/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15585520]

Why are rich people smarter than poor people?

[Anonymous No.15585524]

>>15585520
Because genetic intelligence is necessary for long-term generational wealth accumulation.

[Anonymous No.15585535]

>>15585520
They can afford to study.

[Anonymous No.15585537]

>>15585524
Also selection pressure to acquire resources so you can have children

[Anonymous No.15585563]

>>15585535
This any genetics mormon is lying, after all they themselves have dumb siblings

[Anonymous No.15585587]

>>15585520
Because the higher your education, the higher your income on average. The ones at the extreme end of the income curve will all be educated. The educated man will emphasize education more, will teach his kids more, and will nurture an educational mindset more than a high school dropout bricklayer. Parental educational level is a better predictor of scores than income.

[Anonymous No.15585592]

>>15585520
>Why are rich people smarter than poor people?
Poor people are mostly non-white.

[Anonymous No.15585594]

>>15585587
Parental education level was historically an IQ analog, so current generations (people whose parents were educated prior to the dilution of college degrees) will all be in upper SDs of IQ.

[Anonymous No.15585604]

>>15585524
How come all the richest people have generated 99.999% of their wealth during their lifetime and not through long term generational wealth accumulation?

[Anonymous No.15585610]

>>15585594
Lol iq

Education, is an standarized test

[Anonymous No.15585618]

>>15585604
They haven't.

[Anonymous No.15585623]

>>15585610
Before 1994 the SAT was an IQ test, from which a valid WAIS score could be derived. Its intended purpose was to allow colleges to filter out low IQ students.

[Anonymous No.15585624]

>>15585520
Resources to do a lot of socializing activities that involve a lot of mechanical learning and sheer volume of undisturbed amount of time to study / do projects that isn't plagued by a billion poor events such as working or helping with siblings or dealing with addiction / broken home bullshit.
>>15585524
An inbred cope

[Anonymous No.15585631]

>>15585520
>unlabeled y axis
nice graph, retard

[Anonymous No.15585670]

>>15585520
The question you should be asking is, why are smart people richer than stupid people?
The answer to that should be obvious.

[Anonymous No.15585674]

>>15585670
This.

[Anonymous No.15585681]

>>15585623
The IQ of the average college graduate has not decreased since the SAT stopped being an IQ tests. In fact, it hasn't decreased in the last century, even though so many more people are getting degrees. If anything, it has slightly increased. This is all true for PhDs and MDs as well. Even if the SAT was scrapped totally, the IQ for degrees would stay roughly the same. You don't need an IQ test for a 60 IQ to not go to college, or for him to go to college and flunk out. You don't need to filter him from becoming an engineer by having him take an IQ test because he won't pass Calculus class either ways. The filtering happens automatically when presented with complex course material. And it should just be let organically happen as it was throughout all of human history.
Idk why midwits think that IQ tests are absolutely necessary at every step of life. The SAT, and most IQ testing simply serve a cosmetic purpose at this point and really should be scrapped. They will tell you if you're a retard or not, but they won't tell you if you're worth anything or if you'll do anything meaningful in life.

[Anonymous No.15585683]

>>15585520
>tfw 1600/1600 SAT
Parents are white trash, never met anyone really rich so who knows

[Anonymous No.15585687]

>>15585563
>genetics mormon
What exactly does Mormonism have to say about genetics?

[Anonymous No.15585750]

>>15585604
Because we live in the most prosperous time in human history with virtually limitless opportunities for those who are brave enough to seize them

[Anonymous No.15585788]

>>15585670
Being smart doesn't make you richer beyond a certain point though. For weamth creation, being 130 IQ gives you an edge over an 80 IQ, but not necessarily a 115 IQ. Most of the correlation between net worth and IQ exists for the very bottom earners and the bottom half of IQ. For instance, the Average IQ of those in the top 20% of society by wealth is not going to be sufficiently different from the Average IQ of the top 1%. Neither the average wealth for the 115 IQ vs 130 IQ.

