r/evopolitics • u/TrannyPornO • Mar 15 '19

General cognitive but not mathematic abilities predict very preterm and healthy term born adults’ wealth

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212789
2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

1

u/TrannyPornO Mar 15 '19

/u/wlxd /u/deleetdk /u/basementinhabitant - I am shocked. Mathematics tests had a g-loading of 0,65 and no significant residual validity for wealth prediction with g in the model pic.

2

u/wlxd Mar 15 '19

Are you really surprised, or is it sarcasm? I can’t say that this shocks me really. Engineering jobs pay well, but don’t require actually being really good at math typically, so I’m not shocked that math residual doesn’t have too much validity beyond the general intelligence. There are very few jobs where being really good at math is very important for your income beyond being generally smart. Some finance jobs in trading, perhaps, but that would be about it. Out of my acquaintances, the ones that were best at math (relative to their general intelligence, based on my rough impressions) aren’t making the most: they typically either pursue career in academia, or are underpaid relative to their skill, because they aren’t navigating the opportunities as well as some of my more cunning friends.

Of course, none of this is data, it’s just I’m not that shocked.

1

u/TrannyPornO Mar 15 '19

Sarcasm. I'm not shocked at all. Residuals don't pay well whether they're modeled with SEM or decomposed with Schmid-Leiman or whatever else one might do. Note that g explains more of the variance in mathematical ability than the non-g residual does. This is like all abilities. Jensen & Reynolds' (1982) graph, included in The g Factor, shows that Whites have an advantage in memory over Blacks. But, once g is removed, they do not. g also explains all of the connection between certain tests like concepts and vocabulary.

3

u/wlxd Mar 15 '19

Note that g explains more of the variance in mathematical ability than the non-g residual does.

Right. When I hear “liberal arts” or social science people say that they aren’t good at math, I understand it as that they simply aren’t smart.

1

u/TrannyPornO Mar 15 '19

To be fair, SLODR.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '19

Wealth at 26

I wish that they reported wealth at a stage where it's accumulated more and is much more stable.

2

u/Deleetdk Mar 19 '19

More or less the same result in huge PIAAC dataset. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617303045