Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 21 March 2016 10:21:24AM 0 points [-]

Yes, but this means that a lot of very rich people are very incorrect as to what is important for their wealth. Which is possible. But you have to posit a lot people being in error about things they should know about, for the heavy-hereditibility picture to fit.

Comment author: Crownless_Prince 22 March 2016 12:05:14AM 2 points [-]

Yes, but this means that a lot of very rich people are very incorrect as to what is important for their wealth.

They know about the factors they can control. After all, those are the ones they actually focus on.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 21 March 2016 10:23:31AM 3 points [-]

Why is this bizarre? It simply means that high IQ individuals don't capture all the value they create.

Consider that if it had been the opposite - IQ was more a personal benefit than a country benefit - we'd be explaining it as "obviously smart people benefit themselves at the expense of others". Being able to explain something or its opposite isn't explaining, unless we dig deeper.

Comment author: Crownless_Prince 21 March 2016 11:50:39PM 0 points [-]

Consider that if it had been the opposite - IQ was more a personal benefit than a country benefit - we'd be explaining it as "obviously smart people benefit themselves at the expense of others".

Yes, it's called basing your beliefs on the evidence.