So this doesn't explain why the 99th %ile wealthy score so much more higher than even those that are 90th %ile wealthy.

[Anonymous No.15585792]

>>15585687
I don't know what they meant but Mormons get smarter ever generation...

[Anonymous No.15585793]

>>15585520
They can afford out of state tuition + they get scholarships for being jewish

[Anonymous No.15585794]

>>15585788
>So this doesn't explain why the 99th %ile wealthy score so much more higher than even those that are 90th %ile wealthy.
There is a point at which income stops being a function of intelligence and starts being a function of luck.
But you'll never see >120 IQ person working for minimum wage past their early 20s, and you'll never see a <80 IQ person making six figures unless nepotism played a role.

[Anonymous No.15585797]

>>15585788
Ah, you're pulling the same trick as that retard Taleb.
show the averaged wealth graph and also the graph of income against IQ
Unsurprisingly the connection is then seen

[Anonymous No.15585811]

>>15585524
>long-term generational wealth accumulation
Imagine not already having generational wealth. LMFAO. How many years has your line been working on it? 1,000? 10,000. For all of this duration, not a single man has figured out how to secure money longterm. Perhaps one man from your line managed to make a fortune, perhaps 2. That doesn't matter, because your backbone isn't good enough to hold it, and all it takes is one bad round to squander centuries of wealth. Your line just isn't fit to carry LONG TERM, GENERATIONAL wealth.
10,000 years of evolution: no benefit!
Face it, you're a dead end, from birth. Your grandfather was a dead end from birth. Your great-great grandfather was a deadend from birth. Maybe, if you start now, and marry your eugenic best-fit, it'll get the ball rolling, and your great-great grandchildren will have a slight chance of working themselves upward.
But how many future rounds of eugenically bred arranged marriages will it take to actually fix your line? 10? 30? Should probably just cut the losses and prune the tree. You're a virgin? Don't worry, it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.15585812]

>>15585794
Luck doesn't play a role unless risk is involved.

[Anonymous No.15585815]

>>15585681
Your first sentence is already wrong.

[Anonymous No.15585818]

>>15585815
He's either baiting or parroting shit that his social peers/superiors have claimed.
Either argue in detail or ignore this garbage, anything else he'll just deflect.

[Anonymous No.15585822]

>>15585811
You do understand that Wealth doesn't last 10,000 years? 70% of wealthy families lose it by the second generation, and 90% lose it by the third. Everyone has at least one ancestor that was "generationally wealthy". By default. because of how much wealthy people, especially kings, reproduced back in the day. Just as most of Europe is related to Charelmagne and most of Asia is to Genghis Khan.
The wealth of wealthy families simply dissipates and is gone in some generations. For some it may take longer, but no "wealthy family" lasts 10,000 years.

[Anonymous No.15585830]

>>15585822
>70% of wealthy families lose it by the second generation, and 90% lose it by the third
Yeah, and they lost it. LMFAO
>no "wealthy family" lasts 10,000 years.
Reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.15585834]

>>15585520
>Why are rich people smarter than poor people?

[Anonymous No.15585840]

>>15585830
>Yeah, and they lost it. LMFAO
Yes, that's the norm, actually not even a norm, it's just how things have been historically as he claimed. You said something about reading comprehension? Ah yes, here:

>>no "wealthy family" lasts 10,000 years.
>Reading comprehension
Your primary complaint is that in 10,000 years none of his line of established generational wealth, when in reality it's more likely his line has, but de to it being divided between heirs and so forth, it dilutes as the decades go by.

If anything, I'd say you're just a baiting faggot trying to get (You)'s. Your next response had better not have the same vein, otherwise I would recommend people stop responding to you where possible (advice I will follow automatically, mind you).

[Anonymous No.15585853]

>>15585815
You are very unintelligent.

