Does IQ cause income or vice versa

[IllegalArgument]

Height and luck may have just as much to do with success as IQ.

Taller people make more money, idiots get lucky.

So, it's best to be tall, smart and lucky.

 

[suicidesamurai]

Any evidence of this? It seems that your position is reflexively anti-intellectual, without any basis in reality.

Obviously I can't provide evidence that many professors are stupid, and I'm very surprised anyone would ask. But since you have such standards, I would ask that you never again express an opinion that isn't backed up by numerous scholarly papers. Thank you.

 

[Janot]

Perhaps people with a high IQ are smart enough to see that money doesn't bring happiness, and therefore pursue other goals in life?

I'm sure a few academics would agree with that. Others try and convince themselves that this is the reason for an academic career, but in reality can't cope with the world outside a library.

 

[andyandy]

i'm not sure as to the point of attempts to cling to one-to-one mappings for IQ - not least because "IQ" is simply taken as a shorthand for "intelligence" without any real discussion as to what that really means or why IQ sufficiently measures it. Nevertheless, pretending such considerations do not need to be made, there is what would appear to be some general positive correlation between "intelligence" (left undefined ) and income when one looks at intra-country representative populations. If you have significant learning disabilities then you'll be on the lower range of IQ, and relative to someone with an IQ of 130, then sure it's likely there will be a significant discrepancy in income. Equally, someone who demonstrates mathematical aptitude through the IQ test could well be expected to earn a higher wage on average than someone with no mathematical aptitude - again there are plenty of studies which show postive correlation between mathematically related qualifications (A-level, degree) and wage. But beyond such wooly generalisations, the picture is so muddied by socio-economic status, home life, wealth, education, supply and demand job markets, non-monetry considerations etc etc etc. that i do really often wonder why (admittedly a small number of) people still cling to the idea of a magic number to box and classify. It all seems a little inspired by an "Ubermench" mentality - and rarely do you find those intent on the engineering believing they occupy anything other than that top strata....

just my opinions in general on this topic, not aimed at bpesta or anyone in particular

 

[hammegk]

If that were true all those with "gifted" IQ levels would be running this country and world. It doesn't work that way of course.

Interesting claim. What facts can you offer that support it?

Standard IQ tests do not measure social intelligence or emotional intelligence.

Can you cite studies linking those measures to favorable outcomes?

 

[Solus]

Interesting claim. What facts can you offer that support it?

A few thousand years of human history for one...

Can you cite studies linking those measures to favorable outcomes?

Sure, how much do you want to pay me to do the research?

 

[IllegalArgument]

I wasn't kidding about the height stuff, read Malcolm Gadwell's Blink, he talks about the wage differences based on height.

Read Taleb's Black Swan, about luck.

 

[bpesta22]

i'm not sure as to the point of attempts to cling to one-to-one mappings for IQ - not least because "IQ" is simply taken as a shorthand for "intelligence" without any real discussion as to what that really means or why IQ sufficiently measures it. Nevertheless, pretending such considerations do not need to be made, there is what would appear to be some general positive correlation between "intelligence" (left undefined ) and income when one looks at intra-country representative populations. If you have significant learning disabilities then you'll be on the lower range of IQ, and relative to someone with an IQ of 130, then sure it's likely there will be a significant discrepancy in income. Equally, someone who demonstrates mathematical aptitude through the IQ test could well be expected to earn a higher wage on average than someone with no mathematical aptitude - again there are plenty of studies which show postive correlation between mathematically related qualifications (A-level, degree) and wage. But beyond such wooly generalisations, the picture is so muddied by socio-economic status, home life, wealth, education, supply and demand job markets, non-monetry considerations etc etc etc. that i do really often wonder why (admittedly a small number of) people still cling to the idea of a magic number to box and classify. It all seems a little inspired by an "Ubermench" mentality - and rarely do you find those intent on the engineering believing they occupy anything other than that top strata....

just my opinions in general on this topic, not aimed at bpesta or anyone in particular

The relationship between IQ and income is linear throughout the fat part of the curve. It does not depend on the extreme groups comparison you propose.

I will post some data on this later tonight.

The single number thing: What you say makes complete sense, but psychologists have been studying this and devising tests of IQ for over 100 years. The consistent finding is that only one number matters-- g; general mental ability. g is likely some basic mental process like how fast or how much info we can process at one time. Hence, it's important in every mental task.

And, for just about any mental task that's been studied, we can index how well the test measures g (its g-loading) versus how well it measures any other specific mental ability. The correlation between how well a test measures g and how well it predicts success is near unity.

