The birth of a new american aristocracy?

[metalhead]

Yep. That's how it's happened, and what research on IQ from 2006 doesn't really capture. Economic barriers to upward mobility are in place now that didn't really exist 30 years ago. Data from 2006 isn't really going to reflect that much, if at all.

 

[Hehehe]

I think the point you're missing is that performance on an IQ test is a pretty poor measure of intelligence.

Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[9][55] A high reliability implies that – although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and although they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age – the scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points[citation needed]. Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][56][57] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.[58]

Researchers estimate that IQ as measured by the test is only about half attributable to genetics. The other half is environmental - things like access to nutrition, early childhood education, social and economic stability, etc. etc. etc. all contribute to IQ test performance.

Citation, please? I don't think that you will be able to find a study that A: accounts for the Wilson effect (heritability of IQ increases with age) and B: gives IQ a heritability of 50 % or less. The (sourced) figure I gave you was 80%, and I would argue that modern research on this supports my case.

In other words, the SES of one's parent(s) or guardian(s) growing up has a large impact on how one performs on IQ tests. In fact it has as large an impact on test performance as actual genetic intelligence itself. So if you can't isolate the environment a person is raised in even from the tool which itself measures intelligence, you sure as hell can't say that genetic intelligence itself is in any way more predictive of lifetime achievement than parental SES.

You do realize that we can control for this, right? We can isolate the effect of the environment from the effect of genes in several ways. We can look at identical twins reared separately. Or we can look at adoptees, see if they end up more like their adoptive parents or their biological parents. Or we can look at siblings growing up in the same family, and see what is a better predictor of success: IQ or parental SES. There are also more complex ways of inferring heritability, but they all tend to point at 50%-80% (and I would argue 80%, when adjusted for the Wilson effect).

Yep. That's how it's happened, and what research on IQ from 2006 doesn't really capture. Economic barriers to upward mobility are in place now that didn't really exist 30 years ago. Data from 2006 isn't really going to reflect that much, if at all.

But what you're missing is that this university entrance thing might just be pure nonsense. Yes, people who go to elite universities tend to do better. But why is that? Is it because there's a selection effect or because they learn valuable skills there? Or some combination of both? Look at it this way: people who play pro-basketball tend to be much taller than average. So if we make everyone play pro-basketball, does that mean everybody is going to get tall? Or does pro-basketball simply select for the people who are already tall? If latter then it would simply mean that pro-basketball will become crap. It's a bit of a same thing with the universities.

That being said, when looking at wealth distribution at a larger scale, then yes there are problems, but I would argue that these have to do with economics rather than university entrance.

 

[metalhead]

Do you not understand the simple fact that a university education - even a second- or third-rate one - is prohibitively expensive and that most people can't afford to buy one for their kids?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Do you not understand the simple fact that a university education - even a second- or third-rate one - is prohibitively expensive and that most people can't afford to buy one for their kids?

It's often demonstrated itself to be a cost-ineffective farce too, so perhaps such a part could be chopped directly as a requirement in favor of more efficient predictors of performance.

 

[Hehehe]

Do you not understand the simple fact that a university education - even a second- or third-rate one - is prohibitively expensive and that most people can't afford to buy one for their kids?

Yes, I understand that. What I am saying is that perhaps all of those people do not need it? Perhaps they don't have much to gain from it? That perhaps universities are nothing more than a 3 year IQ test that costs tens of thousands of dollars? Aside from the technical fields where a degree is absolutely required. I mean maybe one could argue that a university measures conscientiousness as well as IQ, but still

 

[metalhead]

Yes, I understand that. What I am saying is that perhaps all of those people do not need it? Perhaps they don't have much to gain from it? That perhaps universities are nothing more than a 3 year IQ test that costs tens of thousands of dollars? Aside from the technical fields where a degree is absolutely required

But this is the whole point, that a college degree as a necessary prerequisite to gainful employment effectively removes the possibility of gainful employment from anyone whose parents can't afford to send them to college. So people whose parents can't afford to send them to college are essentially relegated to second-class status, on account of having far fewer opportunities to get a good paying job. Hence, most of the opportunity is hoarded by those who can afford to send their kids to college.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, I understand that. What I am saying is that perhaps all of those people do not need it? Perhaps they don't have much to gain from it? That perhaps universities are nothing more than a 3 year IQ test that costs tens of thousands of dollars? Aside from the technical fields where a degree is absolutely required. I mean maybe one could argue that a university measures conscientiousness as well as IQ, but still

My opinion is that they measure conscientiousness INSTEAD of IQ, with the more serious measurement of ability to pay thrown in as well.

 

[Hehehe]

But this is the whole point, that a college degree as a necessary prerequisite to gainful employment effectively removes the possibility of gainful employment from anyone whose parents can't afford to send them to college. So people whose parents can't afford to send them to college are essentially relegated to second-class status, on account of having far fewer opportunities to get a good paying job. Hence, most of the opportunity is hoarded by those who can afford to send their kids to college.

And what is the solution to that? How about reducing college enrollment all around, rather than increasing it? Then there is the argument about whether or not college is really needed for non-technical fields, even for demonstrating one's capabilities, but I guess that's another matter.

My opinion is that they measure conscientiousness INSTEAD of IQ, with the more serious measurement of ability to pay thrown in as well.

Well, I can tell you this much. Highly gifted students will have it a lot easier in institutions of higher learning. IQ can substitute for conscientiousness

 

[metalhead]

And what is the solution to that? How about reducing college enrollment all around, rather than increasing it? Then there is the argument about whether or not college is really needed for non-technical fields, even for demonstrating one's capabilities, but I guess that's another matter.

