Lion of the Blogosphere

IQ and getting ahead

Pumpkinperson (who has a blog) writes in a comment:

The whole reason IQ is so fascinating to me is that intelligent people get to the top naturally by doing smart things & avoiding dumb mistakes. Elite schools demand that smart people get ahead by doing well on an IQ test ( SAT) that gives them credentials. This takes a fascinating natural phenomenon (smart people get to the top) & reduces it to a boring socially engineered self-prophecy & prevents us from studying the phenomenon under ideal circumstances. It’s like trying to study why the fastest cheetah gets the food only to discover someone has been testing the cheetahs for speed & feeding the fast ones instead of letting them catch food themselves.

This is a rather interesting way of looking at things. I don’t necessarily agree 100% with it.

I think it’s more correct to say that unintelligent people fall to the bottom rather than intelligent people rise to the top.

I think that most top-level careers have IQ floors that prevent the less intelligent from participating, but the number of people with IQs higher than the floor exceeds the number of slots available. There are many people with high IQs working at crappy service jobs because they couldn’t get into better career tracks.

A hundred years ago there were loads of very smart Ashkenazi Jews in New York City who worked in crappy sweatshop jobs. The infamous Triangle Fire happened in 1911, which was 103 years ago. That was more than 60 years after Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, and economics hadn’t changed much during that time period.

The approximately 25 years after World War II (1945 to 1970) was an anomalous period, especially in the United States, in which there was a massive increase in the standard of living for everyone, and a majority of people with high IQs really did rise above their parents’ station in life very easily. However the progress towards a more equitable society and one in which smart people had no problem getting ahead reversed around 1970. It was a slow reversal at first, but I think that the pace of the reversal is now accelerating. A college graduate in the 1950s had no problem finding a good career, whereas in 2014 college graduates are likely to only find work at crappy service jobs unless they have connections (usually from family but extroverted college grads often find their own connections) or they graduated from the most elite colleges (and even then, connections are important).

The 25-year post WWII period has come to be seen as the normal rather than the anomaly that it actually is. This has led to a lot of bad economic theory being generated.

On HBD blogs, a lot of commenters have read The Bell Curve, and while it’s an excellent book, it appears to have given many true-believing readers the incorrect impression that IQ causes higher earnings and education doesn’t matter, but if you read between the lines of that book you will see that Murray is being an advocate for IQ rather than merely presenting the facts, and none of the empirical evidence in the book disproves the correct explanation that people with higher IQs obtain better educational credentials, and it’s the educational credentials which cause higher earnings.

As I’ve pointed out many times before, hardly any employers actually give job applicants IQ tests, thus having a high IQ doesn’t directly lead to a better career. Only if the applicant uses his IQ to accomplish something that employers value can they find good employment. And employers hiring entry-level applicants value educational accomplishments and connections, and employers hiring non-entry-level employees value accomplishments at previous jobs and connections. (Connections are usually valued because of hiring-manager laziness and dysfunctional HR departments rather than because it’s an official company policy.) Thus the normal route to a successful career in the United States is that one gets good grades from a good college, and then obtains a good entry-level job which then enables the person to obtain a better next job. And all the time, one is supposed to “network.”

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 11, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Posted in Labor Markets

149 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. What if you want to pursue a field in the arts and have a high IQ? Odds are you will be poor and have fewer offspring, but perhaps life will be more enjoyable, depending on what you are seeking.

    Shawn

    August 11, 2014 at 11:22 AM

    • That was another tacit assumption of the Bell Curve which others have remarked on. However smart you are, if you’re not interested in getting rich or interested in something which can make you rich, you won’t get rich.

      Duke of Leinster

      August 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM

    • That was another assumption of The Bell Curve.

      As others have noted, however smart you are, if you aren’t interested in getting rich or if you have no passion for something which can make you rich, you won’t get rich except through inheritance.

      Duke of Leinster

      August 11, 2014 at 5:58 PM

  2. LotB: I think that most top-level careers have IQ floors that prevent the less intelligent from participating… True. But at all levels below “top-level” affirmative action allows the mediocre and the unqualified to participate.

    LotB: Thus the normal route to a successful career in the United States is that one gets good grades from a good college, and then obtains a good entry-level job which then enables the person to obtain a better next job. And all the time, one is supposed to “network.” True. But college major is often a factor as well. I find networking to be exhausting and low ROI (but, probably necessary nonetheless). What are some good example of “smart,” worthwhile networking?

    E. Rekshun

    August 11, 2014 at 12:00 PM

    • Your parents play golf with a partner with a partner in a big investment bank, if that is the example you want.

      Colmainen

      August 11, 2014 at 5:10 PM

    • But at all levels below “top-level” affirmative action allows the mediocre and the unqualified to participate.

      Are AA hires ‘participating’? Placed in jobs where the costs of screwing up are minimal, yes. But because they rarely get challenging work, they soon are passed by the borderline qualified.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      August 11, 2014 at 6:18 PM

  3. How do we defines success and a great career in the second decade of the 21st century in America?

    It seems like all working Americans regardless of class and prestige still believe in running on the rodent wheel.

    Meanwhile Europeans are now on vacation mode in the month of August, and I sense the guys in Wall St and BIGLAW are still slaving away the last remaining days of summer.

    JS

    August 11, 2014 at 12:08 PM

    • Success – being able to guarantee your children won’t have to deal with NAMs while growing up.

      Colmainen

      August 11, 2014 at 5:11 PM

      • Or this guy’s doom and gloom prophecy:

        Does he have a point? America has a lot of serious problems besides NAMs.

        Americans are “The proverbial frog sitting on cold water to be boiled”.

        JS

        August 11, 2014 at 8:07 PM

    • I prefer the bigger house and cars to a month off in August, but I suppose it could be my brainwashed state resulting from living here and not there. FWIW, a American living there and currently on vacation alleges that September and October is brutal back at the office in Europe, what with all that work piled up for a month.

      Truth

      August 11, 2014 at 11:33 PM

      • Brutal? Europeans take their time. Even the efficient Germans take it easy when compared to us.

        JS

        August 12, 2014 at 8:55 AM

  4. There are about 150 million people in the labor force, of which 10 million own their own business.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/07/25/the-rise-of-the-1099-economy-more-americans-are-becoming-their-own-bosses/

    Seems like that’s a way for smart people to get ahead without having proper credentials.

    Also, for a productive and high IQ employee, even a job at Wal Mart could be a decent entry level position if it leads to positions higher up in the hierarchy. I have a lot of education from very good schools, and financially, I would have been better off working at Walmart from the time I was 17 until now, where I’m sure I would’ve stood out among the other employees. It’s not what I wanted to do for other, non-financial reasons, but it was an option.

    Hepp

    August 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM

    • How does one define “own their own business”?

      A lot of people fill out a Schedule C but they are just freelance employees and do NOT have a real business.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 11, 2014 at 1:10 PM

      • Agreed. Filling out a schedule c doesn’t mean one owns a business. They might just be a hack making a little money on the side. I also know several professionals and tradesmen who work for themselves. But they really just ‘own a job’. Owning a company is a whole other thing. If you died and the business would die with you then you don’t own a company. Having said that, there’s nothing wrong with owning your own job. It’s a start. Though not everyone would be better off working for themselves. And not everyone has what it takes to turn it into a company. One last thing, building a successful company and running a successful company are two different things. Entrepreneurs can build a company but few entrepreneurs make good managers. At some point, every entrepreneur faces the choice of bringing in managers who can. Having a “baby” then turning it over to “nannies” to raise is a tough thing to do.

        destructure

        August 11, 2014 at 1:59 PM

    • A career in WalMart is gonna be good if you happen to know one of the Waltons at personal level.

      Colmainen

      August 11, 2014 at 5:12 PM

      • Those portable homes that Lion had a posting a few days ago might be the game changer in the future when it comes to work and earning a salary.

        The main issue for many youths today is housing which remains expensive. Food is more abundant than ever before and many of the Millennials just spend their money on food. Notice many Millennials are overweight. I’ve never seen so many bulky women until recently in a place such as NYC.

        JS

        August 11, 2014 at 11:19 PM

    • Lion has remarked on this lie before. http://www.amazon.com/The-Illusions-Entrepreneurship-Entrepreneurs-Investors/dp/0300158564

      With few exceptions, this is how new companies are founded:

      The founder learns the business/skills he needs/discovers the opportunity working for someone else for a number of years. The business he founds is very like the business he left.

      The Stanford PhD candidate + venture capital is very unusual but very promoted.

      So, again, if you don’t get into the right career track it’s much less likely you’ll ever start a business.

