PieFed.WorldI Quit
submitted by
√𝛂𝛋𝛆
https://media.piefed.world/posts/KI/H9/KIH9P0dG4biPlnt.png
No test measures intelligence. A test only measures you relative to the persons that wrote the test. – loosely quoting Asimov.
2007 is ancient history now. It is an interesting graph that one might correlate with a lack of meritocratic structure in society, but I'm on the low end cause I say this without looking up and reading the study. Pretty pictures evoke emotional blabbering bias and all that.
Looks like there's some other Factor X (in orange) not accounted for in the data.
Y'know, like, rich parents, stable household, access to resources, and opportunities, etc
Reminds me of the marshmallow test:
https://locusmag.com/feature/cory-doctorow-marshmallow-longtermism/
Doesn't provide a source
He usually has a companion piece on his blog for anything that goes into Locus. There, he linked to the wiki page about the marshmallow test, which has a section on follow-up studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment#Follow-up_studies
Interesting, the follow-ups all together paint quite a different picture than the above quote/blog post
This would be a bit unprofessional
Very interesting. I imagine an even simpler explanation for why poorer kids do less well in school:
You simply can't focus on abstract thoughts if you're lacking basic ingredients in your life.
It's something like the pyramid of needs:
When you're hungry in school because you didn't have proper breakfast because your parents had too little time to prepare one or were unable to actually buy proper-quality ingredients, your brain simply can't focus on geography of the other end of the world or god forbid, calculus.
I guess that if schoolkids were given free meals before school and during midday break, their performance in school-related activity would improve by at least 50% in poorer regions.
I genuinely thought that was the point of this graph. The logarithmic function in blue very clearly shows there is a limit as to what IQ alone will net you.
People will look at the same graph and come up with different explanations. I personally agree with your interpretation.
Not only that, on the other end of the graph it is known that poverty is a great stressor requiring constant mental bandwidth - that therefore can’t see used to “be smart”. So poorer people are not less smart, they allocated their mental resources to take care of their situation first and only later try to look smart in the test.
Being rich is pretty fucking obviously mostly about being born to rich parents.
I thought poor people were poor because they spend all their money on avocado toast, while rich people eat bootstraps or something like that
i think the rich have seen the avocado toast problem for a long time. that's why they sell you avocado toast, because clearly it's making you poor and they have too much of it.
Being smart too.
If your parents are rich you would have gone to the better funded schools with better teachers and better clubs/programs and focus on those with your stress-free lifestyle to grow up smarter.
You will make a little more or a little less than your parents did. That is the biggest determination on your income level.
or a lot less that's fun too
I’m doing fucking great then.
I'd like to see the same chart done but with EQ (emotional intelligence).
I'd also like to see the chart if it was actually representative of the rich. Populate the chart with individuals reporting >2.5 million in income per year.
This is more like a chart of, "does being smart help you stay above the poverty line?"
I've said for a long time that intelligence isn't the number one trait for becoming filthy rich. It's lack of a moral compass.
Ya got a source though? Like everyone knows sociopaths are great at CEO and other executive roles, but what does the same plot look like for ethics
Nope. But if I believe it it's true. That how it works now right?
Seriously, no chart but there seem to be plenty of examples and few exceptions. There are something like 2700 billionaires in the world. I certainly am not familiar with all of them.
But also I have seen opportunities to improve my financial standing in ways that are not ethical. I did not take them. I assume others do.
So in conclusion, it's just observation. Do you disagree with the assessment or are you looking for proof?
Also in my defense, I said it was something I said, not something I could prove.
I have a counter anecdote!
Worked for a rich family as the sysadmin at their business. They would refuse to make unethical decisions. First manager's meeting I sat we had a choice of screwing our clients, just a little, thereby making up on some money we were losing. Or, we could leave things as they were. VP looked around the table, "Well. Guess we have to do the right thing."
I always got tickets to a charity ball at the beach. The family was top donors and wouldn't show up. They were true believers in the Biblical admonition to STFU about your charity and just do it.
ask them how their family got rich
Guess there exceptions to every rule.
Anecdotes aren't evidence, and we all have anecdotes, but a counter anecdote would be I have seen people who take unethical choices experienc reduced income due to loss of job offers, dismissal from existing jobs, criminal penalties, loss of contacts and relationships.
How about the gobs and gobs of people who have been fucked over by billionaires?
Let me phrase it this way: do you think Elon Musk is worth 40000 times the value of the median Tesla worker (2019 numbers by the way, he's worth more now)? Gates? Bezos? Are they really worth more than the value they extract from their employees?
No? Great, we agree — there is no such thing as an ethical billionaire.
