I realize that this is a taboo subject, but how much of that is nature and how much is nurture?
Low IQ is associated with worse life outcomes, and it's not exactly a problem you can fix by throwing money and resources at it.
The narrative is trying to make a claim that nurture is significant.
The stats of this research essentially says "slicing the data in a way that highlights differing qualities of nurture shows that nurture has an impact".
But it crucially doesn't isolate nurture from nature (which is admittedly very difficult). It doesn't show if the nature side (IQ in this instance) has significant overlaps with the nurture or not.
So ultimately we are left guessing.
I bet if you did, you would see that IQ indeed is also significant, and the narrative can tell a different story. That's the thing about stats and narratives. They tell a story and leave a bunch of stuff out, so you have to evaluate it yourself.
My takeaway is that nurture may play a role, but is not the only thing that determines outcome. Eyeballing the end results, being in the worst category of nurture makes the odds worse for you, not 90/10 worse, but probably closer to 65/35.
You have the primary direction of causality between trauma and IQ reversed. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=childhood+trauma+and+IQ...
Population scale trauma exposure and bad parenting is a result of poverty, social structures, and sometimes wars and conflicts, not something predetermined by genetics.
Regarding race/ethnicity correlations from the paper you posted:
"(McGue et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2012). McGue et al. (2007) reported minimal ethnicity effects in the SIBS sample at intake, which we largely replicate in the current follow-up assessment. While rearing family socioeconomic status and polygenic scores were both moderately higher among Asian offspring (Cohen’s = d .36–.46; p < .01 ), no measure of cognitive ability differed significantly between offspring of different ethnicities. See SI Table S6 for these and other comparisons, along with a discussion of their relevance."
Also, the children in that study have not been victims of trauma (or the study has not considered and controlled for it), so it says nothing about that factor in eventual IQ of the individuals studied.
I agree that it's multivariate, and I'm open to the possibility that it is primarily another factor (although you haven't supported that claim), but it's absurd to conclude from that that low IQ does not cause poverty. People with learning disabilities have a much harder time finding success in the modern world, and I'm bewildered that I even have to say so.
Is not the same as "people who are poor are that way because they disproportionately are genetically predisposed to have low IQs", which is the gist of the original comment I replied to.
The discussion also isn't about intellectually disabled people (who fall into a separate category with specific legal protections).
I was quite surprised with your response and that should have triggered a more charitable reading; I can see now that you were quite obviously not saying what I interpreted. My apologies.
In fact it is EQ - emotional intelligence - and not IQ that predicts positive life outcomes most strongly.
Among many others.
Even in health and longevity: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01...
Besides, low IQ is associated with worse life outcomes even if, as you say, low EQ is most strongly associated with the same. They're not mutually exclusive.