Oh, and correlation fallacy is, I think, what is currently being hashed out here. That is, while many intelligent people CHOOSE high-dollar career tracks, that doesn't mean that those things select for high intelligence or have features that particularly require it. Competition tends, ironically, to select not for HIGHEST intelligence, but for optimal intelligence. This is why physicians tend to cluster around that optimal line.
I agree and disagree here.First, the original point was "as IQ goes up, so does average income." The paper we were talking shows that and lists a lot of studies also making that point. The new thing about this paper is that the author also looked at accumulated wealth and financial difficulties and IQ. He used some weird regression analyses to make his corrections, and I haven't figured out what he did yet. But I was right about the summary article having cheated: true, ("uncorrected") accumulated wealth in the IQ 105 group was ~$84K compared to ~$71K in the IQ 110 group. BUT, wealth jumped to $95K in the IQ 115 group and $133K in the IQ 125+ group. So the journalist in New Scientist made really,
really misleading statement. (PM me if you want a copy of the paper.)
I disagree with the idea that professions like engineering, medicine, and research don't select for high intelligence. Of course they do! Your IQ has to be higher than average if you're going to get through a degree or two and succeed in these fields. Sure, there are exceptions on both sides. Unmotivated smart people fail and highly motivated average people don't. But the less intelligent people will always be at a disadvantage in these professions.
And the main point is that
average IQ is higher and so are average wages.
Yes, there is probably an optimal IQ for a lot of professions. Yes, there are wealthy people with lowish IQs and very smart people working low wage jobs. But those fact are different from that fact that,
on average, income and IQ rise together.
