4 ms·
Er, the quote for exhibit 1 actually suggests that intelligence is a better (but not "overwhelmingly" better) predictor than parental SES ("being born into weal
by enoch_r 9y ago
Er, the quote for exhibit 1 actually suggests that intelligence is a better (but not "overwhelmingly" better) predictor than parental SES ("being born into wealth")--and reading the paper, that's in fact the correct interpretation:
> Meta-analysis demonstrated that parental SES and academic performance are indeed positively related to career success but the predictive power of these variables is not stronger than that of intelligence (see Table 1). In fact, intelligence exhibited several correlations with the measures of success that were larger than the respective correlations for other predictors suggesting that intelligence is, after all, a better predictor of success.
Since intelligence is just one of many personality factors that might increase productivity (e.g. diligence or conscientiousness are important for a successful career) the fact that intelligence alone is a better predictor of SES than parental SES is actually kind of surprising in the other direction.
(This is especially striking since "high parental SES" means not only "being born into wealth," but also "having the genes of people with high SES." If SES is correlated with things that are heritable--it is--we should absolutely expect parental SES to have a large effect on outcomes no matter what.)
- noelwelsh 9y agoIf you've read it in depth, did the paper look at causality at all? There is evidence that poverty causes a drop in intelligence (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/poverty-intelligence-aging-brain-low-income-inequality-a7333506.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/poverty-intelligen...) If this is the case then a correlation between intelligence and wealth is not necessarily indicating that intelligence causes wealth.