This is guaranteed to be a strong factor, there's plenty of evidence on IQ heritability and correlation with income.
Just because it doesn't predict the outcome fully doesn't mean it's insignificant.
You have to understand what the metric means in order to deploy it in an argument.
Also for some reason people seem to think I'm making a comment about high IQ and elitism.
I think low IQ is far more important for poverty discussion. Like sub 80 IQ is a significant percentage of population while being close to or having a mental disability. Sub 100 kind of makes it hard to have a well paying job in today's economy.
And not only is genetic factor big here but also having low IQ/poor parents means your environment will likely have a negative impact on your cognitive development.
At this point, you kind of have to want IQ to be genetically determined (in any meaningful amount) to believe it is.
Consider me convinced if you can source this - I'm not finding anything but opposite - that they strongly correlate the older they get (IQ test).
> Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse.
[....]
> In the low-SES group, the intraclass correlation was .63 for DZ twins and .68 for MZ twins, consistent with h2 of .10 and c2 of .58; for the high-SES group, the DZ twin correlation was .51 and the MZ twin correlation was .87, consistent with h2 of .72 and c2 of .15.
[...]
> In the fractious history of scientific investigations of the heritability of intelligence, the effects of poverty, and the relations between them, there has been only one contention with which everyone could agree: Additive models of linear and independent contributions of genes and environment to variation in intelligence cannot do justice to the complexity of the development of intelligence in children. Only recently have statistical models and computational capacity advanced to the point that less simplistic models can actually be fit. Although there is much that remains to be understood, our study and the ones that have preceded it have begun to converge on the hypothesis that the developmental forces at work in poor environments are qualitatively different from those at work in adequate ones. Clarification of the nature of these differences promises to be a fascinating, and hopefully unifying, subject for future investigation.
I was interested if my info was out of date so I found this https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692... which basically again confirms genetic IQ factor in adults is major. Separated twins correlate, siblings corelate less and virtual twins (same age unrelated siblings) corelate way less.
Anyway I'm no expert on this, but I've heard this view from multiple credible sources and the more I dig in the more it seems supported.
I don't remember anyone disputing strong genetic component of IQ, other than people uncomfortable with implications. And I am not even that interested in the social implications, but more practical issues like IQ improvement (basically 0 impact from what I have seen other than being physically fit/exercising), implications on parenting (you cant imprint your desired outcomes on your children and need to play to their innate interests and strengths/weaknesses), etc.
Again you can just go read Turkheimer's Vox piece for an refutation of your "basically zero impact" thing.
My big thing here though isn't to convince you that you're wrong about your belief that intelligence is innate and fixed. Rather, it's that you opened this thread with a citation to heritability research, and your usage of "heritability" was broken and misleading. With that cleared up, I don't think we need to drag this out.
> This is guaranteed to be a strong factor, there's plenty of evidence on IQ heritability and correlation with income.
> Just because it doesn't predict the outcome fully doesn't mean it's insignificant.
I'm just trying to figure out what your argument was, since it looks like you're trying to convince GP of what they already believed. Income isn't genetic after all.
Separated twin studies show conclusively that IQ is (partially) genetically determined as does, yknow, all common experience and intuition.
Think about this example. The genetic factor here is massive, much higher than anyone is claiming for IQ. Can you imagine how hopelessly lost you would be if your analysis of lipstick distribution in the population focused on its heritability and link to genetics?
- genetic twins separated at birth
- genetic siblings raised in same household
- genetically unrelated same age siblings adopted in the same household
are teasing out anything but an underlying genetic component and reproducing in studies
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...
Notice how I cited a source, that’s intelligence. Not just decided I was wealthy and therefore inherently smarter. That’s ignorance.
>Previous research, discussed below, has investigated the relationship between intelligence and income and found individuals with higher IQ test scores have higher income.
and my comment says
>there's plenty of evidence on IQ heritability and correlation with income.
>Notice how I cited a source, that’s intelligence. Not just decided I was wealthy and therefore inherently smarter. That’s ignorance.
Huh?
Please don’t ask me to cite sources, I know exactly what I’m talking about.
If you feel that I’m arguing in bad faith, please consider not responding and instead reflecting on why you feel the way that you do about this topic.