> Because being very obese comes with elevated health risks, some might argue it is not a problem that there are incentives for women to lose weight. But this relies on two wobbly pillars of logic.
> First, that people’s weight really is within their control. And second, that shame is an effective motivator.
This first point is absurd and I keep seeing it pop up in more respectable contexts and I don't understand the purpose here of ignoring widely understood and deeply established facts about weight gain and weight loss.
It is physically impossible to gain organic mass if you don't consume a calorie surplus. Likewise it is physically impossible to maintain organic mass if you consume at a calorie deficit.
Is it common for people to be force-fed as an adult? If not, then am I being obtuse by suggesting these things are absolutely within an adults control?
I would caution against relying too much on the physics of “calories in, calories out”. While it is iron-clad and incontrovertibly true that it is physically impossible to increase in mass if you consume fewer calories than you expend, “calories in” is more complicated than simple choice, and “calories out” is more complicated than a simple
formula.
Lowering one’s “calories in“ requires consistent exertion of willpower; willpower is strongly affected by blood glucose levels; lowering “calories in” lowers blood glucose - i.e., choosing to go hungry depletes the fuel required to maintain that choice. This makes it different to most other choices. (An evocative driving metaphor: “you can choose to avoid highways, you can choose to avoid toll roads, you can choose the scenic route, but choosing to avoid gas stations is quite a different matter”.)
Likewise, “calories out” is not always something you can just calculate once based on your height and weight and activity and then aim to undershoot. Though it varies from person to person, the human body will generally lower its energy expenditure when it detects a calorie deficit, manifesting as physical lethargy and brain fog. For some individuals, restricting calories might very well “underclock” their body and/or brain below the point where they can keep doing their job.
Based on the calorie surplus/deficit model, someone who eats 9,000+ "calories" a day should always gain weight at a constant rate. This doesn't happen, not even with most obese people. Where food ultimately ends up is largely determined by hormones. Eat noting but fat and you create a situation where weight may even be lost because fat doesn't elicit a release of insulin in the same way that pure glucose does with the equivalent number of "calories." Feed one person 85% of their TDEE in high fructose corn syrup, feed another equivalent person 400% of their TDEE in meat and butter, and you will likely get a result that entirely contradicts calories as a valid measurement of human health status. Better yet, eat fat and sugar at the same time and see what happens.
> Is it common for people to be force-fed as an adult? If not, then am I being obtuse by suggesting these things are absolutely within an adults control?
I agree 100% that people have control over their bodies, but only so much as an alcoholic has enough will to take control and change their habit contrary to what their nervous system is screaming at them to do. A person who is overweight, suffering mental trauma, and is experiencing systemic inflammation, and has had a habit of abusing their body most of their lives, is going to have a challenging time convincing themselves to go through some temporary pain.
People are responsible for themselves, but the reality is we are imperfect beings who are products of our environment, and the ailments we suffer can't be boiled down to simple arithmetic around a unit of measurement like calories. If the environment didn't support people becoming obese and ill in general, there wouldn't be many obese people if at all. The individual is not the only source of blame. Anyone who has attempted to lose significant weight knows that society, by good generally good intention, effectively gets in the way of bettering one's health. Being able to go out with friends and have the will to say no to the beer and the pizza takes a lot of effort and learning that goes unappreciated by those who haven't tried to change their lives in this way.
On both cases you’re describing things as black and white when that’s not reality.
Have a cup of water. You’re not at a caloric surplus. You have gained organic mass. (I get CICO but you’re over-representing it)
“Within control” is a funny thing. Is there anything you want but don’t have, and someone else has it? Any goal not yet obtained? There is no categorical difference between that and wanting to lose weight and not having it happen.
Water isn't organic mass and some things really are black and white. I believe this is one of those cases.
I qualified control with a rather narrow question, I agree, but I genuinely don't understand what can constitute as not having control over what goes into your mouth if you are a high functioning adult who buys your own groceries/meals.
>> but I genuinely don't understand what can constitute as not having control over what goes into your mouth if you are a high functioning adult who buys your own groceries/meals.
How about different hormones which drives hunger and outside of your conscious control, because you have a genetic predisposition to produce more of those?
I genuinely don't understand some people who talk like they have full conscious control over every minute of their day and their whole life.
People do things they don't want every single day, including obese people. To equate discomfort with control loses all meaning in both words. The vast majority of people don't want to get out of the bed every morning. Yet the vast majority of people do it anyways, because we have control over that decision regardless of hormone signalling.
