Well, one problem with simply regressing IQ against income is that to an extent the gain is coming from what look like positional or zero-sum effects like displacing someone at an elite university; that's one reason I've been compiling relevant papers for a while at http://lesswrong.com/lw/7e1/rationality_quotes_september_2011/4r01 I am more interested in the marginal increase in net societal wealth from IQ; if all IQ does is help on play games better, it's not something I care about increasing.
By that metric (and metrics used for preschool interventions) it should be cost-effective in a few years but is not so now (particularly in the absence of any clinic offering an organized service).
Yes, probably, but part of the point of the analysis would be estimating what 'a few years' would be (5 years? 15? 30?); if sample sizes are growing exponentially to match the apparent exponential fall in price of genotyping, that looks different from a linear or log growth scenario (eg. perhaps from constant funding, or from datasets disappearing after a certain amount of time).
Well, one problem with simply regressing IQ against income is that to an extent the gain is coming from what look like positional or zero-sum effects like displacing someone at an elite university
The numbers are higher if you don't control for education. Remember that on all the major theories of returns to education educated workers are more productive: learning (IQ helps to learn), ability bias (which is just saying that controlling for education understates direct IQ effects), and signaling. On signaling accounts the signals have to be honest enough...
The article by Robert Sparrow:
Quote:
The possibility was discussed in MIRI's "Uncertain Future" toy forecasting model back in 2009, and the analysis formulated a few years before that.
ETA: And further discussed in James Miller's recent book, "Singularity Rising."