So then you do agree with me after all that privilege is being hoarded, and that's a problem? Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Hehehe]

So then you do agree with me after all that privilege is being hoarded, and that's a problem? Glad we cleared that up.

I'm agnostic on the issue. Can you demonstrate the effect of this privilege while also controlling for IQ?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, I can tell you this much. Highly gifted students will have it a lot easier in institutions of higher learning. IQ can substitute for conscientiousness

At some point, yes. I got a degree without ever setting foot in a classroom, and it was reasonably inexpensive for the Navy, who footed the bill. But I cheerfully acknowledge that no power on earth was going to give me the endurance to put up with a university environment for four months, much less four years, so I really think that 'instead of' is more accurate.

 

[Drewcifer]

Beyond the cause part there is the fact that we are creating a subset of people who are smart and able, but are shut out of the middle class. That is a dangerous thing for a society, those are the sort of people who start revolutions, or at least overthrow the established order.

 

[metalhead]

I'm agnostic on the issue. Can you demonstrate the effect of this privilege while also controlling for IQ?

People without college degrees have few job opportunities. So if you can't afford a college degree, it doesn't really matter what your IQ is. You won't have many job opportunities. IQ has nothing to do with it.

The lifetime earnings disparity between those with a degree and those without a degree is very well documented. IQ is irrelevant.

 

[Hehehe]

People without college degrees have few job opportunities. So if you can't afford a college degree, it doesn't really matter what your IQ is. You won't have many job opportunities. IQ has nothing to do with it.

The lifetime earnings disparity between those with a degree and those without a degree is very well documented. IQ is irrelevant.

Correlation does not prove causality. That these disparities exist does not prove that going or not going to college caused these effects

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Beyond the cause part there is the fact that we are creating a subset of people who are smart and able, but are shut out of the middle class. That is a dangerous thing for a society, those are the sort of people who start revolutions, or at least overthrow the established order.

Hey! I know that guy!

 

[Hrothbern]

Beyond the cause part there is the fact that we are creating a subset of people who are smart and able, but are shut out of the middle class. That is a dangerous thing for a society, those are the sort of people who start revolutions, or at least overthrow the established order.

Yes
And where for jobs 50 years ago the companies allowed or even encouraged these "unqualified" people to grow substantially during their job to a level that was both intellectual as money wise satisfying (for employee and employer), these growth possibilities are now much less because of the higher defined job tasks, decreasing the need for self-thinking employees and the formalisation of "qualified" whereby education level plays a bigger role.
Learning on the job Having the right certificate

 

[metalhead]

Correlation does not prove causality. That these disparities exist does not prove that going or not going to college caused these effects

No, but the evidence of causality is strong.

Anyways if you're going to fall back to "correlation doesn't prove causation," I'm just going to take that as a tacit admission that you know I'm right.

 

[Hrothbern]

How many of those upper 10% jobs are leadership ?
Too high "IQ" is on average detrimental for leadership.
Starting somewhere at 115-120 to take real effect.
115+ is ~16% of population.

How important is that IQ at 10-15-20 years really in the long term, the moment you start belonging to that upper 10% ?
IQ is not constant and can move up and down substantially during a life.
Being part of the right network can help tremendously in developing yourself

How important is it for the upper 10% to have people on board, that fit in morals and culture. The "one of us" can be relied on effect ?
Why take risks ? Better someone that needs some help from the right people, kisses the right rings, bows to the shrine, than someone not needing the rest.

Or to put it much more bluntly:
What was the IQ of the succesful Mafia Capo's and Don's ?
Running a Mafia unit needs some more than just killing.

 

[Traitorfish]

The 0.1%/9.9%/90% structure is pretty much what Europeans mean when they talk about an upper, middle and working class. It's only startling to Americans because the ideology of a "mass-middle class" is so deeply-rooted in their political discourse.

And in fairness, it seemed a fairly plausible notion for a long time, at least for white people. The United States did enjoy a genuine broad-based prosperity for the three decades after the Second World War. But it came unstuck some time ago- it's been unstuck for longer than it ever really existed, at this point- and you're all now just catching up to the idea that the American exception isn't so exceptional.

Ironically, this is all coming against a background of Europeans becoming much worse at talking about class. It seems like we're all meeting somewhere in the middle, which is I suppose why stuff like "99%" has so much currency compared to a stodgily Marxist "proletariat".

 

[Hehehe]

No, but the evidence of causality is strong.

Anyways if you're going to fall back to "correlation doesn't prove causation," I'm just going to take that as a tacit admission that you know I'm right.

First of all, it seems like their data is from the 70's and 80's. I don't know if the value of higher education was inflated back then, but it sure seems to be that way now. Second, where was the causality here in this paper? Can you point it out to me? I've never denied the correlation. Also, it is worth noting that in the paper I cited earlier (Strenze 2006), IQ was better predictor of education level, income and occupation level than person's grades, parental education or parental income.

It seems like we're talking past each other. You seem to be laser-focused on university, whereas this just seems like smoke and mirrors by people suffering from cargo cult mentality. I mean if in your opinion, access to university is the problem, what's your solution? state-funded higher education? That has many issues, and unless the state would be willing to cut a lot of the unproductive higher education, it would simply further inflate higher education. Ideally, employers would have to compete for applicants, which would force them to cut the requirements for all the unnecessary degrees. But then again if wishes were horses, beggars would ride

IQ is not constant and can move up and down substantially during a life.

Actually IQ has fairly high test-retest reliability. Obviously it's not perfect, nothing is, but it's still pretty good