Hormone signalling isn't control, if it were then society would cease to function and among many other terrible things you'd lose bodily autonomy as anyone who wanted to sleep with you and was strong enough to subdue you would do so every time they had the urge.
You seem to assume that everyone's brain is like yours. Because we have idiots and geniuses in terms of brain structure, there is a huge variation in how strong someone's prefrontal cortex is.
Actual daily levels of hormones or genetic predisposition have a huge effect on self-control or conscious control.
A relative of mine had a stroke which resulted in the loss of part of the brain. Most people don't have such a drastic stroke, but it's enough if you're born with a different gene and you have a slightly different connectivity in your cortex to not have as much self-control as the next person.
How much control do you have over whether or not you breath?
That's a clear example of you, as an adult, not having full control over what goes into your mouth. How much control do you have over what comes out of your mouth? Have you heard of foreign accent syndrome?
What control do you have over what your grocery store stocks? What control do you have over how much the food at your grocery store costs? How much control do you have over how much money you make?
All of these things contribute to what you end up putting into your mouth. But also, you don't have to imagine this, Just look up what percentage of the population is "overweight", and look up how that number has changed since we as a society went into a moral panic about it.
> am I being obtuse by suggesting these things are absolutely within an adults control?
Yes. Hunger is a bodily function and it's not necessarily regulated correctly in every person to maintain optimal health. If it's spot on you'll find it easy, if it's close you'll find it takes some effort but you can do it, if it's way out of whack you'll find not over eating to be extremely difficult. Like trying to hold your breath until you pass out.
> Yes. Hunger is a bodily function and it's not necessarily regulated correctly
We're talking about a spectrum of people. The OP is correct an overwhelming majority of the time. The vast number of overweight people are not disregulated to the point self-control is not possible.
Of course, you are also correct some small percentage of the time. Some people need some help, and some people need serious medical intervention.
The core issue is that weight crosses into some discussion about identity politics and suddenly we're no longer talking about what's good or bad for you physically. "Big is beautiful" is simply wrong. You might be attracted to people who are fat or who smoke, but personal attraction isn't related to what is objectively bad for you.
I think your view of what percentage of people this works/doesn't work for is majorly out of whack.
Do you think as many weight-loss companies as exist would continue to exist if they were only targeting 5% of the population? The business model works, because people don't lose weight, or can't keep it off.
Also, losing weight is very manageable, but you almost always end up gaining it back (often with additional weight).
> It is physically impossible to gain organic mass if you don't consume a calorie surplus. Likewise it is physically impossible to maintain organic mass if you consume at a calorie deficit.
> Is it common for people to be force-fed as an adult? If not, then am I being obtuse by suggesting these things are absolutely within an adults control?
Sadly, hunger response isn't strictly proportional to caloric intake, but to a multitude of factors (blood sugar levels, stomach content, thyroidal hormones). So you might feel hungry while not requiring the extra calories. It's also why gastric bypass works.
It's relatively easy for 200 extra calories a day to sneak-in someone's diet without them really noticing. Over time it adds-up. But it's totally under one's control (provided they understand basic nutrition).
One word: incentives. Something that makes people do things they would otherwise not do. If you believe that incentives can work, you have to admit that sometimes even otherwise healthy people may not be in control of their weight.
Sometimes those incentives turn into outright addictions. It's easy to say that people can overcome their addictions by sheer willpower. But if you believe that you can learn something about the world by observing it (as opposed to using pure reason), it seems plausible that many people don't have such willpower.
> It is physically impossible to gain organic mass if you don't consume a calorie surplus.
Infinitely, sure, but within finite bounds, no, since muscle has lower energy content than fat, it is, in fact, possible to convert the latter to the former gaining mass without a calorie surplus.
OTOH, that’s not the real problem with CICO, the real problem with CICO isn't that it, or even simplified variations like “you can't gain organic mass on a calorie surplus” are wrong (though some of the latter are), or even that, in the relevant sense, calories out is hard to determine (and calories in may be too, if you count losses between mouth and digestion as reduction of “in” instead of increases in “out”), it’s that they aren’t, even if the quantities were certain, usefully actionable because they do not address the problems people in the real world have, which is why there are so many techniques aimed at observations regarding habit-building, satiety, etc., because the actual problem is compliance, not thermodynamic knowledge.
