernnstein and Murray must have just made up or misinterpreted their data. I guess I'll go back to reading Gould because he explains so well what I see with my lying eyes.

    , @Santoculto
    @MQ

    I would not doubt if the combo ideological conformity + iq did not have a great correlation with income.

    , @bomag
    @MQ

    ...completely obliterated the book substantively with months of its publication.

    Statements such as this one lets us know that this is not a valid comment.

    The criticism of The Bell Curve centered on the unreliability of the data. Well, we are getting better data as time goes on, and I see little change in the conclusions of the book.

  42. Very nice presentation, but the analysis fails to use any control variables whatsoever, so it’s unclear what it means. It could be overstating the effect of IQ because the apparent IQ effect is all coming from education or parental income, which are closely correlated with IQ. Or it could be understating the effect, because lots of low IQ people live in cities, which have higher income levels than rural areas.

  43. It should be noted that in a country like Britain which led the world in the industrial revolution, most of the greatest achievements can be attributed to a few very talented individuals like Faraday, Stephenson, Brunell, Darwin, Dickens, Watt, and various others, but more so to the political and historical effects of Empire, which created a leisured class or a university class where talented individuals were able to devote themselves to intellectual pursuits without having to worry about washing dishes, cooking, or doing their personal laundry.

    Had Darwin been born a Patagonian, chances are he would never have done the field work that he did in Patagonia.

    All of us who now live and work in industrialized countries are standing on the shoulders of these great men, and those who are born in undeveloped countries are not, or much less so.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Jonathan Mason

    Britain didn't build her empire in the first place by being comprised of morons. It's not exactly a trivial feat to build a non-contiguous empire that the sun never sets on.

    , @M
    @Jonathan Mason

    Jonathan, I don't think there was particularly much more of a leisured class in Britain than continental Europe, India, the world of Islam or the Far East, due to the effects of Empire, which was not a very significant source of free money in any way (as opposed to *some* money that involved a lot of setting up and managing systems to make sure it continued to flow).

    If anything the likes of Darwin probably benefited more from being part of families like Darwin's with a lot of ownership and property within the mainland United Kingdom.

    So while the effects you talk about probably explained some proportion of the variance in scientific achievement between civilization as a whole and contemporary Patagonia (and other places where almost all are subsistence farmers or hunters and gatherers, etc.), probably not much between Britain and Poland, or Britain and China, or Britain and the Ottoman Empire (which differences were yuge).

    In any case, information is free, and those in undeveloped countries are free to use the inventions of those great persons. If they still do not get as far, perhaps that is due to real differences.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  44. @thinkingabout it
    IQ fanaticism really does a disservice to the high IQ young crowd here. Career success in today's feminized workplace and corporate bureaucracy seems to depend as much, if not more, on social skill, charisma, attractiveness and cunning.

    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life.

    Because in reality money is merely quantified social status. And that's affected by a lot of things other than IQ.

    Replies: @Harold, @helena, @Anonym, @Truth, @27 year old, @dc.sunsets, @Anonymous

    Most of the bullies and jocks who do well in life are still above average IQ.

    I think this blog/comment section is pretty open about the fact that there is a “sweet spot” for IQ and income, beyond which higher IQ won’t necessarily help and may even hurt.

    Ultimately, the people who make the most money (speaking specifically of regular office worker types) are the people who ask for raises the most and quit/go to a new firm if they don’t get what they want.
    Not much to it really, although I personally have only just now figured that out after many frustrating years

  45. “So these correlations are moderate by social science standards, especially when modeling something like income, which people bring a lot of different factors to bear upon, such as smarts, education, work ethic, unique talents, skills, nepotism, personal relationships, sales talent, looks, regional differences in pay, health, etc. etc.”

    You left out luck.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Luke Lea

    Luck definitely plays a part. People who make it also tend to keep rolling the dice and stacking the odds in their favor.

  46. @thinkingabout it
    IQ fanaticism really does a disservice to the high IQ young crowd here. Career success in today's feminized workplace and corporate bureaucracy seems to depend as much, if not more, on social skill, charisma, attractiveness and cunning.

    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life.

    Because in reality money is merely quantified social status. And that's affected by a lot of things other than IQ.

    Replies: @Harold, @helena, @Anonym, @Truth, @27 year old, @dc.sunsets, @Anonymous

    They should have split out the IQ-Wealth study by occupation. It’s pretty obvious that some occupations will reward high IQ more than others.

    Sales is an occupation where, quite frankly, persistence and consistent repetition often win far better than cutting-edge grasp of any particular part of the process. It was quite clear to me in 27 years of outside sales that being bright and persistent (IQ=110 or so) was actually more helpful than being very bright (IQ=143) and induced to forever try fine-tuning the process. Even when the customer base is probably fairly bright (physicians), repetition wins most often.

    So…high IQ is probably better for STEM fields while being of little benefit in plenty of other occupations, especially those where success is predominantly driven by inter-personal skill (charm), physical attractiveness or musical or athletic talent.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  47. @Wilbur Hassenfus
    If 1 IQ point is good for about 1% more income, 20 or 30 is pretty nice to have.

    But there's more to it than that. I doubt it's linear. And there are more variables in a job than pay alone.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @dc.sunsets

    If 1 IQ point is good for about 1% more income, 20 or 30 is pretty nice to have.

    It comes at a cost; high IQ people probably have a high level of self-expectation and this is a burden of not living up to one’s expectations.

    I also suggest that high IQ people may actually do poorly as saver/investors. Market prices do not obey objective, rational rules and it’s my experience that very smart people often make the dumbest moves with their money. It’s the corollary to the well-known fact that physicians have a high frequency of fatal private aviation accidents.

    High IQ people will very frequently be square pegs. I refer to those in the 1-in-200 (i.e., eligible for Colloquy) to 1-in-1000 (i.e., eligible for the Triple Nine Society) and higher (these are four to twenty times more selective than Mensa.) This, too, is a trade-off to higher average lifetime income. This isn’t due to social ineptitude so much as how boring most people seem.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    @dc.sunsets

    Also note: People in that 1-in-200 or higher IQ category may actually have more trouble finding and keeping jobs than people in the 110 range. If they lack aptitude for occupations that value high IQ they will be doomed to seek employment in areas where their IQ is often abrasive (and difficult to hide.)

    They'd better be good at math and/or programming logic and/or have the entrepreneurial spark or life is likely to be rather frustrating.

  48. @Wilbur Hassenfus
    If 1 IQ point is good for about 1% more income, 20 or 30 is pretty nice to have.

    But there's more to it than that. I doubt it's linear. And there are more variables in a job than pay alone.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @dc.sunsets

    The sweet spot for corporate America is about 110-120. Higher than that, people will notice (and resent you, trust me.)

    In my experience, people much above the cutoff for Mensa (132, or 98th percentile) have some degree of difficulty relating to others. The one true genius I knew was so bored with life that last I saw he worked at a Drivers Facility doing road-tests for drivers’ licenses (and he was a serious lush.)

    As an aside, it’s quite clear to me that people have two tracks for cognition. Except when deciding between the 12 oz can of stewed tomatoes at 90 cents and the 29 oz can at $1.80, people make most of their decisions in the emotional seat of the brain (which has nothing to do with IQ) and use the neo-cortex (the seat of IQ) to simply rationalize it.

    This may partly explain why:
    1. Two very smart people can disagree violently about some controversy.
    2. Very smart people are very good at arguing in favor of utter idiocy.
    3. Rule by “experts” yields so many absurd policies.
    4. A lifelong farmer who never graduated high school has more insight into economics than someone who graduated from University of Chicago with Ph.D. in econ.

  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    One possible explanation for the fact that individual IQ only explains a small percentage of individual differences in income, is that an individual may produce a large excess of economic value but may fail to capture it. Wealth creation and capturing wealth creation are not exactly the same skill set.

  50. @dc.sunsets
    @Wilbur Hassenfus


    If 1 IQ point is good for about 1% more income, 20 or 30 is pretty nice to have.
     
    It comes at a cost; high IQ people probably have a high level of self-expectation and this is a burden of not living up to one's expectations.

    I also suggest that high IQ people may actually do poorly as saver/investors. Market prices do not obey objective, rational rules and it's my experience that very smart people often make the dumbest moves with their money. It's the corollary to the well-known fact that physicians have a high frequency of fatal private aviation accidents.

    High IQ people will very frequently be square pegs. I refer to those in the 1-in-200 (i.e., eligible for Colloquy) to 1-in-1000 (i.e., eligible for the Triple Nine Society) and higher (these are four to twenty times more selective than Mensa.) This, too, is a trade-off to higher average lifetime income. This isn't due to social ineptitude so much as how boring most people seem.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets

    Also note: People in that 1-in-200 or higher IQ category may actually have more trouble finding and keeping jobs than people in the 110 range. If they lack aptitude for occupations that value high IQ they will be doomed to seek employment in areas where their IQ is often abrasive (and difficult to hide.)

    They’d better be good at math and/or programming logic and/or have the entrepreneurial spark or life is likely to be rather frustrating.

  51. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    That's probably around the sweet spot. Anything too much higher and you're probably too interested in other things or less relatable to other people.

    Ted Cruz seems to have about 30 pts on the other candidates and seems to have made it this far through his intellect and careful planning and strategizing. But he also seems to be disliked by many for that very reason. He comes across as insincere and calculated.

    Replies: @Anonym, @AndrewR, @Dan Kurt, @Boomstick

    Read the book Greatness: Who Makes History and Why by Dean Keith Simonton PhD (Author), ISBN-10: 0898622018. There is a chapter on this topic.

    Dan Kurt

  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    For individual-level IQ-income correlations we should add in one huge factor that lessens the correlation: Noise.

    Measuring income accurately is not trivial. Nor is measuring the IQ of one individual (Hung over on test day? Depressed? Lucky test?)

    This is why aggregation is powerful – and also one reason we might overestimate the “hive mind effect” somewhat. Looking at aggregated values will in itself cancel out noise to a significant degree.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Right.

    This new analysis had less noise so higher correlation.

  53. @Anonym
    @thinkingabout it

    IQ fanaticism really does a disservice to the high IQ young crowd here. Career success in today’s feminized workplace and corporate bureaucracy seems to depend as much, if not more, on social skill, charisma, attractiveness and cunning.

    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life.

    An interesting comment. I really don't like the words "emotionally intelligent", as the EQ concept seems just like it is designed to be the direct inverse of IQ and so give the so-called high EQ something to feel good about. I get a low EQ, but I relate well to others in real life. So it seems bogus to me.

    However, in general a high IQ can lead to relative financial success (unless inherited) through a few different methods:
    1) Business
    2) Employment for someone else
    3) A profession (usually somewhere between 1 and 2)

    The traits that are necessary for success in each of those differ. However, persistence, drive, some sort of longer-term planning seem to be necessary in each. Conscientiousness is also important. A bit of a clue socially and presentation-wise should really be able to be picked up by someone high IQ enough. There are books on the subject, people to talk to, it's not rocket science.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+do+well+in+an+interview

    If you show up for anything north of an unskilled labor job interview wearing tatty jeans and a band T-shirt, well, do not blame this on lack of social intelligence, charisma, attractiveness or cunning, not being a middle-school bully or a jock.

