Frankly, I'm shocked you made it to page 1 of HN with your second point. Be prepared for the armies of trolls who are going to harass you over that one, never m

Frankly, I'm shocked you made it to page 1 of HN with your second point. Be prepared for the armies of trolls who are going to harass you over that one, never mind the repeated finding that the r² between lifetime odds of being in a car accident and IQ (as a proxy for g) exceeds 0.8, along with other strong statistical correlation between IQ and lifespan, lifetime income, being nominated for a nobel prize, winning a nobel prize, and that's still just scratching the surface. In fact, if you add up all correlations, adjusted for strength, existing research suggests there is no other single data point (age, race, gender, sex, religion, country of birth, parent(s) SES, parent(s) educational attainment, disability, BMI, standardized test scores, etc) that predicts as much, as powerfully as IQ (again, as a proxy for g) does. I am not taking a position for or against these findings, and it's fair to note that all of these findings occur within the broader paradigm of the replication crisis, affecting even the most prolific studies oft cited for some of the most widespread beliefs held by the scientific community, which more or less weakens the "signal to noise ratio" of the scientific community's consensus, so take those studies I've mentioned with as much a grain of salt as any other. For anyone downvoting this comment, could I please ask why, or at least whether for ideological reasons (i.e. you disagree with the ideas I am discussing) or form (i.e. tone is wrong, appears disingenuous, etc). I respect your right to do so, but I intentionally attempted to maintain an inoffensive, neutral, unbiased stance here. As a non-neurotypical person, common perception can be difficult for me to absorb without explicit feedback, so any feedback is appreciated.