It's not "enough", but it really helps. It's highly correlated with a whole host of different positive life outcomes.[1]

People argue over how important it is, and it's certainly not the only thing that matters, but yes, the general consensus is that IQ is meaningful and predictive.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

No. The most important factors, in diminishing order, are: Grit, intelligence, beauty, education.

But if you read the article, they're not really selecting for IQ itself, but academic success, so that covers all of the factors, just weighed.

It depends on how you define intelligence. If you go broad, grit and such are part of it.

A broad definition is ability to solve problems. Beauty is outside it unless it really solves some problem... which it well might in some occupations.

Which include obedience if they are only measuring PhDs.

It's not sufficient, but arguably necessary.

There are roughly three things that make you successful: 1. Being smart 2. Working hard 3. Opportunity

Everybody can do #2, but most won't. #1 is at least partially genetic. #3 is mostly luck, but is influenced by the other two. In fact all of the factors influence one another to a degree. Being born in an area with good schools and working hard can overcome somewhat deficient genetics for #1 for example. On the flipside, being born a genius in sub-Saharan Africa with no opportunities or even anything to work hard for makes success almost impossible.

It's the same as the crime triangle of motive, method, and opportunity.

Opportunity counts the most. You can't win if you never get the chance to play.

Motive is next, as you can't succeed unless you have the will to do whatever is necessary. At some level, sufficient motive can generate additional opportunities, but there is an upper limit on how much you can supplement the genuine opportunities arising from pure chance.

Method is least important. There are often many ways to accomplish the same results, ranging from dead simple to prohibitively complex. If you have simple goals, you can still achieve them simplemindedly.

. . . And I think I now have a hypothesis about why so many rich folks seem like crooks.

#2 is also genetic. Stamina and attention span count for a lot.

Nature versus nurture either way it's all your parents fault...lol.

You forgot the 2 that count the most luck and network.

That's opportunity. The network is basically being born into the right circles, which is pretty much entirely luck. A few people do break in through sheer determination and/or a lucky break with some contacts.

I feel like opportunity covers that.

I think you could form an entire HN thread just on what it means to be successful. For example is Reddit a success despite not having IPOed? Are you a success if you have as many kids as possible? (Genghis Khan is probably the most successful persons of all time judging by that)

Is it really that complicated? As I see it, success is achieving your goals. Set goals and achieve them and you've succeeded, whether that's family or money or building a hyperloop or grilling the tastiest grilled cheese known to man... whatever. Given enough time none of it will matter so just pick something and run with it. Don't bother with whether other people are successful by your criteria because they probably don't have the same goals as you (unless your goal is to somehow judge if other people are successful I guess, which sounds silly but I guess by my own rules I can't judge).

> Are you a success if you have as many kids as possible?

That's the usual yardstick. Hence the expression, success breeds success.

No, just like a healthy immune system doesn't mean success. I keep telling everyone that having a healthy immune system isn't everything.

Not necessarily but I would argue that the chance of success is higher for a person with higher IQ.

No, but there is a strong correlation.