    Think ahead and don't create yourself a spotty work history... and if you have one, figure out a way to hide it or start at the bottom somewhere to build a solid work history. And don't get a PhD on a whim. You don't want to be an also-ran with a PhD. They earn less than Masters students do, generally. Get a degree with a job at the end. Do your research before you waste 4+ years of your life.

    A business brain and some measure of educated risk taking is necessary for success in business. Less so with employment.

    Some people are so brilliant they can succeed in spite of ignoring the above but they are the exception rather than the rule.

    Replies: @stillCARealist

    My dad was quite high IQ and invented some pretty neat goodies. But he never made money until he teamed up with a great salesman and business guru. It was the team that made the financial boon. Individually all those guys were just average income, but together they built a successful and prosperous business.

    Here’s the pieces:
    1. ingenious inventor
    2. big mouth salesman
    3. business mind who puts the structure around those two

    oh, and 4. patient wives.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @stillCARealist

    That's basically the Jobs/Woz combo, with the salesman/business mind role split into two. Your dad was evidently smart enough to realize his limitations.

    You are not wrong about 4 either.

  54. @Anonymous
    For individual-level IQ-income correlations we should add in one huge factor that lessens the correlation: Noise.

    Measuring income accurately is not trivial. Nor is measuring the IQ of one individual (Hung over on test day? Depressed? Lucky test?)

    This is why aggregation is powerful - and also one reason we might overestimate the "hive mind effect" somewhat. Looking at aggregated values will in itself cancel out noise to a significant degree.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Right.

    This new analysis had less noise so higher correlation.

  55. @anony-mouse
    North Korea vs South Korea would seem to be a great way of showing the importance of environment over heredity when it comes to national wealth and income.

    Replies: @Hail, @phil, @Alastair Trumpington, @Anatoly Karlin, @Hippopotamusdrome

    North Korea vs South Korea

    What If we don’t consider GDP and instead focus on other traits. They would be considered to be living in extreme poverty, as they are actually shorter in height from malnutrition. Do they transform into inner-city blacks behavior-wise from the poverty, or do they retain their innate Asian stereotypical behaviors? Are the streets clean, crime low, interactions polite, people industrious, single motherhood rare? If so, it shows that even with extreme canges to the environment, Koreans retain their inherited Asian personalities.

  56. A correlation of ~0.4 is enormous. That means for every 1 standard deviation smart you will be aproximately 0.4 standard deviations richer. r^2 is a stupid measure for chumps. Nobody thinks in squared distances or squared spaces, so why even report it. If your stock market betting had even a 0.01 correlation with the direction of a stock, you would be immensely rich. 0.4 is huge.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @GS


    A correlation of ~0.4 is enormous.
     
    Exactly. There's all this "IQ doesn't explain everything" nattering. No one said it explained everything. But there is no other single variable that explains so much of life outcomes.

    IQ is, of course, the "special sauce" that allowed humans to break out and sort of overrun the planet--become the dominant species ordering the geography of the planet. It is no surprise it matters incredibly in human affairs. It is only being steeped in utopian political nonsense that could allow one to believe otherwise.
    , @pumpkinperson
    @GS

    A correlation of ~0.4 is enormous.


    And even the 0.4 correlation is probably an underestimate, because as mentioned, many high IQ women are unemployed wives of rich men, and thus have technically zero income, but are de facto quite prosperous if the luxurious room and board they enjoy were counted. Given such measurement problems, the true correlation between IQ and cumulative income is probably closer to 0.5.

    That means for every 1 standard deviation smart you will be aproximately 0.4 standard deviations richer.

    Exactly right, assuming of course the distribution of prosperity is normalized. And of course the reverse is also roughly true. For every 1 standard deviation increase in normalized prosperity, average IQ increases by about 0.4-0.5 SD

    Or to put it in more concrete terms, for every ten-fold increase in raw income, IQ seems to increase by 8-10 points (though there are a few exceptions). I have looked at several studies of different income levels and found that on a scale where the average white American has an IQ of 100 (SD = 15), the economic classes in America score as follows:

    The homeless: Average IQ 80
    Welfare: Average IQ 90
    Median income: Average IQ 97-98
    Self-made millionaires: Average IQ 117
    Self-made decamillionaires: Average IQ 117
    Self-made billionaires: Average IQ 132*
    Self-made decabillionaires: Average IQ 151 *

    *the last two estimates are somewhat uncertain based on limited data


    http://pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlation-between-iq-income/

    Replies: @helena

    , @Eric Rasmusen
    @GS

    Why is R2 the standard?

    Perhaps because if you're doing a Chi-squared test of whether all the variables combined in the regression are significant, that's closely related to the R2. But such a test is hardly ever useful.

  57. @Anonymous
    @ArchibaldMcGillicuddy

    Note that Gates got his wealth from holding the property right to MS-DOS and the network effect it obtained by being preloaded on IBM and other hardware manufacturers' PCs when PC clones were unleashed on the market. Gates was the son of a prominent Seattle lawyer and was aware of the immense network effect that was available with certain property rights. He bought the DOS operating system, which would be valued at billions, from an ordinary programmer named Tim Paterson for $75,000.

    Replies: @Anon7, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @AnotherDad

    Gates’s father was a prominent Seattle attorney who specialized in defending corporations from anti-trust lawsuits. Of course, Malcolm Gladwell omits this and the details you’ve mentioned when he was writing about him along the lines of “imagine if inner city youths had had the opportunity in 1968 to have a hand up with more computers. You’d probably see more programmers who were persons of color by now.”

    If “if” and “buts” were candy and nuts, we’d have Christmas every day.

  58. @Anonymous
    @ArchibaldMcGillicuddy

    Note that Gates got his wealth from holding the property right to MS-DOS and the network effect it obtained by being preloaded on IBM and other hardware manufacturers' PCs when PC clones were unleashed on the market. Gates was the son of a prominent Seattle lawyer and was aware of the immense network effect that was available with certain property rights. He bought the DOS operating system, which would be valued at billions, from an ordinary programmer named Tim Paterson for $75,000.

    Replies: @Anon7, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @AnotherDad

    Note that Gates got his wealth from holding the property right to MS-DOS and the network effect it obtained by being preloaded on IBM and other hardware manufacturers’ PCs when PC clones were unleashed on the market.

    Not quite right. Not from “holding the property right”, but from developing, milking, exploiting and extending the property right.

    While usefully able to run on Intel’s new processor, there wasn’t any tremendous value–nor any “invention” (in fact Patterson just cloned the CPM API)– in 86-DOS, until Gates licensed it to IBM and they used it for their PC. In fact, IBM first approached the CPM folks, but they screwed up–didn’t realize the business opportunities ahead–and dropped the ball. Absent Bill Gates no one now–except a few old nerds–would have ever heard of DOS as some other system–purchased from someone or developed in house in IBM would have been on the IBM PC and become the standard.

    What happened didn’t “just happen”. Your “PC clones were unleashed on the market” hides the essential: It was precisely the availability of MS-DOS–that Gates had both sold IBM DOS and maintained rights to sell it himself; i.e. that clones were really clones and could run exactly the same software written for IBM PCs (that people were using in their office)–that created the standard. This along with the Moore’s law technological advances drove down costs, and moved computing from something just for businesses or geeks to being tractable and affordable by the masses.

    Gates then built on this foundation by embracing GUI, with apps like Excel, with Windows–determining when to break from IBM–and bundling up the productivity apps into the easy to use Office. It is these decisions–leveraging and building on what got rolling by selling DOS to IBM–that made Gates filthy stinking rich. It was not “holding” a property right and collecting some sort of rent on DOS. And this program–Gates’ decisions\business–helped push out simple, cheap and affordable computing to millions and millions of people–a huge leveraging of human potential.

    And yes, Gates’ ability to see these opportunities, and exploit the network effects to expand them had a buttload to do with him being a smart guy. Most folks, even most other smart folks–like me–would have found some way to screw it up. (Not jump on the original opportunity to provide an OS to IBM, not exploit the clone opportunity, or to exploit it, then sit on it and try and collect rent or fail to grasp the opportunities–GUI, Windows, Office, etc.)

    Of course Gates’ limousine liberal politics are stupid. His foundation has been a rathole of waste–along with some potentially useful (long term) things like targeting malaria. Smart folks can believe stupid stuff. Smart folks can be very sharp and insightful in one domain and be ho-hum swillers of dubious conventional wisdom (or even unconventional crackpottery) in another.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @AnotherDad

    You're making my point for me. I never said Gates wasn't savvy enough to exploit the network effect. The primary value of MS derived from the network effect, which is not something Gates or anyone else develops but is a structural feature. Once the network effect was captured, the property right could have been transferred to an orangutan, and the orangutan would also be filthy rich. The value of subsequent systems and apps like Windows and Excel and Office derived from the network effect. Most people used those apps because that's what most other people used and what was on most computers.

    , @Anonym
    @AnotherDad

    People who have never been personally exposed to a successful business and/business owner tend to underestimate the IQ required to run a business successfully. As you say, the ignorant/foolish view is that Gates just did A, B and C and success was his ever-after. Running any business that continues to grow exponentially at a good clip for a good number of years requires consistently making decisions that are better than your competitors. Making lots of good decisions over a period of time is kind of like... an... IQ test.

    Running any business means making decisions every day, often every hour or less. But it is the sort of occupation often where an ability to think hard and come up with a better solution after a long-time is often a superior attribute to being able to think on the feet quickly like a lawyer or radio/television personality does. Kind of like the 5 minute vs 24 hour epoxy trade-off. Which is better depends on the business. Sometimes you need both, Trump is an example of this. It probably helped Trump when managing contractors and dealing to be quicker on your feet than they were. But the beauty of a business is that you can choose who you do business with and who you make deals with. You don't have to say yes to everything that comes along and you can consider things.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anonymous

  59. This analysis would be better if the author controlled for employment. And you’re right to point out that he should use family income, especially for women. Significant numbers of high IQ women use their high IQ to marry high IQ/earning men.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Secular Trad

    "And you’re right to point out that he should use family income, especially for women. Significant numbers of high IQ women use their high IQ to marry high IQ/earning men."

    Actually, separating out men like he does works very nicely. There's likely enough detail in the immense NLSY79 database to find out which women need to make as much money as they possibly can, and so a subsequent analysis could be done on them.

  60. @GS
    A correlation of ~0.4 is enormous. That means for every 1 standard deviation smart you will be aproximately 0.4 standard deviations richer. r^2 is a stupid measure for chumps. Nobody thinks in squared distances or squared spaces, so why even report it. If your stock market betting had even a 0.01 correlation with the direction of a stock, you would be immensely rich. 0.4 is huge.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @pumpkinperson, @Eric Rasmusen

    A correlation of ~0.4 is enormous.

    Exactly. There’s all this “IQ doesn’t explain everything” nattering. No one said it explained everything. But there is no other single variable that explains so much of life outcomes.

    IQ is, of course, the “special sauce” that allowed humans to break out and sort of overrun the planet–become the dominant species ordering the geography of the planet. It is no surprise it matters incredibly in human affairs. It is only being steeped in utopian political nonsense that could allow one to believe otherwise.

  61. Agree. Gates had the vision to see that having IBM market their machines with MS-DOS would instantly validate PCs in corporate America. And he had the business sense to reserve the right to sell MS-DOS himself.

