

Do billionaires have higher IQs?(2013) - ekm2
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-billionaires-smarter-than-you-2013-04-24?pagenumber=2

======
lutusp
Subtitle: "New research suggests the rich may be smarter"

It does nothing of the kind. No matter how many ways this kind of nonsense is
packaged by journalists, a correlation is just that, nothing more. Wealth and
I.Q. test scores are weakly correlated, but the implication of the above
subtitle is that the correlation is more than a meaningless, chance
association. There is zero evidence for this implication.

~~~
gwern
> Subtitle: "New research suggests the rich may be smarter" It does nothing of
> the kind. No matter how many ways this kind of nonsense is packaged by
> journalists, a correlation is just that, nothing more.

 _That 's what a positive correlation means_.

> Wealth and I.Q. test scores are weakly correlated

Not very weak at the tails like billionaires.

Fulltext:
[http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/56143/wai-a...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/56143/wai-
americas-elite-2013.pdf)

~~~
lutusp
> That's what a positive correlation means.

Not so, at least, not without an explanation backed up by evidence. You're
missing something fundamental -- a positive correlation does not carry
evidentiary weight until it's been explained. Science is not a collection of
descriptions, it's a discipline that is sometimes able to uncover explanations
-- where they exist.

Alongside the old saying "correlation doesn't prove causation" should be
another similar cautionary note about uncovering evidence for the meaning of a
correlation before describing it as meaningful.

[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/correlation-or-
causatio...](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/correlation-or-
causation-12012011-gfx.html)

~~~
gwern
> a positive correlation does not carry evidentiary weight until it's been
> explained.

What on earth? A positive correlation _is_ a fact. This is like looking in a
microscope and saying, 'ah, none of this data is true until we have a theory
which can explain it'. Uh... no. The data is the data. The correlations are
the correlations.

~~~
lutusp
> What on earth? A positive correlation is a fact.

You know, you could just learn how science works. Did you follow the link I
provided? It shows that correlations mean nothing without an explanation.

> This is like looking in a microscope and saying, 'ah, none of this data is
> true until we have a theory which can explain it'.

Yes, and that is exactly how science works -- observation means nothing unless
and until it addresses a theory.

But to show you what you're missing, let's do a little experiment. Let's say
I'm a doctor and I've created a revolutionary cure for the common cold. My
cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better.
The cure might take a week, but it always works. My method is repeatable and
perfectly reliable, and I've published my cure in a refereed scientific
journal (there are now any number of phony refereed scientific journals). And,
because (in this thought experiment) your version of science can get along
without defining theories, I'm under no obligation to try to explain my cure,
or consider alternative explanations for my breakthrough — I only have to
describe it, as you seem to think.

Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements
that you feel are necessary for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no?

~~~
gwern
> You know, you could just learn how science works.

Your condescension is hilarious.

> Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the
> requirements that you feel are necessary for science, I deserve a Nobel
> Prize. Yes or no?

No. My observation of your claimed data is fine, but it is an additional
matter of interpretation to make any causal claims, or claim external or
internal validity.

What you are not getting is that the correlation stands on its own. It's when
you try to read into it some other claim (and I use the pronoun 'you' very
deliberately here), like 'the rich are rich solely because they are smart' or
'only smart people are rich' or 'the rich are morally better', and are
revolted by them, that you try to pretend the data doesn't exist.

It does. Deal.

~~~
lutusp
>> You know, you could just learn how science works.

> Your condescension is hilarious.

When one seen someone assume a correlation has a meaning not proven in the
evidence, it's not condescension, it's charity.

> What you are not getting is that the correlation stands on its own.

Yes, as does the causal relationship between puddles and rain in advance of an
attempt to offer an explanation: puddles predict rainfall.

> but it is an additional matter of interpretation to make any causal claims,
> or claim external or internal validity.

Yes, and now that you're reduced to making my points for me, we're done.

~~~
gwern
> When one seen someone assume a correlation has a meaning not proven in the
> evidence, it's not condescension, it's charity.

Where did I assume a meaning? My point was simple: you were trying to pretend
the data doesn't exist by directly contradicting the very definition of what a
correlation is. I am not committing myself to any further framework or theory
or causal model of how the correlation comes into existence.

> Yes, as does the causal relationship between puddles and rain in advance of
> an attempt to offer an explanation: puddles predict rainfall.

Indeed, it does. Which is why a puddle-denier is a sad sight. 'There can't be
puddles because no one has offered a fully-comprehensive theory which predicts
puddles and which I find acceptable! Why must people be so puddleist?'

> Yes, and now that you're reduced to making my points for me, we're done.

Denying your fallacious original overreadings and adopting your opponent's
criticisms and claiming to have held them all along, while flattering, is
still very annoying.

~~~
lutusp
>> When one seen someone assume a correlation has a meaning not proven in the
evidence, it's not condescension, it's charity.

> Where did I assume a meaning?

Apart from the correlation, when you began speaking as though an I.Q. test
measures intelligence. Even the current test's designer denies that.

> you were trying to pretend the data doesn't exist ...

Citation needed. You're using words I never used to assert a claim I never
made. I never claimed that data don't exist, I made the point that without
evidence for a connection, the correlation has no meaning. And I proved it
with multiple examples.

> Denying your fallacious original overreadings ...

I see that you still need to learn the role of evidence.

