Manx

Show me the facts that demonstrate everything I have seen and experienced to be wrong.
Receives. I was specific with that term. Someone may receive a lot of money, that doesn't mean they earned it. See my comments above about money not correlating to energy output.
Yes, in fact. It's called class separation.

Manx

I understood that to be what you meant. And my bet still stands.
You just changed the result. We're not talking about improvement over ones parents' SES - we're talking some degree of parity with upper class. IQ is very rarely going to take someone from the poorest family to significant wealth - though it likely would result in an some degree of increase in SES.

Which is, again, why SES (of the parents) is the primary factor in future wealth.

sapiens

The result changed because the the Waller study is an additional source of evidence. Its results are different, but complimentary to the other sources of evidence I mention earlier.

I still say that if you control for IQ, SES doesn't predict as much variance as IQ controlled for SES... but it doesn't look like we will resolve this.

I don't think that getting poor people and rich people together for block parties regularly is going to equalize economic differences (that's a caricature, of course). It would have to be a massive, fundamental environmental intervention (like adoption). Even in such a case, I think class differences would eventually emerge again.

Manx

What I mean is that your proof changed - we are discussing factors involved in acquiring large wages - and as you've described the study, it demonstrates that IQ is a strong factor in acquiring more wages, but not large wages.

In other words, the evidence you brought does not relate to the discussion.
There is no solution to getting rich and poor to socialize - but assuredly, that is one of the fundamental reasons the classes remain apart.

Telluride

Telling the wealthy that they owe a larger chunk of their lives to the government than their less successful peers is abusive and immoral, regardless of how much property they are left with after the looting.

Instead of raising the tax rate of the poor, we should lower the tax rate of the wealthy.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Telluride

This isn't necessarily true. Generally speaking, the differences in wages for occupations is not based on how hard one has to work, but on how many people are capable of doing a particular job properly and efficiently.

For example; doctors aren't paid more than landscapers because their job is more difficult. They are paid more because it takes years of difficult schooling to become a doctor, but pretty much any able-bodied person can be a landscaper.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Telluride

Explain to me why they unproductive have a right to food paid for by someone else.

That depends on how severely the rich are punished. But generally speaking, they don't starve.

I'd say that society is benefits far more from the wealthy than from the poor. It would be far more crippling for society if the wealthy disappeared than if the poor were to vanish from the face of the earth. Not only would their be far less tax revenue, but the poor would be easier to replace from an employment standpoint. Anybody can clean a toilet or rake leaves. How many people can perform heart surgery, program a computer, run a corporation or practice law?

I'd also say that the poor benefit far more from society than do the wealthy. Let's pretend for a moment that "society" suddenly went away; no more public education, no more public transportation, no more "free" medical and dental care for the poor, no more food stamps, etc. Who would be hurt more by this; the wealthy or the poor?

I'm guessing the answer you're looking for would be those who benefit a lot, which would actually be the poor.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Manx

No it's not. The wealthy have more than just more money - they have power that wealth affords.

If you can suggest an effective method of balancing power without taking more money from the upper class, by all means - share it. Until there is a better option, progressive taxation is a requirement. It isn't the perfect solution to the power imbalance, but there rarely are perfect solutions to anything. I'm open to alternate suggestions - but until you start thinking of the overall power imbalance and not just the money factor, you're not going to have anything to suggest that is going to be better than progressive taxation.
As soon as the gov't isn't bankrupt and in debt, we can lower taxes, equally, for everyone.
Who's unproductive? Very few people have zero productivity - so let's use the correct description: people who are not deemed worthy of higher wages. Then your question becomes:

Explain to me why people who are not deemed worthy of higher wages have a right to food paid for by someone else.

And the answer is: Simply because society assigns priorities of value to work does not mean those priorities are beneficial to the well being of society. We have government to enable us to make laws by which society must conform based on our perceptions of what society needs to do to function properly. We don't leave every decision up to the natural progression of society, we force society to function as we see fit. If we didn't do this, if we just let society run rampant, we'd have zero need for gov't and society would be nothing more than the survival of the fittest.
This is a silly direction to take Yakk's comments. A direction taken right out of Atlas Shrugged, no less (an interesting work of pulp fiction - far inferior to The Fountainhead). It is impossible to conceive of removing one class from society - you're simply describing an impossibility - we might as well talk about Unicorns and the economic impact they would have on the sale of Pony's to little girls.

