21–30 of 245 posts
This study looks only at Swedish men who served in the military, which as the authors observe may well introduce a bias. They also note that a possibility is that higher cognitive ability individuals may more frequently opt for worse paying but prestigious roles, such as academia. I buy it, but I think there’s another factor today, which is that many higher cognitive ability individuals simply are not in the job mark…
Seems aligned with what Maslow pyramid of needs predicts. I.e. above a certain safety net, the individual places more value on internal fulfilment rather than external perception of worth.
It's not a surprise that cognitive ability (the paper seems to define it as relatively close to classical IQ) is not highly correlated with earning ability or even value production for society. I would argue that a much better correlant of both production value and capture value is conscientiousness, or vaguely synonymously, hardworking, diligent, etc. A brilliant world observer who tweets their witty one-liners all…
I’d add that there’s also somewhat of a random evolutionary walk in the way an individual’s intrinsic qualities end up aligning (or not) with the skills, values, temperaments and opportunities of their environment. Even how they match the needs and values of their historical time and culture can matter. This is beyond just plane nature-nurture, but stressing the importance of random “right place right time” dynamics…
Some eventually lucked out and were at the right place and time where someone gave them the opportunity, and were eventually able to minimum wage jobs to high-paying executive jobs in the span of a few years. Others never got that shot and were stuck where they were.
I've heard people lament that they worry about all the Einsteins out there who will never be able to reach their potential because they're plowing fields in underdeveloped countries. But in our own society it's likely that most Einsteins would never make it out of the patent office.
Much like in the universe, it seems as if random fluctuations in an otherwise uniform (playing) field results in the accrual of cumulative advantages that soon become exponential without the need for additional energy input.
In other words: to covert $100 into $120 is work; to convert $100 million to $120 million is inevitable (author unknown).
It's not a surprise that cognitive ability (the paper seems to define it as relatively close to classical IQ) is not highly correlated with earning ability or even value production for society. I would argue that a much better correlant of both production value and capture value is conscientiousness, or vaguely synonymously, hardworking, diligent, etc. A brilliant world observer who tweets their witty one-liners all…
Extremely high cognitive ability allows a person to find success in life without taking on as much risk. In my opinion this explains why the highest earners and most successful individuals with the most prestigious jobs are drawn from the ranks of those with B+ cognitive ability rather than A+ cognitive ability. The A+ people don’t need to swing for the fences as much, which means they’re less likely to end up with h…
Although possibly a better way to frame it is to say “people who feel like they have something to prove” are more likely to swing for the fences and succeed.
That also likely (roughly) correlates with cognitive ability.
This is besides the point that the ranks of upper management are typically filled with people who are socially/politically smart, and not necessarily STEM-style smart; the cognitive ability of whom may or may not be adequately captured by this study.
It's not a surprise that cognitive ability (the paper seems to define it as relatively close to classical IQ) is not highly correlated with earning ability or even value production for society. I would argue that a much better correlant of both production value and capture value is conscientiousness, or vaguely synonymously, hardworking, diligent, etc. A brilliant world observer who tweets their witty one-liners all…
Musk?