[Anonymous No.15585871]

>>15585840
>his line is so shit he doesn't yet have generational wealth

[Anonymous No.15585876]

>>15585871
I am Elon Musk's son.

[Anonymous No.15585878]

>>15585876
What are you gonna spend your big bucks on, X?

[Anonymous No.15585883]

>>15585520
Private tutoring for the SATs over the course of several years.

[Anonymous No.15585903]

>>15585878
I'm gonna save it for generational wealth. No spending.

[Anonymous No.15585907]

>>15585520
why would you take the SAT if you're poor as shit and not going to college
you all have dogshit data comprehension

[Anonymous No.15585909]

>>15585788
Conspicous that the graph stops at 130. The reason? Net worth starts to drop soon afterwards. A 150 IQ is less wealthy on average than a 125 IQ. 125 is where the Elite class averages, and the chances of entry into the elite only increase uptil an IQ of 133. Then they drop starkly. Chances of entry in the elite beyond an IQ of 140 are slim, and hence you're just comparatively poorer beyond an IQ of 135.

[Anonymous No.15585912]

>>15585903
Oh shit! Those grimes genes broke through. The code has been cracked, and another line capable of maintaining long-wealth(none of that lose it by 3 generations rubbish) is created.

[Anonymous No.15585919]

>>15585834
>Exceptions make the rule

[Anonymous No.15585922]

>>15585912
Mom is richer than you'll ever be, pleb faggot.

[Anonymous No.15585924]

>>15585919
>Not all rich people are like that

[Anonymous No.15585930]

>>15585919
Wealth =/= intelligence. That's like saying Mr Beast is neuroscientist by that metric.

[Anonymous No.15585940]

>>15585922
Not for long!

[Anonymous No.15585956]

It isn't a meritocracy. 30% of Harvard admissions to go legacy/employee children. Then add in all benefits of 50k+/year K-12 schooling (The majority of ivy admissions), and you have class based higher education.

[Anonymous No.15585998]

>>15585912
So do you think that no wealthy family ever marries somebody stupid? Wealthy people are more likely than average to marry low IQ bimbo Trophy wives. You won't see them walking around with 140 IQ physicist women. But let's presume a 130 IQ wealthy guy who did end up somehow marrying a 130 IQ woman. Their kid would still be 115 IQ because of regression to the mean. Do you see the problem? IQ degenerates within a wealthy family over time both because of marrying bimbos and regression to the mean, and they are then likely to lose it as time goes on. I'm glad you mentioned grimes, because elon's kids are an example of this. They will certainly not be as smart as he is, and there's like 10 of them to receive the inheritance, so none of them will be as rich as daddy either.

[Anonymous No.15586002]

>>15585998
>You won't see them walking around with 140 IQ physicist women.
Women who avoid childbearing into their late 30s/early 40s are unintelligent and bad stock for a person seeking longterm bloodline wealth and success.

[Anonymous No.15586007]

>>15585930
>implying neuroscientists are smart
they aren't, thats just a meme.
neuroscientists are the most dishonest people in all of science according to the retraction rate of their publications.

[Anonymous No.15586025]

>>15586002
Congratulations then, you want a low IQ woman as well! You better make a lot of money because your kids are going to be retarded.
>A 2014 study by Satoshi Kanazawa using data from the National Child Development Study found that more intelligent women and men were more likely to want to be childless, but that only more intelligent women – not men – were more likely to actually be childless.
>One-standard-deviation increase in childhood general intelligence (15 IQ points) decreases women's odds of parenthood by 21-25%.
>[Lynn] found negative correlations between the intelligence of American adults and the number of children and siblings that they had, but only for females.
>In a 1988 study, Retherford and Sewell examined the association between the measured intelligence and fertility of over 9,000 high school graduates in Wisconsin in 1957, and confirmed the inverse relationship between IQ and fertility for both sexes, but much more so for females.

[Anonymous No.15586031]

>>15586025
You're mistaking college indoctrinated women for intelligent women. It's a common misconception, but an inaccurate one. Intelligent women don't end up in these studies because they know not to dry up their eggs through decades of adult infantilism.