Yakk's comment is within the realm of reality, however. The upper class benefits greatly from the progress of society and the lower class benefits less so. And we know this is true because the upper class owns most things so when the economics of society perform well, that ownership increases in value.
Another discussion of an impossibility.
You have not demonstrated how the poor benefit more than the rich, you have simply described impossible realities, so your conclusions are based on nothing at this point.

Telluride

Okay, something screwy is going on here. I posted a response, and then went in to edit some stuff, but the changes I made aren't always showing up. I've logged out and reset my web browser, but stuff I changed a while ago has changed back to the way it originally was. Then the next time I look, it's different.

I cut and pasted my response to a word processing file on my computer and I will repost it later when I have more time to mess with any possible problems. Sorry to fill up the discussion with this message, but I don't know how to just delete my post (if I can do that at all), or else I would.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Manx

Your goal of protection of the rights of others is hindered by the consignment of power into the hands of the few. Ergo, your goal is dependent on my goal. If my goal fails, your goal is impossible.
Could there be a more generic description? Universal health care is a defense of individual rights by virtue of privatized health care removing the opportunity for health care form the majority and placing it more and more into the hands of the select few wealthy.
Earned is not the appropriate word. Acquired is much more fitting as it does not presume that the value was righteous simply because it was obtained. So - if the question is: Why should people be entitled to that which they have not acquired? The answer is: give it to them and they have now acquired it.

Earning requires a judgement that neither you, nor I, as individuals are capable of meting. For every doctor who has worked hard to learn information that is valuable to society, there is a mutual fund manager who does little more than evaluate growth in numbers, or there is an heir, or a celebrity. Having money does not automatically mean you deserve money. Having money does not automatically mean you worked hard. Having money does not automatically mean you are contributing to society.
See above where I discuss the lack of connection between money and value. And then add to that the reality that people are not born equal and then left to prosper or fail. Most people do not have the opportunity to become doctors, lawyers or physicists. Those who do have that opportunity are lucky. Luck is not something that is earned or deserved, it just is.
And back to the generic concept of individual rights. If people are not afforded the same opportunities as a select few others, it is evident that their individual rights are being infringed. Government is indeed supposed to protect individual rights - and by assisting those people who are not as lucky, priviledged at birth, as the select few, government is protecting their individual rights.
Other than my disagreement of your analysis, I say good.
Since I did not claim other people were removing the upper class, my description of the book was accurate. I have read the book. I have read The Fountainhead, it seems evident to me which one is a farce and which one has value to the individual.
Now you're leaning far too much on We The Living. We could have a long discussion about Ayn Rand, but, even though The Fountainhead is a book I find invaluable, her vastly misinterpreted history (or atleast, the misinterpretation of her readers) essentially prevents me from taking any such discussion seriously. In regards to your claim that a class of people has fled due specifically to constraints placed upon them, this is simply not how things went down. The monarchy of pre-Communist Russia was attacked, not because they were successful but because they were a tyranny over the masses. They were not the sole providers of innovation or intelligence - they were simply the lucky few to have been born into the ruling class. They did not attain their positions by virtue of knowledge, skill, experience or capability, and when the monarchy was gone, those things were not missing from society.
You have listed the precise aspects of society that benefit the poor and then suggested that removing them would harm the poor more than the rich. Obviously so. But those are not the only aspects of society that benefit people. Society is of benefit to the rich by allowing them to own things. Society is of benefit to the rich by allowing them to control communication. Society is of benefit to the rich by allowing them to control the potential choices of the poor. Without ownership, the rich become the poor. Without control of communication, the rich cannot control the choices of the poor. Without control, the rich lose power to mold society as they desire.

So who needs society more? Now take away the public schools, make health care even harder for the poor to attain, take away the libraries and welfare - as you are suggesting. Now the poor don't need society at all but the rich continue to require it to protect their ownership and their control. Now you have a tyranny. How long do you think it will last? Hopefully before we get to that stage you'll learn that even poor people are intelligent, innovative and capable of producing and greatly benefitting society - they were simply not born into the opportunity to achieve those things. And when the tyranny is destroyed and the upper class vanquished - do you honestly think there will be no more achievement of excellence in society? Access to money does not correlate to capability.
Doesn't matter, I decided to let you have your cake and eat it too.