    As AnotherDad said, Gates did not then just sit back and collect his royalties. He pushed the development of the Office suite and of the Windows OS. I think the competition with Jobs helped both of them and together they brought hitherto unheard of levels of computing power to hundreds of millions of people.

    As for his philanthropic enterprises, he is to be applauded for his work on malaria and booed for his single-handed imposition of Common Core. I blame the latter on his wife Melinda, who was responsible for the OS known as Bob.

  62. Black men, in contrast, have a significantly lower intercept and a significantly higher slope coefficient: each additional IQ point predicts 3.6% (95% CI: 2.6%-4.5%) more income for black men.

    Did anyone else know essentially what this was going to say when they started reading it. I read “black men” and immediately thought, “they’ll have a higher slope”.

    There is just such a huge payoff for blacks in simply being something other than a complete knucklehead. There’s still issues a ton of issues around conscientiousness–working hard, saving–that affect outcomes tremendously, but the returns to not being stupid are great. If they can reach the sort of near average IQs to grab an affirmative action sinecure in government or corporate American then things for them are very, very good. And the sliver that is intelligent by white standards–it’s really an easy life. (Yep, maybe some cabbie from Pakistan doesn’t want to pick you up, but your life is still easy.) Which human nature being what it is seems to make this class of blacks nonetheless prickly and difficult–read to whine and take offense.

    [BTW for black men who are intelligent enough to have decent career prospects–life is *very* good. They are in short supply and hence high demand from black women, plus can attract white women. They are really kids in the candy store.]

  63. “Obsession with Israel” is really quite simple. Evangelicals don’t like Muslims, and want Muslims running the Holy Land even less. They’d be far happier with Israel holding ALL of it than just some of it.

    This is entirely practical — most want to visit the Holy Land and the only choices are Israelis running it or Muslims. So even if Israelis will be mildly hostile to Christianity, that pales before say, ISIS running the place which is the other Muslim choice.

    Indeed there is a long, long line of anti-Muslim hostility among Evangelicals who wished to visit the Holy Land and say, Mark Twain’s Innocents Abroad touches upon some of that. Twain, hardly an Evangelical though culturally from that background, has nothing flattering to say about Muslims.

    Americans earliest experiences with Muslims had been the North African pirate emirates holding hostage and enslaving merchant seamen, so the backstory of anti-Muslim feeling is entirely natural and understandable. Meanwhile Jews were prominent financiers of the Revolution, and viewed favorably by no less than George Washington.

  64. @Trelane
    Income and IQ correlate a lot in the IQ interval between 80 and 110. About 70% of common folk have an IQ in this range. For them, IQ actually means a lot because the correlation with SES is so high here.

    But for simple people with an IQ 110 their SES doesn't increase at all with higher IQ scores--they've hit the ceiling as far as IQ and SES are concerned. To do well as a IQ>110 person one needs social maturity, good mental health, ambition, self-confidence, etc....more IQ points alone aren't going to help normally.

    I think this was demonstrated decades ago. It's very obvious. Linda Gottfredson and Chris Brand showed this effect clearly in the 1990s. Sailer wrote about it back then. What's changed? Nothing.

    Replies: @Trelane, @Chet

    Threshold is everything here.
    Analysis must be broken into segments for the strength of the correlation to be demonstrated.
    Didn’t Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen deal with this?
    Compare person A -too dull to hold a job, to person B -bright enough to graduate from college and be fully employed. How much extra income from a 1 point IQ increase in each case?
    A: none, B: slight but measurable.
    Don’t forget about the meaty bottom half of the bell curve.

  65. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonym
    @Anonymous

    Ted Cruz seems to have about 30 pts on the other candidates and seems to have made it this far through his intellect and careful planning and strategizing. But he also seems to be disliked by many for that very reason. He comes across as insincere and calculated.

    I would be very surprised if Cruz had 30 points on Trump, let alone any advantage at all. You don't enter politics, a sphere you're an absolute neophyte in, rewrite the rules completely by beating people who earn a fortune guiding political campaigns, going against established names who also have hundreds of millions of dollars dedicated to defeating you, dominate the media and have it working for you instead of against you when it is working as hard as it can to defeat you, and be merely IQ 13o. Trump may be crass, but no doubt he's a genius.

    Courtesy of Steve... sizes up, sees through and defeats Baron Cohen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUTnu1MaeX0

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Harold

    I support Trump, but I think you and people in general have a cognitive bias to attribute more positive qualities to people you favor, and less of them to people you don’t favor.

    Trump is smart, but it hasn’t been primarily his intelligence that has made him successful in this campaign. It’s been his personality, confidence, social skills, and independence that have enabled him to exploit and run with an obvious winning political issue i.e. immigration.

    In terms of raw intellect, Cruz seems to be smarter than Trump, but obviously has less of the other qualities and perhaps most importantly, lacks the independence Trump enjoys.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Anonymous

    I'll credit genius where I see it. I can't stand Soros, but he's undeniably brilliant. Zuckerberg as well. Bill Clinton is brilliant. The Frankfurt School were brilliant. Rupert Murdoch was, maybe still is brilliant. These people maybe stupid in their goals, but brilliant. Krauthammer, brilliant. Trump is running rings around these people.

    Cruz's decision to do things he would get caught out on, e.g. undermining Carson by telling his supporters he was out of the race... dumb. Short term thinking.

    , @Boomstick
    @Anonymous

    Yes, there's a lot to human personality besides IQ. That 0.4 r^2 for IQ still leaves 0.6 r^2 for other stuff. Plus Trump has been manipulating media for forty years or more, has become pretty good at it, and has FU money.

    Trump is almost sui generis. Most politicians deal with the media but have been working in a oppressively conformist policy environment in which the slightest inkling of original thought leads to a twitter lynching. Businessmen can have more reign for creative action but deal with the media in only limited and tightly controlled ways. Trump can do both.

    I'm pretty sure Trump is doing this at least party as a goof.

  66. This, he says, explains the “IQ paradox” whereby IQ differences appear to explain a lot more of the economic differences between nations than within them.

    A good example of this is India and the Indian diaspora.

    Because of the big population and even more because they are divided into thousands of micro-races some of which have long traditions of literacy or commerce there are a lot of pretty smart Indians. But in India, they are operating in an environment dominated by an overall not very sharp population, and India, despite these folks IQs, can’t even seem to get basic sanitation right. (The complacency –acceptance–strain in Hindu society probably a factor as well.) But when they migrate to the West and can operate in nations created and organized by white people’s IQs, then these folks generally do very well.

    (But unfortunately many tend to again take on anti-white, superior attitudes and seemingly believe they are something special rather than what their own migration tells them in big bold flashing lights–that white people are much better at organizing competent, prosperous, well-ordered societies and they are damn lucky to be able to climb aboard. )

  67. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    Note that Gates got his wealth from holding the property right to MS-DOS and the network effect it obtained by being preloaded on IBM and other hardware manufacturers’ PCs when PC clones were unleashed on the market.
     
    Not quite right. Not from "holding the property right", but from developing, milking, exploiting and extending the property right.

    While usefully able to run on Intel's new processor, there wasn't any tremendous value--nor any "invention" (in fact Patterson just cloned the CPM API)-- in 86-DOS, until Gates licensed it to IBM and they used it for their PC. In fact, IBM first approached the CPM folks, but they screwed up--didn't realize the business opportunities ahead--and dropped the ball. Absent Bill Gates no one now--except a few old nerds--would have ever heard of DOS as some other system--purchased from someone or developed in house in IBM would have been on the IBM PC and become the standard.

    What happened didn't "just happen". Your "PC clones were unleashed on the market" hides the essential: It was precisely the availability of MS-DOS--that Gates had both sold IBM DOS and maintained rights to sell it himself; i.e. that clones were really clones and could run exactly the same software written for IBM PCs (that people were using in their office)--that created the standard. This along with the Moore's law technological advances drove down costs, and moved computing from something just for businesses or geeks to being tractable and affordable by the masses.

    Gates then built on this foundation by embracing GUI, with apps like Excel, with Windows--determining when to break from IBM--and bundling up the productivity apps into the easy to use Office. It is these decisions--leveraging and building on what got rolling by selling DOS to IBM--that made Gates filthy stinking rich. It was not "holding" a property right and collecting some sort of rent on DOS. And this program--Gates' decisions\business--helped push out simple, cheap and affordable computing to millions and millions of people--a huge leveraging of human potential.

    And yes, Gates' ability to see these opportunities, and exploit the network effects to expand them had a buttload to do with him being a smart guy. Most folks, even most other smart folks--like me--would have found some way to screw it up. (Not jump on the original opportunity to provide an OS to IBM, not exploit the clone opportunity, or to exploit it, then sit on it and try and collect rent or fail to grasp the opportunities--GUI, Windows, Office, etc.)

    Of course Gates' limousine liberal politics are stupid. His foundation has been a rathole of waste--along with some potentially useful (long term) things like targeting malaria. Smart folks can believe stupid stuff. Smart folks can be very sharp and insightful in one domain and be ho-hum swillers of dubious conventional wisdom (or even unconventional crackpottery) in another.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonym

    You’re making my point for me. I never said Gates wasn’t savvy enough to exploit the network effect. The primary value of MS derived from the network effect, which is not something Gates or anyone else develops but is a structural feature. Once the network effect was captured, the property right could have been transferred to an orangutan, and the orangutan would also be filthy rich. The value of subsequent systems and apps like Windows and Excel and Office derived from the network effect. Most people used those apps because that’s what most other people used and what was on most computers.

  68. @stillCARealist
    @Anonym

    My dad was quite high IQ and invented some pretty neat goodies. But he never made money until he teamed up with a great salesman and business guru. It was the team that made the financial boon. Individually all those guys were just average income, but together they built a successful and prosperous business.

    Here's the pieces:
    1. ingenious inventor
    2. big mouth salesman
    3. business mind who puts the structure around those two

    oh, and 4. patient wives.

    Replies: @Anonym

    That’s basically the Jobs/Woz combo, with the salesman/business mind role split into two. Your dad was evidently smart enough to realize his limitations.

    You are not wrong about 4 either.

  69. @Anonym
    @Anonymous

    Ted Cruz seems to have about 30 pts on the other candidates and seems to have made it this far through his intellect and careful planning and strategizing. But he also seems to be disliked by many for that very reason. He comes across as insincere and calculated.

    I would be very surprised if Cruz had 30 points on Trump, let alone any advantage at all. You don't enter politics, a sphere you're an absolute neophyte in, rewrite the rules completely by beating people who earn a fortune guiding political campaigns, going against established names who also have hundreds of millions of dollars dedicated to defeating you, dominate the media and have it working for you instead of against you when it is working as hard as it can to defeat you, and be merely IQ 13o. Trump may be crass, but no doubt he's a genius.

    Courtesy of Steve... sizes up, sees through and defeats Baron Cohen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUTnu1MaeX0

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Harold

    Trump did well but he didn’t ‘defeat’ Baron Cohen. Baron Cohen was playing an idiot and got an opportunity to act amusingly idiotic. Success.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Harold

    I disagree. Success would have been to make Trump look like a dunderhead. Success for Baron Cohen is getting white people to act in his own propaganda play by getting them singing "Throw the Jew down the well". Setting up a billionaire in a rigged game to make a fool of him and then have said billionaire extricate himself from the situation quickly, while giving off the impression that he is very sharp, in fact, sharper from one of the world's best comedians... this is not a win for Baron Cohen.

