|
0 members (),
411
guests, and
41
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Charles Murray classified his highest IQ group as 125+, so for the twelfth time, he has nothing to say about the highly gifted. According to research cited in the thread Genetics and intelligence differences high intelligence is familial, heritable, and caused by the same genetic and environmental factors responsible for the normal distribution of intelligence. so what is true of the demographics of the 125+ IQ population is true of the 145+ IQ population, only more so. Yes, the links between parent IQ and child IQ are well established. Charles Murray is attempting to link IQ to financial outcomes. Those are not the same things An IQ of 125 occurs one in every 17 people, so we're talking about the smart kid in a very small classroom. At the 99th percentile (IQ 135), we're down to 1 in 70... the smart kid in their grade level in a moderate-sized elementary school. If I'm doing my back-of-the-envelope math correctly, a group exclusively composed of individuals with IQ 125 or higher will only have 24% of its members in the 99th percentile... reducing them to statistical noise in Murray's data set. 135 isn't even DYS.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3 |
Charles Murray classified his highest IQ group as 125+, so for the twelfth time, he has nothing to say about the highly gifted. According to research cited in the thread Genetics and intelligence differences high intelligence is familial, heritable, and caused by the same genetic and environmental factors responsible for the normal distribution of intelligence. so what is true of the demographics of the 125+ IQ population is true of the 145+ IQ population, only more so. Yes, the links between parent IQ and child IQ are well established. Charles Murray is attempting to link IQ to financial outcomes. Those are not the same things. He knows that, but a correlation between two variables can be significant and still be well less than 1.0 (which occurs if they are "the same things"). Wikipedia says this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Income: On pg 568 of The g Factor, Arthur Jensen claims that although the correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4 (one sixth or 16% of the variance), the relationship increases with age, and peaks at middle age when people have reached their maximum career potential. In the book, A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman cites an IQ income correlation of 0.5 (25% of the variance). Do you think the correlation between IQ and income is well less than 0.4-0.5 in the U.S.?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
Do you think the correlation between IQ and income is well less than 0.4-0.5 in the U.S.? Of course not. The correlation of the top 0.1% in IQ is well above 0.4-0.5 in terms of people who make the top 0.1% in terms of income. It's almost to the point where having an IQ in the top 0.1% effectively guarantees that you will never drop below $1,000,000 in annual salary.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Do you think the correlation between IQ and income is well less than 0.4-0.5 in the U.S.? Above an IQ of 135? I don't have the data to establish conclusively, but since you're asking for an opinion: no.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
The correlation of the top 0.1% in IQ is well above 0.4-0.5 in terms of people who make the top 0.1% in terms of income.
It's almost to the point where having an IQ in the top 0.1% effectively guarantees that you will never drop below $1,000,000 in annual salary. My understanding is that the "top 0.1%" is more of a measure of wealth than of income. This is an important distinction to make when CEOs can draw a $1 annual salary (taxed at something like 35%) plus whatever stock options they chose to sell (taxed at about 15%). Assuming the CEO holds more stocks than he sells in a given year, his reportable income does not equal his total annual compensation. Wealth becomes a more relevant measure. Now, if we want to talk about wealth versus IQ: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2007-08-12-smart-not-rich_N.htm"Being more intelligent does not confer any advantage along two of the three key dimensions of financial success (income, net worth and financial distress)," Zagorsky finds, looking at the data with statistical tests. Income does weakly correspond to intelligence test scores, he finds, where "a one point increase in IQ test scores is related to an income increase of $346 per year. But at most, that same one-point increase in IQ leads to "a net worth increase of at most $83, but probably zero."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
Yes, the links between parent IQ and child IQ are well established. Charles Murray is attempting to link IQ to financial outcomes. Those are not the same things The article in the OP had nothing to do with this idea. It was about parental IQ, income, and SAT scores. Murray was summarizing a study that found that parental IQ is a better predictor of Little Johnny's SAT score than parental income.Given the very large industry built around SAT prep and the frequent claims that mom and dad paid Johnny's way to high scores, I would think this topic would be of more interest here than rehashing the same hackneyed points of view.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
My understanding is that the "top 0.1%" is more of a measure of wealth than of income. This is an important distinction to make when CEOs can draw a $1 annual salary (taxed at something like 35%) plus whatever stock options they chose to sell (taxed at about 15%). Assuming the CEO holds more stocks than he sells in a given year, his reportable income does not equal his total annual compensation. Wealth becomes a more relevant measure. This thread is about Income, IQ and the SAT. You should be posting this to the "Wealth, IQ, and the SAT" thread, instead.
Last edited by JonLaw; 04/06/15 08:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035 |
You forgot those who were broken before they reached adulthood, are 2e or simply not prepared unable to play the games required to get the salaries. There are a lot of them and they are usually (and sometimes by choice) low income.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035 |
Do you think the correlation between IQ and income is well less than 0.4-0.5 in the U.S.? Of course not. The correlation of the top 0.1% in IQ is well above 0.4-0.5 in terms of people who make the top 0.1% in terms of income. It's almost to the point where having an IQ in the top 0.1% effectively guarantees that you will never drop below $1,000,000 in annual salary. Sorry for post above I missed the quote.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3 |
Yes, the links between parent IQ and child IQ are well established. Charles Murray is attempting to link IQ to financial outcomes. Those are not the same things The article in the OP had nothing to do with this idea. It was about parental IQ, income, and SAT scores. Murray was summarizing a study that found that parental IQ is a better predictor of Little Johnny's SAT score than parental income.It does, indirectly. If the regression child_IQ = a + b*parent_income + error has a positive and significant "b" coefficient, but the "b" coefficient in child_IQ = a + b*parent_income + c*parent_IQ + error is much smaller, it's because the parent_income and parent_IQ variables are positively correlated. This idea upsets many people.
|
|
|
|
|
