4 ms·
I do not wish to respond to your comment as our world-views are not compatible and I don't feel like getting into the entire meritocracy discussion at this time
by qsort 4y ago
I do not wish to respond to your comment as our world-views are not compatible and I don't feel like getting into the entire meritocracy discussion at this time.
I'll stay on topic and reply to this:
> How does that stand to reason?
It is sufficient to believe that increasing a person's IQ increases the expected rate of change of that person's wealth. I make no other hypotheses.
IF you accept that, THEN it is a mathematical necessity that there exists a correlation between IQ and wealth.
- JohnFen 4y ago> It is sufficient to believe that increasing a person's IQ increases the expected rate of change of that person's wealth. This is the very point we're debating, though. I don't see any reason to suppose that this hypothesis is true.
- qsort 4y agoI believe empirical evidence does support this. We could discuss at length how strong the effect is, but I don't think claiming no such effect exists is tenable, when you take into account e.g. the well-known correlation with education.
- JohnFen 4y ago> I don't think claiming no such effect exists is tenable I was too loose in the language of my last comment. I don't think that there is zero such effect. I think the effect is small enough to not be a significant factor. I've tried to include enough qualifiers (such as "broadly") to indicate that. > the well-known correlation with education. If you're saying that there's a significant correlation between education and income, I'll agree with that. But we've been talking about intelligence, not education.