    There is some small humor value in the Rube Goldbergesque description of the ice cream gloves, but being outwitted by the goyish kopf was really a fizzer.

    Replies: @Harold

    , @Cwhatfuture
    @Harold

    Disagree. The look on Trump's face said it all. Baron Cohen actually looked slightly frightened at the end, a nervous smile.

  70. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon7
    @Anonymous

    "... Gates was the son of a prominent Seattle lawyer and was aware of the immense network effect that was available with certain property rights."

    You should also mention his mother, who was also an important influence in Gates' wealth accumulation:


    Beyond the Seattle area, Mary Maxwell Gates was appointed to the board of directors of the national United Way in 1980, becoming the first woman to lead it in 1983. Her tenure on the national board's executive committee is believed to have helped Microsoft, based in Seattle, at a crucial time. In 1980, she discussed with John Opel, a fellow committee member who was the chairman of the International Business Machines Corporation, her son's company. Mr. Opel, by some accounts, mentioned Mrs. Gates to other I.B.M. executives.

    A few weeks later, I.B.M. took a chance by hiring Microsoft, then a small software firm, to develop an operating system for its first personal computer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates
     
    That "born on third base" idea is not just a clever metaphor, it can overcome a lot of deficiencies. Along with Gates' 170 IQ are his obvious aspy traits. I saw a video showing him attending a conference with Steve Jobs. While Jobs was obviously relishing this social environment, Gates was rocking back and forth, obviously agitated.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Right, that was the IBM PC, which was pre-loaded with Microsoft’s PC-DOS and released the following year in 1981. The IBM PC was phenomenally successful, and virtually wiped out all the other architectures except for Apple, and standardized the PC platform. It became the PC standard, and other manufacturers and developers were forced to make hardware and software compatible with it and the Microsoft OS.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_of_the_IBM_PC_on_the_personal_computer_market

  71. @AndrewR
    @Cwhatfuture

    Name one butt-ugly Fortune 500 exec.

    A man doesn't have to be beautiful but he oughta at least be average looking to get ahead. Ted Cruz is an admitted exception to this rule.

    Replies: @Anonym

    Soros is likely worth more than a good chunk of the non-founding fortune 500 executives net worth’s put together. You may argue that Soros could be uglier but at least google image search agrees with me independently. Type in “ugly rich guys” and there he is.

    But all else being equal one has to be extra brilliant to achieve wealth over better looking people.

  72. Those last couple of sentences about women should tell you that this is not the right way to extract the influence of IQ. A teacher’s income is not going to depend on IQ very much, for example. Better way would be to do comparison within professions: what percentage of income differences among dentists/bankers/electricians etc. is explained by IQ?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Jamie_NYC

    "A teacher’s income is not going to depend on IQ very much, for example."

    But a lot of people who would like to be teachers can't pass the tests to become teachers.

    , @Steve Sailer
    @Jamie_NYC

    "A teacher’s income is not going to depend on IQ very much, for example."

    But a lot of people who would like to be teachers can't pass the tests to become teachers.

  73. @MQ
    There is a mountain of econometric evidence showing a positive but relatively limited relationship between IQ and adult earnings after adjusting for education and other aspects of personality (see Zax and Rees 2002, Gensowski and Heckman 2013, Bowles 2001, many more) with a correlation far lower than that posited here. Also, AFQT is an achievement test that incorporates personality characteristics, not an IQ test, and is not properly used in place of IQ as an earnings predictor.

    There is an IQ-only obsession in a certain corner of internet blogs, which goes against not just the research but common sense and experiential observation. I suspect it has to do with the many high-IQ but low earnings/generally unsuccessful people in the blog world, and also perhaps with a belief that IQ is more genetically linked than other personality differences between human populations (there is no evidence that it is). There is also a tendency to view 'The Bell Curve' as somehow a reliable work of social science, even though James Heckman completely obliterated the book substantively with months of its publication.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Santoculto, @bomag

    It’s a good thing that after a brief period in the 1960s when the liberals came to power, the Gap was quickly fixed and rainbows and unicorns broke out. Those feckless charlatans Hernnstein and Murray must have just made up or misinterpreted their data. I guess I’ll go back to reading Gould because he explains so well what I see with my lying eyes.

  74. @Jonathan Mason
    It should be noted that in a country like Britain which led the world in the industrial revolution, most of the greatest achievements can be attributed to a few very talented individuals like Faraday, Stephenson, Brunell, Darwin, Dickens, Watt, and various others, but more so to the political and historical effects of Empire, which created a leisured class or a university class where talented individuals were able to devote themselves to intellectual pursuits without having to worry about washing dishes, cooking, or doing their personal laundry.

    Had Darwin been born a Patagonian, chances are he would never have done the field work that he did in Patagonia.

    All of us who now live and work in industrialized countries are standing on the shoulders of these great men, and those who are born in undeveloped countries are not, or much less so.

    Replies: @Anonym, @M

    Britain didn’t build her empire in the first place by being comprised of morons. It’s not exactly a trivial feat to build a non-contiguous empire that the sun never sets on.

  75. @Luke Lea
    "So these correlations are moderate by social science standards, especially when modeling something like income, which people bring a lot of different factors to bear upon, such as smarts, education, work ethic, unique talents, skills, nepotism, personal relationships, sales talent, looks, regional differences in pay, health, etc. etc."

    You left out luck.

    Replies: @Anonym

    Luck definitely plays a part. People who make it also tend to keep rolling the dice and stacking the odds in their favor.

  76. @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    Note that Gates got his wealth from holding the property right to MS-DOS and the network effect it obtained by being preloaded on IBM and other hardware manufacturers’ PCs when PC clones were unleashed on the market.
     
    Not quite right. Not from "holding the property right", but from developing, milking, exploiting and extending the property right.

    While usefully able to run on Intel's new processor, there wasn't any tremendous value--nor any "invention" (in fact Patterson just cloned the CPM API)-- in 86-DOS, until Gates licensed it to IBM and they used it for their PC. In fact, IBM first approached the CPM folks, but they screwed up--didn't realize the business opportunities ahead--and dropped the ball. Absent Bill Gates no one now--except a few old nerds--would have ever heard of DOS as some other system--purchased from someone or developed in house in IBM would have been on the IBM PC and become the standard.

    What happened didn't "just happen". Your "PC clones were unleashed on the market" hides the essential: It was precisely the availability of MS-DOS--that Gates had both sold IBM DOS and maintained rights to sell it himself; i.e. that clones were really clones and could run exactly the same software written for IBM PCs (that people were using in their office)--that created the standard. This along with the Moore's law technological advances drove down costs, and moved computing from something just for businesses or geeks to being tractable and affordable by the masses.

    Gates then built on this foundation by embracing GUI, with apps like Excel, with Windows--determining when to break from IBM--and bundling up the productivity apps into the easy to use Office. It is these decisions--leveraging and building on what got rolling by selling DOS to IBM--that made Gates filthy stinking rich. It was not "holding" a property right and collecting some sort of rent on DOS. And this program--Gates' decisions\business--helped push out simple, cheap and affordable computing to millions and millions of people--a huge leveraging of human potential.

    And yes, Gates' ability to see these opportunities, and exploit the network effects to expand them had a buttload to do with him being a smart guy. Most folks, even most other smart folks--like me--would have found some way to screw it up. (Not jump on the original opportunity to provide an OS to IBM, not exploit the clone opportunity, or to exploit it, then sit on it and try and collect rent or fail to grasp the opportunities--GUI, Windows, Office, etc.)

    Of course Gates' limousine liberal politics are stupid. His foundation has been a rathole of waste--along with some potentially useful (long term) things like targeting malaria. Smart folks can believe stupid stuff. Smart folks can be very sharp and insightful in one domain and be ho-hum swillers of dubious conventional wisdom (or even unconventional crackpottery) in another.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonym

    People who have never been personally exposed to a successful business and/business owner tend to underestimate the IQ required to run a business successfully. As you say, the ignorant/foolish view is that Gates just did A, B and C and success was his ever-after. Running any business that continues to grow exponentially at a good clip for a good number of years requires consistently making decisions that are better than your competitors. Making lots of good decisions over a period of time is kind of like… an… IQ test.

    Running any business means making decisions every day, often every hour or less. But it is the sort of occupation often where an ability to think hard and come up with a better solution after a long-time is often a superior attribute to being able to think on the feet quickly like a lawyer or radio/television personality does. Kind of like the 5 minute vs 24 hour epoxy trade-off. Which is better depends on the business. Sometimes you need both, Trump is an example of this. It probably helped Trump when managing contractors and dealing to be quicker on your feet than they were. But the beauty of a business is that you can choose who you do business with and who you make deals with. You don’t have to say yes to everything that comes along and you can consider things.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonym

    A guy who worked for me for a year then finished up his MBA, joined Microsoft, and became head of Microsoft's New York City sales office. He became friendly with Bill Gates. He told me that of the quite smart guys at my highly innovative firm were anywhere in the same league with Gates for brains. That was over 25 years ago and I don't see any evidence he wasn't exactly right.

    Replies: @Anonym

    , @Anonymous
    @Anonym

    That's actually the exact opposite of what happened. The ignorant/foolish view is that Microsoft's long period of success primarily had to do with Gates making the right decisions year after year. The reality is that it's primarily due to Gates getting in on and locking down the network effect early on and then riding the wave of the exponential growth of the PC and IT industry. Most of its subsequent success has involved replicating external developments and then using its position as the standardized platform to win market share like the GUI for Windows and Internet Explorer.

    This isn't to say that Gates isn't very smart or isn't a genius or whatever.

  77. @Jamie_NYC
    Those last couple of sentences about women should tell you that this is not the right way to extract the influence of IQ. A teacher's income is not going to depend on IQ very much, for example. Better way would be to do comparison within professions: what percentage of income differences among dentists/bankers/electricians etc. is explained by IQ?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Steve Sailer

    “A teacher’s income is not going to depend on IQ very much, for example.”

    But a lot of people who would like to be teachers can’t pass the tests to become teachers.

  78. @Jamie_NYC
    Those last couple of sentences about women should tell you that this is not the right way to extract the influence of IQ. A teacher's income is not going to depend on IQ very much, for example. Better way would be to do comparison within professions: what percentage of income differences among dentists/bankers/electricians etc. is explained by IQ?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Steve Sailer

    “A teacher’s income is not going to depend on IQ very much, for example.”

    But a lot of people who would like to be teachers can’t pass the tests to become teachers.

  79. When talking about income, it depends whether you mean wages for work, or income from all sources. Many people with high incomes derive a high proportion of their wealth from money and assets they have inherited or acquired through divorce settlements.

    Indeed, in today’s world of de-industrialisation, where real estate is becoming more expensive relative to wages, the effect of inherited wealth on incomes is likely to be higher than it was 50 years ago. Obviously, inherited wealth with tend to be related to IQ as well, but there are certainly a lot of people of average intelligence who inherit their wealth or acquire it through rich husbands.

    If you broke down IQ stats according to median wage income for particular IQ levels, the correlation between wealth and IQ would probably increase quite substantially.

