The last sentence is the most important point of the article and probably should have been a separate article on its own:
> America’s .0001% is becoming more meritocratic, but the means of a middle class background remain a necessary launching board.
So in other words the most important aspect is to be from the middle class to be successful otherwise your chances are much less. Makes sense on many levels such as chances of personal development due to financial and psychological stability. Poverty has been in the news lately and I read an article on how being poor impacts IQ simply because it becomes the mind's obsession of finding means to survive.
> being poor impacts IQ simply because it becomes the mind's obsession of finding means to survive.
While that's poetic, I'm very skeptical that you could even prove that empirically.
It's much more likely (because it is empirically demonstrable) that IQ is more strongly impacted by genetics (IQ of the parents), prenatal care (especially with respect to smoking and binge drinking), and childhood (mal)nutrition. I'm not sure how you would even test "obsession with survival" controlling for those things, all of which are much more common in poverty-stricken households.
I'm not saying that worrying about the next meal isn't terrible, but I am saying that we need to make sure we're not getting our causes and effects mixed up here. We can't just emulate "middle class" advantages for poor kids and expect the playing field to be level.
In other words, it's not as simple as saying being middle class is necessary to be successful, because to some degree, having minimally successful parents is necessary to be middle class in the first place. And why are parents successful? Probably things like good impulse control, general responsibility, mental health, and innate intelligence. Many of those things have certain genetic components.
So how do we make sure every kid has a fair shake at being rich? I'm not sure there's a good answer to that since it seems like so many of your cards are dealt in who your parents are. If you're really worried about it, I suggest you support substance-abuse recovery programs and food banks. Keeping kids healthy, well-fed, and free of birth defects are things we should be doing anyway.
I read that article. While those studies are interesting, they are definitely limited and far from conclusive. For example, they didn't control for genetics as far as I can tell. It's entirely plausible that "rich" people are rich in the first place because, statistically speaking, innate intelligence lets them make better financial decisions even under duress.
While it's possible and interesting, I certainly wouldn't make policy recommendations or support charities based on that kind of evidence.
In the meantime, while independent parties come up with something more conclusive, let's try to affect known vectors for stunted childhood development like parental substance abuse, prenatal care, and malnourishment. And, again, these are real problems we should be doing something about anyway.
I don't think you can control for genetics, at least not directly. There is no intelligence genetic marker as far as I know which only leaves testing the IQ/intelligence of the whole family tree as the only option. However getting access to ancestors might not be feasible. On the other hand having a large pool of people is good enough since the distribution of intelligence is usually uniform and not restricted to things like class or parental income.
Here's one way to control for genetics - compare orphans who were adopted early (Pre 1yo) and then see what the correlation between their IQ and both the parents and adoptive parents IQ. (Or use income as a proxy for intelligence; it might be hard to get the dead parents to take an IQ test)
> I don't think you can control for genetics, at least not directly.
That's my point, really. My conclusion is that these studies are interesting, but the body of evidence isn't scientifically rigorous enough that it should affect policy decisions.
Are you seriously asserting poverty is not a known vector for stunted childhood development?
Do you realize there are millions of impoverished people in this country who can't afford to eat healthily? You are aware of the effect nutrition has on childhood development right? Do you realize there exist impoverished parts of this country which simply don't have access to fresh healthy food?
There's literally hundreds of ways poverty stunts childhood development...
If you actually read the thread, he's asserting the same thing you are asserting. What he's disputing is the idea that one of the chief reasons poverty is hard to get out of is that, once there, the mind is too fixated on survival for higher intellectual achievements.
Technically, I'm asserting that we don't have enough evidence to say one way or another and that we shouldn't let studies like these affect our decisions or worldviews yet.
I do know that I felt less intelligent when I was more worried about money, as though some fixed cognitive reserve were depleted by worrying about uncertain near-term survival, leaving fewer intellectual resources for long-term planning and development.
Same here. I think the same phenomenon is observable in middle class and below: a person's main concern becomes surviving, leaving less/little time for introspection and learning.
To be clear, I don't deny it's plausible. I deny that the science is convincing. With all due respect, the combination of a few anecdotes and a couple limited studies should not carry much weight.
The strongest indicator of a child's ACT score is the INCOME of the parents. Increasingly IQ tests are being revealed as being culturally-based, too. And the things that you list; things like impulse control, general responsibility, mental health, are strongly influenced by the environment that the subject must contend with.
Eugenics always seem so seductive, but, like phrenology, much is revealed about the outlook and tendencies of the practitioner rather than the subject.
Don't make the really vapid errors in logic of trying to dismiss something by name-calling it "poetic", followed by the really vapid claim that IQ "strongly impacted by genetics", followed by failing to link to a single fucking legitimate study showing that "strong impact".
You're not proving cause and effect here. IQ and earning power are correlated but the relation has been proven to run both ways. Low IQ may or may not lead to low income but low income has been shown to lead to low IQ scoring.
Barring occupations like professional sports, though, common sense would tend to suggest that that a higher IQ would tend to lead to a higher salary in the majority of cases.
> America’s .0001% is becoming more meritocratic, but the means of a middle class background remain a necessary launching board.
So in other words the most important aspect is to be from the middle class to be successful otherwise your chances are much less. Makes sense on many levels such as chances of personal development due to financial and psychological stability. Poverty has been in the news lately and I read an article on how being poor impacts IQ simply because it becomes the mind's obsession of finding means to survive.