      Duke of Leinster

      August 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM

  5. I think that most top-level careers have IQ floors that prevent the less intelligent from participating, but the number of people with IQs higher than the floor exceeds the number of slots available. There are many people with high IQs working at crappy service jobs because they couldn’t get into better career tracks.

    You seem to agree that low IQ has a big effect on poverty (independently of credentials) and that spectacular wealth is often strongly caused by high IQ (independent of credentials), but for the great majority of conventional success, IQ has virtually no impact independent of credentials. I kind of average it all together and assume IQ has a small effect independent of credentials at all levels, rather than making those more nuanced distinctions. I just prefer simple linear models as per Occam’s razor, though that’s not always good since life is complex & oversimplifying is a sign of low IQ.

    Another theory (based on your theories) could be that IQ causes business income while credentials cause salary income & since most people depend on salaries, credentials trump IQ.

    I definitely think your emphasis on career tracks is unique & correct because it’s so hard to get off them once you get on. Even rich high IQ people who failed to get the right credentials still used their IQ to get on the right career track which caused great wealth. I’ve blogged evidence that Oprah has a very high IQ, though never got fancy credentials, but she used her strong verbal skills & literacy to land a job at a black radio station while still in high school. This lead to jobs in local TV which lead to a syndicated national talk show & billions of dollars.

    So even at that extreme level of success, it all started with getting a really good first job, so I think career tracks trump credentials though they’re now so highly correlated that distinguishing them is almost pointless.

    Another factor is the idea of an optimum IQ. The smartest person I ever corresponded with (one in 30 million level chronometrics, member of Prometheus, superhuman spatial & pattern recognition skills) argued that the optimum IQ for socially valued success was 130 & half the people he knew who were above 150 worked at crappy jobs or lived off welfare, however there’s very little research proving this (though very few IQ tests accurately measure adult IQ above 150 & such people are so rare). And when super smart people are successful, they are sometimes billionaires (bill gates, zuckerberg, google guys). Maybe above IQ 150 people realize success isn’t worth the trouble unless you can take it really far. Go big or go home.

    pumpkinperson

    August 11, 2014 at 12:53 PM

    • There are a lot of reasons for 150-IQ people to desire money, since money is freedom to pursue what they want to do, and clearly someone with a 150+ IQ couldn’t possibly enjoy working at a crappy service job.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 11, 2014 at 1:34 PM

      • That may depend on the correlation between between 150+ IQ and social awkwardness or some sort of position on the autistic spectrum. A high IQ person may prefer a “crappy” job that allows him to work individually rather than working as a team or around other people.

        Mike Street Station

        August 11, 2014 at 1:49 PM

      • Crappy jobs are crappy because no one would do them if they could obtain a better job. There is a strong correlation between how much a job pays and how satisfying the job is and how much autonomy you have. At the bottom end of jobs, you can’t even go to the bathroom without asking for permission from your boss.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 11, 2014 at 4:06 PM

      • But the pursuit of money isn’t a ticket to freedom. How free are you when you are slaving away a 60/hr work week on a “prestigious” job?

        The average American pursues high paying careers so they can tend their material addiction, not for the pursuit of free time.

        JS

        August 11, 2014 at 1:54 PM

      • “clearly someone with a 150+ IQ couldn’t possibly enjoy working at a crappy service job.”

        I don’t know. Someone with a 150+ IQ might be able to better content himself with solitary pursuits. Someone with an IQ 125-145 or so might need a “challenging career” to not feel bored, while someone with an IQ significantly higher may not view such a career as much more interesting and appealing than an at-least-bearable service job. I have no idea what my IQ is, probably not 150 or anything, but my first two years out of high school I just worked a crappy service job (was from a very prole family, did poorly in school because I didn’t do the work and skipped a LOT) and I enjoyed the free time and flexibility and just read a whole lot and delved deep into my interests (primarily history, literature and socialism at the time). Speaking purely “intellectually,” I was much more ‘satisfied’ during this time than when I eventually went to college. Plus the work wasn’t too bad, it was a laid back atmosphere and I became friends with a lot of the people I worked with. If I could live comfortably enough, I might rather do that than have a “fulfilling career.” Then again maybe I’d regret it eventually.

        Tim

        August 11, 2014 at 3:36 PM

      • I think this is an idealized view of crappy service jobs which are seldom very relaxing at all. Maybe they were in the 1950s or something like that. Today low-level employees are constantly monitored and told they aren’t performing well enough, and there is a lot more stress in a low-paid crappy job than in a six-figure job.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

      • The best job I ever had was working retail at Sunglass Hut. I usually always worked alone, and could sit and read magazines for 50% of my day. It was low stress and gave me plenty of time to daydream.

        Shawn

        August 11, 2014 at 7:37 PM

      • Service sector work seems bad, but employees can and do sue, so that keeps the employer in check.

        grey enlightenment

        August 12, 2014 at 5:37 AM

      • @Shawn: The best job I ever had was working retail at Sunglass Hut. I usually always worked alone, and could sit and read magazines for 50% of my day. It was low stress and gave me plenty of time to daydream.

        Sounds a hell of a lot better than my $2 per hour (1977) job pumping gas at a Mobil gas station – I got robbed at knife point, handcuffed, and beaten.

        E. Rekshun

        August 12, 2014 at 11:34 AM

    • “half the people he knew who were above 150 worked at crappy jobs or lived off welfare”

      People think there’s something wrong when someone has an IQ of 70. But 130 is no more normal than 70 is. Both are 2 STDV’s out. There are plenty of people with an IQ of 70 or 130 who are, for the most part “normal” — just dumber or smarter than average. But what happens when you get 3 or even 4 STDV’s out? That’s not in the normal range any more. And the further out one is the less “normal” one is. Due to comorbidity you’re running a serious risk of whatever things making them great problem solvers doing other weird things to the brain as well. Not always. Or, at least, not always in a way that shows up. Some do indeed appear to be normal. Some use their mental acuity to ‘work around’ the issues. And some, for all their intellect, are barely functional. If you’ve spent much time around people with 4th STDV IQ’s or higher this become pretty obvious. On the one hand, you’ll find those who are completely normal only brilliant. On the other you’ll find those who can barely function. Then there are those who are brilliant but abnormal and use their mental acuity to work around it.

      destructure

      August 11, 2014 at 2:42 PM

      • My bad for the redundancy.

        destructure

        August 11, 2014 at 2:45 PM

      • There are plenty more people with an IQ of 70, which used to be moron but became somewhat ‘normal’ among a certain group of people. It is also the borderline for deciding whether someone could be executed.

        Colmainen

        August 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM

      • Everything you just said is just truthiness. Terman proved it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius#Follow-ups

        Based on data collected in 1921-22, Terman concluded that gifted children suffered no more health problems than normal for their age, save a little more myopia than average. He also found that the children were usually social, were well-adjusted, did better in school, and were even taller than average.

        But his IQ test wasn’t from the back of a cereal box or made up out of thin air by Ron Hoefflin.

        The only problem a high IQ, per se, will cause is boredom with most other people. That is, if the very smart go to school with people like themselves they won’t have any social problems.

        Duke of Leinster

        August 11, 2014 at 5:55 PM

      • Click to access 08aj0579.PDF

        So it can be said with near apodictic certainty, that if one has just aced an iq test he is not crazy, at least not in the way “crazy” is ordinarily used.

        Duke of Leinster

        August 12, 2014 at 6:07 AM

      • Duck of Leinster aka Ross has previously denied both the heritability of intelligence as well as the existence of mental illness. So it’s not surprising he’d deny a correlation between the two. Simply googling “intelligence mental illness correlation” returns numerous studies showing a correlation between both lower and higher intelligence and mental illness. Which supports my earlier point that an IQ of 130 is no more “normal” than an IQ of 70. One study in particular showed the higher the score for arithmetic reasoning, the greater the risk of bipolar disorder. With higher arithmetic reasning being associated with a 12-fold increase in premorbidity for the condition..

        Click to access 1904.pdf

        destructure

        August 12, 2014 at 1:05 PM

      • The average IQ is the average because people with average-IQ genes had the most children in the past.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 12, 2014 at 1:26 PM

    • Oprah’s empire will die with her. She is little more than those who file a Schedule C from a side job, in the eyes of those who do matter.

      Colmainen

      August 11, 2014 at 5:16 PM

      • Especially since Oprah never had children, so there’s no kind of succession possible.

        Graf von Jung

        August 12, 2014 at 10:39 AM

    • Lion is right. I work two jobs, the second being in retail and management is always pushing those who work on the register (which I do 80%+ of the time) to sell store cards. Our success in doing so is a factor in getting hours. This does not help me as an introvert with social anxiety. I’d say my IQ is roughly 120-125.