[Anonymous No.15586037]

Geniuses are the real retards. I hope everyone with an IQ above 105 gets injected with lead and methylmercury against their will, resulting in massive loss of their precious "intelligence." Don't be afraid, embrace it, in future generations this procedure will be mandatory because of your STUPID FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT, CRYING, SHITTING, PEEING, COMPLAINING children (disgusting).

[Anonymous No.15586121]

>>15586031
>The real intelligent ones were the retards, silly
yeah yeah, cope.

[Anonymous No.15586124]

>>15586121
>being a genetic dead end is intelligent
>attending adult daycare for 10 years is intelligent
Yeah that's a no from me chief.

[Anonymous No.15586130]

>>15585794
>But you'll never see >120 IQ person working for minimum wage past their early 20s, and you'll never see a <80 IQ person making six figures unless nepotism played a role.
Hilariously wrong.

[Anonymous No.15586131]

>>15586124
I'm glad that you have ditched IQ as a measure of intelligence and adopted fertility as one. After all, that is what measure the Darwinan success of a people, not how well you scored on a math test. Now we can finally conclude that Niger with a 6.89 fertility rate is the most intelligent country in the world.

[Anonymous No.15586134]

>>15586131
I know you're seething hard right now, but pretending to be retarded doesn't make you look good.

[Anonymous No.15586138]

>>15586124
>>15586134
How does shitposting on /sci/ increase your evolutionary fitness exactly?

[Anonymous No.15586139]

>>15586138
A strong sense of humor is a sign of a well developed intellect.

[Anonymous No.15586144]

>>15585956
Obama was admitted to Harvard on a legacy basis, his daddy was wealthy Kenyan aristocracy who was able to bribe he way into Harvard. Now his daughters both go to Harvard. None of them ever took any sort of entrance exams.

[Anonymous No.15586149]

>>15586139
then this board must be extremely low iq. theres practically no native memes here. we've got twum and thats about it as far as memes of local origin.
does that mean the twumposter is the highest iq guy on the board?

[Anonymous No.15586151]

>>15586149
Making image macros is a very low level impression of what humor entails.

[Anonymous No.15586158]

>>15585520
>rich person finds a way to monetize poor people
what do you think social media is?

[Anonymous No.15586159]

>>15585788
This

[Anonymous No.15586165]

>>15586151
its easy for you to say that, but its also a demonstrable fact that you have no idea what you're talking about, since you've never made a successful meme

[Anonymous No.15586166]

>>15585998
>So do you think
I think you haven't read one of my words.

[Anonymous No.15586170]

>>15585909
It takes a large ego and lower intelligence to lower yourself and do the greedy shit needed to acquire wealth.

[Anonymous No.15586185]

>>15586134
Hahahahhah you're shamelessly unintelligent. Can't even call you a midwit.

[Anonymous No.15586188]

>>15586185
Thank you for conceding that you have no argument.

[Anonymous No.15586192]

>>15586188
I concede. You're right in everything you say, Boss.

[Anonymous No.15586199]

>>15585520
Smart people tend to be neurodivergent in ways other than intelligence and literally cannnot breed.
To compensate they have to acquire wealth in order to meme a woman to pop out a kid for them well past her prime with her very last egg.
Nigs meanwhile have 5 kids before they are 18, not only more successfully propagating their low-time preference genes but eliminating the need to acquire wealth entirely.

[Anonymous No.15586203]

>>15585681
>You don't need to filter him from becoming an engineer by having him take an IQ test because he won't pass Calculus class either ways.
Short signed an a genuinely stupid comment.
That's just kicking the can down the road.
What makes you think they can't gimp Calculus testing just like they gimped standardized IQ testing? Liberals already have it in the works.
Anything that results in disparate outcomes will be done away with.