Manx

Galt - I'm not sure if I responded to your final version or not. But it's an interesting discussion, so if there is more your wanted to add, please highlight that portion when you post again.

Yakk

/shrug. I simply told you what happens if you punish them. If your goal is to kill people, or you find people's death inconsequential, you can ignore this fact.

Secondly, they have a right to revolt -- to take up societial justice in the court of last appeal. When you push down on people at the bottom of society, they either die or they tear society appart in revolution.

Thirdly, blood from a stone -- it doesn't work. If government seeks to be the largest leviathan of the society, it cannot allow rivals within it's sphere of power. If it isn't the largest leviathan, than it is no longer really the government of that region. Whatever the real power in the area is matters, not the nominal government.

Ayep. There have been situations where the rich get punished so much that they starve. See the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution or...

And no, I'm not saying this is good. I'm just admitting it can happen.

If you like, you can rearrange society that way. I'm sure many people will be happy to sell your lower-classes weapons, it has happened many times in history.

Naturally you could reverse society back far enough that the under-classes are so downtrodden they can't even manage to revolt. But that would reduce the upper-classes to a level of poverty that most westerners wouldn't like, and would make it hard to maintain a military defence against hostile, more progressive, societies.

If you determine worth by what happens if they go away, what happens when the land owners decide to revolt? When the owner of a thin line of land decides to prevent crossing?

Monopoly gives you market power, but that doesn't make the price just.

If the wealthy disappeared from the face of the earth, Ayn Rand's novel wouldn't happen. It's a work of fiction. With really bad sex scenes.

No more police. Invading armies crossing the land, plundering what they will. No more property rights. No more contract enforcement. No more medicine. Bandits on the roads, bandits in the castles, bandits at your back. Deadly infections deseases everywhere, killing 10%-50% of children under 10 from all over the socioeconomic spectrum.

What is being taxed from the rich is money, wealth, buying power -- while the resources gained by the rich by a stronger economy (above a certain level) are not all that important, compared to not starving to death, at the same time the things being taken away are equally unimportant.

A stable strong economy genereates more wealth and money, and a capitalist one tends to concentrate it above and beyond the virtues capitalism seeks to reward would explain.

A doctor, lawyer, computer programmer, or business man benefits hugely by having a stable society of law and order around them. Their benefit above and beyond the poor person in the street is 'only money', and that is the only additional obligation society seeks from them.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Telluride

Sorry about that, man. For some reason the forum automatically logs me out if I take to long to type my post, so I had to type a really long post really fast and then edit anything I didn't like. But then the changes I made when editing were appearing and disappearing every time I logged in or out or refreshed my screen (and there are a lot of differences between my original post and even what I have saved right now). I'll try to fix my post in the next day or two.

I just started thinking, "Damn, I hope nobody was reading my post when I erased it." That's why I just now came back to check. Sorry again.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

sapiens

IQ is a strong factor in acquiring wages across the board from low to high. Again, my proof didn't change, it was just an additional source of evidence.

Of course it relates to the discussion. We were arguing about the influence IQ has on SES. It was an additional source of evidence. I was never talking about just "large" wages. I was talking about wages across the spectrum. Actually, I didn't think that either of us were talking about large wages.

I entered the discussion in response to the statement below made by Charlatan. My argument was that it's not educational opportunity that's driving wage differences, it's something else (like ability or talent).

So, if we were talking about any level of wages, it would be wages sufficient to get a good education, a good enough education to avoid working:

I think their lack of closeness is a byproduct of something other than lack of talking to eachother, but your statement sounds like "one of the fundamental reasons the classes remain apart is because they are not close."

This is all tangential to the question of universal health care. Personally, I think that those with more money should pay more money into such a system.

Manx

The discussion I was having had to do with SES being far more of a factor in predicting high wages - not higher wages than ones parents.

In the case of the latter, I agree that IQ would be more of a factor. I do not see SES as a significant factor in relatively marginal increases in wealth over previous generations.

