Yes. The author of the comment seems not the understand simple concepts like averages and normal distributions. Additionally, he/her seems to assume a causal relationship where if you're poor it is because you're dumb, and not the other way around, or even a mix of those two things.

Yeah, on average, poor people score a few points low than the average for rich people. true. But this is not an absolute as the post's author seems to believe.

It doesn't mean all poor people are dumb, or that you are automatically smarter than someone who is poorer than you. Picture mentally two bell curves with a lot of overlap and very long tails. Things are in reality way more nuanced than this dumb statement that poor == dumb.

On the aggregate, it is a useful datapoint, it means that probably as a society, you should reserve some more resources for education in poorer neighborhoods.

The society would benefit the most from policies that encourage smart and successful people to have more children.

I can think of at least one society that formed in the 1930's for which this was an absolute mandate! But I don't recall reading much about them past about 1945, so perhaps you should do some further research.

Yeah and welfare programs and heavy redistribution programs were tried by a society that caused several times more deaths and suffering than the one you mentioned over way longer period which we don't hear from anymore either. What kind of argument is that, seriously.

Oh shit! Several times more? Maybe you should actually read some actual data about Soviet Union. Saying that Soviet Union caused more suffering over longer period of time than Nazi Germany is way off.

And by the way - free healthcare and free higher education are actually very good things that worked like a charm.

I hope you will not have children, also.

How can you be so sure of that? Intelligence is not something as clear-cut as eyes color. While there are some evidence of an inheritable component, it is probably the result of the expression of several genes, with complex and different phenotypic expressions. It is far from clear how much we can expect that the offspring of smart people will be also smart, once you account for all the other variables associated with nurturing.

Meanwhile we DO KNOW that nurturing have a strong effect. This is a fact.

And then you have the problem of how to ensure that smart people have more kids. Are you going to force smart people to have kids? raise their taxes? prison? What about lower intelligence people? what do you propose? compulsory sterilization and abortion? As you can see, even if we knew for sure that smart people having relatively more offspring would actually work, The policy changes to enact that are a complete minefield of ethical and practical problems. So, at least in our society, this is clearly not a solution.

But, on the other side we do know that we can have interventions on nutrition, education and other such stuff that do have a demonstrable effect on increasing a series of variables that we collectively call intelligence.

You have, right now, for kids that already living, not some hypothetical future Einstein's offspring, tools to raise their intelligence and to make the most of their genetic potential, even if on average, their potential is a bit smaller (and always remember, intelligence is normally distributed, outliers abound, and the difference between the average of both groups is not that big to start, meaning there is a lot of overlap in relative terms, and considering we have for more poor people than rich people, is very likely that by virtude of the sheer numbers, you have more genius individuals, in absolute quantity, than on the upper classes, even if the average tends in favor of the upper classes.

And as intelligence is normally distributed, by giving poor kids a chance, you will even be able to identify among them some high potential individuals and give them the nurturing they need to reach what they are innately able to if given the chance.

So, what is your policy choice? Chase a pipe dream, while increasing inequality, something that historically always led to violence, or do something that is feasible, doable, ethical and fair?

I agree, it is so much better to say things that sounds good but doesn't help anyone. What I said doesn't benefit me at all, but spouting platitudes would.