  80. @Anonym
    @AnotherDad

    People who have never been personally exposed to a successful business and/business owner tend to underestimate the IQ required to run a business successfully. As you say, the ignorant/foolish view is that Gates just did A, B and C and success was his ever-after. Running any business that continues to grow exponentially at a good clip for a good number of years requires consistently making decisions that are better than your competitors. Making lots of good decisions over a period of time is kind of like... an... IQ test.

    Running any business means making decisions every day, often every hour or less. But it is the sort of occupation often where an ability to think hard and come up with a better solution after a long-time is often a superior attribute to being able to think on the feet quickly like a lawyer or radio/television personality does. Kind of like the 5 minute vs 24 hour epoxy trade-off. Which is better depends on the business. Sometimes you need both, Trump is an example of this. It probably helped Trump when managing contractors and dealing to be quicker on your feet than they were. But the beauty of a business is that you can choose who you do business with and who you make deals with. You don't have to say yes to everything that comes along and you can consider things.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anonymous

    A guy who worked for me for a year then finished up his MBA, joined Microsoft, and became head of Microsoft’s New York City sales office. He became friendly with Bill Gates. He told me that of the quite smart guys at my highly innovative firm were anywhere in the same league with Gates for brains. That was over 25 years ago and I don’t see any evidence he wasn’t exactly right.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Steve Sailer

    I think you mean to say "none of the smart guys...".

    Every man in life needs a living, and men the world over try to make more money for themselves. A large percentage approach that struggle competitively. The competition to be the richest guy in the world is fierce. To reach that point largely starting out from next to nothing is an amazing accomplishment. This is to make no comment on ethics, morality or anything of that nature, but intellectually the feat is huge.

    Most people are not intelligent enough to understand or measure genius except by its fruits (accomplishment). It helps to understand that intelligence is distributed on a bell curve, and odds are there is someone smarter than you and certainly in an area you are not strong in. There are ideas and decisions of smarter people that are great/correct and may not make sense to you because you are not smart enough or smart enough in the given area to comprehend. Or you can understand the reasoning but not come up with it yourself. For most of the people too dull to understand an IQ bell curve, they are also too dull to understand when someone else is smarter than they are.

    Nevertheless, you can gauge IQ or bracket it. IQ tests do this. How well spoken or written someone is reflects it. Vocabulary also. Ability in games of skill. And definitely accomplishments and where they rank relative to others. One would think that it would be obvious to others that someone who got to be richest man in the world might just have a lot on the ball due to what's at stake, and that something more than the envious "silver spoon and a bit of luck" argument would fly. There is a lot of inherited wealth and connections in the world and not too many Gates', Buffetts or Slims.

  81. @Harold
    @Anonym

    Trump did well but he didn’t ‘defeat’ Baron Cohen. Baron Cohen was playing an idiot and got an opportunity to act amusingly idiotic. Success.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Cwhatfuture

    I disagree. Success would have been to make Trump look like a dunderhead. Success for Baron Cohen is getting white people to act in his own propaganda play by getting them singing “Throw the Jew down the well”. Setting up a billionaire in a rigged game to make a fool of him and then have said billionaire extricate himself from the situation quickly, while giving off the impression that he is very sharp, in fact, sharper from one of the world’s best comedians… this is not a win for Baron Cohen.

    There is some small humor value in the Rube Goldbergesque description of the ice cream gloves, but being outwitted by the goyish kopf was really a fizzer.

    • Replies: @Harold
    @Anonym

    We’ll have to disagree because I think Baron Cohen was probably pleased with how that interview went. I don’t think he was outwitted. It was quick-witted and, I thought, amusing of him to act unsettled and ask if Trump is going to come out with a drip-proof ice cream, presuming it wasn’t, in fact, scripted. Yes, he tries to make the people he is interviewing look foolish but at the same time the point of the Ali G character is to make people like Ali G seem ridiculous.

  82. @Anonymous
    @Anonym

    I support Trump, but I think you and people in general have a cognitive bias to attribute more positive qualities to people you favor, and less of them to people you don't favor.

    Trump is smart, but it hasn't been primarily his intelligence that has made him successful in this campaign. It's been his personality, confidence, social skills, and independence that have enabled him to exploit and run with an obvious winning political issue i.e. immigration.

    In terms of raw intellect, Cruz seems to be smarter than Trump, but obviously has less of the other qualities and perhaps most importantly, lacks the independence Trump enjoys.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Boomstick

    I’ll credit genius where I see it. I can’t stand Soros, but he’s undeniably brilliant. Zuckerberg as well. Bill Clinton is brilliant. The Frankfurt School were brilliant. Rupert Murdoch was, maybe still is brilliant. These people maybe stupid in their goals, but brilliant. Krauthammer, brilliant. Trump is running rings around these people.

    Cruz’s decision to do things he would get caught out on, e.g. undermining Carson by telling his supporters he was out of the race… dumb. Short term thinking.

  83. @Jonathan Mason
    It all depends. Doctors usually make more than nurses and doctors usually have higher IQs than nurses. In any hierarchical profession those at the highest level have the highest IQs and make the most money. Attorneys make more than paralegals.

    Countries that have sophisticated technology where there is high tech finance and so on obviously have more high IQ better educated workers than countries that have primitive economies like Haiti. But even in Haiti people like physicians and surgeons make more money than the rest of the population. Unfortunately they often have a tendency to emigrate overseas to earn even more.

    It is, however, interesting that even in high IQ countries like the United States and the UK, a large number of doctors have to be imported.

    Replies: @helena

    Blair’s government restricted the number of nurses that could be trained in the UK thereby forcing the NHS to recruit abroad. I’ve only heard this mentioned once in the media and there was no mention of the cap having since been lifted. It’s posssible the same was done with medical training.

  84. @Secular Trad
    This analysis would be better if the author controlled for employment. And you're right to point out that he should use family income, especially for women. Significant numbers of high IQ women use their high IQ to marry high IQ/earning men.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    “And you’re right to point out that he should use family income, especially for women. Significant numbers of high IQ women use their high IQ to marry high IQ/earning men.”

    Actually, separating out men like he does works very nicely. There’s likely enough detail in the immense NLSY79 database to find out which women need to make as much money as they possibly can, and so a subsequent analysis could be done on them.

  85. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonym
    @AnotherDad

    People who have never been personally exposed to a successful business and/business owner tend to underestimate the IQ required to run a business successfully. As you say, the ignorant/foolish view is that Gates just did A, B and C and success was his ever-after. Running any business that continues to grow exponentially at a good clip for a good number of years requires consistently making decisions that are better than your competitors. Making lots of good decisions over a period of time is kind of like... an... IQ test.

    Running any business means making decisions every day, often every hour or less. But it is the sort of occupation often where an ability to think hard and come up with a better solution after a long-time is often a superior attribute to being able to think on the feet quickly like a lawyer or radio/television personality does. Kind of like the 5 minute vs 24 hour epoxy trade-off. Which is better depends on the business. Sometimes you need both, Trump is an example of this. It probably helped Trump when managing contractors and dealing to be quicker on your feet than they were. But the beauty of a business is that you can choose who you do business with and who you make deals with. You don't have to say yes to everything that comes along and you can consider things.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anonymous

    That’s actually the exact opposite of what happened. The ignorant/foolish view is that Microsoft’s long period of success primarily had to do with Gates making the right decisions year after year. The reality is that it’s primarily due to Gates getting in on and locking down the network effect early on and then riding the wave of the exponential growth of the PC and IT industry. Most of its subsequent success has involved replicating external developments and then using its position as the standardized platform to win market share like the GUI for Windows and Internet Explorer.

    This isn’t to say that Gates isn’t very smart or isn’t a genius or whatever.

  86. @Anon
    INSIDE OUT.

    So annoying. Lasted 15 min and FF the rest.

    Why wasn't boredom one of the personalities?

    Helicopter psychology.

    I think millennies talk the way they do cuz they were weaned on Pixar movies.

    Pixarese must go.

    Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe

    “INSIDE OUT.

    So annoying. Lasted 15 min and FF the rest.”

    I haven’t seen that movie (and likely wouldn’t, unless the life of someone I cared about was at stake), but I was flabbergasted by the fact that (according to NPR), the five personality traits were fear, anger, joy, sadness and…DISGUST! Seriously, disgust as one of the five principal human traits?!? That they are feeding such misanthropic filth to little girls, makes them basically the psych equivalent of child molesters.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Kevin O'Keeffe

    Disgust is relevant here though.

    I FFed to the end and was disgusted by the tear-jerking manipulation. Made me wanna puke.

    Pixar has lots of talent, and they do some incredible things(objectively speaking) but not to my taste. I feel like a pinball ball being bounced around endlessly in their movies. (I think Incredibles and UP were Pixar too, and they were especially filled with wit and zaniness and lots of brilliance, but everything happened too fast. It's like being offered lots of food and then being ordered to eat the whole thing in 15 min. INSIDE OUT isn't up to the level of Incredibles and UP in ingenuity category.)

    Also, people don't talk. It's just non-stop gab.

    We get fits and flushes of sentiment than real emotions. Everyone looks like a rubber ball.

    INSIDE OUT is helicopter parenting movie. A child's mind isn't organic and individual. It is a committee made up of adults pushing the right buttons to make the kid function properly and all that crap.

    Now, THE VISIT by Shymalamadingdong. Shiiite!!

    Like SIXTH SENSE, much of it seems routine and silly for a while but there is ONE SCENE that reveals something that totally makes you rethink everything you'd seen so far. I nearly hit the ceiling.

    Genuinely disturbing movie.

    The French movie EDEN is about some DJ and music scene. Only saw first hr. Pretty good if you like the subject, I guess. One notable thing is the movie doesn't sensationalize the scene and pump up the volume. It keeps a certain distance and is thus more about lives and personalities than the Scene.

    I just didn't care. A bunch of druggies having sex and wasting time spinning records just doesn't interest me. But well done.

    Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe

  87. That’s actually the exact opposite of what happened. The ignorant/foolish view is that Microsoft’s long period of success primarily had to do with Gates making the right decisions year after year. The reality is that it’s primarily due to Gates getting in on and locking down the network effect early on and then riding the wave of the exponential growth of the PC and IT industry. Most of its subsequent success has involved replicating external developments and then using its position as the standardized platform to win market share like the GUI for Windows and Internet Explorer.

    You say “The reality is that it’s primarily due to Gates getting in on and locking down the network effect early on and then riding the wave of the exponential growth of the PC and IT industry.” like it’s an easy thing and didn’t involve making a lot of brilliant decisions consistently. Gates made it look easy, in hindsight. Jordan made it look easy. Oprah makes it look easy. Jobs made it look easy. Someone great, doing what they do, they make it look easy. Once you try and do it yourself, it doesn’t look so easy any more.

    If you squint, a cargo cult airfield looks much like a real airfield. In much the same way, your understanding of Gates success being due to just “locking down the network effect early on” is a childish sort of cargo cult view of Microsoft. Copying the Xerox/Apple GUI with Windows and successively improving it until it got to Windows 3.0 level was a big deal. Assembling a murderer’s row of office applications that interacted with each other seamlessly was a huge deal. Their profits from Office were as big as the OS profits, at least last time I checked. Gates had a huge run for a long time. And in all of the small but important component decisions that make up a given venture, there were many, many opportunities to stuff it up.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonym

    I never said it was easy or that Gates wasn't extremely intelligent.