Sorry for the confusion.

sapiens

I wasn't just arguing "higher wages than ones parents" either. I used the within-family study by Waller as an example of controlling for SES through sampling (rather than statistically) to see what influence IQ has. (Prior sources of evidence I cited, controlled for SES and IQ statistically).

Now, outrageously wealthy people, people who have had outrageous amounts of money for generations and generations, even if they are of lower IQ than their parents will likely remain quite wealthy. However, 1) they don't represent the majority of whom I would consider rich, and 2) if they continue to have lower and lower IQs, they will lose their fortunes over generations.

Manx

I'm speaking of, say, $200,000+ a year wages. Not outrageously wealthy, but high.

There is far more probability that someone raised in a $200,000+ family will go on to earn $200,000+ than there is of a $20,000 family going on to earn $200,000. Regardless of IQ.

As for your last statement, that over generations of lower IQs, the wages will drop significantly - this is a possibility. But practically, it would be hard to reproduce the consistent drop of IQ over multiple generations as well as account for the inherent maintainability of wealth (you does not need to manage your wealth if you are rich enough to afford payment to someone who can manage it for you). If such a thing were probable, at some point we would reach a state of wealth distributed precisely according to IQ - but that does not seem remotely realistic as it would then require a child born with an anamolous high IQ born to a poor family jumping to a rich income, and vice versa.

sapiens

That's where I see our country going. Anomalous high IQs do occur. I think that's where we get stories about "if you just work hard enough even the most disadvantaged can have the 'American Dream'." It wouldn't require a jump from poorest of the poor to richest of the rich in one generation to create a society stratefied by IQ. Again, I think that's where the US is headed. We're going to have an increasingly isolated high IQ class, that high IQ group will merge with the affluent, and a deteriorating quality of life for people at the low end of the IQ spectrum.

Manx

I don't see any evidence of a progression towards that state. Money is not given to intelligence, it is given to the intelligence (or the implication, but lack, of intelligence) of those who surround the money.

sapiens

I think that money is earned by the intelligent, not given to the intelligent (or the intelligence of those who surround the money).

Manx

I don't see any evidence of that state either - money is not earned by the intelligent, it is earned by the intelligent (or given to the implication, but lack, of intelligence of those) who surround money.

Which is why I say it is given and not earned.

sapiens

What does that mean? It falls into the laps of the intelligent that happen to be near money?

To be sure, there are intelligent people who do not make money. However, intelligent people tend to have the skills and the abilities that other people find useful and are willing to pay for. (And they tend to have those skills and abilities to a greater degree than those who are less intelligent).

Manx

What it means is that, for the purposes of acquiring money, it is far more important to be surrounded by people/places/organizations with money than it is to be intelligent.

As for the "(money is) given to the implication, but lack, of intelligence" statement - this means in order to acquire money from someone, you only need to know slightly more about a specific topic of potential investment and have a persuasive demeanor. In other words, you can circumvent a lack of intelligence by improving your marketing skills. And by marketing skills I mean bullshit skills.

Seperate from that, here is another demonstration of why money does not correlate to intelligence: Bill Gates, though probably more intelligent than the average person, is not a million times more intelligent than the average person. Yet his wealth is somewhere around a million times the average.

flstf

Gates benefitted from the decision (some would call unintelligent) by IBM to farm out the operating system for their new PC product. What he and IBM did not know at the time was that whoever owned the operating system would eventually control the PC market. Paul Allen acquired QDOS for about $50K from Seattle Computing, Microsoft modified it slightly put their name on it MSDOS and IBM sold it in their computer stores along with the PCs.

Microsoft's success probably has more to do with bad (unintelligent) decisions by IBM than anything Gates did. At the time he didn't even want to do operating systems and was more interested in selling language software for the new IBM PC. Of course Microsoft made a lot of intelligent decisions after that.

Manx

Exactly. Gates got lucky. And then he probably hired people more intelligent than himself in certain fields to produce things he personally would not have been capable (intelligent) of producing. This led to more money for Gates than the more intelligent people he hired, due to Gates' higher degree of ownership in the company.

Another example, likely to be similar in almost any company, of the non-correlation between money and intelligence.

sapiens

Gates is a massive outlier. In addition, using him as evidence for anything would be tantamount to using a sample of 1 (not useful at all for making reliable inferences). I wouldn't consider him in any discussion of the relationship of IQ and income.

