3 ms·
How could this not be true? The only way for the poor to not be intrinsically less smart than the non-poor would be for there to be little-to-no impact of IQ o
by marcusverus 5y ago
How could this not be true?
The only way for the poor to not be intrinsically less smart than the non-poor would be for there to be little-to-no impact of IQ on job choice.
But of course IQ affects job choice, which affects income, which determines class.
Consider the most common jobs in the upper income decile--physicians, managers, executives, and lawyers. Generally speaking, these jobs are inaccessible to people with average IQs, let alone low IQs. So of course these high-paying jobs are far more likely to be filled by folks with high IQs.
Now, consider the most common jobs in the lowest decile--nursing aides, cashiers, cooks, housekeepers. Jobs like this would be, generally speaking, boring for people with average IQs and absolute torture for folks with high IQs (who as a rule crave novelty and complexity to a greater degree than most). So of course these low-paying jobs are more likely to be filled by folks with low IQs.
This doesn't even get into the fact that ~15% of the population have IQs below 85. These folks will struggle to hold down any job, and are far more likely to sort into the ranks of the poor than into the middle or upper classes.
Ignoring objective truths is always dangerous, even if they are uncomfortable.
- krastanov 5y agoYou are talking about something very different from OP. OP is consistent with "class is a predictor of availability of oportunities to increase the 'IQ' of a child, as 'IQ' can be more nurture than nature". You are focusing on the effects of low IQ without considering interventions to increase IQ. And our two posts completely disregard how bad of a measure IQ generally is in practice.
- thrower123 5y agoThere are essentially no interventions that can improve IQ, only interventions that reduce it.
- krastanov 5y agoThis seems like an incredibly strong claim presented without evidence (unless you believe in fairly debunked "skills are fixed at birth" nature-vs-nurture ideas). The vast majority of pedagogical literature and science from the last couple of decades is talking about the importance of instilling a "growth mindset", depicting a whole zoo of interventions shown to improve cognitive skills in students, including as measured by SAT scores and IQ tests (even if they are imperfect measurement tools). There is a relatively easy way to disprove your claim if you believe in IQ tests (an assumption I am making). You can improve your test score by practicing on similar tests (or even unrelated things like crosswords). Trivial exercises can improve your IQ test score or any other cognitive measure.