    The network effect is a technical concept. Childish, cargo cult views of Microsoft don't invoke the network effect. They invoke the exact opposite and point to Gates and Microsoft's special sauce in a perfectly competitive market.

    If you don't believe in the network effect, or don't think it has any relevance, that's fine, just say so.

    , @Anonymous
    @Anonym

    Microsoft Office is an obvious example of network effects, so it's not a counterexample.

  88. @GS
    A correlation of ~0.4 is enormous. That means for every 1 standard deviation smart you will be aproximately 0.4 standard deviations richer. r^2 is a stupid measure for chumps. Nobody thinks in squared distances or squared spaces, so why even report it. If your stock market betting had even a 0.01 correlation with the direction of a stock, you would be immensely rich. 0.4 is huge.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @pumpkinperson, @Eric Rasmusen

    A correlation of ~0.4 is enormous.

    And even the 0.4 correlation is probably an underestimate, because as mentioned, many high IQ women are unemployed wives of rich men, and thus have technically zero income, but are de facto quite prosperous if the luxurious room and board they enjoy were counted. Given such measurement problems, the true correlation between IQ and cumulative income is probably closer to 0.5.

    That means for every 1 standard deviation smart you will be aproximately 0.4 standard deviations richer.

    Exactly right, assuming of course the distribution of prosperity is normalized. And of course the reverse is also roughly true. For every 1 standard deviation increase in normalized prosperity, average IQ increases by about 0.4-0.5 SD

    Or to put it in more concrete terms, for every ten-fold increase in raw income, IQ seems to increase by 8-10 points (though there are a few exceptions). I have looked at several studies of different income levels and found that on a scale where the average white American has an IQ of 100 (SD = 15), the economic classes in America score as follows:

    The homeless: Average IQ 80
    Welfare: Average IQ 90
    Median income: Average IQ 97-98
    Self-made millionaires: Average IQ 117
    Self-made decamillionaires: Average IQ 117
    Self-made billionaires: Average IQ 132*
    Self-made decabillionaires: Average IQ 151 *

    *the last two estimates are somewhat uncertain based on limited data

    http://pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlation-between-iq-income/

    • Replies: @helena
    @pumpkinperson

    Pumpkin, is it not also true that the only people, individuals , who actually conform to this pattern are the people who sit right on the Bell Curve; with the majority of us sitting somehwere around the 'line of best fit' either punching slightly above our IQ or not quite reaching our IQ-income Potential?

    Replies: @pumpkinperson

  89. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonym

    A guy who worked for me for a year then finished up his MBA, joined Microsoft, and became head of Microsoft's New York City sales office. He became friendly with Bill Gates. He told me that of the quite smart guys at my highly innovative firm were anywhere in the same league with Gates for brains. That was over 25 years ago and I don't see any evidence he wasn't exactly right.

    Replies: @Anonym

    I think you mean to say “none of the smart guys…”.

    Every man in life needs a living, and men the world over try to make more money for themselves. A large percentage approach that struggle competitively. The competition to be the richest guy in the world is fierce. To reach that point largely starting out from next to nothing is an amazing accomplishment. This is to make no comment on ethics, morality or anything of that nature, but intellectually the feat is huge.

    Most people are not intelligent enough to understand or measure genius except by its fruits (accomplishment). It helps to understand that intelligence is distributed on a bell curve, and odds are there is someone smarter than you and certainly in an area you are not strong in. There are ideas and decisions of smarter people that are great/correct and may not make sense to you because you are not smart enough or smart enough in the given area to comprehend. Or you can understand the reasoning but not come up with it yourself. For most of the people too dull to understand an IQ bell curve, they are also too dull to understand when someone else is smarter than they are.

    Nevertheless, you can gauge IQ or bracket it. IQ tests do this. How well spoken or written someone is reflects it. Vocabulary also. Ability in games of skill. And definitely accomplishments and where they rank relative to others. One would think that it would be obvious to others that someone who got to be richest man in the world might just have a lot on the ball due to what’s at stake, and that something more than the envious “silver spoon and a bit of luck” argument would fly. There is a lot of inherited wealth and connections in the world and not too many Gates’, Buffetts or Slims.

  90. I agree with the consensus here that an upper level IQ but not too high is necessary but not sufficient to be economically top level.

    What people don’t get is that once you start charting higher in Quant and Verbal, the two respective black dogs of autism (Quant) and mental illness (verbal) start to set in. Baron Cohen’s work is a good primer on the former. The link between verbal and neurotic thinking is also generally accepted in psychology academia.

    I can personally relate, mental illness is the number one issue for me in my life and has destroyed gimme opportunities for me to gain elite level careers.

    I’m also sure that autism kills many quants potential. Important money spinner abilities to negotiate, network, sell and hire and keep good talent…not to mention the more important matter of getting laid. Hence the obsession with careers that involve avoiding people.

    My old Phd Engineering friend will never be top decile because he lacks social awareness or basic intuition of how the world actually works. High level quants seem to suffer not just lack of social skills but from basic “common sense”, hence the weird charity shop fashion, lack of good humour, and prioritization with following prescribed rules and norms.

    People that can successfully marry high verbal and quant, i.e the physicists I’ve met, tend to do great though. Those guys have the world in their hands (shoutout to my homeboy, Ron Unz).

    Beyond that, look at the children of famous scientists, philosophers and so forth. Its a shitshow of mental illness, homosexuality, autism, Huntington and other uncommon deviations from the mean. Newton had aspergers. Nietsche was thrown into an asylum.

    All that being said, the current economy seems to confer upper middle class status on high IQ workers all else being equal.

    At the very top levels, I believe social intelligence and testosterone is far far more important. Height is merely a symptom of test by the way.

  91. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Anon

    "INSIDE OUT.

    So annoying. Lasted 15 min and FF the rest."

    I haven't seen that movie (and likely wouldn't, unless the life of someone I cared about was at stake), but I was flabbergasted by the fact that (according to NPR), the five personality traits were fear, anger, joy, sadness and...DISGUST! Seriously, disgust as one of the five principal human traits?!? That they are feeding such misanthropic filth to little girls, makes them basically the psych equivalent of child molesters.

    Replies: @Anon

    Disgust is relevant here though.

    I FFed to the end and was disgusted by the tear-jerking manipulation. Made me wanna puke.

    Pixar has lots of talent, and they do some incredible things(objectively speaking) but not to my taste. I feel like a pinball ball being bounced around endlessly in their movies. (I think Incredibles and UP were Pixar too, and they were especially filled with wit and zaniness and lots of brilliance, but everything happened too fast. It’s like being offered lots of food and then being ordered to eat the whole thing in 15 min. INSIDE OUT isn’t up to the level of Incredibles and UP in ingenuity category.)

    Also, people don’t talk. It’s just non-stop gab.

    We get fits and flushes of sentiment than real emotions. Everyone looks like a rubber ball.

    INSIDE OUT is helicopter parenting movie. A child’s mind isn’t organic and individual. It is a committee made up of adults pushing the right buttons to make the kid function properly and all that crap.

    Now, THE VISIT by Shymalamadingdong. Shiiite!!

    Like SIXTH SENSE, much of it seems routine and silly for a while but there is ONE SCENE that reveals something that totally makes you rethink everything you’d seen so far. I nearly hit the ceiling.

    Genuinely disturbing movie.

    The French movie EDEN is about some DJ and music scene. Only saw first hr. Pretty good if you like the subject, I guess. One notable thing is the movie doesn’t sensationalize the scene and pump up the volume. It keeps a certain distance and is thus more about lives and personalities than the Scene.

    I just didn’t care. A bunch of druggies having sex and wasting time spinning records just doesn’t interest me. But well done.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Anon

    "Now, THE VISIT by Shymalamadingdong. Shiiite!!

    Like SIXTH SENSE, much of it seems routine and silly for a while but there is ONE SCENE that reveals something that totally makes you rethink everything you’d seen so far. I nearly hit the ceiling.

    Genuinely disturbing movie.
    "

    I saw "The Visit" on its opening weekend, and I thought it was very good.

  92. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonym
    That’s actually the exact opposite of what happened. The ignorant/foolish view is that Microsoft’s long period of success primarily had to do with Gates making the right decisions year after year. The reality is that it’s primarily due to Gates getting in on and locking down the network effect early on and then riding the wave of the exponential growth of the PC and IT industry. Most of its subsequent success has involved replicating external developments and then using its position as the standardized platform to win market share like the GUI for Windows and Internet Explorer.

    You say "The reality is that it’s primarily due to Gates getting in on and locking down the network effect early on and then riding the wave of the exponential growth of the PC and IT industry." like it's an easy thing and didn't involve making a lot of brilliant decisions consistently. Gates made it look easy, in hindsight. Jordan made it look easy. Oprah makes it look easy. Jobs made it look easy. Someone great, doing what they do, they make it look easy. Once you try and do it yourself, it doesn't look so easy any more.

    If you squint, a cargo cult airfield looks much like a real airfield. In much the same way, your understanding of Gates success being due to just "locking down the network effect early on" is a childish sort of cargo cult view of Microsoft. Copying the Xerox/Apple GUI with Windows and successively improving it until it got to Windows 3.0 level was a big deal. Assembling a murderer's row of office applications that interacted with each other seamlessly was a huge deal. Their profits from Office were as big as the OS profits, at least last time I checked. Gates had a huge run for a long time. And in all of the small but important component decisions that make up a given venture, there were many, many opportunities to stuff it up.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    I never said it was easy or that Gates wasn’t extremely intelligent.

    The network effect is a technical concept. Childish, cargo cult views of Microsoft don’t invoke the network effect. They invoke the exact opposite and point to Gates and Microsoft’s special sauce in a perfectly competitive market.

    If you don’t believe in the network effect, or don’t think it has any relevance, that’s fine, just say so.

  93. @Anonym
    That’s actually the exact opposite of what happened. The ignorant/foolish view is that Microsoft’s long period of success primarily had to do with Gates making the right decisions year after year. The reality is that it’s primarily due to Gates getting in on and locking down the network effect early on and then riding the wave of the exponential growth of the PC and IT industry. Most of its subsequent success has involved replicating external developments and then using its position as the standardized platform to win market share like the GUI for Windows and Internet Explorer.

    You say "The reality is that it’s primarily due to Gates getting in on and locking down the network effect early on and then riding the wave of the exponential growth of the PC and IT industry." like it's an easy thing and didn't involve making a lot of brilliant decisions consistently. Gates made it look easy, in hindsight. Jordan made it look easy. Oprah makes it look easy. Jobs made it look easy. Someone great, doing what they do, they make it look easy. Once you try and do it yourself, it doesn't look so easy any more.

    If you squint, a cargo cult airfield looks much like a real airfield. In much the same way, your understanding of Gates success being due to just "locking down the network effect early on" is a childish sort of cargo cult view of Microsoft. Copying the Xerox/Apple GUI with Windows and successively improving it until it got to Windows 3.0 level was a big deal. Assembling a murderer's row of office applications that interacted with each other seamlessly was a huge deal. Their profits from Office were as big as the OS profits, at least last time I checked. Gates had a huge run for a long time. And in all of the small but important component decisions that make up a given venture, there were many, many opportunities to stuff it up.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    Microsoft Office is an obvious example of network effects, so it’s not a counterexample.