Not true! There’s the indirect mechanism you might be referring to when you say “both can be used for energy”: adipose tissue releases triglycerides, liver extracts glucose from triglycerides, muscle tissue stores glucose as glycogen. And there is also a direct mechanism - adipose tissue releases triglycerides which are directly stored in muscle tissue. This intramyocellular triglyceride is concentrated in skeletal muscle tissue and plays a significant role in endurance exertion (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14987125/).
> There is no mechanism in the body to turn fat stores into muscle.
Which is why you can’t build muscle without eating, but you can have a calorie deficit building muscle from food consumed and losing a greater mass of fat than the muscle built. “Convert fat to muscle”, I will admit, was a perhaps overly informal description of that for this context, but its the net effect.
The paragraph after the one you quoted answers the question you ask.
> Yet the perception of total control is misguided. People often report gaining weight when they start taking antidepressants; women tend to if they suffer from conditions such as polycystic ovarian syndrome. Ms Gay describes how her weight gain occurred in the aftermath of a brutal sexual assault. It also raises the question of why a great slice of humanity collectively lost control of their eating habits in the 1980s, when obesity rates began to soar in developed countries.
It’s not that every overweight person’s weight is out of their control. They’re trying to say that this is the case for at least some people.
>> Likewise it is physically impossible to maintain organic mass if you consume at a calorie deficit.
Well, this is not an absolute thing. If you reduce your calories your body can sense that, and will reduce your metabolism as well (e.g. reduce your average body temp or other body function). With the reduced metabolism you will probably still keep your original mass. And then we didn't even talk about carb-protein difference, while those still has the same calorie content, their metabolic effect is totally different.
Search for "set point weight theory" for more info.
It isn't an absolute comment, but rather a relative comment. Deficit is a relative word and I didn't want to be too verbose, but the implication here is that deficit refers to the relationship between your calorie consumption and your calories metabolized.
Set point weight theory does not disprove that consuming fewer calories than you burn will result in organic mass loss. There aren't exceptions to this fact as energy cannot be created from nothing.
Having a low set point means you have to endure more dramatic deficits to continue to lose weight sure but the basic math in calories remains the same. The remaining problems are psychological.
"If not, then am I being obtuse by suggesting these things are absolutely within an adults control?"
Things such as "feelings of hunger" don't sit neatly on a binary scale of "under control - not under control".
I had some alcoholics in my family. Fortunately, I do not have any cravings for alcohol at all. But if they had the same cravings for alcohol that I have for, say, reading interesting stuff on the Internet, I cannot blame them for being "weak-willed". Only my addiction is more benign than theirs and doesn't ruin my life.
Obesity may be a similar problem of addictive nature. Humanity is a diverse lot and it is entirely possible that you, toolz, might find modern processed food bland and boring, and thus it feels to you that regulating its consumption is simply a "control thing", while it can trigger serious and hard-to-fight cravings in other people, especially when they really cannot "go dry forever" (this stuff is everywhere and cheap; imagine trying to become permanently sober in a country where hard liquor is served in every convenience store or even in schools, and very cheaply, no questions asked).
If you weren't in their shoes, don't judge them or play obtuse. Addictions aren't a moral problem of "the weak ones".
One's model of reality should be complete. Calorie-in-calorie-out only captures a very small part of reality.
1. Humans are conscious beings, and deciding to change your weight is a conscious decision, and one that requires constant mental effort over months to achieve.
2. If you are trying to lose/gain weight, your body actively tries to sabotage you via releasing hormones that act like drugs for your brain to acquire food/stop eating. This happens every day, constantly for months on end, that you have to fight it 24/7.
3. Its well documented that humans have a finite amount of mental concentration/decision making per day after which the brain acts more and more on autopilot. Sure, you can increase this amount, but this requires its own training.
4. Humans have jobs and social obligations to family and friends, that consume much of the finite concentration. Every so often, you will mess up and eat too much/too little.
5. Sometimes, those around you will actively sabotage your efforts.
6. Every failure can be a power emotional demotivator, which makes it harder to stick to your goal.
So, no, the amount of real world control that a human exerts on their eating habits is far less than 100%.
I am fortunate that I am not forced to buy chips, ice cream, ranch dressing, cookies, bagels, and other crap from the grocery store.
Stick to the edge of the grocery store and walk out with only produce and dairy, and lentils if you can make it to that aisle without being distracted.
