Comment by throwawayjava | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawayjava | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> However, people tend to move towards communities of their same 'status'

This makes no sense. A smart but poor kid does not have the option to move to a rich suburb with excellent schools.

> so if you have a really smart kid you aren't nearly as likely to find that kid still in the trailer park when they are 30 as one of their more average peers.

1. But, you're just as likely to encounter that extra bright kid smoking pot in a trailer home in 20 years. Poverty is a hell of a burden and barrier. Intelligence can help you stay out of poverty, but it's far less powerful when you want to get out of poverty. And can even function as a disadvantage.

2. Furthermore, lots of dumb but rich kids will go on to six figure incomes for the rest of their lives.

Intelligence isn't as strong a determinant as you claim, in either direction.

> Intelligence isn't as strong a determinant as you claim, in either direction.

Your claim is incorrect.

http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intellige...

EDIT: over the course of one generation, higher intelligence leads to a dramatically higher income. In the long run, if this effect continues, this will be compounded as higher intelligence parents are also higher income parents (by hypothesis).

From the abstract:

"The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES"

I.e., intelligence is about as likely to explain success (or lack thereof) as parental income. This is exactly what I was saying -- if you want to guess whether a 5 year old is going to succeed, take a look at their parents.

In short, I don't think this paper is the home-run for your case that you think it is. If what you're claiming is true, we'd expect intelligence to be radically better as a predictor than SES. But it isn't.

The paper also notes some important criticisms that cut that right to the core of your use of this paper in the context of the "nature vs nurture" debate.

Edit: the second component of your edit (" In the long run...") is absolutely NOT justified by the paper you cite, and is wild conjecture at best.

I didn't advocate neutering the poor, and I strongly disagree with your suggestion that we murder rich people and take their stuff.

Fair enough. I've stricken that sentence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com