That's a different argument. We are talking about whether ethics is a direct factor in income. Billionaires are outliers. In a population study of millions of people, or even a survey of hundreds, billionaires aren't going to have any bearing on the outcome.
Yeah, agreed.
Even America's sweet heart Taylor Swift. She's a billionaire and her groupies wind up paying $1300 to see a show. Then I heard she's writing a book. I mean how much do you need? She could be doing world tours for free, subsidizing ticket prices, I don't know, starting up a competitive company to Ticketmaster.
Elon Musk levels of income could friggin cure diseases or hunger or something or at least make a huge dent. Think about it. If he liquidated his entire net worth and gave up on his Nazi empire building he could use $490B on a good cause and STILL be a billionaire.
There was one guy though. I forgot his name. He signed that pact that Warren Buffett created where those who signed, pledged to give away all or most of there wealth. I think like two did it after they died but this one guy gave it all away while he was (is?) alive.
Billionares would have no bearing whatsoever on the same type of research being discussed. See my other comment.
i think the lack of moral compass is just an enabler, what actually causes someone to amass such obscene wealth is wanting that much money. An even remotely normal person outright has no actual desire for it, they'd reach a level of wealth that will comfortably support the lifestyle they desire and just live off of that.
These turborich shits have some reason to desire the obscene wealth, either they simply have no actual end to the luxuries they desire or they feel that wealth is straight up equal to value as a person, or somesuch.
Just imagine having a billion dollars, a thousand million dollars. Why the fuck would you keep putting in any sort of work to get more money? Investing a tenth of it would give you a constant income that most people can't even dream of. Any person with a billion dollars should never even think about the concept of money again, they can buy anything they want save most countries and never ever ever ever have to worry about affording it.
Yeah, I agree. I always thought if I could ask a billionaire one questions it would be, "How much is enough?" Then I realized, I know the answer to that question. There's never enough. What a real shame. They could live so extravagantly and still do so much good with the rest, but they would rather spend it crushing people and looking down on them for some ridiculous notion that they're world builders or something.
Bezos said in an interview that he had so much money the only thing he could really spend it on was space travel. I'm like, how about paying your employees a living wage and letting them use the toilet you asshat!
wealthy families, buy thier children nice private schools, private tutors, Nepotism, and other resources unavailable to othters, also gives them a sense of entitlement, thats why alot of these expensive college produce elitist graduates.
Great now to one that shows hard work against prosperity
... Or just change the names on the axes it'll be easier
Making 180k with that 70 IQ brain
Sports maybe?
no wait
influencer
Edit: Nah, no influencers in 2007, a blissful time
Oil rig divers
one half of the rich are rich because they were born rich
Just imagining a world where there's no antidemocratic inheritance and all income is between 20-230k per year
imagining a world where income is measured in handmade gifts of gratitude per year
a doctor brags about saving the lives of 5 people this year and getting a bouquet of flowers from each, then does the sad squidward face as a preschool worker pours 30 friendship bracelets from their bag, saying "this is what the kids forced onto me TODAY"
Pretty well backs up the a statement I've been making for years. You don't have to be smart to be rich. You just have to lack decency.
Rich people aren't even in the graphic, they're way off the top of the scale. The top of this graph doesn't even get you into the top 5% in my state.
Being smart might help you get a better job, but jobs aren't a great way to become rich anyway.
I mean, while it's true that IQ tests aren't a great measure of intelligence, it's not like all humans are equally intelligent. We all know some people who are clearly smart and some people who are clearly dumb. And I think it's completely expected that being smarter gives you some advantage at getting money. I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that being smart is generally advantageous in life. This chart seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me...there is a slight correlation, moreso on the low end (how can severely mentally retarded people do most jobs or even have incomes?), and less so on the high end. It makes a mistake in talking about income rather than net worth, which is really the more pertinent thing in "being rich". I bet we would see a much lower correlation there, because you can be born into having a high net worth. But the correlation isn't too high, because, as everyone reasonable already suspected, being rich is almost entirely about being lucky. I don't think this chart really has any import to the many social discussions about meritocracy or wealth or intelligence, except for maybe to disprove someone who believes that we live in a fair world where "if you're smart and work hard you can make it". But even then, that would rely on a misunderstanding of what the chart tells us.
Basically, I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.
I don't. I thought maybe Elon musk is smart or maybe he is a good public speaker. Maybe he is charismatic or maybe he is just lying really effectively.
With 20/20 hindsight it's good to reflect and understand it was smart to be cautious about my judgement. I will never be sure if someone is smart or dumb, because there's so much going on I can't possibly understand.
Even Einstein who clearly had a lot of very impactful and helpful theories and ideas I wouldn't say is smart. I would only go so far as to say he is a great physicist.
