lol, this range is 0.5 to 0.7 variance explained (R squared) which is an insane value. in typical social studies a correlation of > 5% is considered a major improvement. In finance a correlation or > 1% is considered amazing.
You are either a hyper-intelectual drinking Taleb's kool-aid or simply don't know what you are talking about :D
Also 10% variance explained in social science is considered pretty good (which is depressing, but such is life).
Very far from it. I'm just an idiot with Internet access.
> drinking Taleb's kool-aid
I do agree with some of what he has said about IQ, but I am not well-versed in any of his other writings.
> simply don't know what you are talking about
Perhaps, but I am still not convinced.
If 0.23-0.5 correlation is "very high" then what is 0.7-0.9? Would r >= 0.7 be literal causation at that point for psychologist? (I'm kidding, of course)
Again, I am not saying that a correlation of 0.23-0.5 is statistically insignificant by any means. I just think I needed "very high" to be coupled with "for psychology."
In regards to income, I briefly skimmed the Wikipedia section for IQ and Income, which can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Income
"Highly correlated" would not be the choice of words I use to describe correlations between (0.23 - 0.5).
We, as people, should cherish the contributions of one's intelligence instead of obsessing over an arbitrary, qualitative value painted as a qualitative value like one's potential intelligence.