4 ms·

I am not sure what is defined as "financial success," since it appears to be something one can be born into regardless of IQ. In regards to income, I briefly s

I am not sure what is defined as "financial success," since it appears to be something one can be born into regardless of IQ. In regards to income, I briefly skimmed the Wikipedia section for IQ and Income, which can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Income "Highly correlated" would not be the choice of words I use to describe correlations between (0.23 - 0.5). We, as people, should cherish the contributions of one's intelligence instead of obsessing over an arbitrary, qualitative value painted as a qualitative value like one's potential intelligence.

marketerinland 4y ago
Maybe you’re not familiar with how correlation is reported, but 0.23-0.5 is very high.
- hirvi74 4y ago
  I think I am hung up on semantics. If 0.23-0.5 correlation is "very high" then what is 0.7-0.9? Would r >= 0.7 be literal causation at that point for psychologist? (I'm kidding, of course) Again, I am not saying that a correlation of 0.23-0.5 is statistically insignificant by any means. I just think I needed "very high" to be coupled with "for psychology."
political12345 4y ago
> Highly correlated" would not be the choice of words I use to describe correlations between (0.23 - 0.5). lol, this range is 0.5 to 0.7 variance explained (R squared) which is an insane value. in typical social studies a correlation of > 5% is considered a major improvement. In finance a correlation or > 1% is considered amazing. You are either a hyper-intelectual drinking Taleb's kool-aid or simply don't know what you are talking about :D
- disgruntledphd2 4y ago
  If the correlation is 0.2 then it explains 4% of the variance. If it's 0.5, then 25%. I'm not sure how you got your numbers, can you clarify? Also 10% variance explained in social science is considered pretty good (which is depressing, but such is life).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- hirvi74 4y ago
  > a hyper-intelectual Very far from it. I'm just an idiot with Internet access. > drinking Taleb's kool-aid I do agree with some of what he has said about IQ, but I am not well-versed in any of his other writings. > simply don't know what you are talking about Perhaps, but I am still not convinced.

marketerinland 4y ago

Maybe you’re not familiar with how correlation is reported, but 0.23-0.5 is very high.

hirvi74 4y ago
I think I am hung up on semantics. If 0.23-0.5 correlation is "very high" then what is 0.7-0.9? Would r >= 0.7 be literal causation at that point for psychologist? (I'm kidding, of course) Again, I am not saying that a correlation of 0.23-0.5 is statistically insignificant by any means. I just think I needed "very high" to be coupled with "for psychology."

political12345 4y ago

> Highly correlated" would not be the choice of words I use to describe correlations between (0.23 - 0.5). lol, this range is 0.5 to 0.7 variance explained (R squared) which is an insane value. in typical social studies a correlation of > 5% is considered a major improvement. In finance a correlation or > 1% is considered amazing. You are either a hyper-intelectual drinking Taleb's kool-aid or simply don't know what you are talking about :D

disgruntledphd2 4y ago
If the correlation is 0.2 then it explains 4% of the variance. If it's 0.5, then 25%. I'm not sure how you got your numbers, can you clarify? Also 10% variance explained in social science is considered pretty good (which is depressing, but such is life).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
hirvi74 4y ago
> a hyper-intelectual Very far from it. I'm just an idiot with Internet access. > drinking Taleb's kool-aid I do agree with some of what he has said about IQ, but I am not well-versed in any of his other writings. > simply don't know what you are talking about Perhaps, but I am still not convinced.