You can get plenty obese without touching "chips, ice cream, ranch dressing, cookies, bagels, and other crap".
Hell, your username is a reference to one of the worst things you can drink that is considered "healthy". Fruit juice is essentially sugar in a cup. Yeah, it comes from a fruit, but it's closer to eating an orchard, not a orange.
And let's not ignore the fact that your diet could be nothing but your "crap" and you could still lose weight. Because the most important number is the number of calories you are consuming compared to the number you expend.
Not to mention, I doubt your diet consists solely of milky lentils and carrots.
This shows a lack of understanding for what others may be experiencing. Let me explain how it is for me. When I pass near the chocolate or bakery aisle it calls to me like a siren. It’s very difficult to resist. The only method that works for me is to abstain completely. 2-3 weeks of abstinence silences the siren call of sugar.
That might seem weird, I’m talking about sugary treats like an alcoholic describing liquor. Curiously, I feel almost nothing for alcohol. I can take it or leave it.
Hopefully it helps you understand. For what it’s worth, your comment sounds exceedingly smug. That probably wasn’t your intention, just giving you a heads up.
We treat all sorts of addictions and unhealthy relationships with various things as things not entirely in a person's control. Why not an unhealthy relationship with food?
I like reminding people that an alcoholic can abstain completely with no negative effects. People addicted to various drugs can abstain with no negative effects. Same is true for just about every other addiction and/or unhealthy relationship.
Except food. You have to eat. You have to face your temptations every day. Be mindful of your unhealthy relationship every day. Be responsible for consuming moderately in the face of your addiction every day.
And instead, we treat these people with scorn for not being able to do what others find easy. Should I mock alcoholics because I'm able to drink responsibly? Mock drug addicts? Gambling addicts? etc? Why am I the asshole for mocking those groups, but not the asshole for mocking people with food addictions?
> Should I mock alcoholics because I'm able to drink responsibly? Mock drug addicts? Gambling addicts?
One thing advocating for addicts has taught me is that a significant portion of the population answers these questions with "yes." You will see it also on any HN comment section that comes up against addiction. Addiction is highly moralized and shame, ostracism, and punishment are considered acceptable responses.
I think it's worth keeping that in mind when extending the same language and social norms out to other conditions as well. It's certainly not universal but "shame and punish them" is a normalized response to addiction, and so some people will also want to (continue to) respond to this in the same way.
Let's mock video-game addicts and social media addicts too.
And it's way harder to curb food addiction. I know plenty of places where you don't get more than edge and where the only electricity you get is old solar panels. And I can stay there for weeks. Not eating for the same time seems harder.
I was lucky because my only food addiction was sugar. Ended in a month (had to completely stop alcohol and fruit juice too). Stopping sugar curbed my appetite and I went quickly from 32+ BMI to 28 (and 28 to 26+ took almost 3 years).
You can make the point that obesity is correlated with the lack of healthy options. If you live in a poor area where you have to drive to get around safely and only fast food options you are probably going to become fat.
many people don’t have time to cook the majority of their meals or exercise due to demanding work conditions
They’re not forced it’s more like they are habituated to it. Just like every smoker knows cigarettes are bad for them, every fat person knows a soda and fries are bad for them. But it’s a temporary escape from the rest of their problems so they succumb to it more easily than people who are better at delaying gratification.
Many places justify a “sugar tax” on certain fast food items like large sodas, to disincentive those purchases. that combined with cheap available healthy options may remedy the obesity epidemic somewhat. It’s tough to justify what’s healthy/unhealthy food, though, especially because portion size is hugely important.
It is within peoples control to a degree, but that doesn't mean that it's easy or even achievable over the long haul.
It's also about much more than just willpower. There are genetic factors and there may be psychological issues at play. Sugar and alcohol, two of the main culprits, are also very addictive.
Your ability to be absolutely oblivious to the human condition and enviroment is astounding.
Were you raised by chatGPT robots?
This isn't even defense or trigger happy potshotting. I'm run of the mill ok in terms of diet and fitness. But I've interacted with enough people to understand the depth of the challenges some face. Some of it genetic. Some of it manufactured. Most of it difficult.
You're falling into the trap of an exclusive focus on an objective subset of the topic (or perhaps allowing yourself that luxury). This is a common tactic. It is, of course, not that simple. I don't think you really don't understand that people are referring to the various real difficulties of losing and keeping off weight, as opposed to some kind of natural law that makes weight loss physically impossible.