It is NOT likely to be similar in almost any company. I have yet to see ANY evidence presented to that effect. I have cited evidence to the contrary.

Manx

The principle of that example holds regardless of whether you attribute Gates to be an outlier. If money directly correlated to intelligence, or if such a thing were even coming to pass, we would all have approximately the same wealth - the degree of seperation between intelligence does not come CLOSE to matching the degree of seperation between wealth.
So you're telling me that at most companies, the most intelligent person is at the top?

I have never witnessed such a thing, not once. On the contrary, I have seen bullshit artists excel. And then there is physical attractiveness and its ability to increase promotion.

And I have not seen any evidence you claim to have cited which demonstrates any of this to be false. You cited a study, a book, which I have not read, but your description of the study states that it demonstrates that an increase in intelligence frequently leads to an increase in wealth - which is not at all the same as demonstrating that high wealth is in anyway associated with high intelligence.

sapiens

If Gates is an outlier, he is not representative, and is therefore not a good example.
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.

Are you talking about statistical variation?

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.

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).

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.

Everything that I have argued, I have referenced. If you want me to get more specific about references, I can. If you're unwilling to ever consider scientific research on the topics over your personal experience, then we might as well stop discussing this.

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).

Manx

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.
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.
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.
I would generally expect people who have larger networks to be in higher paid positions. Intelligence has little connection to social fortitude.
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.
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).
Nonsense. You have referenced one single thing, which was determined to not even be related to the original topic.
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.
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.

sapiens

Marginal difference in IQ among human beings? Are you familiar at all with research on IQ? If you think that there is only a marginal difference in IQ among human beings, you are completely divorced from reality and completely unfamiliar with research on intelligence. Even those who would argue that intelligence has little to do with a particular outcome I have cited would not argue that there is only a marginal difference in IQ among human beings.

This is an empirical question, not a fact

I have cited research. I have not cited my own personal experience. I will cite more research below.

The questions we have been discussing cannot be answered by logic alone. They are empirical questions that require answers from empirically driven research.

I cited two sources and offerred to cite more. Both sources were relevant to the discussion.

My point was not about whether or not large wealth should be included. It is about statistics in general. It is a mathematical impossibility to demonstrate a relationship between any two variables without including the variation of both the two variables in the calculation.

The original discussion had little to do with large wealth. I mentioned this before. Still, I the sources I have cited address it. The NLSY used by Herrnstein and Murray is a stratified representative sample of individuals in the US- meaning it includes both the very rich and the very poor. The sources I cite below also address the wealthy. However, because you don't seem to understand how relationships are demonstrated in research (see above), I have my doubts that you would understand any sources that I cite. I have argued from the beginning that there is a strong relationship between income and IQ across the ranges of both IQ and income independent of SES. Here are a few more sources.


The correlation between intelligence and income is not significantly diminished by partialing out the contributions of work experience, education, and other demographic variables. Education and intelligence each contribute to a worker's income, but the smart individuals earn most of the extra wage benefit of education. In addition, the economic benefits of either schooling or intelligence are disproportionately embodied in th rising income of educated people with high IQ scores and in the falling wages earned by less educateed people with low IQ scores. Sources:
Blackburn, M.L., and Neumark, D. (1991). Unobserved Ability, Efficiency Wages, and Interindustry Wage Differentials. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Angrist, J.D. and Krueger, A.B. (1991). Does compulsory school attendance affect schooling and earnings? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 979-1014.


The relationship of IQ and Income
Burt, C.L., 1943. Ability and income. British Journal of Educational Psychology 13, pp. 83–98.

Gottfredson, L.S., 1986. The g factor in employment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 29, pp. 293–450 Special Issue.

Herrnstein, H.J. and Murray, C., 1994. The bell curve: intelligence and class structure in American life, The Free Press, New York.

Jencks, C., 1979. Who gets ahead? The determinants of economic success in America, Basic Books, New York.

Jensen, A.R., 1998. The g factor, Praeger, Westport, CT.

Mackintosh, N.J., 1998. IQ and human intelligence, Oxford University Press, New York.

