>>10975086>You can't just take two arbitrary points like "higher" and lower" to make a point.I see your confusion because of my formulation. If you're "high IQ", as in higher IQ than 98% of the population, there are more people with lower IQ than high. That's what I mean. Since these 2% are smarter than the 98%. This is relevant because the question is about high IQ's correlation to net wealth, not really low IQ to low net wealth.
>If IQ has an universal effect on net worth, is genetic, and therefore hereditary, that would mean that the kids of wealthier (higher IQ) parents would inherit both the IQ and the money.There's plenty of smart people who are poor, and plenty of dumb people who are filthy rich.
Actually, thinking about it, high IQ/net worth correlation would be a good means of measuring meritocracy in a country. A dumb person having very high net worth is a strong sign of nepotism and corruption.