Some people exaggerate the difficulty of maintaining a healthy weight, and others exaggerate the ease of it, usually with a selfish dose of snideness. Try to not be either of them - a big part of which means trying to recognize that other people's experiences and circumstances vary widely from your own, and humans generally have a hard time truly imagining what it's like even to be somebody where such differences are small.
I am still friends with my high-school computer science teacher, who is now probably 75 or so. In the last 18 months he has lost 70 lbs, from 240 to 170.
How?
He is diabetic and got a continuous glucose monitor. Before every meal, he'd check his sugar. If it was 150 or higher, he skipped that meal. If it was lower than 150, he'd eat, but half his usual portion and he tried to limit carbs. No exercise program.
He lost 70 lbs in 18 months, has extremely cut his insulin use (with his doctor's blessing), and his goal is to get off all his diabetes medicine, again with his doctor's blessing. She said he will need to keep insulin on him in case his sugar spikes over 280, which can happen in diabetics no matter what they are eating, so she says.
Just posting this as a possible aid to people who do not believe they can lose weight.
The plural of Anecdote is not "data". Different peoples metabolisms and hormones are different. All of those mean that your High School Teacher's scenario, is really only advice for your high school teacher to lose weight. Other people's mileage will likely vary greatly.
Another confounding factor is that people who compete to win games of money tend to also compete to win games of attractiveness. The skills to push yourself for financial gains seem to cross over to the skills to control eating and push fitness regimes.
I'm genuinely not trying to be a contrarian here, but I was a lot thinner when I was broke. I was younger too though.
My overall health according to doctors, and attractiveness according to peers seems to be about the same.
Wealth went up dramatically between 20 and 30 though. It seems like I'm just not wealthy enough for it to make a difference. I was pretty damn broke hah.
> It seems like I'm just not wealthy enough for it to make a difference
Perhaps money makes less difference than the stereotypes suggest (although must be non-linear since usually can’t go below zero and the median minimum required would be something livable?)
The study shows that, on average, men who are 5 feet 6 inches need to make an additional $175,000 annually to be as desirable as men who are almost 6 feet
Huh? The study is from 2006 and then the rest is just social media conjecture.
According to the table, the ability for women 5'8" or taller to compensate for their apparent undesirability in the table is "not feasible"? What the hell? Wow this has to be describing another species.
I'm over 6 feet tall and prefer women who are taller than average which just... makes sense? I rarely see couples with such a dramatic height difference.
Yeah- I agree - but it was the first link I found. I had read more reliable information saying something similar (although not the extreme numbers they came up with if I recall correctly).
I have another conjecture based on my anecdotal experience: women get skinny to compete against other women and it is other women that actually care about extreme skinniness. Many men don’t seem to care that much for extreme skinniness and many other men often like more voluptuousness for their pornographic ideals. I would reference an article that seems to back up this idea, but the article was even more rubbishy than the link above!
My experience is much the same. I attributed it to reaching middle age rather than wealth, but if I'm perfectly honest, it probably has more to do with spending much more time sitting at a desk.
> It is economically rational for ambitious women to try as hard as possible to be thin
It is economically rational for all ambitious people to try as hard as possible to fit into the accepted standard of attractiveness, including weight. This is just a special case.
Another point, I don't think most people find hyper-thinness attractive. In fact being underweight is far worse for your health (HR=~1.6) than overweight is (HR=~1.05). I hope notions of attractiveness in Western societies can normalize on just being healthy.
> I hope notions of attractiveness in Western societies can normalize on just being healthy.
I believe this is happening, particularly noticeable for American women. "Fit/Athletic" is in, "skinny" is out. My wife has noticed that high-status/high-income American women tend to be much more athletic than high-status women in Europe and elsewhere, where they tend to be thin. In both cases, genetically inherited attractiveness also dominates (e.g. height for men, facial structure, etc).
> Another point, I don't think most people find hyper-thinness attractive.
Depends on the society. In Asia it's still by far the most popular aesthetic, especially for women.
> Depends on the society. In Asia it's still by far the most popular aesthetic, especially for women.
I guess I outed myself as an American. I'm not sure I want to compare attractiveness standards with other cultures. I'm ok to take a hedonistic view here: if adhering to super-thin attractiveness standards causes women suffering or shortens their lives (which it does) then the standards are bad and I hope people in those countries reevaluate their standards.