Multiple IQ is very touchy-feely popular among lay people. Problem is: No one can measure a specific mental ability without also measuring g. All of the predicative value of any measure of mental ability comes soley from g. Even Gardiner himself has admitted he cannot measure his different types of intelligences. Sternberg too-- his triarchic theory of IQ fails because despite 20+ years of trying, he can't measure / validate anything other than g.

If this test of "intelligence" does not measure g, it does not predict anything. IF (and to the extent) the test measures g, it predicts everything.

Ok, let's move the goal post then. Now, someone here will demand a 100% accurate definition of what g is biologically. Surely, unless we know exactly what something is now, we have no business measuring its effects (gravity comes up as a good example often here). This is why I didn't want to open the can of worms up here, since we have many threads on it.

 

[hammegk]

A few thousand years of human history for one...

Oh? You have the IQ test results to back up your claim?

Sure, how much do you want to pay me to do the research?

What it's worth. "Nothing" seems appropriate.

Do you have anything of merit to add? Unfounded speculation is worthless.

 

[kjkent1]

Luck is not some mysterious quality one either possesses or doesn't. You make your own luck, largely, by attitude and observation.

Tell that to lottery winners. In fact, tell it to Bill Gates. He openly acknowledges that if it weren't' for his father being connected to IBM, Bill would never have had the opportunity to sell his little basic interpreter. And, without that income stream -- no Microsoft Corporation dynasty.

Does Bill have a high IQ? Absolutely. Is that the reason why he's the richest man on Earth? Nope. He's rich because he's smart, AND his daddy was connected at the right time and place.

Random chance is a proven reality in this universe. It has a profound effect on the outcome of everything.

Occasionally a crazy coincidence happens which puts something amazing in your path but generally those with good luck are doing something different to those without, and anyone with 'bad' luck can improve their luck.

You must be very lucky.

My point about the plumbers was that the market dictates the value of the skill based on its availability. In the UK, a plumber can charge a lot of money because there are so few plumbers. If there were more plumbers, his income would drop. IQ is not relevant.

Then, a wealthy plumber in the UK is wealthy in part because he/she happens to have become a plumber during a time when there's money to be made. Were he a painter, perhaps he would be less wealthy -- or less lucky!

 

[Just thinking]

I believe all of the following can have a strong influence on income ...

1) Height

2) Attractiveness

3) Physical disabilities -- Physical strength

4) IQ

5) Family influence (can include but not limited to businesses already in the family, family wealth, friends of family, family stability)

6) Dumb luck (e.g.; lottery winnings)

7) Personality profile (type A vs. type B)

8) Being a morning person (vs. an evening person)

9) Personal ethics

10) Greed

11) Timing

12) Who you know

13) Where you live

14) Education (Subject matter as well as grade level --- not to mention school choice)

This list I'm sure is only partial .... but any given one can override all others in determining personal financial status.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

I don't doubt that IQ is a factor in SES, but it seems absurd to designate it THE factor when the complex nature of the world is so patent.

Does anyone else here suspect that where you are born is often more likely to determine your SES than your IQ is? Or are the people of Malawi, and other poor countries, just on the low end of the socio-economic ladder due to their IQs? I suspect that causes for one's SES are many and complex and those causes are not uniform throughout the world but are likely to vary by culture, environment, etc. IQ is one of them, but one among many.

 

[tkingdoll]

Tell that to lottery winners. In fact, tell it to Bill Gates. He openly acknowledges that if it weren't' for his father being connected to IBM, Bill would never have had the opportunity to sell his little basic interpreter. And, without that income stream -- no Microsoft Corporation dynasty.

Does Bill have a high IQ? Absolutely. Is that the reason why he's the richest man on Earth? Nope. He's rich because he's smart, AND his daddy was connected at the right time and place.

Random chance is a proven reality in this universe. It has a profound effect on the outcome of everything.

I guess you didn't read any of the information I provided then.

Bill Gates' dad might have had connections to IBM, but Bill spotted the opportunity and used it. That is what making luck is. You said it yourself, he had the opportunity to sell to them. He saw that opportunity, he acted on it, and now you're calling it nothing but luck.

The opportunity is random chance, identifying it and acting on it is not. Attitude is extremely important. Random chance will put a fiver dollar bill in your path. An anxious person is less likely to see a five dollar bill on the floor than a relaxed person. Luck is controllable.

 

[Just thinking]

... Luck is controllable.

I get your point ... I just wouldn't agree with the word controllable --- the fortunate event/situation isn't controllable, just what you do with it.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Like people (and pretty much everything else), luck is exploitable.

 

[Just thinking]

A much better word.

 

[tkingdoll]

I get your point ... I just wouldn't agree with the word controllable --- the fortunate event/situation isn't controllable, just what you do with it.

No, because 'luck' is people's perception of the outcome of your reaction to an opportunity. So if you are perceived as 'lucky', it's not because you have more opportunities, it's because you spot them and act differently to the 'unlucky' person. Luck itself isn't a thing, it's just the name other people put to an outcome as it relates to a person. The fiver being on the ground isn't itself a lucky thing - it's nothing. The lucky part is spotting it, and that is something you can control. Or: the 'what you do with it' part of your sentence is the bit that relates to luck perception, not the event/situation part.

Winning the lottery isn't lucky - I'd be interested to meet the person who won the lottery without spotting and taking up the opportunity known as 'buying a lottery ticket'. That is the degree to which you are controlling your own luck. People who are seen as lucky in competitions enter more than others. Conversely, those seen as unlucky think "I'm unlucky, what's the point of entering?" and so they don't bother. Hence they never win, and perpetuate the perception about themselves.

I'm not saying anyone can control how many random chances come into their lives, of course not. I'm saying anyone can control whether or not they are a lucky or unlucky person, simply by changing the way they observe and respond to those random chances.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

Winning the lottery isn't lucky - I'd be interested to meet the person who won the lottery without spotting and taking up the opportunity known as 'buying a lottery ticket'.

So, it's the spotting and taking up the opportunity known as "buying a lottery ticket" that's the lucky part? Not the winning? Or is there just no luck at all involved?

 

[andyandy]

I guess you didn't read any of the information I provided then.

Bill Gates' dad might have had connections to IBM, but Bill spotted the opportunity and used it. That is what making luck is. You said it yourself, he had the opportunity to sell to them. He saw that opportunity, he acted on it, and now you're calling it nothing but luck.

The opportunity is random chance, identifying it and acting on it is not. Attitude is extremely important. Random chance will put a fiver dollar bill in your path. An anxious person is less likely to see a five dollar bill on the floor than a relaxed person. Luck is controllable.

I think to say that "luck is controllable" is something of an overstatement - or at least something which could be misinterepreted as such...

luck itself is simply a subjective perception - "good luck" and "bad luck" are meaningless outside a personal comparative - so when we talk about "luck" in general terms it makes no sense to talk of it being controllable. Things just happen, and some people will attribute labels of "luck" to some events - to then post hoc look for controllable factors to use to pass judgement as to whether that luck was "controlled" or not is therefore also redundant.
You weren't run over by a bus last Tuesday - and yet I doubt you got home feeling lucky as a result, you didn't contract meningitous and die as a teenager, or weren't born with severe brain damage - we are "lucky" that every one of our fathers, mothers, grandfathers, great great grandfathers or neolithlic hunter gatherer ancestors didn't get eaten by sabre toothed tigers, die as a galley slave or get trapped in a mine before having the opportunity to pass on their DNA in an unbroken chain spanning millions of years that led to one particular sperm out of millions of competitors to fertilise an egg that led to me or you. Luck is a meaningless concept - you find good luck and bad luck in equal measure where ever you choose to look for it. And you certainly can't control a concept

I'm saying anyone can control whether or not they are a lucky or unlucky person, simply by changing the way they observe and respond to those random chances.

This is only true insofar as you can control whether or not you are a "lucky" person by deciding that you are.

 

[tkingdoll]

So, it's the spotting and taking up the opportunity known as "buying a lottery ticket" that's the lucky part? Not the winning? Or is there just no luck at all involved?

Without that part, they don't win. Of course there's no luck involved. Your chances of winning are the same as anyone else who bought a ticket. What do you think 'luck' is under those circumstances? It's just the label we put on the person whose taking up of an opportunity paid off. If they don't take up the opportunity, they don't win

But to be honest I'm not sure many people see lottery winners as lucky anyway, compared to, say, someone who constantly finds money on the street. The lottery isn't a great example to use when discussing luck, I only mentioned it because kjent1 used it as an example of a spontaneously lucky person and I wanted to point out that no-one won the lottery who didn't enter it.

But, as mentioned a few posts ago, on occasion there are totally random lucky events 'a bag of money falling from the sky onto your head without hurting you' that have nothing to do with opportunity. But these are rare and aren't really what make the societal perception of luck.