I also disagree that being smart is generally advantageous in life. All the people who seemed smart to me were deeply depressed at some point in their life, some even still and some even went a bit further with it.
What I'm trying to say is the world is complex, and such generalizations only lead to wrong causal links.
Maybe smart don't give you money but money helps to learn and become smart. Maybe smarts don't give you advantages in life but an advantageous life affords you opportunities to become smarter. Maybe being smart is the wrong way to think about it and it's all just different patterns and behaviors of thinking. Or maybe your thoughts are more profound in some circles and people who think more profound appear smarter to us.
Let's just take a healthy dose of skepticism to such studies but also to all those "we all know it" ideas. I don't. I'm fucking stupid but that leads to smarter decisions than the me who assumes a bunch of stuff.
I feel ya, I also generally am very against "it's just common sense!" type reasoning. But have you ever spent time with, like special education students? Like someone who will need to live with their parents forever because they can't learn to do things like read or write? It's nice to believe that maybe if only they had been given the right environment, they wouldn't have those problems - it's also just not true. Or perhaps we can take a more extremely example of someone who suffered a major brain injury. It sucks, and it's unfair, but at the end of the day some people really are definitively less smart than others. And by that same token, those others are definitively more smart than them. Of course, once people are at a certain level, it gets a lot harder to tell, but that dynamic is still in play. Likewise, if you've ever had the experience of interacting with a gifted kid, it's pretty clear that they're smarter than others.
That's a good distinction about intelligence being generally advantageous. That is why I said generally - it has some clear disadvantages like loneliness or a deeper awareness of the world's problems, etc. But most of the time, being smart is advantageous, don't you think? I mean, what is intelligence other than an ability to correctly understand reality? I do agree that sometimes having a false understanding of reality can coincidentally help you out, but knowing how things really are is certainly the superior strategy. If you think otherwise, it's always easy to make yourself dumber and reap the rewards. I don't mean that sarcastically or cruelly. I just mean, there's a reason we don't see intelligent people lobotomizing themselves to have better lives.
Agreed the chart only shows correlation and not causation in either direction.
The core problem here is that "intelligence" as a single thing doesn't exist, it's like trying to measure someone's fitness by just looking at their sprints and deadlifts. People can be good at some things and bad at some things, and even if you're above average at all the measurable things that doesn't really matter much if you're an asshole who no one wants to hire onto their sports team.
IQ is fine as a mesaure of your general performance at some specific cognitive tasks, but for various reasons people basically always ignore that and just treat it like a number that magically summarizes how objectively good your brain is..
Sorry buddy, but "Einstein wasn't smart" just isn't something I can take seriously.
Denying intellectual disparities denies the vulnerability of people with special needs, not to mention average folks who are constantly being deceived, swindled, manipulated, propagandized, and parasitized by the rich and powerful.
You don’t know people who are clearly dumb?
The average ACT score for college-bound seniors in Florida is 18. The test costs money, so they’re
trying. It’s childishly easy. My cat, who is illiterate, can score almost as high (answering at random).
What kind of conversations can you have with folks who can’t do arithmetic or read simple sentences?
I want to stress that Americans, uniquely, are really weird about testing mental ability, because of their history of racism. Nevertheless, intelligence is a real phenomenon.
A high IQ doesn’t make you a good person, and it clearly has very little to do with accumulating wealth. But it does make life a hell of a lot easier. It enables you to do second order reasoning and engage in abstract deliberation, which is indispensable for ethics and science. Or do you think it’s a coincidence that average IQs rose 30 points in the last 100 years exactly in tandem with moral progress?
In my experience, type A personality has more to do with being able to earn a lot vs anything else. The cake is a lie.
No, you just have to be born rich.
Yep. No such thing as an IQ, so there’s no way to test for it. I mean, I could test for intelligence on whether or not someone is a socialist, but then people would immediately start objecting—which proves my point haha.
So IQ tests are based on political ideology?
What? No, I was making a point about arbitrary measures of intelligence.
Isn't IQ based on problem solving or something? Is it really as arbitrary as political ideals? I've heard it's racist, and I'm totally willing to accept that, but I currently have no clue how that would be possible.
Intelligence is not something that can be quantified in any way whatsoever, and I would consider any IQ test to be fully arbitrary—so the answer is yes. I’m sure there’s some problem solving component.
If you ever want evidence of IQ being bullshit, I have a super genius IQ. It’s like 666 standard deviations above the mean. Talk to anyone who has ever talked to me and they will very quickly disagree! 😂
Mind explaining the 666 standard deviations above the mean? I just did a quick google search, and the AI says that's impossible, but if one standard deviation is 15 points and the mean is 100(which is my new understanding)..... Are you saying your IQ is OVER 9,000?!?!?! 10,090, I think. That's hilarious
Yes, sorry, I was just making a stupid joke!