I think a lot of that has to do with perception in media as well. I remember as a kid, it seemed that almost every male protagonist in coming of age stories had a tomboy girlfriend who was very athletic. Recently I had a discussion with some friends on childhood TV crushes, and most of them mentioned characters that fit the "fit" tomboy archetype.
Sure, it's anecdotal. Still, I wonder how much media people see in childhood influences what people view as attractive later in life?
> Depends on the society. In Asia it's still by far the most popular aesthetic, especially for women.
This would surprise me. Being fit and muscular is a sign that you are wealthy enough to spend time exercising and researching how to exercise, and/or have a trainer.
Being able to control your diet is cool, but what is even cooler is being able to go for an 8K run and then eating whatever you want.
The crucial statistics/claims in the article are the following
> Myriad studies find that overweight or obese women are paid less than their thinner peers while there is little difference in wages between obese men and men in the medically defined “normal” range.
> The upper estimates of the wage premium for a women being thin are so significant that she might find it almost as valuable to lose weight as she would to gain additional education. The wage premium for getting a master’s degree is around 18%, only 1.8 times the premium a fat women could, in theory, earn by losing around 65lbs—roughly the amount that a moderately obese women of average height would have to lose to be in the medically defined “normal” range.
Which is used to support the conclusion that it is "economically rational for women to lose weight".
Yep, and I believe the life expectancy change for just being overweight is very small, weight doesn't start really affecting expectancy until you hit the Obese mark.
The article seems pretty clearly to indicate that this is far from "just a special case". It cites data that show that the rewards to thin women relative to fat ones far outpace the differences in reward for men on their own axes of attractiveness.
Poor people may struggle to afford healthy foods. They may reach for processed or fast foods because they lack the time to prepare meals at home or have less time to exercise because low-wage jobs often involve working long shifts and can be less flexible than those performed by the “laptop class”. Or because low income is often a function of limited education, perhaps, so goes the thinking, that lack of education extends to a lack of knowledge about how to maintain a healthy weight.
Interesting how the author never mentions IQ as a possibility. Not all people are mentally equal despite having access to the same information via the Internet (assuming they can read and write).
I'd have agreed with you if you said "motivation" instead of "IQ".
Poverty is a social tarpit that keeps people from seeing the bigger picture. Every damn day is a chaotic mess full of distractions and broken interdependencies reinforced by the culture. Poor people also have messed up expectations and a weird relationship with authority. It doesn't take a genius to see it, but it does take a lot of effort to escape it.
I apologize in advance if what follows is written badly, but the topic is touchy and I have to write defensively.
Assuming IQ measures what we call intelligence (which is a big assumption on which I have no particular position), it would stand to reason that high-IQ people would move up the income bracket scale at a higher rate than they would move down and vice-versa.
If that is true, then the eigenvector of the transition matrix would skew towards the top bracket.
I am not claiming that this is true, but only that the chain of reasoning holds, and therefore this qualifies as a self-consistent, falsifiable statement.
> it would stand to reason that high-IQ people would move up the income bracket scale at a higher rate than they would move down and vice-versa.
How does that stand to reason? We're both speculating here, but it seems to me for that to be true, we'd have to be living in a meritocracy of some sort. And we're not.
Subjectively, I've known lots of people all up and down the income spectrum, and I've never noticed that wealthier people tend to be smarter or that poorer people tend to be dumber. Broadly, it seems to be the same mix no matter what.
What does seem to be broadly true is that you can predict a person's wealth level based on their parent's wealth level.
I do not wish to respond to your comment as our world-views are not compatible and I don't feel like getting into the entire meritocracy discussion at this time.
I'll stay on topic and reply to this:
> How does that stand to reason?
It is sufficient to believe that increasing a person's IQ increases the expected rate of change of that person's wealth. I make no other hypotheses.
IF you accept that, THEN it is a mathematical necessity that there exists a correlation between IQ and wealth.
I believe empirical evidence does support this. We could discuss at length how strong the effect is, but I don't think claiming no such effect exists is tenable, when you take into account e.g. the well-known correlation with education.
> I don't think claiming no such effect exists is tenable
I was too loose in the language of my last comment. I don't think that there is zero such effect. I think the effect is small enough to not be a significant factor. I've tried to include enough qualifiers (such as "broadly") to indicate that.
> the well-known correlation with education.
If you're saying that there's a significant correlation between education and income, I'll agree with that. But we've been talking about intelligence, not education.