Nyborg, H & Jensen, AR (2001). Occupation and income related to psychometric g. Intelligence, Vol 29(1), 45-55.

Seems like the pot calling the kettle black, but either way, I've cited many sources. I'm skeptical that you will look into any of them, but I encourage you to do so. I'm done.

Manx

There is a marginal diference in IQ among human beings relative to the difference in wealth. Simply because you disagree with that statement does not change the fact that the wealthiest are hundreds of thousands of times more wealthy than the poorest and it does not change that fact that the most intelligent are not hundreds of thousands of times more intelligent than the least intelligent.
That you failed to grasp the original discussion does not alter the original discussion.
I'm sure Hernstein and Murray do address the wealthy - but your description thus far of their research does not address the topic. The topic is what is the primary determining factor in the future probability of an individual achieving large wealth. As you have described The Bell Curve, it does not address that topic. Rather, as you say, it addresses the topic of whether IQ affects an increase in future wealth relative to current wealth - in other words, IQ influencing progression, not IQ influencing result.
And once again, as long as you are aruging this, you are not aruging anything with me. Because that statement is NOT relevent to the topic - no matter how much you want it to be.

I searched a bit on some of these reports. Most are readily unavailable though some are summarized. Of the summaries or seemingly similar articles, I did not see much of anything which directly applies to the discussion. Based on the titles of some of them, they seem to be entirely generic - IQ and human intelligence - if I post a source to something called "Socio-economic status and delineations of wealth" is that going have any specific relevance to the topic? Most likely not.


The saddest part of this discussion, other than the fact that you never actually took part in it beyond trying to change the topic, is that I didn't even get to the parts where I deny the basis of IQ measurement to begin with or how SES effects IQ more so than genetic factors in lower income environments (this aspect entirely counters even the discussion you wanted to have) or where we discuss the other results of varying SES as they effect the ability to acquire money, such as health. Though others who have picked apart your #1 source (and the only source before your most recent post), The Bell Curve have taken the time to refute the general applicability of IQ. But since they were taking part in the discussion you wanted this to become, I'm not suprised that aspect was of high importance for them. In the case of the discussion that was taking place here, whether IQ is a quality measuring factor or not is ultimately irrelevent.

So although you attempted to change the topic (for whatever reason), the topic remains:

If you are from the upper class, you are more likely to remain in the upper class and if you are from the lower class, you are more likely to remain in the lower class - independent of respective intelligence - due to availability of opportunity.

smooth

I actually bowed out of the discussion in the hopes it would continue elsewhere. It hasn't and my apologies to anyone who feels this is taking things too far.

1. I dispute that IQ tests measure one's intelligence. You didn't explicitly agree with me, but I did notice that you understood what I meant as evidenced by your statement that, "Whatever is measured by an IQ test is stable (especially after age 10), heritable, and predicts a heck of a lot" (emphasis added).

Yes, "whatever is measured by an IQ test" is the contestable point, in my and a number of researchers' views. They argue that IQ tests measure culturally acquired knowledge as well as limiting their analyses to a few characteristics IQ test proponents argue represent one's intelligence. These researchers point out that intelligence is comprised of a number of factors besides the few tested by IQ exams and others have even argued for the existence of different types of intelligences in different people. Math, language, and spatial analysis, for example, do not adequately indicate one's cognitive abilites in their and my view.

Some researchers even take a more cynical view of IQ tests. They regard them as tests that favor the middle class and as methods to track the lower classes and funnel an overwhelming majority into non-college tracks.

If you'd like to read a peer-reviewed article and a book from this perspective, here are the citations:
Terry Kershaw "The Effects of Educational Tracking on the Social Mobility of African Americans" Journal of Black Studies, 23, 1 September 1992:152-169.

Neil Postman. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology New York: Knopf, 1992.

I suspect you know this, but I don't know about other readers following this discussion. Authors of books frequently submit chapters and/or their main findings in peer-reviewed journals before publication. My comment about H&M's failure to submit their own work for review was in response to your comment that I was ignoring peer-reviewed work on the matter. You didn't cite any initially, just their names (in fact, I identified the book for the other TFP members since you didn't actually tell us where you were pulling your data) and the fact that they wrote a book doesn't absolve them from questions arising from them not submitting their work before their peers. You seem very knowledgable about sourcing and academia, so I interpreted your gloss over that factoid as accidental.