[Anonymous No.15586207]

>>15585788
>being 130 IQ gives you an edge over an 80 IQ, but not necessarily a 115 IQ.
No shit retard. What matters is the standard deviations, not the absolute number.
Claiming a 130 IQ is "smarter" than a 128 IQ for example would be retarded.

[Anonymous No.15586213]

>>15585909
To be a social elite you not only need to be fairly intelligent but have charisma as well. After 130 the autism starts to become too much of a social impediment. Unfortunately this leads to many retards erroneously concluding that they're actually geniuses and only failed because of autism.

[Anonymous No.15586219]

>>15586121
He's clearly correct but you can't accept it because you are fixated on some mental image of the "low IQ bimbo."
You aren't really making a principled point you're venting your emotions, which is why you immediately resorted to bad faith tactics like meme arrow apocrypha and spamming psychological crutches like cope as soon as you were challenged.

[Anonymous No.15586223]

>>15586170
You would lower yourself only if you're shameless, not by having a large ego.

[Anonymous No.15586227]

>>15586219
>I agree with him, hence he must be correct
Not how it works, Bucko.

[Anonymous No.15586228]

>>15585788
Wealth generation is due to unscrupulousness and lack of empathy imo. You have to be ruthless and a conman to really get money

[Anonymous No.15586229]

>>15586227
You immediately reinforced the point I was making.

[Anonymous No.15586235]

>>15586228
>being poor is virtuous
dogmatic liberal resentment with no observable basis in reality. In fact the opposite seems to be the case, poor people commit more crime, and the crime they do commit tends to be more cruel in nature

[Anonymous No.15586251]

>>15585812
do u believe in making your own luck, as the saying goes?

[Anonymous No.15586258]

>>15586235
>dogmatic liberal resentment
They do the same thing over automobiles, all the liberals too lazy to work hard enough to earn the money needed to buy a car experience moral outrage over automobile ownership.
>Everyone should give up their cars and ride the bus like me, I am soooooo superior
its the pure narcissism of people who are unwilling to acknowledge their own glaring flaws

[Anonymous No.15586265]

wealth allows you to acquire knowledge and take certain risks like start a business venture

[Anonymous No.15586354]

>>15586235
I never said that. Where did I say or imply that? Why are you just pulling something out of your ass and then arguing against it.

[Anonymous No.15586371]

>>15586354
It's called a Strawman kiddo. Do you not even know the basics of how to win an argument ? Learn it and apply it in your life, you will be better off.

[Anonymous No.15586377]

>>15586371
I didn't think we were going to be yelling at each other like retards like every other board

[Anonymous No.15586382]

>>15586251
Making your own luck is essentially improving your odds. You can do that to an extent. There are no guarantees. Anyone who provides guarantees for success are liars.

[Anonymous No.15586621]

This is why we need affirmative action.

[Anonymous No.15586946]

>>15585604
probably a Wilson effect. Just a little bit of generation wealth accumulation (due to some trait) gets you very far.

[Anonymous No.15586960]

>>15585520
>This graph was made by "Totally not rich nepotism baby falsifying data by bribing people"

[Anonymous No.15587107]

>>15586946
So you're saying anyone with a middle income can become the richest man in the world?

How does that work? Doesn't that mean 50% of Americans should be billionaires?

[Anonymous No.15587436]

>>15585604
They introduced new things and have successfully propagated and generated profit from it continually almost passively in a successful business model.

[Anonymous No.15587451]

>>15585811
They're probably just uncultured lol

[Anonymous No.15587475]

>>15585840
imagine being obsessed with generating income you lack the time to nurture your descendants. Sigmanchild grind lmao

[Anonymous No.15587503]

>>15586025
Why are you tryharding on 4chan, just go with the pixarmom logic. Fat ass = smart babies

Obviously pick a good bimbo just smart enough not to destroy what you've built as soon as you die

[Anonymous No.15587519]

>>15586149
Can't even fight its evil racist tendencies to be a decent person. Subhuman

[Anonymous No.15587522]

>>15586149
All hail twumposter

[Anonymous No.15587536]

>>15586228
Imagine being this attention starved. Never have you experienced being appreciated for making a product or doing a service that people genuinely enjoy? YoungMan learn to share, it is basic kinder shit

[Anonymous No.15587783]

>>15587536
>Never have you experienced being appreciated for making a product or doing a service that people genuinely enjoy?
Not that anon, but this will give you fulfillment not excessive wealth.

