Yes I know all that. I’m a very heterodox individual in general so it doesn’t bother me. Think of me as being a Sam Harris style democrat.

Why not? We can infer that something like g exists in the same way that we can infer other scientific phenomena. Not everything in science is a directly observed phenomena. We know that certain particles exist despite never having observed them, I don’t know why we wouldn’t be able to do the same with other quantifiable data like intelligence.

It's a reification.

There is a high correlation between autism and genius iq so the conversation is kind of funny

There are more autistic people with IQ 130+ as a proportion of total autistic people than non autistic people, because autism is very bi modal, we also have many under 70 IQ autistic people unfortunately , but tbh I think the movie "rain man" heavily influenced priors

It was mostly a joke....throwback to when people were doubting Obama's intelligence even though he graduated with honors and taught at a top law school. It is a little concerning Vance is a conservative and did not get a better clerkship after graduation though. I don't think you need to be all that bright to get the best conservative clerk spots because of massive right wing political affirmative action.

Who would you say has a better chance of becoming a successful entrepreneur?

A) 100 IQ with high EQ

B) 120 IQ with low EQ


Who would you say has the better chance of becoming a successful poker player?

A) The 110 IQ player who studies, plays set hours and has good bankroll management

B) The 130 IQ player who is unwilling to study, goes on tilt, chases losses and drinks at the table

Why don't you keep ceteris paribus as we do with everything else to assess how relevant that is for outcomes?

Take height and NBA performance, keep everything the same and do a 6 feet guy vs a 7 feet guy.

That's how IQ works for performance, like everything else

There’s also a high correlation between autism and sub 85 IQ. I find it kind of silly that both types are put under the same disability tbh, because someone with autism might have very different accommodation needs than another person with autism.

I have actually used the "jfc Obama was editor of the law journal" as proof he was exceptionally intelligent so many times I lost count, back in the days.

Not 100% sure but Vance went into the private sector , not into clerkship, because it's just a better life

performance at what?

I think the problem with this analysis is that it’s trying to ask a different question than “what are the effects of intelligence on your life”. If your point is that there are other skills people can work on that are not intelligence that can improve their life, then I would say yes.

Soft skills go a long way.... because most people are pretty shallow, and some ego stroking goes further than it really should.

He clerked with some judge in Eastern Kentucky first....but that was another joke. i'm sure only the top conservative legal "minds" get that spot. I have doubts on where that places him in the non conservative non naffirmative action space. But that's not really worth discussing. If you ignore how he looks, talks acts, thinks and probably smells, I'm sure Vance is not dumb.

vance is without a doubt a very smart person


i'm sure if you ignored all the incredibly idiotic stuff he said he gain favors with the trump team etc and knew him through school or work then you'd have very different things to say about him

even his former friends from school who've turned on him and doing interviews about how he changed always remarked on how smart he is

Taleb: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

whole article's worth a read. even provides a scatterplot with SAT and IQ scores showing the correlation is derived from the left low-IQ tail and little relationship at higher scores, making luciom's earlier chart with precise 5pt interval IQ buckets derived from SAT scores even funnier

I would be curious to see a cite for this proposition.

FYP for jollies

Calling Vance dumb is really letting him off the hook imo.

I would highly disagree this article is worth a read. His epistemological humility is very low. He seems to be an epistemological narcissist if anything, assuming that some wild claims he makes are not even worth sourcing.

The way Vance talks thinks and act politically isn't my tribe, but it's still a very decent tribe compared with many leftist tribes.

Like I mean, it's clear he is close to pareto-better than Walz. We can draw 500 axis and Vance would be objectively a better person than Walz in what , 480 or 490 cases? That is, if you examine it from any position which isn't very leftist, otherwise it's viceversa.

You are the kind of person who decided that all rightwing positions are intellectually illegitimate and you intellectually masturbate over that continuously

Any measurable outcome normal people consider positive in life.

Like

1) not going to prison
2) life expectancy
3) income
4) wealth (not the same as 3) as it depends on your saving rate and how you invest)
5) health (managing any chronic health problem requires IQ)

And so on.

Oh it's everywhere in literature, not controversial.

Crespi (2016) is probably the best paper on that

I'm not saying anything Vance doesn't know. Conservatives are the stupid party, he's more aware of it than anyone, that's why he's changed so much on Trump, social issues etc.

I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had if everything except IQ is the same. If you take two people with the same interests, raised under the same conditions, with the same opportunities, the same level of emotional maturity and so forth, then it seems evident that the person with the higher IQ would be more likely to succeed in a given situation. You could run the same experiment with both people having the same IQ and different levels of emotional maturity, and there you would also find an imbalance. The question is: which is a better predictor? And to what extent?

Does a 7 foot basketball player have an advantage of over the 6 foot player if all things are equal (shooting, dribbling, passing, defense, athleticism, decision making, court vision, work ethic, teammates, coach, etc)? Obviously.