Your points about methodology are well taken. However, you and I both know that correlation does not prove causation. Your continual use of "correlation" in these discussions is noted by me and probably others trained in methodology. But please don't set the tone for others that the linkage between IQ and income is a closed discussion in academia--it isn't. The causal relationship between the two as of right now is unknown and heavily disputed, other than to say they keep showing up together (in plain ole speak, that means high income families could beget high IQ scoring children, or vice versa).

You did outline a rudimentary analyses based on controlling for one value and determing which analysis produced the most variation. What you didn't do, however, was describe how much difference in variation existed between the two or even the significance level of the variations (the p value tells us researchers whether a finding is statistically significant--that is, whether the variation could be due to chance), not to mention a raft of other critical information that is useful in evaluating statistical tests.


2. There is much literature on the non-heritability of intelligence as measured by IQ scores. You noted yourself that scores ony become stable after age 10 or so (my reading is 13, but we both agree somewhere around adolescence). What factors do you believe to be responsible for the fluctuation until the hard-coded traits finally settle down?

Some researchers have demonstrated the flex in IQ scores, suggesting that early human interaction begets high intelligence later in life. This is the foundation of, what I have heard described as one of the most successful programs in early childhood development--Head Start. I have also heard of problems regarding pre and post testing in regards to evaluations on the programs, but by and large most criminologists and sociologists I have interacted with support the program and feel it is highly successful.

Regardless, you also mentioned a study that problematized the notion that intelligence as measured by IQ scores is hard-coded. I am referring to the adoption studies which you stated indicated fluctuation in IQ scores among children as they went from one home to another. Skeels and Dye found incredible results on environmental effects on IQ scores in 1939. Skeels did a follow up study in 1966. Their results (along with Maya Pines' study of "Genie's" development in 1981) were that environmental factors, such as, early human interaction, have huge effects on IQ scores (their participants' IQ scores varied by 30 points up and down depending on the group they were assigned to). Intelligence is not genetic--at least not pure genetic trait, since you and I also both know that nature vs. nurture is another unresolved debate.


Why do I care about the heritability of IQ scores or intelligence? Well, the initial post of yours I reacted to was the statement that wealth was caused by inherent traits--namely talent. That morphed into intelligence, measured by IQ tests. You then translated the correlation between IQ scores and income distribution into an explanatory factor for the wide disparity between classes in a socially constructed hierarchy.

That is, you are now arguing that a heritable trait is reflected in the wages of adults. This presupposes that incomes are based on equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity. Neither are equitably distributed in this society, in my opinion. In fact, I believe that highly intelligent people do not always make it to the top of the income ladder for a variety of reasons--either by luck, non-pecuniary desires, and whathaveyou. For example, I think we've both demonstrated our intelligence, but it appears we are both in academia, which isn't particularly known for paying its scholars the highest wages one can earn! LOL.

Anyway, these are my views. And my views are supported by research, as well. Albeit, from sociology rather than psychology. But this isn't the first or last time our disciplines will disagree

In the interest of my school's (Social Ecology) mission, which seeks to make transdisciplinary findings, and to answer your question of what to do about the findings you were describing:

Well, it appears that intelligence, if heritable (and I don't see any reason why one's propensity for intelligence wouldn't be; but that is quite a bit different than saying all human beings aren't inherently intelligent, or at least intelligent enough to do anything most other human beings can do on a daily basis with the proper training and opportunity), is influenced to a large degree by one's environment. In order to address this, we can ensure that every child before a certain age is provided with equitable resources. No more local bull-dogging of schools and schools without computers or current (or any in the extreme cases) textbooks. A good start would be to provide every student in Los Angeles with a friggin chair. I've heard similar complaints from Florida graduates.



AND FINALLY, to relate this big ole kludgefest back to the original point, I think equitable education and basic health care for people under the age of 18 is a requirement for a successful, productive, capitalist, and free society. At a minimum. I don't agree that we should leave their future, since I hope we both agree that poor environmental factors will inhibit the development of the majority of even highly intelligent persons, to the invisible hand of the market since they can't engage in it.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman