New IQ research shows why smarter people make better decisions

Post by 9rx » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 2:52 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #49

9rx wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have to work to survive you are working class, simple as. While the working class always have to work to survive, it is also possible for someone in the middle class and even the upper class to also have to work to survive. In both the middle and upper class cases, if the capital portion of one's position is insufficient to cover one's survival needs, then the labor component remains necessary to their survi…

Well, in upper class you simply hire someone to manage your money, making sure that you have a high return on investments.

Post by 9rx » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 4:53 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #52

9rx wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone needs $40,000 per year for survival while making $30,000 per year from capital investments and $10,000 per year from labor, they are upper class[1], but need to work to survive. Sure, long term, a talented hire might be able to transform that capital from earning just $30,000 per year into much, much more. But, in the interim the need to work to survive would only intensify. [1] Some might call it upper-mi…

I honestly don't understand what point you are trying to make. Yes, there will be a level of income below which you will have to work. Yes, there will also be a level of income above which you will certainly not have to work, given half-decent management of your wealth. And yes, there will be an area in between where you may or may not need to work.

Post by jhanschoo » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 5:56 PM UTC

readthenotes1 wrote: post #48

Two things that strike me about this study are: 1. Comparing the bottom 2.5% to the top 2.5% is a vast range and not really applicable to just about anybody who's able to read. So the effect may be real but irrelevant for 95%+ of humanity. 2. It doesn't look like they controlled the expected longevity to the actual longevity and instead compared it to projected longevity. It seems flawed. 0. Since it comes from socio…

Post by tptacek » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 6:11 PM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #36

delegate wrote: post #20

It's interesting how people always try to find some kind of number to race against. Here's a simple theoretical situation. A brilliant mathematician with very high IQ crashes in the jungle, but is unhurt. Not far from the crash site, there's a tribesman who lived in the jungle all his life. He doesn't know how to read or write. The jungle is filled with predators, spiders and snakes. The sun is setting, the night sta…

The applicable experiment for IQ would be to take two ”equal” populations (say,1000 ppl with middle-class background each), sort by IQ, cut the sample set at the middle to lower than median, and higher than median group. The statistics so far show that the upper median group will do better on average. One might end up in jungle but it does not really matter for our experiment. For individuals, IQ is sort of statistic…

Post by tptacek » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 6:32 PM UTC

ASalazarMX wrote: post #58

tptacek wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be. This can't possibly work. This is a journal that also published and later defended work premised on psychic ability, though. It's a serious journal, as I understand it. But they take flyers. This definitely seems like one.

While psychic powers have been thoroughly tested and debunked, isn't the point of science to entertain ideas that seem crazy, as long as they are tested scientifically?