Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
If Gates is an outlier, he is not representative, and is therefore not a good example.
|
Again, regardless of whether you consider Gates to be an outlier, the principle still holds. Luck is yet another factor in accumulating wealth. Luck has no connection to IQ.
Quote:
|
Who is "we"? The tfp? Because, we would be a very sample, suffering from a restriction of range. The full range of IQ scores is far greater than what is represented on the TFP.
|
We. The people of the United States of America. If IQ were the almost exclusive determining factor in wealth distribution, the people of the United States would be nearly equally wealthy, simply due to the marginal difference in IQ amongst human beings.
Quote:
|
Are you talking about statistical variation?
|
I am stating that the scope change of lowest to highest IQ does not come within the same galaxy as the scope change of lowest to highest wealth.
Quote:
|
I'm talking about ranges of income across the population of the United States. I'm not talking about within one company, but depending on the company, I would generally expect more intelligent people in higher paid positions.
|
I would generally expect people who have larger networks to be in higher paid positions. Intelligence has little connection to social fortitude.
Quote:
|
Whether or not you have witnessed such a thing is irrelevant. First, you are a sample of one. Second, you have not administered IQ tests to the individuals represented in the incidents you have witnessed. Your personal assessments of others intelligence are unlikely to be reliable or valid. (At least to anyone actually trying to study the relationships we have been discussing).
|
Since no study of the relationship we are discussing has been presented in this discussion, we each have a sum total of one sample by which to evaluate our opinions - and that one sample happens to be ourselves, individually. So whether I have witnessed such a thing is the only basis for my opinion in light of the complete lack of evidence or logic presented by you. I have already expressed numerous examples of logic that supports my overall claim - conversely, you have not expressed logic that supports your claim.
Quote:
|
First, now were suddenly discussing physical attractiveness and "bullshit" ability? Second, who's to say those bullshit artists and attractive people aren't intelligent? You're just speaking from personal experience.
|
See my comments above about personal experience being essentially the only thing of relevence in this discussion, beyond the logic I have already presented. And why would you express shock that I bring up salesmanship and physical attractiveness? Those are two logical examples of how people progress up the ladder of wages without requiring the superior intelligence - which is what you are claiming is the primary, near only, factor (still having yet to demonstrate an element of logic that supports such a claim).
Quote:
|
Everything that I have argued, I have referenced.
|
Nonsense. You have referenced one single thing, which was determined to not even be related to the original topic.
Quote:
|
If you're unwilling to ever consider scientific research on the topics over your personal experience, then we might as well stop discussing this.
|
I'm not unwilling to consider scientific research on the topics. You haven't presented any scientific research on the topic. If you want to discuss this beyond the realm of your opinion vs. my opinion (which I have supported with logic), please show me a scientific study which actually relates to the topic of large wealth not primarily dependent on SES.
Quote:
|
In order to demonstrate something like high IQ leads to high wealth, you have to consider the full range of intelligence and income. Without doing so, it would be impossible to demonstrate. (It would be impossible to demonstrate any relationship between variables if you restrict yourself to the end of the spectrum of the variables you are investigating).
|
That sounds an awful lot like you're now telling me that my entire point is the wrong point to have and I should change my point so that it includes any increase in wealth, which would of course make your study relevent to the topic, by virtue of changing the topic.
No.
My point stands, whether you want to rely on a non-relevent book or not. Large wealth correlates far more to SES than it does to IQ. I would suggest that IQ has as much bearing on aquiring wealth as physical attractiveness. Your unsupported hypothesis fails to consider basic human psychology on many fronts.
But now I'm tired of simply going around in circles with this discussion. If you want to add something of logic or scientific study which actually relates to the topic, I will consider it. More of the same and you're on your own.