  94. @Hepp
    A lot of smart people become academics, political writers, journalists, non-profit employees, etc. In other words, they choose lower paying jobs that give them status or let them do what they're interested in. For example, I'd bet a lot of bloggers here would've made more money if they'd gone into welding.

    If you ranked jobs by some combination of income and status, then the correlation with IQ would be higher.

    Replies: @Harold, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    would’ve made more money if they’d gone into welding

    Have you ever spent an entire day welding? Have you had a ‘sunburn’ because your shirt was too thin to shield you from the intense radiation resulting from welding? Ever had “Arc Eye?”

    There is a very good reason why welders are paid a premium for their work. And why bloggers blog, and why “A lot of smart people become academics, political writers, journalists, non-profit employees.” Status may not hurt, but it is not a necessary condition. The cushy path is sufficient.

    • Replies: @Hepp
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I don't disagree, manual labor is a lot harder than the nerd professions, and usually more useful too.

  95. @Anonym
    @Harold

    I disagree. Success would have been to make Trump look like a dunderhead. Success for Baron Cohen is getting white people to act in his own propaganda play by getting them singing "Throw the Jew down the well". Setting up a billionaire in a rigged game to make a fool of him and then have said billionaire extricate himself from the situation quickly, while giving off the impression that he is very sharp, in fact, sharper from one of the world's best comedians... this is not a win for Baron Cohen.

    There is some small humor value in the Rube Goldbergesque description of the ice cream gloves, but being outwitted by the goyish kopf was really a fizzer.

    Replies: @Harold

    We’ll have to disagree because I think Baron Cohen was probably pleased with how that interview went. I don’t think he was outwitted. It was quick-witted and, I thought, amusing of him to act unsettled and ask if Trump is going to come out with a drip-proof ice cream, presuming it wasn’t, in fact, scripted. Yes, he tries to make the people he is interviewing look foolish but at the same time the point of the Ali G character is to make people like Ali G seem ridiculous.

  96. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    That's probably around the sweet spot. Anything too much higher and you're probably too interested in other things or less relatable to other people.

    Ted Cruz seems to have about 30 pts on the other candidates and seems to have made it this far through his intellect and careful planning and strategizing. But he also seems to be disliked by many for that very reason. He comes across as insincere and calculated.

    Replies: @Anonym, @AndrewR, @Dan Kurt, @Boomstick

    I think Cruz’s background in debating works against him. He’s used to working on a debate platform and in a courtroom, while a lot of political campaigning is done on cameras or face to face. The camera is a lot more intimate and his rhetorical and body language come across as exaggerated, and therefore insincere.

    It’s similar to the differences between stage acting and film acting.

  97. @Harold
    @Anonym

    Trump did well but he didn’t ‘defeat’ Baron Cohen. Baron Cohen was playing an idiot and got an opportunity to act amusingly idiotic. Success.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Cwhatfuture

    Disagree. The look on Trump’s face said it all. Baron Cohen actually looked slightly frightened at the end, a nervous smile.

  98. @Anonymous
    @Anonym

    I support Trump, but I think you and people in general have a cognitive bias to attribute more positive qualities to people you favor, and less of them to people you don't favor.

    Trump is smart, but it hasn't been primarily his intelligence that has made him successful in this campaign. It's been his personality, confidence, social skills, and independence that have enabled him to exploit and run with an obvious winning political issue i.e. immigration.

    In terms of raw intellect, Cruz seems to be smarter than Trump, but obviously has less of the other qualities and perhaps most importantly, lacks the independence Trump enjoys.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Boomstick

    Yes, there’s a lot to human personality besides IQ. That 0.4 r^2 for IQ still leaves 0.6 r^2 for other stuff. Plus Trump has been manipulating media for forty years or more, has become pretty good at it, and has FU money.

    Trump is almost sui generis. Most politicians deal with the media but have been working in a oppressively conformist policy environment in which the slightest inkling of original thought leads to a twitter lynching. Businessmen can have more reign for creative action but deal with the media in only limited and tightly controlled ways. Trump can do both.

    I’m pretty sure Trump is doing this at least party as a goof.

  99. @pumpkinperson
    @GS

    A correlation of ~0.4 is enormous.


    And even the 0.4 correlation is probably an underestimate, because as mentioned, many high IQ women are unemployed wives of rich men, and thus have technically zero income, but are de facto quite prosperous if the luxurious room and board they enjoy were counted. Given such measurement problems, the true correlation between IQ and cumulative income is probably closer to 0.5.

    That means for every 1 standard deviation smart you will be aproximately 0.4 standard deviations richer.

    Exactly right, assuming of course the distribution of prosperity is normalized. And of course the reverse is also roughly true. For every 1 standard deviation increase in normalized prosperity, average IQ increases by about 0.4-0.5 SD

    Or to put it in more concrete terms, for every ten-fold increase in raw income, IQ seems to increase by 8-10 points (though there are a few exceptions). I have looked at several studies of different income levels and found that on a scale where the average white American has an IQ of 100 (SD = 15), the economic classes in America score as follows:

    The homeless: Average IQ 80
    Welfare: Average IQ 90
    Median income: Average IQ 97-98
    Self-made millionaires: Average IQ 117
    Self-made decamillionaires: Average IQ 117
    Self-made billionaires: Average IQ 132*
    Self-made decabillionaires: Average IQ 151 *

    *the last two estimates are somewhat uncertain based on limited data


    http://pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlation-between-iq-income/

    Replies: @helena

    Pumpkin, is it not also true that the only people, individuals , who actually conform to this pattern are the people who sit right on the Bell Curve; with the majority of us sitting somehwere around the ‘line of best fit’ either punching slightly above our IQ or not quite reaching our IQ-income Potential?

    • Replies: @pumpkinperson
    @helena

    Pumpkin, is it not also true that the only people, individuals , who actually conform to this pattern are the people who sit right on the Bell Curve; with the majority of us sitting somehwere around the ‘line of best fit’ either punching slightly above our IQ or not quite reaching our IQ-income Potential?

    Yes, I agree. In other words, if one were to try to estimate one's income from one's IQ, or conversely, estimate one's IQ from one's income, (two very different results!), there would be a large stand error, since so many people are way above or below the line of best fit.


    And unless one has a superlative IQ, one really doesn't need to make that much money to be punching above their IQ. Although evidence suggests the average self-made billionaire has a Mensa level IQ, the median Mensa level IQ is obviously not a billionaire, or even a millionaire.

    Based on a couple studies adjusted for inflation, I estimate that by your early 30s (in 2014 dollars) different IQ levels have the following median yearly income levels:

    IQ 75 about $12 K
    IQ 85 about $21 K
    IQ 100 about $35 K
    IQ 115 about $44 K
    IQ 125 about $59 K
    IQ 135 about $78 K
    IQ 153 about $106 K


    http://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09/hypocrites-who-deny-linear-iq-income-correlation/

  100. @MQ
    There is a mountain of econometric evidence showing a positive but relatively limited relationship between IQ and adult earnings after adjusting for education and other aspects of personality (see Zax and Rees 2002, Gensowski and Heckman 2013, Bowles 2001, many more) with a correlation far lower than that posited here. Also, AFQT is an achievement test that incorporates personality characteristics, not an IQ test, and is not properly used in place of IQ as an earnings predictor.

    There is an IQ-only obsession in a certain corner of internet blogs, which goes against not just the research but common sense and experiential observation. I suspect it has to do with the many high-IQ but low earnings/generally unsuccessful people in the blog world, and also perhaps with a belief that IQ is more genetically linked than other personality differences between human populations (there is no evidence that it is). There is also a tendency to view 'The Bell Curve' as somehow a reliable work of social science, even though James Heckman completely obliterated the book substantively with months of its publication.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Santoculto, @bomag

    I would not doubt if the combo ideological conformity + iq did not have a great correlation with income.

  101. @Anon
    @Kevin O'Keeffe

    Disgust is relevant here though.

    I FFed to the end and was disgusted by the tear-jerking manipulation. Made me wanna puke.

    Pixar has lots of talent, and they do some incredible things(objectively speaking) but not to my taste. I feel like a pinball ball being bounced around endlessly in their movies. (I think Incredibles and UP were Pixar too, and they were especially filled with wit and zaniness and lots of brilliance, but everything happened too fast. It's like being offered lots of food and then being ordered to eat the whole thing in 15 min. INSIDE OUT isn't up to the level of Incredibles and UP in ingenuity category.)

    Also, people don't talk. It's just non-stop gab.

    We get fits and flushes of sentiment than real emotions. Everyone looks like a rubber ball.

    INSIDE OUT is helicopter parenting movie. A child's mind isn't organic and individual. It is a committee made up of adults pushing the right buttons to make the kid function properly and all that crap.

    Now, THE VISIT by Shymalamadingdong. Shiiite!!

    Like SIXTH SENSE, much of it seems routine and silly for a while but there is ONE SCENE that reveals something that totally makes you rethink everything you'd seen so far. I nearly hit the ceiling.

    Genuinely disturbing movie.

    The French movie EDEN is about some DJ and music scene. Only saw first hr. Pretty good if you like the subject, I guess. One notable thing is the movie doesn't sensationalize the scene and pump up the volume. It keeps a certain distance and is thus more about lives and personalities than the Scene.

    I just didn't care. A bunch of druggies having sex and wasting time spinning records just doesn't interest me. But well done.

    Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe

    Now, THE VISIT by Shymalamadingdong. Shiiite!!

    Like SIXTH SENSE, much of it seems routine and silly for a while but there is ONE SCENE that reveals something that totally makes you rethink everything you’d seen so far. I nearly hit the ceiling.

    Genuinely disturbing movie.”

    I saw “The Visit” on its opening weekend, and I thought it was very good.

  102. @helena
    @pumpkinperson

    Pumpkin, is it not also true that the only people, individuals , who actually conform to this pattern are the people who sit right on the Bell Curve; with the majority of us sitting somehwere around the 'line of best fit' either punching slightly above our IQ or not quite reaching our IQ-income Potential?

    Replies: @pumpkinperson

    Pumpkin, is it not also true that the only people, individuals , who actually conform to this pattern are the people who sit right on the Bell Curve; with the majority of us sitting somehwere around the ‘line of best fit’ either punching slightly above our IQ or not quite reaching our IQ-income Potential?

    Yes, I agree. In other words, if one were to try to estimate one’s income from one’s IQ, or conversely, estimate one’s IQ from one’s income, (two very different results!), there would be a large stand error, since so many people are way above or below the line of best fit.

    And unless one has a superlative IQ, one really doesn’t need to make that much money to be punching above their IQ. Although evidence suggests the average self-made billionaire has a Mensa level IQ, the median Mensa level IQ is obviously not a billionaire, or even a millionaire.

