I skimmed it, but I didn't see much of a point except that he seems to be implying that poor people are more likely to be less intelligent (or rich people are more likely to be more intelligent).

So, let's say his analysis is correct. What then? Does it mean that we should, as a society, test for intelligence early in life and subsidize incomes appropriately? Or, just let the poor suffer if they don't have the correct genes?

It's probably not genetic. Ask any school teacher who does well in class and who struggles, who has ADHD and who concentrates for hours at a time and they will tell you diet and routine (also linked to wealth) are almost always obvious signals for success.

It's not scientific, but the kids that struggle eat frozen pizza and stay up late. It could be the teachers I know finding evidence where there is none, but year after in that job by all those teachers suggests otherwise.

I created the blog post. That post was largely focused on academic outcomes, especially variation in various test scores and related measures of general cognitive ability (aka "intelligence"), but:

1) there is also good direct evidence that genes explain a large fraction of the systematic variation in economic outcomes. I invite you to read this https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER... (especially pg25, table 1, and compare h^2 vs c^2 )

2) Parental involvement is unlikely to explain much of the black-white disparity. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09645292.2016.123...

3) teacher observations and other casually observed bivariate correlations are heavily confounded by genes. the kids with seriously disordered lives are significantly more likely to have parents with low executive function and cognitive abilities and are more likely themselves to have low executive functioning. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xge/137/2/201/

4) I am not arguing that parents/communities are entirely unimportant in all dimensions, but the role is much, much smaller than is commonly believed and it particularly has relatively little influence on cognition and closely related phenotypes. The influence of parents is more on things like educational attainment which, while significantly determined by innate ability, are probably not purely genetic (holding other things equal children of more educated parents get more education..... much more about culture/preferences than ability to afford though

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22734

So, assuming that you've thought a bunch about this topic, what kind of policies would you recommend to address it? That is, given the genetic influence and subsequent lower quality of life, should it be considered and treated as a disease?

I'd recommend focusing on policy that is actually informed by a realistic assessment of the evidence regardless of your personal views/preferences.

In my view, we spend a tremendous amount of money on schools (over-funding -> fancy facilities, labs, etc), pre-K, enrichment programs and the like that have approximately no effect on predictors of future success, some direct evidence suggests does nothing for income/employment, etc. I'm not fully on board with the progressive agenda (basically center right), but I'm not totally heartless either. I'd rather see that money spent on direct transfers to families. I don't believe the issues faced by lower income are purely economic though. Redistributing money will generally accomplish less (not nothing) than people think in terms of the things that are associated with poverty/low income (health, behaviors, etc). The issues are in part moral and spiritual; lack of purpose through lack of steady work, family connection, etc is an issue in some parts of the country and more money won't do much to solve them (may actually make them worse in some dimensions, especially if it encourages less work->drugs etc). We may find that we accomplish more good by keeping people engaged with some kind of work and community activity (which is why I'm opposed to minimum wage and would rather see EITC expanded).....

I also think we need to think carefully and honestly about immigration policy. Bringing in genuinely low-skill labor by the millions is not a formula for long term economic or social success. Though many of these immigrants are decent hard working people that stay employed and see large increases versus what they would have had in their home countries, their children and grandchildren tend to look and act more like equivalently skilled multi-generational citizens (similar problems in multiple dimensions).

Maybe in 10-20 years genetic engineering people for intelligence and related characteristics will be feasible, probably a few more for it to become cheap and acceptable in the developed world, but I'm not quite prepared to bet the farm on that today. If it does, however the implications for the world will be staggering though (especially in the developing world..... so many problems are ultimately a result of issues here)

Do we really need genetic modification to address this though? Humans have had an effective history of inventing tools to scale their performance by magnitudes. For example, a Human was quite ineffective at digging the land so they invented the shovel and plow. There are a million examples, of course.

Why would attributes of the mind somehow be impossible to similarly enhance?

Anyway, it seems like you're main concerns are ineffective and costly methods that don't address the root problem. So, why not propose a new method or invent a tool? Bringing light to the issue helps a little, but at a certain point it is better to do what we're good at - inventing things to make us more effective.

I don't know about you, but personally, I'm exhausted from always being the smartest person in the room. I would love it if someone invented a mental shovel, because there's too much work to do and not enough people to do it.

Sure, it'd be great of someone invented some kind of mental effort multiplier. We might even call these devices "computers" ;-) In all honesty though, (1) I don't know where to begin here (2) I'm not sure something akin to a "mental shovel" would significantly address the distributional issues. Some people are still going to be significantly more able than others.....

Yes, all that is good, but sounds more like concern trolling rather than actual suggestions.

Do you have actual economic policies that will result in better outcomes for the poor?

1: There were several concrete suggestions there. It's not mere "concern trolling".

2: Ending wasteful or very low value-add spending vis-a-vis "better outcomes for the poor" is useful regardless. Whatever your priorities, we can allocate those resources better.

3: Just because the economic and social woes of the poor are tough problems that admit of no easy solutions does not mean that we cannot speak frankly about the nature of the problem. Yes, the issues are substantially genetic and, to lesser degree, cultural. Today people with sub-par cognitive skills (not to mention other issues) have limited market value, which leads to unemployment and lower incomes, which further encourages social breakdown (above and beyond that which we'd otherwise find), which leads to other problems. Deluding ourselves about the nature of the problem isn't going to get us any closer to helping the poor.

So it's a moral argument of what you want to do with the "genetic inferiors" and how much resources you actually want to allocate helping them. That would require making a judgment call about their utility curve.

Got it.

"Genetic inferiors" is your phrase, not mine, pal. I do not quite think of it in those terms and I am not advocating that we end the welfare state in its entirety. Quite the contrary actually, realistically assessing the evidence has lead me to be significantly more sympathetic to non-market remedies of various sorts. The main idea I am trying to communicate here is that if you actually want to help the poor, instead of just protecting your ideology from information not congenial to your world view, you are best advised to grapple with the evidence.