Given the issues the social sciences have with reproducible results, that Gwern is linking more science blogs than papers, and that we know rich people have conspired to hold poor people back via laws and other self serving maneuvers I'm still going to lean into "bullshit" category

When you have evidence that the supposedly smart and highly moral are guilty of oppressing an entire swath of people and you point at mostly economic markers without controlling for bad behavior by the "haves" you're just skewing your own results

That rich do better within our culture, which is rigged to give the rich an advantage, it doesn't say much to whether they are truly smarter

Behavioural Genetics isn't a social science and there's nothing in what the poster above you said that wouldn't be in an undergraduate textbook.

Conscientious here means 'diligent' more than 'moral'.

So your entire thesis really is higher educated people are better equipped to contribute in economic affairs

While poor people focus on immediate needs

There's plenty of rigorous research in this area to show that being poor and struggling actually creates mental barriers to achieving success

I'm going to keep leaning on that versus the blog post of some objectivist who peddles around stats to make up whatever argument fits his world view