[Anonymous No.15587791]

>>15587783
Are you new here?
"If you're good at something, never do it for free."
I swear even my edgy tween nephew knows that, and he doesn't even browse 4chan

[Anonymous No.15587805]

>>15587791
Again, what you're recommending will not bring excessive wealth, otherwise plumbers and electricians would be the richest people in our society.

[Anonymous No.15587814]

>>15585909
This also maps neatly onto the wisdom /sci/ has concocted in the last couple months, that an IQ of 130-140 is literal hellscape territory, because you are smart enough that basically all humans you encounter register like cattle to you and all organizations are transparent like boy's middle school anthill project, but you are also right on the border of cattle leader caste territory, being above it, infected with just enough autism from the 140+ IQ section that you could never fit in with the normies, while the 140+ all manage to live lives of merry autism being preoccupied with numbers or even more abstract ventures.

[Anonymous No.15587833]

>>15587814
I feel like that image intentionally included exceptions and left out proven geniuses. For example, Feynman's IQ result is suspicious, and he gloated over it. I suspect it would be higher if he took it as an adult and applied himself. The same goes for von Neumann, but because he never took an IQ test (along with many others) his IQ gets ignored? Kasparov was more a chess savant, whereas Bobby Fischer was a proven genius. Not that I'm saying high IQ brings happiness, but very high IQs exist.

[Anonymous No.15587859]

>>15587805
Learn about the following:
Industrial scale
Union membership
Institutional commission
Intellectual property rights
Royalties
Tax

[Anonymous No.15587864]

>>15587859
Lol. Regardless of what you say, the wealthiest are not getting there through "fulfillment" or "sharing." Both are the antithesis of making money. If you use them to make money, then you're making the other anon's point about being ruthless and a conman.

[Anonymous No.15587870]

>>15587864
Who are you to judge their intentions, getting rich is just a byproduct you dumbass.

[Anonymous No.15587948]

>>15587870
If you're making a lot of money, then you're selling, not sharing. If you were fulfilled, you wouldn't overcharge. I do believe there are people who genuinely enjoy what they do, but they're probably not getting rich off of it.

[Anonymous No.15587958]

>>15587948
I get your point, min-maxing is an evil choice. Understand that there are several factors beyond the control of the businessmen who designed their system that covers costs. Workers get their share, the head just happens to consolidate.

Evil exists somewhere down the line, that are necessary to please (investors). Else the system goes down.

+1

[Anonymous No.15588052]

I don't get it. why do people think you have to be smart to become rich? does this belief come from anglicanism?

also, this >>15585670
but you have to prove that "smart people richer than stupid people". pretty obvious for graduates vs absolute retards, but not necessarilly self-evident, IMO

[Anonymous No.15588401]

>>15587833
I think that graph would make sense why if you think about why stratification by IQ even exists in the first place. It's because at higher IQs, you gain the ability to understand and learn things that somebody at a lower IQ may not be able to understand. But this kinda plateaus at the extreme end of IQ (picrel, rough hand drawn sketch). That is to say, there is very little that somebody with an IQ of 150 can learn but somebody with an IQ of 130 cannot. With an IQ of 130-135 you can practically learn and understand every subject in existence, so having an even higher IQ doesn't give you as much of an edge professionally.

Think about a hypothetical example of engineering. Why is the average IQ just 115 for engineers? For that we really need to think about what bars somebody with an IQ of 80 from becoming an engineer. For this hypothetical, let's say it's the ability to learn Calculus. lets say you can only learn basic calculus at starting an IQ of 95, and fully learn it over 105. So that means that somebody who has an IQ of, let's say 150, has no edge over somebody with an IQ of 115, because there's no more calculus to learn to enter the field.

Apply this to all fields and you learn that you exhaust most fields of study around 130-135, as there is not much that you are unable to learn at that point. Then couple this with the fact that a 130 will be a better communicator than a 150, you may find that a 130 has a competitive edge over the 150 professionally speaking. Hencewhy entry into professions declines. Just like 130 IQ bricklayer has no edge over a 90 IQ bricklayer (because there is nothing about bricklaying a 90 IQ can't learn and a 130 IQ can), a 150 IQ doctor, professor, lawyer or any other 'elite professional' has no real "intelligence" (ability to learn subject material) edge over a 130 IQ 'elite professional', but the 130 has the communication edge over the 150. So now people over 135 will be underrepresented in 'elite' fields.

[Anonymous No.15588638]

>>15588401
But 150 IQ will learn the same thing much quicker than 120 IQ which is the main advantage rather than there being a cut off where you need a minimum IQ to do a specific thing.

The smarter people are more efficient at learning, so they can pick up a new topic ad-hoc if that is needed and this is pretty much a required skill to be a high level executive at a company and get massive compensation.

[Anonymous No.15588651]

>>15585520
Because their parents are secure, less abusive to them.
Less abused, more daring to do stuff, learn more. They also travel more (hoping there's a study trying to find correlation of intelligence and how much you travel to foreign countries), so they experience more, and see more good and bad things. When they went to uni, their experience is not the same as other kids who only revolve around love life, homework, student debt, their experience in uni is just duty rather than as social status because they already accomplished it.

There, I said it. No offense to rich or poor people, just stating my observation.

[Anonymous No.15588654]

>>15585604
Post '45 interest rates, rents (as in non-wages) have been higher than macroeconomic growth, profits and wages which means generated wealth has been transferred from the poor to the rich for almost a century. (Piketty)

[Anonymous No.15588657]

>>15585535
Their parents can afford.

[Anonymous No.15588659]

>>15588651
>hoping there's a study trying to find correlation of intelligence and how much you travel to foreign countries

Unlikely, at least not a causal one. Plenty of well travelled people are braindead retards and more geniuses throughout history would have barely travelled at all compared to an average modern person.

[Anonymous No.15588661]

>>15585604
>Gates = upper-middle class WASP with good connections
>Bezos = upper-middle class ??? with good connections
>Musk = secretly rich dodgy south African
>Zuck = upper-middle class
Out of those 4 Zuck was probably in the worst starting position and he still was able to attend Harvard.
The big factors with successful people is having a safety net to allow multiple attempts, access to finance, access to the write people.

[Anonymous No.15588662]

>>15588052
Rich person = good/intelligent person and poor person = bad/ dumb person(sinner) comes from protestant theology, i.e. predestination yes.

[Anonymous No.15588669]

>>15588661
I read about Zucc and he's a ladies man, smart that, he's just humble when he got admitted to Harvard. He's so smart that he don't need to go to uni basically.

I know he's pretty much a meme, but he seems based. Ngl.

[Anonymous No.15588673]

What do these charts look for countries that don't have legacy admissions and weird 'holostic' and byzantine application procedures that serve to obscure nepotism and only go by standardized tests or school grades?

[Anonymous No.15588678]

>>15588661
Gates is from an old aristocratic family. His name gives it away.
Bezos family owns the largest land area in America.
According to tabloid, Musk father had a part share in a mine worth ~$10K, making him the least richest man on the list. Thats not enough enough to buy a car, let alone be considered "rich"
Zuck, I have no idea.

[Anonymous No.15588683]

>>15588678
>According to tabloid, Musk father had a part share in a mine worth ~$10K, making him the least richest man on the list. Thats not enough enough to buy a car, let alone be considered "rich"

Dumb Musk fanboy pajeet

[Anonymous No.15588711]

>>15588683
huh?

[Anonymous No.15588717]

Hmmm sweaty you can't say "social economic factors", look at this meme from stonetoss

[Anonymous No.15588744]

>>15588638
First Issue with that ends up being picrel. But thats a minor factor in the larger scheme of things.

But second issue ends up being the same problem I said before, once you reach the peak, there's little room for improvement no matter what your capability. If the cut off is, let's say 110 for studying Medicine (Based on the fact that that is more than 2 st. devs beneath the average doctor's mean). A 115 IQ person may be able to become a doctor if he works hard enough. But a 130 or a 135 IQ person will find it easier to study and hence the average will be pushed up from the cut off of 110 to 126 average for Medical doctors. But the same problem occurs once you go higher up. The benefit of higher IQ allowing you to study and learn concepts quicker stagnates (since it's already nearly at the top for a 135 IQ, there's really not much room for improvement on it). Even imagine something like driving, where lets say a 70 IQ is cut off for being able to leaen how to driving (based on the fact that you're mentally retarded below 70). a 100 IQ may be quicker in learning it than a 75 IQ, but a 120 IQ may not be that much quicker than a 100 IQ.

And to simplify this, I'll just say that all this stagnation phenomenon is just a sigmoid curve. What I drew earlier was just the top half of the sigmoid curve. You should look up what it looks like fully. It is just as important as a normal distribution or a pareto distribution, in that all of them occur in nature and in humans ALL THE TIME, and things rarely follow a linear pattern. Sigmoid curves are extremely common in the world, and if we just looked at the middle of a sigmoid curve, it is easy to assume that it is increasing linearly. To assume that IQ continues to benefit a person linearly forever would just be naiive. The sigmoid curve makes much more sense for it.

[Anonymous No.15588752]

>>15588678
>Zuck, I have no idea.
he is one of the many many "college kid starts website and becomes instant billionaire" stories which all involve jewish college kids that have close relatives who are involved with in-q-tel, the CIA's wall street investment fund. zuck is just a pasty/figurehead who's purpose is to disguise the fact that facebook is run by in-q-tel/CIA and that they've taken a lot of government money and given it to jews via the in-q-tel scam

[Anonymous No.15588980]

>>15588744
The "stagnation curve" will be different depending on the task you are learning, for example driving probably has more to do with dexterity than IQ (even though they might be linked somewhat).

The more that something is intellect dominated, the more you are going to see high IQ people reach the top.

So that matters a lot for things where there are limited opportunities and high rewards.

[Anonymous No.15589140]

>>15585520
Being stupid/having 0 impulse control is hazardous to wealth, let alone generational wealth.
It's why lottery winners usually blow it all, because the people who win are the types of people to play the lottery in the first place.
So, it's less that rich people are all that smart than poor people being stupider on average. The correlation with wealth stops after about 120 IQ and has diminishing returns before then.

[Anonymous No.15590624]

[Anonymous No.15590652]

>>15590624
>1980s
Hencewhy I always find it amusing when someone on 4chan praises Reagan. He let (((them))) run wild and do anything they want without restrictions. At least before, they had some holds on their power. Reagan fucked the working class white man over the most. But that isn't a discussion for /sci/, so I'll stop there.

[Anonymous No.15591470]

>>15588980
>The more that something is intellect dominated, the more you are going to see high IQ people reach the top.
But we don't, and that's exactly what we're trying to postulate why that is. Either it is, as the other anon said, that they simply don't have an edge, or that they simply lack motivation and don't try enough (lack of conscientousness), or that they are simply mentally ill outcasts that can't make it in a society with a 100 IQ average.
The first explanation seems to be the most plausible.

[Anonymous No.15591475]

>>15590652
>1972
>Reagan
??

[Anonymous No.15591519]

>>15591475
Look at when red really starts going up.