|
|
|
|
|
|
by justin_vanw
3075 days ago
|
|
|
> Intelligence isn't as strong a determinant as you claim, in either direction. Your claim is incorrect. http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intellige... EDIT: over the course of one generation, higher intelligence leads to a dramatically higher income. In the long run, if this effect continues, this will be compounded as higher intelligence parents are also higher income parents (by hypothesis). |
|
|
"The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES"
I.e., intelligence is about as likely to explain success (or lack thereof) as parental income. This is exactly what I was saying -- if you want to guess whether a 5 year old is going to succeed, take a look at their parents.
In short, I don't think this paper is the home-run for your case that you think it is. If what you're claiming is true, we'd expect intelligence to be radically better as a predictor than SES. But it isn't.
The paper also notes some important criticisms that cut that right to the core of your use of this paper in the context of the "nature vs nurture" debate.
Edit: the second component of your edit (" In the long run...") is absolutely NOT justified by the paper you cite, and is wild conjecture at best.