Zip code is also a very good predictor of success in life. IQ could be a great predictor, but that still doesn't mean it's measuring what we think it's measuring.

IQ works just as well within families as it does between them, meaning that it predicts difference in success even between children in the same family.

You could likely make the same case for zip codes when children and parents are raised in different ones.

I'm not going to claim that IQ quantitatively describes some useful aspect of individuals. I'm not trying to justify a natural aristocracy. Moreso if we actually did identify this relationship between long term success and high IQ scores then maybe we can identify paths to success through other measures.

Again more conjecture, but maybe IQ has more to do with concentration and abstract thinking. If there were a relationship between wealth and childhood trauma/stress that could impair abstract thinking, it would make a good case for policies designed to prevent childhood trauma, in particular those brought on by poverty.

People aren't randomly assigned zip codes. Zip code can also be a proxy for IQ.

That seems very unlikely. What seems more unlikely is that both IQ and zip code are proxies for something else.

So you think it "very unlikely" that someone more intelligent would make better decisions, and those decisions have better outcomes enabling someone to live in a pricier neighborhood?

Well first, we're talking about the zip code one is raised in not the zip code one ends up in later in life. Second, we're discussing the efficacy of IQ as an actual measure of intelligence. You're assuming IQ is a good measure of intelligence in order to prove IQ is a good measure of intelligence. Sure, zip codes are a proxy for IQ if we accept that IQs test something other than just intelligence.

Finally, the causal relationship you have set up between intelligence and quality of living situation, while undoubtedly true to _some_ extent, ignores everything we know about system racism, system sexism, our horrific healthcare system and a host of other factors that complicate this idea - at least in the US.

Rich people don’t have a monopoly on intelligence. I doubt you’d see much correlation between wealth and IQ. Income, yes, but not wealth.

I didn't posit they did. But I'd expect a correlation.

> Income, yes, but not wealth.

Why is that? Wealth is just an accumulation of income.

You need to be a specialist to be worth a high salary. The dumbest doctor is a smart guy. The worst MLB player was the superstar of his Little League. Many people with high incomes are not wealthy at all -- they have no money.

To be wealthy, you just need to have assets and not do dumb things. Wealthy people either inherited it or had a liquidity event. Nobody gets rich via income. There is some intelligence involved in the liquidity part, but also alot of luck. If you have inherited property in NYC in the last 40 years and didn't sell it, you are wealthy. If you operate a McDonald's franchise, you are wealthy, and probably are of average intelligence.

> Nobody gets rich via income.

85% of American millionaires are self-made (i.e. first generation).

"The Millionaire Next Door" https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising-Amer...

The vast majority of that is retirement savings, and the number of those folks has ballooned as defined benefit pensions have been discontinued.

From page 8, only 1 in 5 is retired. Even so, claiming that retirement savings do not count as wealth seems rather odd.

You can choose to read the book and determine how it is done, and what you can choose to do to become a millionaire yourself, or you can choose to remain a victim of fate. Your choice.