      I kinda feel badly pushing cards because of my own follies with credit in the past.

      FWG

      August 11, 2014 at 5:35 PM

    • …member of Prometheus…

      Big heads up: All of the high IQ societies are for people without high IQs. Nerds obsessed with IQ who aren’t very smart. The exception is if the member got in with a real IQ score/standardized test score. Those societies’ own “IQ tests” are retarded. And real IQ tests don’t distinguish above 160 at most.

      Duke of Leinster

      August 11, 2014 at 5:47 PM

      • A 720 GMAT got me into Mensa, but didn’t get me into Stanford.

        E. Rekshun

        August 12, 2014 at 11:38 AM

      • Gradaute business schools require that you have a high-quality job before applying, thus ensuring you will be able to get a high quality job after you graduate.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 12, 2014 at 1:20 PM

      • @LotB: Gradaute business schools require that you have a high-quality job before applying, thus ensuring you will be able to get a high quality job after you graduate.

        Well, that explains it. Unlike the poets and affirmative action applicants, I merely held a low-quality job as a software engineer for a government defense contractor when I applied to Stanford’s Graduate School of Business.

        E. Rekshun

        August 12, 2014 at 5:34 PM

    • half the people he knew who were above 150 worked at crappy jobs or lived off welfare, however there’s very little research proving this (though very few IQ tests accurately measure adult IQ above 150 & such people are so rare).

      They’re enslaved by value transferring managers who pay them only upper middle class salaries. It’s an unbearable existence, as Lion would tell you.

      And when super smart people are successful, they are sometimes billionaires (bill gates, zuckerberg, google guys).

      IT is the most IQ meritocratic industry.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      August 11, 2014 at 6:33 PM

      • IT is also very prole. The average IT guy isn’t all that bright or socially aware outside of his field.

        Lion might be right that in the near future having a job signifies status. Many jobs will be automated and working is a form of self actualization process.

        JS

        August 11, 2014 at 11:11 PM

      • IT is also very prole. The average IT guy isn’t all that bright or socially aware outside of his field.

        It used to be. But with so many famous tech tycoons the field is climbing the all important status ranks.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 12, 2014 at 6:21 PM

    • Oprah has a very high IQ, though never got fancy credentials, but she used her strong verbal skills & literacy to land a job at a black radio station while still in high school.

      hmmm…verbal in the IQ sense means reading speed, drawing inferences, comprehension, and vocabulary. I think her skills at the radio station were more from extroversion an a high EQ than verbal IQ

      grey enlightenment

      August 12, 2014 at 5:25 AM

      • What I meant was that she walked into a local black radio station to ask them to sponsor her for some charity activity & they were so impressed by her speaking skills (she was unusually articulate) that they asked her to read some copy & they were so impressed that she never once stumbled (though she would mispronounce Canada as a TV news woman years later) that they hired her at only 16. So having enough IQ to get on the right career track (in her case broadcasting) while young largely determines your life trajectory which is why Lion emphasizes the importance of that first real job (which these days requires credentials, less so in Oprah’s day). Oprah started on a really exclusive career track really young & then progressed on it rapidly with age. Lion has argued that IQ only causes income to the extent it determines your career track; I wouldn’t go quite that far, but I think he makes a valid point & it’s extremely good advice for young people (even if it might be a bit of an exaggeration)

        pumpkinperson

        August 12, 2014 at 4:55 PM

    • Lion’s evangelism on tracks is one of the most helpful nuggets of information that a middle school/high school/freshman in college student could ever receive.

      I read about ‘tracks’ in a satirical way on Leveraged Sellout years ago, but I’m sure Lion was blogging about it even before L-S did and Lion does it in a much more helpful manner.

      uatu

      August 12, 2014 at 3:35 PM

  6. Tom Friedman style outsourcing as a result of globalization is invading almost all fields at the same time as free government loans means anyone can get a degree in any field. Look at the glut of lawyers with no job, while computer scientists automate document review. How may law schools have opened up recently?

    Even medicine which has stuck closely to the guild system, is being assaulted from the top and bottom. On the bottom, from nurses and pa’s taking over primary care due to the “Shortage” and on the top from foreign medical grads willing to work on the cheap, either by coming here or from doing things like reading radiology reports from their office in India. It’s impossible to find a job in radiology or pathology nowadays because reading x-rays and slides can be done electronically, and therefore you’re sure to be outcompeted.

    jjbees

    August 11, 2014 at 1:47 PM

    • Another thing making life miserable for young doctors, lawyers, and other professionals: there are too many greedy aging boomers entrenched in all the lucrative practice areas who won’t die or retire and have put up all kinds of ridiculous barriers to entry into the field.

      There are tighter bottlenecks than ever before.

      For example, a BIGLAW associate’s trek to make partner is now more competitive and arduous than ever before: See this excellent article about the state of BIGLAW from last year.

      http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113941/big-law-firms-trouble-when-money-dries

      Doctors have made it near impossible to be admitted into medical school, hence the surge in demand for PA’s, DO physicians, nurse practitioners to fill the gap in primary care, while MD’s seek out lucrative specializations to pay off their 300k or more in med school debt. However, boomers have placed an additional bottleneck into the specializations in the form of lengthy residency & post-doc requirements to ward off their younger competition.

      The cartelization strategies of doctors and lawyers harm both society and less established members of the guild, although young doctors are a little less screwed over. Right now there are quite a few JDs in their late 20s with 150k in law school debt who can’t get a law job, or can’t even pass the bar exam, which is another hoop to jump through.

      Older IT guys would be smart to figure out a way to come up with some pointless requirements like the bar exam or residency. Effective cartelization is why established lawyers and doctors do better than older engineers, accountants, or computer programmers..

      McFly

      August 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM

      • People aren’t entitled to make it in an over-saturated profession like law. I’m glad law school apps are down. That’s a sign the market is doing its job allocating resources. I also hear law schools are closing (again hooray).

        The problem with law, like other bubble markets, is the pernicious influence of overly easy credit combined with the prevalence of the exceptionalism fallacy among applicants. Loans should be managed the old-fashioned way; let a financial institution taking some risk determine if you are worth the gamble. Instead we pursued a course of imagining that ‘everyone’ was college material when they aren’t. In the 70s college graduates were approx. 10% of the 20-30 cohort. Now the number is hovering at 30%. That’s insane, thirty percent of America’s 20-30 year olds aren’t college material.

        All we did was hand out loans and pretend that dummies were something other than dummies. And, in the end, employers are bound to rely on a proxy like the quality of your college to determine who really is a college quality candidate and who isn’t.

        Curle

        August 11, 2014 at 8:41 PM

      • You just have to wait until the boomers take their last breath. By that time, America would be a different place and could be for the worse.

        I noticed college educated women aren’t into shopping as they were in the past. Either the job market stinks where they don’t have disposable income or buying junk has become a boring activity for many of them. This being said, it seems like America might be heading into an economic collapse for many in the retail sector and a new world order whether good or bad will be coming our way.

        JS

        August 11, 2014 at 11:02 PM

      • I agree with Curle that colleges should loan students the money themselves.

        Government-guaranteed non-dischargeable debt onlwas not a good idea. The strain of starting out adult life with a massive debt burden is not widely understood by older generations in this new age (private elite undergrad tuition is 60k a year, professional schools even higher)

        Mcfly

        August 12, 2014 at 12:09 AM

      • Residency isn’t entirely pointless. Medical school doesn’t provide enough hands-on experience in any single area of medicine, including general internal medicine, for graduates to practice independently right after graduation. But I would agree that some training programs last too long.

        nebbish

        August 16, 2014 at 6:51 PM

  7. Do Gates or Zuckerberg have extraordinarily high IQs? (they may be in the top 3%, but hardly in the top 0,01%)
    I’d guess one finds in almost every maths or physics department (and the like) nerdy, perennial adjunct professors with higher IQs than Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg etc. Also tenured hard science college professors are not billionaires and I bet they have considerably higher IQs on average than your average Forbes list billionaires.

    A few weeks ago the wealthiest man in Germany died, the remaining Albrecht brother of ALDI fame. Of course I do not know his IQ, but he never went to college; he left school after 8 years (as was customary back then for basic education, not a dropout) and learned grocery salesman (or whatever you call it, it is actually still learned like a trade in Germany). I guess he was richer than all the brilliant German engineers, physicists, chemists with lots of inventions and patents to their names of the last 60 years combined.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Albrecht

    nomen nescio

    August 11, 2014 at 2:31 PM

    • Has one of the 1000 smartest people in the world ever been one of the 10,000 richest? Has one of the 1000 richest people in the world ever been one of the 10,000 smartest? How many orders of magnitude do you need to increase the numbers to get a “yes?”