I think they said my IQ was 144?
The original IQ test is most certainly bunk (what wasn't back then?), but modern tests (at least the one i took, which i think was WAIS-IV) seem fine so long as you don't start reading a bunch of other extrapolations into them.
Nowadays it's not just a single number, because "intelligence" isn't a single thing. For example my total score is like 120, but i have dogshit working memory (80 i think?), so that quickly summarizes that i'm good at things like pattern recognition and understanding language, and i'm fast at it, but i clearly need help with remembering new things.
I'm sure it's far from perfect still, but i feel like a lot of the complaints people have about IQ tests is because the name is bad. It shouldn't be called "intelligence quota", but rather something like "cognitive performance index" so people don't treat it as something grander than it is.
It's the brain equivalent of measuring how much you can lift and squat, how fast you can run 100m, how fast you can run a marathon, and how high you can jump, comparing that against how everyone else performs, and then averaging out the scores and acting like it's an accurate measurement of how healthy you are.. If you just actually look at the individual scores it's obviously a reasonably useful measurement, but at the same time it obviously doesn't have anything to do with your value as a person.
link pls
https://gwern.net/doc/iq/ses/2007-zagorsky.pdf
Seems to be it.
Cool thanks. Skimming the article it seems they find a relationship between IQ and income but not wealth. The explanatory variables seem odd - in the literature section they mention research on gender and income but it is not mentioned in their analysis at all. Their analysis of financial difficulty seems wobbly and they have conclusions and hypotheses but personally I don't find the results very convincing. Apart from a protective effect of a very low IQ score. I am going to guess that financially savvy people would blaze through the test, collect their $50 and spend the rest of their day on some better.
Just a random image I saved from a 4 chan thread of interesting stuff. Sorry friend. Your search is as good as mine. Single author is already a bad sign, as if 4 chan image and no doi were not cataclysmic red flags enough. It doesn't look malevolent IMO, but solid shitpost territory.
I'd be curious to see a chart like this but with savings or some other form of stored wealth! Because I'd like to believe that smarter people might not earn that much more, but they're more diligent about saving what they do get
I do not think that would be as correlated as you imagine either. Conservativism is not particularly intelligent. Spotting an opportunity will often evolve and lead down different paths. Many engineers have gained and lost vast quantities of wealth pursuing ventures. Business is hard and it is impossible to constrain all variables.
Fair, there probably isn't any correlation, I'd just like to believe that I'm smart because I'm good at saving 😆 Although my last IQ test (during my Adhd evaluation last year) wasn't much over 110 anyways, so I don't even count as smart on paper haha
There might not be any single correlation, but if it were possible to measure "productive output" in some normalized manner over a career, there would decidedly be a correlation I imagine
I've always said the rich have to be somewhat intelligent to hang onto the money. Worked for a fairly rich family and scammers and salesmen were constantly after them.
I now use the "Likes AI Test" to measure IQ. The premise is that AI can only be average because it consumes everything on the internet indiscriminately. So, people with greater than average critical thinking and knowledge hate AI because its dumber than them and useless. Conversely, people with less than average critical think and knowledge love AI because it seems smarter than them. So if we measure someones like or dislike of AI we can infer the general range of their IQ.
Given this above test, this means my boss is a fucking idiot and gets paid a lot of money to be an idiot.
I am much better at washing dishes by hand than my dishwasher. I still mostly let my dishwasher have a crack at things to spare me from usually having to bother.
It's a bit trickier with AI, as it's more obnoxiously screwing up when it screws up, but at least upon occasion it's able to spit out a few mind numbingly obvious lines of code that would have taken me longer to type myself, because I can only hit keyboard buttons so fast.
We are going to put you at about 90
If you're using AI because it's smart, you're dump. However AI holds imo way more value in knowledge and speed for simple tasks.
It doesn't matter how smart you are, AI has more knowledge than you. Maybe not in a specific field but its a valuable tool in getting knowledge for a lot of different topics.
It doesn't matter how smart you are, AI is faster in simple tasks like creating a python script to parse hex data and visualize it.
So even though I hate AI like the next person I think this IQ measuring you proposed is bullshit.
Congrats you're dumber than AI
We are going to put you at about 85
Every accusation is a confession
That retort does not work in this context.
IQ only measures someone's ability to answer correctly on IQ tests.
ability and willingness
which is a somewhat useful thing to know, as it indicates performance in similar tasks.
Like what lol