Does privilege imply that you got it from your "class"? This seems like a classic nature/nurture fallacy.
No, but our privileged parents did contribute to them, and their our upbringing, early months, lack of childhood stress over things as food and war, familial support, good schools, and so on.
Brains is hardly the best contributor to entrepreneurial success. In fact a plot of IQ vs success I've seen plotted looked like random noise except below a certain threshold (obviously seriously cognitive impaired people will have much more trouble becoming entrepreneurs). But aside from that, whether you are 105 or 120 or 150 didn't seem to make much of a difference.
I never claimed IQ was the best measure (surprised it looked like random noise though), but certainly our cognitive traits matter. So to my question: How do you distinguish that privilege from the privilege you got from your "class"?
Edit: Sorry if I came across snarky here, I appreciate your answer!
Well, of people with equal IQs, isn't a potential 0-50% penalty from nurture/privilege still huge enough to make points about "self-made men taking risks" (and implying that others are "lazy" or whatever) moot?
White skin is something you're born with. White privilege is what happens when you live in a society that assumes that black people are more likely to be criminals than white people, so you get a more favourable reception when you walk in a room.
You reiterate my question in the second sentence: How do we weight these different privileges?
>For instance, IQ was believed to be one generic measure of human intelligence, on which Young’s meritocracy was based. But a century of research on IQ and life success has largely dispelled the once widely spread myth about the importance of IQ (Arrow et al., 2000; Gardner, 1983; Goleman, 1995; Gould, 1996; Zhao, 2016). Based on longitudinal studies on IQ and life’s success that lasted multiple decades, researchers conclude that: “the value of the IQ scores should not be overestimated” (Firkowska-Mankiewicz, 2002, p. 41).
https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/josi.1...
Besides that, even if an analytical weighting cannot be given, it doesn't mean we can't examine the effects qualitatively.
>The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades. Moderator analyses showed that the relationship between intelligence and success is dependent on the age of the sample but there is little evidence of any historical trend in the relationship.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960...
Perhaps, but the paper also concludes "that the importance of the role of IQ in predicting life success should not be overestimated". Furthermore while IQ did to some degree predict objective life success it does not seem to predict subjective life success, ie how happy you are with how your life turned out.
It’s the best individual predictor when compared against other predictors, but not very predictive on its own.
I.e. Iq is more predictive than inherited wealth, but iq + inherited wealth is more predictive than either individual factor.
Class traits are of course inherited, but there is a distinction to be made between cultural inheritance and generic inheritance.
Which are you talking about?