      Tim

      August 11, 2014 at 5:54 PM

    • I’d guess one finds in almost every maths or physics department (and the like) nerdy, perennial adjunct professors with higher IQs than Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg etc. Also tenured hard science college professors are not billionaires and I bet they have considerably higher IQs on average than your average Forbes list billionaires.

      While it’s true that academic success is much more g loaded than economic success, a self-made billionaire is a one in a million economic achievement while a tenured professor is “only” a one in a thousand academic achievement, so as I’ve documented, regression predicts they’d both have IQ’s around 130. And of course the STEM types in both academia & business would be as much as 10 points higher. Of course simple regression could be wrong, especially at the extremes.

      One reason for thinking self-made billionaires, especially the decabillionaires, are extremely bright is that they have extremely high rates of Ashkenazi ancestry. I took a look at the 2009 Forbes 400 focusing exclusively on self-made (as defined by Forbes) deca-billionaires & if I recall, 60% were Jewish. By comparison only about a quarter of U.S. Nobel prize winners (far more elite than tenured professors) are Jewish. Of course there’s not a perfect correlation between the demographics of a group and the group’s IQ and all kinds of cultural factors could be involved.

      But the data I’ve found suggests that average IQ increases 8 points for every ten fold increase in financial success. So self-made deca-billionaires likely average IQ 138, all self-made billionaires IQ 130, self-made centimillionaires IQ 124, self-made decamillionaires IQ 116, six figure income earners IQ 108, five figure income earners IQ 100, four figure income earners IQ 92, and the homeless IQ 84. And at every level of the scale, those who made their money in STEM would be perhaps 10 points higher & those who made their money in relatively low skilled jobs, maybe 10 points lower. Just an elegant model based on a bit of data I’ve blogged about. Nothing conclusive.

      pumpkinperson

      August 11, 2014 at 6:19 PM

      • One reason for thinking self-made billionaires, especially the decabillionaires, are extremely bright is that they have extremely high rates of Ashkenazi ancestry. I took a look at the 2009 Forbes 400 focusing exclusively on self-made (as defined by Forbes) deca-billionaires & if I recall, 60% were Jewish.

        Because of intermarriage with the gentile smart fraction many of those Jewish billionaires are partly Jewish. It’s estimated at least 5% of white Americans are 1/4 Jewish or more. The likelihood a gentile white American has some Ashkenazi ancestry almost certainly increases the further you go up the white IQ scale.

        Of the top 20 wealthiest American Jews at least 5 are half Jewish:

        Larry Ellison (#3 on Forbes’ list and the richest of all American Jews or part Jew)
        Steve Ballmer
        Donald Bren
        John Paulson
        Charles Ergen.

        Larry Page might be half Jewish (his father’s ancestry isn’t clear). Leonard Lauder is at least 1/4 gentile.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM

      • Undiscovered Jew,

        I think the percentage who are Jewish is much higher if you limit yourself to self-made deca-billionaires, though Forbes no longer seems to make this distinction why is why I looked at the 2009 list when they still did.

        And it’s very hard to know who should be considered Jewish, but as you know, using a consistent standard is key if you want to know how overrepresented they are. Some people look for certain names. Not all Jewish people have Jewish names & some Gentiles have Jewish names, but at least it’s an objective consistent standard that can be compared to the general U.S. population.

        pumpkinperson

        August 13, 2014 at 12:32 AM

      • I think the percentage who are Jewish is much higher if you limit yourself to self-made deca-billionaires,

        Ellison, Ballmer, Bren, Paulson, and Ergen are all self made billionaires.

        Not all Jewish people have Jewish names & some Gentiles have Jewish names, but at least it’s an objective consistent standard that can be compared to the general U.S. population.

        That’s fine but try to keep the numerator consistent with the denominator.

        If you count partial Jews as Jewish you should compare them to the % of the white population that is partially Jewish + Fully Jewish. There are least as many quarter plus half Jews as full Jews for a total 5% of all whites. If you count only fully Jews as Jewish then they should be compared to the 2.5% of whites who are full Jews.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 13, 2014 at 5:45 PM

      • Undiscovered Jew,

        In 2009, there were only 15 self-made deca-billionaires in America according to Forbes (see source of wealth which labels billionaires as self-made or inherited)::

        http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/54/rich-list-09_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

        1. William Gates
        2. Warren Buffet
        3. Lawrence Ellison
        4. Michael Bloomberg
        5. Charles Koch
        6. David Koch
        7 Sergey Brin
        8.Larry Page
        9.Michael Dell
        10,Steven Ballmer
        11. George Soros
        12. Donald Bren
        13. Paul Allen
        14. Carl Icahn
        15. Ronald Perelman

        Now internet sources classify 66% of these people as Jewish, but that includes the partly Jewish. If whites are 63% of the U.S., and 5% of whites are partly Jewish (by your estimate) then 3% of Americans are partly Jewish, while 66% of self-made decabillionaires are partly Jewish (Elison, Bloomberg, Brin, Page, Dell, Ballmer, Soros, Bren, Icahn, Perelman). Perhaps you can improve my estimates since the internet is full of bad information.

        Based on my theory that average IQ jumps 8 points for every ten fold jump in financial success, self-made decabillionaires should have a mean IQ of 138, However I also believe that at all financial levels, people who work in STEM are perhaps 10 IQ point smarter than expected for their income. Since most of these people are STEM (if you include finance), then there average IQ might be 138 + 10 = 148.

        We would expect a group with such a high average IQ to be disproportionately Jewish, though the degree of over-representation is so extreme that cultural factors (i.e entrepreneurial spirit) may also play a role.

        Or it could be that my simple linear model underestimates just how brilliant self-made decabillionaires really are.

        pumpkinperson

        August 14, 2014 at 12:33 AM

      • The Kochs aren’t self-made. So that’s really 10/13 are Jewish. You’re lucky you live in Canada.

        Allen Gates and Buffet. That’s it. Shhhh…don’t tell anyone.

        Duke of Leinster

        August 14, 2014 at 7:26 AM

      • How many are self-made I don’t know, but 3 of Canada’s 15 richest are Jewish. Jews are 1.01% of Canadians. One might suppose half Jews or others who do not identify as Jewish, though they might make aliyah, would make it 2%.

        At any rate, just as IQ can’t explain income entirely, so too it seems very unlikely that it explains this overrepresentation entirely. One would expect overrepresentation, but not that much.

        Lion has explained it as resulting from Jewish women’s being gold diggers. But is that cultural or genetic? He didn’t say. Of the four part Jews on the Forbes list, three had Jewish mothers. Bren had a Jewish father.

        Duke of Leinster

        August 14, 2014 at 7:59 AM

      • Yes, Jewish men are forced to work their asses off in order to please gold-digging Jewish women. Thus Christians should feel sorry for Jewish men rather than jealous that they have higher incomes, on average, than Christians.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 14, 2014 at 8:04 AM

      • And this has even been suggested as a reason for the high IQ of Jews. That is, over the centuries Jewish women have preferred rich men more than women of other ethnicities have preferred rich men, and since rich men tend to be smart this has resulted in a higher Jewish IQ.

        citation 19 of the wiki on Ashkenazi intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence#Cultural_explanations.

        Duke of Leinster

        August 14, 2014 at 8:52 PM

      • If whites are 63% of the U.S., and 5% of whites are partly Jewish (by your estimate) then 3% of Americans are partly Jewish, while 66% of self-made decabillionaires are partly Jewish (Elison, Bloomberg, Brin, Page, Dell, Ballmer, Soros, Bren, Icahn, Perelman).

        Thanks Pumpkin Person.

        The 5% estimate of all white Americans being 1/4 to fully Jewish came from a New York Times article Lion linked to on his old blog but I can’t find it.

        Full Jews are actually more like 2.8% of all whites (5.5-5.8 million divided by ~198 million whites) so perhaps 6% of white Americans are at least 1/4 Jewish. I don’t have a breakdown between quarter and half Jews, but 2% of white Americans as half Jewish and 2.8% fully Jewish and the rest quarter Jews is probably ball park.

        Of the 10 Jews on the list, Ellison (half Italian), Bren and Ballmer (half Swiss) are half Jews. Larry Page might be half Jewish. At a minimum half Jews are 30% of all Jewish decabillionaires.

        The number of half Jewish billionaires should increase over time because 71% of Jews out marry, and usually with equally intelligent white gentiles. Two of the latest billionaires on the Forbes list are Michael Kors (half Swedish) and Tom Steyer (half WASP Episcopalian). Other prominent half Jews are Pinch Sulzberger, and Senator Michael Bennet (both half WASP).

        If more whites have Jewish ancestry over time, this will provide a large intelligence boost to the gentile smart fraction.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 14, 2014 at 9:04 PM

      • This partner at Formula Capital says Larry Page is half Jewish. I don’t know if he’s right but Page is usually an Anglo surname:

        http://www.businessinsider.com/why-are-larry-page-and-i-so-different-orwhy-didnt-google-buy-my-company-2011-3

        Everyone in the conference room that had me in it was smart, curious, interested. They asked the right questions. They nodded at my answers politely before jumping on the next set of questions. Its like how girls are better at asking questions than guys. They asked me everything. All I wanted to ask was, “how does it feel to be loved by Google?”

        I loved her and I wanted my company, Stockpickr, to be bought by her and no other.

        When I left I was jealous. After the meeting, I was shot out of a gun into the troll-like world of the meatpacking district. Just ten years earlier I used to roam this block at three in the morning, avoiding fires and smells made out of rotting meat while chasing down abused transvestite prostitutes who wanted to share their “chocolate action” with whoever wanted to pay the highest price for placement in the perverse ancient physical predecessor of the Google Adsense auction. The world was three dimensional again when I hit the street and I was in a daze. It was bright and ugly and I was once again surrounded by humans.

        I was jealous of Larry Page, the cofounder and now CEO of Google. Why did he get to consume her and love her while I was sweating and just trying to google my Google. Why did she love him back so fervently until now she’s completely possessed by him and I’m me, writing this blog about it.

        Something veered off course with me. I was like the crew from the tv show “Lost in Space” that had a little too much weight on board than expected. A little extra baggage. And went off into the galaxy fighting monster aliens and evil robots while Larry Page completed his mission.

        We started off similar. Jewish. But maybe not. He’s half Jewish. His father and my father went to grad school. But a small difference. His dad completed his Phd. Mine didn’t. Mine left graduate school with one year to go at the very same school Page would one day graduate. What did my dad do? While Larry’s dad became a professor, mine at first became an ice cream man. Then, when some inane splinter group of the mafia wanted my dad’s ice cream route, he worked at the post office on 29th Street in Manhattan.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 14, 2014 at 9:43 PM

      • The author is extremely jealous of Larry Page.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 14, 2014 at 9:47 PM

      • Jews marrying smart gentiles will result in children as smart as Jews in general only for so-called additive heritability. But I think the theory is that evolution can only select for individual genes rather than pairs of genes or triples of genes etc. due to chromosome cross-over. Linkage disequilibrium can’t “hold” for a hundred generations.

        In fact one might expect their issue to be smarter than either smart Europeans or Jews as a result of fewer deleterious recessive monozygotes. Hybrid vigor, heterosis, and all that.

        And what is a pure Jew or gentile after all? David Cameron and the current lord/peer owner of the house used on Downton Abbey have some Jewish ancestry. I think even the queen may have some.

        Duke of Leinster

        August 14, 2014 at 11:17 PM

      • But I think the theory is that evolution can only select for individual genes rather than pairs of genes or triples of genes etc. due to chromosome cross-over.

        Advantageous genes can quickly spread throughout a population. Even being 1/8 Ashkenazi could provide a significant boost in intelligence gene frequencies.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 15, 2014 at 8:58 PM

      • TUJ –

        Page’s mother is Jewish. His father is Gentile.

        nebbish

        August 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM

      • nebbish, where did you read Page’s father was gentile?

        I’m leaning that way but I haven’t seen confirmation of it anywhere except in this article. I’ve also read he may have spent time in Israel with Page’s mother early in their relationship.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 17, 2014 at 4:37 PM

      • If Page is a halfie, 6 of the 20 wealthiest Jewish billionaires and 4 of the 10 Jewish billionaires from Pumpkinperson’s list are half-Jewish. All but one, Bren, had Jewish mothers. Not sure whether it made a genetic difference in their cases whether their Jewish and gentile ancestry came from the maternal or paternal side; the sample size is too small.

        Like Pinch Sulzberger, Tom Steyer’s father was Jewish, his mother an Episcopalian WASP. Michael Kors’ father was Swedish.

        Leonard Lauder is at least 1/4 gentile.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 17, 2014 at 4:50 PM

      • David Cameron is 1/8 Jewish. The current Prime Minister of New Zealand is half Jewish. It’s possible David Cameron, who is clearly very intelligent, received an intelligence boost from the day by being just 1/8 Ashkenazi.

        The half-Armenian Garry Kasparov is arguably the greatest Jewish chess player of all time. The greatest Jewish mathematician of all time, and the greatest since Gauss, is the half-German Alexander Grothendieck.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 17, 2014 at 4:58 PM

      • The greatest Jewish mathematician of all time, and the greatest since Gauss, is the half-German Alexander Grothendieck.

        The greatest Jewish mathematician of all time, and the greatest German mathematician since Gauss, is the half-German Alexander Grothendieck.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 17, 2014 at 4:59 PM

    • Bill Gates very likely had an IQ of 160 or slightly above. He scored 1590 out of 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT.

      Live-Evil

      August 11, 2014 at 10:33 PM

      • Just some data points. One of my brothers scored mid 1400’s on the old SAT. He attended a prestigious NYC high school that tested for IQ. At 16 years of age he tested 139. When cleaning out the old house a few years ago I saw the document attesting to this. My other brother – I don’t know what his IQ score is – scored mid 1500s on the old SAT. Both went to good colleges and received below average grades. They aced the LSATs and went to second tier law schools from which they both got jobs in Big Law. They both bailed out before partnership evaluation and ended up in very lucrative corporate careers (Big Data and investment banking). They have no intellectual interests to speak of. NONE. When they do read anything other than sports abstracts, they read mid brow genre fiction (Stephen King, Louie Lamour, Elmore Leonard…). They would never read a history book, a science or sociological text. Obsessed with sports, they enjoy Bruce Springsteen, Grateful Dead, Led Zeppelin and the Allman Brothers. Both barely passed the easy track calculus in college. Again, they make good money. I say that this is the typical development arc of high IQ people.

        Daniel

        August 12, 2014 at 5:27 AM

      • @Daniel: Good comment. And what about you? How does your education, interests, and career progression differ from your two intelligent brothers?

        E. Rekshun

        August 12, 2014 at 11:46 AM

      • Which proves that guys with prestigious careers are proles with low brow interests, which is a fitting description of most Americans.

        JS

        August 12, 2014 at 12:04 PM

      • @ Rekshun

        Don’t know what my IQ is but I got mid 1200s on my SATs (1970s SATs). Went to a good college. Below average grades, but did very well in math, took lots of it, but didn’t major in it. I consider myself intellectually curious. Always reading history, languages, science texts (chem, physics, bio, math), sociological texts. Have learned some crafts (wood working, welding, auto repair). Do a fair amount of computer programming. Worked as a cab drive, a bank clerk and a salesman. I’m dead broke.

        Daniel

        August 12, 2014 at 8:57 PM

      • You are dead broke because you went from odd job to odd job instead of developing a career track. Of course you probably realize that now. The lesson for young readers is not to make the mistakes that Daniel made.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 12, 2014 at 9:04 PM

      • What kind of careers in America are really enjoyable and feasible for the creative types and those who hate routine work? Did I say those that pay a livable wage.

        None! That’s why individuals like Daniel jump from one odd job to the next. America was and is about the plantation economy.

        JS

        August 12, 2014 at 11:16 PM

      • >>You are dead broke because you went from odd job to odd job…….

        Yup.

        Daniel

        August 12, 2014 at 11:49 PM

      • @Daniel: Thanks for sharing. LotB is right – you, like many smart people don’t get on a career track leading to a six-figure income. Me too. I’m a self-made millionaire, but over a 28-year professional career, and despite a BS, MS, & MBA, due to a couple of layoffs, a couple of missed opportunities, the “Great Recession,” and subtle affirmative action, my salary today is exactly what it was in 1999.

        E. Rekshun

        August 13, 2014 at 5:18 AM

    • If Page is a halfie, 6 of the 20 wealthiest Jewish billionaires and 4 of the 10 Jewish billionaires from Pumpkinperson’s list are half-Jewish. All but one, Bren, had Jewish mothers. I don’t know if it makes a genetic difference whether Jewish ancestry comes from the mother’s or father’s side.

      Leonard Lauder is at least 1/4 gentile.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      August 17, 2014 at 4:43 PM

  8. Standards of living and opportunity were rising before WW2 and accelerated afterward. The trend later slowed but continued until 2000. The entire timeline overlaps with the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. Lion mentions 1911 but a few years later the October Revolution of 1917 occurred. The Soviet Union and fear of communism is what likely prompted reforms. In other words it was a revolutionary solution then and it will be a revolutionary solution now. Democracy itself is nothing more than a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which is why rightists whine about “liberal judges” wrecking America. They fail to realize that this is a feature of the system and not an aberration.

    eradican

    August 11, 2014 at 3:56 PM

    • I don’t mean to attack you personally, but utter rubbish you spew about communism is very offensive to me on a personal level. A lot of good and great men had to die so that you could live under a system where you are free to bloviate about your politics. I’d appreciate it if you’d get a clue and learn some respect. (And yes, I did read your blog post, unfortunately, so don’t tell me all the answers are there.)

      Benelli_Bang

      August 11, 2014 at 4:35 PM

      • What’s wrong with competition? Isn’t that what drives innovation? Political competition is necessary too. There is no denying the massive decline and rot in western countries after the Cold War and I’m simply raising awareness to this rather uncomfortable truth.

        eradican

        August 11, 2014 at 6:28 PM

      • Bon Dieu! ‘mer’cans.

        Duke of Leinster

        August 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM

    • So called “democracy” in America is a dictatorship of moneyed interests, at least at the federal level and therefore a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”, but America IS exceptional.;)

      Healthcare reform would never have gotten off the ground if there hadn’t been support from businesses for whom health insurance was too great an expense.

      Duke of Leinster

      August 11, 2014 at 5:39 PM

  9. Circular, is it not. What factors determine getting the ‘good job’? You’ve already got it if you get it.
    The conditions that make that so are then set in teens at the latest, probably long before.

    I’ve mentioned before – people inherit a tendency to ‘magnetize money’. It’s separate from IQ.

    People who have the traits to comparatively magnetize money have identifiable physical traits too.

    So you find the real reason that there is such pressure on non-discrimination based on physical traits. It’s not about blacks. That’s just a proxy, a distraction.

    It’s all about keeping people’s eyes off the truth.

    Alsen

    August 11, 2014 at 3:58 PM

  10. 1945 to 1970 is 25 years, not 35.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    August 11, 2014 at 4:15 PM

  11. IQ again? High IQ without corresponding extrovertism and soft skills rarely equates to financial success. Isn’t this common knowledge? The problem with IQ as a measurement of “intelligence”, is that it completely ignores the most fundamental intelligences of social animals living within a society, which are social skills (understanding social dynamics, networking ability, communication, intimudation, competitiveness, etc.) Until social skills can be measured and incorporated into an”intelligence” score, IQ is handicapped.

    JQ

    August 11, 2014 at 4:42 PM

  12. […] away the highest level in the entire history of either of my blogs. And then by blogging about me again today, drove the web traffic far higher than even yesterday, and the day’s only half […]

  13. Thus the normal route to a successful career in the United States…

    ALL of the very smart people I went to school with have achieved whatever success they have through elite education.

    Duke of Leinster

    August 11, 2014 at 5:24 PM

  14. LotB,

    economics hadn’t changed much during that time period.

    Jesus Christ, have you never heard of “marginalism”? No wonder you’re so pro-Marx… you can’t remember anything that doesn’t directly comport with your “Not Fair!” model.

    The reason that the US has sunk to the growth and prosperity levels of the rest of the world is that it’s become more like the rest of the world, i.e. less pro-market. Now that you and the other Social Justice Warriors have almost taken over, there is overwhelming stagnation, which you blame on wealthy people so that you can grow the gov and make everyone as poor as a Soviet. That’s your endgame: for gov to take over everything so that we can wallow in Soviet poverty and death. Those once-poor Jews are blissfully running this country into the ground as they steal everything they can.

    runindogs

    August 11, 2014 at 7:15 PM

    • Ummm it was capitalism that impoverished millions in Russia during the 1990s. Selling state assets at fire sale prices and looting the national treasures the USSR spent decades building was the theft of the century. It was only when a chekist took power and restored the Cold War era security establishment did Russia stabilize.

      eradican

      August 12, 2014 at 12:09 AM

      • eradican,

        I now know that you’re just pulling my leg about this whole commie thing.

        That video is unmistakable agitprop. A person would need sub-70 IQ to believe it was real, especially when we all know how bogus all media sources are, let alone a government that didn’t even try to hide its villiany. Since you have a three digit IQ, you must be kidding me, which explains a lot.

        runindogs

        August 12, 2014 at 9:10 AM

      • What “democracy” really is was revealed with Yeltsin’s re-election. The Commies were going to win until Boris agreed to sell off state assets for a song in return for campaign funds. Americans have very short memories. That is, the election was bought by the future oligarchs,

        Duke of Leinster

        August 12, 2014 at 6:33 PM

    • Credit card debt, student loans, subprime mortgages, subprime auto loans, vanishing pension, sporadic 401ks, permatemp, outsourcing, H1-B visas, egregious CEO pay, thank the “free” market or as put “socialism for the rich, free markets for the poor,”

      Kant

      August 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM

      • Kant,

        Credit card debt is reasonable for some people at some times in their lives. I don’t know why you think just writing the words is an argument.

        Student loans are needed because gov has made a college diploma a necessity even though any moron can get one. Go back two generations when leftists didn’t completely dominate academe and approx no one had to get student loans.

        Subprime mortgages exist because SJWs like Bush and Clinton believe that home ownership creates responsible citizens instead of the opposite. Banks have been bailed out by one president after another because citizens expect them to, so they can continue making subprime mortgages (and they will). Occutards are too busy trying to expand gov in unclear ways to focus on this problem that libertarians shriek about EVERY SINGLE DAY.

        Pensions are stupid because they make feds responsible for promises corps or smaller govs made to greedy unions. People should fund their own retirements directly instead of through the stupid pension system so that GM wouldn’t need to be bailed out, but could fail because its cars suck.

        Permatemp is because gov has made it egregiously expensive to employ anyone and dangerous to fire the wrong people. Leftists always expect companies to magically pay for their stupid plans without any negative trade-offs.

        Outsourcing sucks, so should we make it illegal for companies to move or go bankrupt?

        H1-Bs suck. What do all the Marxists want to do to limit foreign workers coming in? Oh, that’s right, they don’t.

        CEO pay … big deal. What Marxist cares about the president’s endless golfing, 747 rides, mansion, etc.? Oh, hideous wealth is fine if it’s in the hands of our dear leaders? Senate millionaires not a big deal, right?

        If there is socialism for the rich, then there’s socialism, not free markets. Duh. And socialist countries are all hell-pits. Social-democracies like the US and Sweden are marginally better.

        The US was the most dynamic country with widespread prosperity compared to other countries until it started behaving like other countries. Surprise.

        runindogs

        August 12, 2014 at 9:03 AM

      • There aren’t any true Marxists anywhere. You are just using “Marxist” as a boogey-man type of word.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 12, 2014 at 9:52 AM

      • The US was always about a plantation economy and the exploitation of the underclass. Proles did well in the past because they worked their @sses off without the threat of automation and outsourcing. Blacks were pretty much the same low skilled obsolete tools that are harder to subsidized now because of their large numbers compared to 30 years ago. Notice all the corporate retailers love blacks because they still make the perfect slaves for shoddy menial work paid at low wages where taxpayers are forced to subsidized the rest. Isn’t America a lovely place?

        JS

        August 12, 2014 at 11:59 AM

      • LotB,

        If eradican is at all serious, then he/she is a true Marxist.

        runindogs

        August 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM

      • I didn’t read his entire post, and I have no idea what you mean by a “true Marxist.”

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 12, 2014 at 4:13 PM

      • “Credit card debt is reasonable for some people at some times in their lives. I don’t know why you think just writing the words is an argument.”
        Credit card debt is reasonable under transparent and fair conditions. Sure, paying off an expensive TV is great over a certain timeframe at a reasonable rate of interest. However, credit cards are now used to pay off basic expenses and more or less make incredible profit off people who don’t know better (and sometimes people who do). I should mention that when income tax rates were high in the 1950s-1960s credit cards were unheard of.

        “Student loans are needed because gov has made a college diploma a necessity even though any moron can get one. Go back two generations when leftists didn’t completely dominate academe and approx no one had to get student loans.”

        Student loans are necessary because the private sector has moved decent employment for HS graduates and increasingly College graduates overseas. Go back two generations and you will see that public institutions were heavily subsidized by high taxes on the rich.

        “Subprime mortgages exist because SJWs like Bush and Clinton believe that home ownership creates responsible citizens instead of the opposite. Banks have been bailed out by one president after another because citizens expect them to, so they can continue making subprime mortgages (and they will). Occutards are too busy trying to expand gov in unclear ways to focus on this problem that libertarians shriek about EVERY SINGLE DAY.”

        Big Gov is in bed with Big Business, I agree. But Big Business bought the drinks first.

        “Pensions are stupid because they make feds responsible for promises corps or smaller govs made to greedy unions. People should fund their own retirements directly instead of through the stupid pension system so that GM wouldn’t need to be bailed out, but could fail because its cars suck.”

        Kant

        August 12, 2014 at 5:23 PM

      • It means that eradican is a proponent of a pure command economy who seems to believe commie agitprop and that the Labor Theory of Value describes reality. eradican is an even bigger Marxist than you.

        runindogs

        August 12, 2014 at 5:25 PM

      • Pensions create employer loyalty which is GOOD for business. Most CEOs before neoliberal dogma became fashionable understood this immutable truth. But I do agree that public sector pensions need to be more reasonable.

        “Permatemp is because gov has made it egregiously expensive to employ anyone and dangerous to fire the wrong people. Leftists always expect companies to magically pay for their stupid plans without any negative trade-offs.”

        Magically pay? Seriously? Have not corporate profits been incredibly huge over the past 30 years? Permatemps exist so companies don’t pay benefits and can get around visa restrictions for their slaves from India. The joke is on these companies when no domestic demand can purchase their products because we are all living hand to mouth at Starbucks.

        “Outsourcing sucks, so should we make it illegal for companies to move or go bankrupt?

        H1-Bs suck. What do all the Marxists want to do to limit foreign workers coming in? Oh, that’s right, they don’t.”

        Companies were nowhere near bankruptcy when they actually cared for their employees (just look at GM now). Neoliberal dogma and CEO greed are the sole reasons for outsourcing. They will go bankrupt faster if there is no domestic demand for their products because everyone is working a shitty job.

        Marx could not have comprehended our current slave trade because it did not exist in its insidious form today. Any sane person would understand the need for economic protections aganist immigration. Germans are very pro-German.

        “CEO pay … big deal. What Marxist cares about the president’s endless golfing, 747 rides, mansion, etc.? Oh, hideous wealth is fine if it’s in the hands of our dear leaders? Senate millionaires not a big deal, right?”

        CEO pay is a big deal especially when horrible CEOs compensate themselves for bankrupting their own firms and creating no social value whatsoever. Any true Marxist (especially Libertarian Marxists/Council Communists) would abhor Public officials screwing the public too. Even Marx is his late writings started to doubt change via the government. I’m sure today he would be more closer to Libertarian Marxism than anything.

        I”f there is socialism for the rich, then there’s socialism, not free markets. Duh. And socialist countries are all hell-pits. Social-democracies like the US and Sweden are marginally better.

        The US was the most dynamic country with widespread prosperity compared to other countries until it started behaving like other countries. Surprise.”

        Canada, Iceland (who have recovered greatly from the recession), Denmark, etc, are all great places to live. But they aren’t socialist, they are pro-worker pro-citizen, and pro-middle class.

        Funny enough the US had HUGE taxes on the rich from post WWII-1970 when this country was arguably at its greatest in recent history.

        Kant

        August 12, 2014 at 5:38 PM

      • Mass immigration legal and illegal including H1B is open class warfare directly responsible for high unemployment, declining wages, increasing crime, and demographic ruin. The “brain drain” occurring with skilled people fleeing their countries instead of improving them also doesn’t help anyone in the long term.

        The electoral system has been attacked by Marxists analysis as a charade where the masses vote in different cliques of millionaires. Bureaucracy has also been attacked as a privileged caste of despots especially by Leon Trotsky the leader of the Red Army and the man who won the October Revolution.

        eradican

        August 12, 2014 at 6:50 PM

    • Soviet poverty and death on display folks. This is hell on earth….

      eradican

      August 12, 2014 at 2:26 AM

      • It can’t be worse than NYC with all those NAMs running around in the sh*tty parks. Moscow is nicer than that.

        JS

        August 12, 2014 at 9:23 AM

      • You understand that this is propaganda correct? Imagine Magnitogorsk in 1961, Magadan, Norilsk.

        TheSheperd

        August 12, 2014 at 3:16 PM

      • Anything positive about the USSR = propaganda. Anything negative about the USSR = truth. Does that summarize the rightist position? Meanwhile Murkan cities today are unlivable nightmares of squalor, misery, and murder yet the politically correct rightist believes “enterprise zones” are the solution for Detroit, Compton, Baltimore, etc. They’ll never condemn these places with the same venom they do the USSR because it’s not socially approved by bourgeois ideology.

        eradican

        August 12, 2014 at 5:37 PM

      • The main bourgeois urban centers of NYC, DC, LA and SF and the lesser ones of Chicago, Portland and Seattle are all inferior cities lacking in any culture, sanity, sound infrastructure and urban planning. They get a failing grade of F minus.

        The American bourgeois are the proles of other 1st world nations.

        JS

        August 12, 2014 at 10:58 PM

      • This clip is propaganda because it is titled “Ordinary Life in the USSR”, while it paints an idealised portrait of the life of the elite in the country’s wealthiest city. No mention of the endless lines, alcoholism, the humiliations, life in the mining towns etc. Call it “Life of the Moscow Elite” or “An Idealised Portrait of Life in Moscow, 1961” and I have no problem with it. If we made a clip of Detroit and filmed it in the suburbs among the wealthy auto industry executives and called it “Daily Life in Detroit” it would also be propaganda.

        TheShepherd

        August 13, 2014 at 4:57 AM

      • eradican,

        How long is that cheesy closing shot on the smiling little girls? A half minute? This is an ad. That is all. It looks like some cut-rate Madison Avenue garbage.

        The people who believe that black cities will ever look like white cities are principally leftists. As a reactionary libertarian, I say that no large black city will ever look like Seattle and any rightwingers who think that they can make that happen are as deluded as a Marx lover watching Soviet agitprop that’s archived by Rosenberg lovers.

        runindogs

        August 13, 2014 at 5:02 AM

      • The Soviet Union was so awful the vast majority of people voted to preserve it.

        I suggests you people stop reading so much into Cold War western propaganda.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_referendum,_1991

        eradican

        August 13, 2014 at 4:23 PM

      • God bless you, eradican. That you for showing the basic truth that communist regimes are not necessarily hellholes and that misconception is just capitalist propaganda.

        You are most certainly not a communist for speaking out, although that made me more sympathetic to communism because I realized communism did improve the standard of living for many people and it is not merely an idealistic philosophy that can only work in theory because of dubious assumptions about human nature. I once avidly subscribe to Marxism-Leninism because it can potentially alleviate the oppression of the masses and incorporates geopolitical realities in its framework.

        Latias

        August 13, 2014 at 8:07 PM

  15. WRONG WRONG WRONG

    Maybe you should read a certain Dr. Steve Hsu, a researcher in theoretical physics, administrator at Michigan State University, and expert in IQ and genomics.

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2014/06/income-cognitive-ability-and-education.html

    This clearly shows that at every level of education, IQ is correlated with increased earnings. Of course, anyone not blinded by their own biases and insecurities could see that already.

    Live-Evil

    August 11, 2014 at 9:13 PM

    • According to the chart, the highest level of intelligence gave you only $631/week in earnings. This proves the point that intelligence doesn’t help you earn a lot of money.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 11, 2014 at 11:37 PM

    • WRONG WRONG WRONG

      The chart breaks up IQ into quintiles. BUT most grads are in the top quintile. SO it’s TOTALLY meaningless.

      What you find again and again and again is the hbd/iq bloggers have nothing to say that isn’t riddled with misunderstanding and misinterpretations.

      Duke of Leinster

      August 12, 2014 at 12:34 AM

  16. The rich I know (and with whom I’m acquainted) are generally distinguished by their avarice, narcissism and general state of feeling unfulfilled. In other words, the exact opposite of the happy and content Christian. IQ may have something to do with it, but I know plenty of smart people who are neither rich nor miserable. I know few rich people who aren’t unhappy even if they put on a good show. And, if they were on their way to finding happiness they’d inevitably discover a way to sabotage themselves.

    BTW – Robin Williams offed himself yesterday. I’ll bet he had a few shekels stored away. Don’t know how smart he was.

    Curle

    August 11, 2014 at 9:20 PM

    • “Robin Williams offed himself yesterday. I’ll bet he had a few shekels”

      That news really pissed me off because a) as the NAMs burn North St. Louis to the ground, all anybody can talk about is the sad clown Williams, and b) you’re right that he was rich in the filthy, stinking way that only a San Franciscan can me, and I think it’s just essentially morally reprehensible that somebody with that much change to not figure out a way to just frickin enjoy it.

      But then again, reports didn’t tell us whether or not he had his pants on.

      Benelli_Bang

      August 12, 2014 at 12:12 AM

      • “Reporter Rachel Lippmann of St. Louis Public Radio says about 60 people gathered outside of the Ferguson, Mo., police department Monday. They’re calling for police to identify the officer involved and to charge him with murder. Others want the police force diversified in the majority-African-American city. … [Eric] Holder added: “Aggressively pursuing investigations such as this is critical for preserving trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.”” (MPRNews)

        I had no idea St Louis is majority NAM. Sounds like it’s a Detroit in the making.

        Glengarry

        August 12, 2014 at 9:18 AM

      • Yes, most people are surprised that St. Louis is another Detroit or Camden, NJ.

        A doomer gloomer is predicting that much of America’s population will be wiped out in the next 15 years. A number of reasons: civil strife between racial groups, natural disasters and nuclear weapons.

        JS

        August 12, 2014 at 10:33 AM

      • No one is being wiped out in the next 15 years.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 12, 2014 at 1:16 PM

      • “A doomer gloomer is predicting that much of America’s population will be wiped out in the next 15 years . . . civil strife between racial groups.” —————————

        Sounds like Charles Manson.

        Curle

        August 12, 2014 at 8:47 PM

      • Yes, most Americans being wiped out in the next 15 years sounds fanatical. But look at its social problems such as the large underclass, disenfranchised NAMs, dysfunctional healthcare and education systems, and its shoddy welfare programs and a lack of good paying jobs. It’s a disaster to happen!

        JS

        August 12, 2014 at 11:04 PM

    • And oh by the way glad to see Obama had time to make a statement about Robin Williams. Unbelievable. This country is in serious trouble.

      Benelli_Bang

      August 12, 2014 at 12:23 AM

      • Obama will be on “The View” again. Probably when his term ends and he will be talking about all the great things that he has done as the president to all those annoying ladies including Hasselbeck.

        JS

        August 12, 2014 at 8:44 AM

      • This country has been in serious trouble for quite some time under Obama: don’t forget about his “basketball picks” either.

        Sanjuro

        August 12, 2014 at 4:27 PM

    • More likely is he offed himself because he was broke. How can smart people be so stupid with money? And this was a finding of the NYLSY: the high IQs were more likely to be in financial trouble.

      Duke of Leinster

      August 12, 2014 at 12:38 AM

    • he’ll serve a stint in hell for patch adams

      grey enlightenment

      August 12, 2014 at 5:02 AM

  17. IQs obtain better educational credentials, and it’s the educational credentials which cause higher earnings.

    That is part of it, but cognitive transference plays a big role, too.

    How many dropouts create the next Facebook or become millionaires? A very small percentage – a smaller percentage than graduates – because those who do graduate are smarter and are able to apply their intellect outside of college in a variety of disciplines that a dropout cannot. For example, a literature major can apply his ability to read dense complicated texts and his knowledge of the intricate rules of grammar to become a programmer. Smart people are very versatile, because they lean things very quickly.

    grey enlightenment

    August 12, 2014 at 4:21 AM

  18. High IQ losers are uniformly blinded by arrogance. Every one of them could be an oncologist or gastroenterologist making $500k by the age of 40 except they thought they knew better or were special. Heck, at 44 they could be retiring as a big city police Captain (obtained strictly through civil service appointment and promotion exams) with an $80k pension for life with COLAs and bennies they can take to Vietnam and live like kings while doing nothing but read on the beach.

    suburban dad

    August 12, 2014 at 7:27 AM

    • Heck, at 44 they could be retiring as a big city police Captain (obtained strictly through civil service appointment and promotion exams) with an $80k pension for life with COLAs and bennies…

      I am a very good test-taker and this should have been my career path, and almost was. In 1983, at 20 y/o I was half-way through my BS Computer Science. On a lark, and as a back up plan, I took my city’s firefighter exam. I scored very well and, shortly thereafter, I was offered a full-time firefighter position ($8/hr plus great benefits, including retirement after 25 years). I turned it down to finish my degree because I was going to be very successful in high-tech. Silly me, I would have been retired now for over five years, enjoying a $50K+ annual pension living like a king (like the other high school grads that were doing roofing back in 1983 and took the test with me, but they were smart enough to accept the job).

      E. Rekshun

      August 12, 2014 at 12:02 PM

      • Read up on the health impact of firefighting (from inhaling stuff like burning industrial chemicals) and you might think twice about firefighting as a perfect job. There’s a good chance you would have never lived long enough to enjoy that 50k after years of breathing carcinogens.

        Sanjuro

        August 12, 2014 at 4:24 PM

      • @Sanjuro: Read up on the health impact of firefighting…

        Those studies have been debunked, but continue to be successfully used by the firefighters unions to dupe elected city & county officials into granting high wages and early retirements. Firefighters have the same life expectancy as the general public. Moreover, firefighters largely don’t fight fires anymore – instead they give ambulance rides. In my city, officials revealed the fact that 99% of all firefighter calls were for medical assistance. As structure fires became almost non-existent, fire departments reinvented themselves (and put private ambulance companies out of business in the process).

        E. Rekshun

        August 13, 2014 at 5:29 AM

  19. Want to know what else gave people coming of age after 1945 an edge? Limited competition from peers, due to:

    1) A birth dearth in the 1930s due to the Great Depression;

    2. A small (at least in the US) but still sizable fraction of the men born in the 1920s who were killed in World War II.

    McFly

    August 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM

    • Paul Fussell says in his book “Battle: Making of a Skeptic” that WWII was a successful eugenics project (and he was referring to the US military not Hitler). He reaches this conclusion after gaining entrance to Harvard for grad studies in English and realizes he’s the only ex-infantry man there. OT – if this blog has performed no other function it has certainly won Mr. Fussell a marginally wider audience.

      Curle

      August 12, 2014 at 8:55 PM

  20. As to all the suggestions that career specialization is the stuff of success….
    Nothing can be more anathema to the curious mind than specialization. That is the province of Faithful Dogs.
    Your typical high IQ underachiever will ever be jack of all trades master of none.
    In the occasional enlightened age, some might deign to call him a ‘rennaissance man.’
    In a dark age, an, ADD, autistic, disabled, etc… to the extent his existence is even acknowledged.

    A stable career begets money and stability, but at the expense of the soul, at the price of lifelong slavery.
    You’ll find more Good Will Hunting types mopping floors than keeping books. Because one can easily think for oneself while mopping floors.

    Giovanni Dannato

    August 15, 2014 at 4:32 AM

  21. Was Jose Videla banned?

    Latias

    August 15, 2014 at 5:44 AM

  22. “none of the empirical evidence in the book disproves the correct explanation that people with higher IQs obtain better educational credentials, and it’s the educational credentials which cause higher earnings.”

    Well, actually, both IQ and income show considerable heritability and no shared environment impact. Educational attainment, does however. But, whatever (systematic) non-genetic influence there is on educational attainment, said influence has no effect on earnings. It is the genetic contribution of IQ (and other heritable traits) that affect earnings. The correlation with education is because genetic factors influence both.

    JayMan

    August 20, 2014 at 10:27 PM

    • WRONG.

      A study at the Kennedy School using structural eqn modeling showed that at most 1/15 of intergenerational status transmission could be explained by the heritability of IQ in the US.

      Furthermore the means of estimating “shared” and “non-shared” environment are gross oversimplification. So gross that the figures are meaningless. And that on top of the fact that P != G + E. The assumption underlying ALL behavioral genetics research is a fairy story. One might have hoped that the Flynn Effect ended the belief in fairies. But it didn’t.

      Duke of Leinster

      August 21, 2014 at 7:23 AM

      • Jorge,

        You are so full of crap it’s not worth arguing with you. Cochran and Harpending have made models that show you’re incorrect. As well, I specifically said heritability of income depended on traits in addition to IQ. Feel free to keep living in your fantasy world.

        JayMan

        August 21, 2014 at 10:43 AM

      • Sorry that should have been “gross oversimplifications“, but wordpress apparently doesn’t allow edits.

        The putative absence of “shared environment” effects is explained entirely by the same environment being different in effect for different genomes.

        I recently edited the wiki on twin studies. Perhaps you’d like to undo my edits.

        H & H are not too bright. I doubt either of them even knows what structural equation modeling is.

        You do know that a model proves nothing? Right? And that models, however elegant, may not describe reality? Right? It is quite frequent among scientists and pretenders to objectivity that they cannot tell the difference between their simple, elegant, beautiful story, their model and REALITY.

        Duke of Leinster

        August 22, 2014 at 2:13 AM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: