Yes, very unintelligent people tend to not do well financially.

The problem seems to be that intelligence is not entirely heritable; that just because unintelligent people fail to do well financially doesn't mean that their children are doomed to the same fate.

Not entirely heritable? Or has no genetic correlation?

> just because unintelligent people fail to do well financially doesn't mean that their children are doomed to the same fate.

Correct, my statement is about expectation of averages. Not a claim that we should exclude an individual because of who their parents are.

> Not entirely heritable? Or has no genetic correlation?

My understanding is that there is some genetic correlation but it's not a certainty; smart/rich parents can have dumbass kids and vice versa.

It's hard to quantify because a direct "IQ" measurement is fraught with issues and trying to measure by "success" has its own issues. If you've not met a lawyer/doctor/PhD that you'd put in the "dumbass" category, you probably haven't met many.

Agreed. All children of smart people are not smart. All financially successful people are not smart.

Yeah it'd be very slight, but things like stress and nutrition can affect your memory in the long term which is a part of intelligence.

Assuming that’s true, wouldn’t that mean you are less capable?

Yes. There as difference between unfair and unreal; someone who is malnourished when growing up will forever likely be weaker than someone who received a proper sequence of meals.

We should perhaps recognize that and try to compensate for it, and it's not a value judgement on the person so afflicted, but pretending it doesn't exist just confuses matters.

If the difference is real I don’t think the test is the place to compensate as its function is to select people who will succeed in that area.

That's been the entire fight over the last 20+ years, does the test identify anything real and if so, what should be done with it (equality of outcomes vs equality of opportunity, e.g.).