    Based on a couple studies adjusted for inflation, I estimate that by your early 30s (in 2014 dollars) different IQ levels have the following median yearly income levels:

    IQ 75 about $12 K
    IQ 85 about $21 K
    IQ 100 about $35 K
    IQ 115 about $44 K
    IQ 125 about $59 K
    IQ 135 about $78 K
    IQ 153 about $106 K

    http://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09/hypocrites-who-deny-linear-iq-income-correlation/

  103. @Jonathan Mason
    It should be noted that in a country like Britain which led the world in the industrial revolution, most of the greatest achievements can be attributed to a few very talented individuals like Faraday, Stephenson, Brunell, Darwin, Dickens, Watt, and various others, but more so to the political and historical effects of Empire, which created a leisured class or a university class where talented individuals were able to devote themselves to intellectual pursuits without having to worry about washing dishes, cooking, or doing their personal laundry.

    Had Darwin been born a Patagonian, chances are he would never have done the field work that he did in Patagonia.

    All of us who now live and work in industrialized countries are standing on the shoulders of these great men, and those who are born in undeveloped countries are not, or much less so.

    Replies: @Anonym, @M

    Jonathan, I don’t think there was particularly much more of a leisured class in Britain than continental Europe, India, the world of Islam or the Far East, due to the effects of Empire, which was not a very significant source of free money in any way (as opposed to *some* money that involved a lot of setting up and managing systems to make sure it continued to flow).

    If anything the likes of Darwin probably benefited more from being part of families like Darwin’s with a lot of ownership and property within the mainland United Kingdom.

    So while the effects you talk about probably explained some proportion of the variance in scientific achievement between civilization as a whole and contemporary Patagonia (and other places where almost all are subsistence farmers or hunters and gatherers, etc.), probably not much between Britain and Poland, or Britain and China, or Britain and the Ottoman Empire (which differences were yuge).

    In any case, information is free, and those in undeveloped countries are free to use the inventions of those great persons. If they still do not get as far, perhaps that is due to real differences.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @M


    If anything the likes of Darwin probably benefited more from being part of families like Darwin’s with a lot of ownership and property within the mainland United Kingdom.
     
    The novels of Jane Austen revolve around the mating habits of the "landed gentry" in a world where elder sons inherited, daughters were endowed, and younger sons served in the military or the church, or went overseas to seek their fortunes backed with family money--many of them to the Americas or the Caribbean as well as to India.

    However Darwin was the grandson of Josiah Wedgwood, the inventor of technologies such as black basalt ware and jasper ware and Queen's ware, and billionaire mogul of mass production pottery and imitation Greek vases, much of which was sold to the Americas and other outposts of empire.


    Wedgwood is credited as the inventor of modern marketing, specifically direct mail, money back guarantees, traveling salesmen, carrying pattern boxes for display, self-service, free delivery, buy one get one free, and illustrated catalogs.
     
    Wikipedia.

    (When I was in Bermuda in the 1980's the chairman of Wedgwoods stayed at the home of the local dealership owner, which has once been the top Wedgwood retail outlet in the world--when Bermuda was a winter refuge from Prohibition for wealthy New Yorkers. I also worked for this firm at the time.)

    Darwins father, Erasmus Darwin, was a wealthy society physician who was the son of one of Wedgwood's business partners. His mother was a daughter of Sir Josiah Wedgwood.

    Charles Darwin himself married one of his female Wedgwood cousins, thus endowing himself with an additional injection of Wedgwood capital that financed much of his studies.

    His grandfather Josiah Wedgwood had also married a Wedgwood cousin with money (not sure where that came from, possibly rents as you surmise) that helped to get him started in business.

    So all in all a highly incestuous enterprise, which must have started the young Darwin thinking about heredity and inbreeding.

    To sum up, Charles Darwin was the grandson of Bill Gates and married a grand-daughter of Bill Gates.

  104. Much less of a precise method, but using the General Social Survey, here is a comparison of different ethnic groups with what their expected mean income and education would be predicted to be, based on Whites with similar Wordsum score (a GSS proxy for IQ).

    The groups here are

    Whites (including all Whites except those people with Jewish religion, and who self classify as ethnically “American Indian” or Mexican), Blacks, Jewish (self classified as of Jewish religion), Chinese-Japanese (Chinese and Japanese combined as a single category because of small samples), Philippines, Mexicans and American Indian.

    All are American born and recent samples because of time effects and effects of being foreign born on language knowledge.

    Wordsum (IQ Proxy) vs Income –(correlation (within whites only): 0.15)

    Wordsum vs Education Level –(correlation (whites only): r = 0.42)

    Education Level vs Income-(correlation (whites only): r = 0.28)

    The correlations are quite weak, and the overall results on sub population differences are:

    – The Jewish population hugely overperforms the expectation for other White Americans of similar Wordsum ability, both in education and income (and their higher income is not totally explained through their higher education, as income is higher than would be expected for education).

    – The American born Chinese / Japanese population slightly overperforms their Wordsum ability in income (but insignificantly so when set compared to the Jewish advantage), perform clearly higher in education, and seem to achieve incomes equal to Whites of similar education (e.g. really not much higher than average Whites).

    – Blacks slightly underperform Wordsum equivalent Whites in education and income, but the gap is much smaller than between Wordsum equivalent non-Jewish Whites and Jewish Whites.

    – Mexican Americans and American Indians are stronger underperformers on income and education relative to their Wordsum than Black Americans are.

    The main big division here is between American Jews and everyone else. Most other groups perform much as you would expect for their IQ, compared to Whites (Blacks and CJK Asians about as expected, American Indians and Mexicans worse), but the Jewish Americans seem to be much more successful than their intelligence alone (as measured by the Wordsum)would predict.

    (Btw, here are the correlations between the same variables for White men only – http://i.imgur.com/0KtgZgo.png. No change, correlations aren’t stronger or weaker. Whatever confounding factors women have are no smaller or larger than which men have)

  105. @MQ
    There is a mountain of econometric evidence showing a positive but relatively limited relationship between IQ and adult earnings after adjusting for education and other aspects of personality (see Zax and Rees 2002, Gensowski and Heckman 2013, Bowles 2001, many more) with a correlation far lower than that posited here. Also, AFQT is an achievement test that incorporates personality characteristics, not an IQ test, and is not properly used in place of IQ as an earnings predictor.

    There is an IQ-only obsession in a certain corner of internet blogs, which goes against not just the research but common sense and experiential observation. I suspect it has to do with the many high-IQ but low earnings/generally unsuccessful people in the blog world, and also perhaps with a belief that IQ is more genetically linked than other personality differences between human populations (there is no evidence that it is). There is also a tendency to view 'The Bell Curve' as somehow a reliable work of social science, even though James Heckman completely obliterated the book substantively with months of its publication.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Santoculto, @bomag

    …completely obliterated the book substantively with months of its publication.

    Statements such as this one lets us know that this is not a valid comment.

    The criticism of The Bell Curve centered on the unreliability of the data. Well, we are getting better data as time goes on, and I see little change in the conclusions of the book.

  106. @GS
    A correlation of ~0.4 is enormous. That means for every 1 standard deviation smart you will be aproximately 0.4 standard deviations richer. r^2 is a stupid measure for chumps. Nobody thinks in squared distances or squared spaces, so why even report it. If your stock market betting had even a 0.01 correlation with the direction of a stock, you would be immensely rich. 0.4 is huge.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @pumpkinperson, @Eric Rasmusen

    Why is R2 the standard?

    Perhaps because if you’re doing a Chi-squared test of whether all the variables combined in the regression are significant, that’s closely related to the R2. But such a test is hardly ever useful.

  107. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Hepp


    would’ve made more money if they’d gone into welding
     
    Have you ever spent an entire day welding? Have you had a 'sunburn' because your shirt was too thin to shield you from the intense radiation resulting from welding? Ever had "Arc Eye?"

    There is a very good reason why welders are paid a premium for their work. And why bloggers blog, and why "A lot of smart people become academics, political writers, journalists, non-profit employees." Status may not hurt, but it is not a necessary condition. The cushy path is sufficient.

    Replies: @Hepp

    I don’t disagree, manual labor is a lot harder than the nerd professions, and usually more useful too.

  108. @M
    @Jonathan Mason

    Jonathan, I don't think there was particularly much more of a leisured class in Britain than continental Europe, India, the world of Islam or the Far East, due to the effects of Empire, which was not a very significant source of free money in any way (as opposed to *some* money that involved a lot of setting up and managing systems to make sure it continued to flow).

    If anything the likes of Darwin probably benefited more from being part of families like Darwin's with a lot of ownership and property within the mainland United Kingdom.

    So while the effects you talk about probably explained some proportion of the variance in scientific achievement between civilization as a whole and contemporary Patagonia (and other places where almost all are subsistence farmers or hunters and gatherers, etc.), probably not much between Britain and Poland, or Britain and China, or Britain and the Ottoman Empire (which differences were yuge).

    In any case, information is free, and those in undeveloped countries are free to use the inventions of those great persons. If they still do not get as far, perhaps that is due to real differences.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    If anything the likes of Darwin probably benefited more from being part of families like Darwin’s with a lot of ownership and property within the mainland United Kingdom.

    The novels of Jane Austen revolve around the mating habits of the “landed gentry” in a world where elder sons inherited, daughters were endowed, and younger sons served in the military or the church, or went overseas to seek their fortunes backed with family money–many of them to the Americas or the Caribbean as well as to India.

    However Darwin was the grandson of Josiah Wedgwood, the inventor of technologies such as black basalt ware and jasper ware and Queen’s ware, and billionaire mogul of mass production pottery and imitation Greek vases, much of which was sold to the Americas and other outposts of empire.

    Wedgwood is credited as the inventor of modern marketing, specifically direct mail, money back guarantees, traveling salesmen, carrying pattern boxes for display, self-service, free delivery, buy one get one free, and illustrated catalogs.

    Wikipedia.

    (When I was in Bermuda in the 1980’s the chairman of Wedgwoods stayed at the home of the local dealership owner, which has once been the top Wedgwood retail outlet in the world–when Bermuda was a winter refuge from Prohibition for wealthy New Yorkers. I also worked for this firm at the time.)

    Darwins father, Erasmus Darwin, was a wealthy society physician who was the son of one of Wedgwood’s business partners. His mother was a daughter of Sir Josiah Wedgwood.

    Charles Darwin himself married one of his female Wedgwood cousins, thus endowing himself with an additional injection of Wedgwood capital that financed much of his studies.

    His grandfather Josiah Wedgwood had also married a Wedgwood cousin with money (not sure where that came from, possibly rents as you surmise) that helped to get him started in business.

    So all in all a highly incestuous enterprise, which must have started the young Darwin thinking about heredity and inbreeding.

    To sum up, Charles Darwin was the grandson of Bill Gates and married a grand-daughter of Bill Gates.

  109. @thinkingabout it
    IQ fanaticism really does a disservice to the high IQ young crowd here. Career success in today's feminized workplace and corporate bureaucracy seems to depend as much, if not more, on social skill, charisma, attractiveness and cunning.

    To me, a high IQ but not particularly socially or emotionally intelligent person, it seems cruel not to tell people like myself early in life that the middle-school bullies and jocks are the ones who land up doing well in real life.

    Because in reality money is merely quantified social status. And that's affected by a lot of things other than IQ.

    Replies: @Harold, @helena, @Anonym, @Truth, @27 year old, @dc.sunsets, @Anonymous

    I disagree. The vast majority of the ‘jocks’ tend to peak in high school and do not do well in life. The idea of someone who ‘peaked in high school’ is a concept which I find abhorrent did not wish for my children, and yet it happens so often.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS