It’s household income of the household they grew up in. Take 10k wealthy kids and swap them with 10k poor kids and you’ll see a massive difference compared to another 20k control

Children’s intelligence is strongly correlated with parental intelligence, probably due to both nature and nurture.

Probably more accurate to say "genetics, shared environment, and non-shared environment". Modern evidence heavily weights (favors? leans towards?) the environments.

Please supply sources for this outrageous claim.

Did someone actually do this experiment? Maybe there’s some data from the London Blitz?

Should be something in the form of natural experiments from adoptions, twin studies, etc.

There absolutely have been twin studies that showed IQ (and therefore income) is largely heritable.

Indeed, twin studies form the strongest leg of Bryan Caplan's argument in support of the signalling hypothesis in his book The Case Against Education, which I highly recommend anyone trying to refute it read and try to debunk. If you want an itemized list of citations this is where I'd start.

Hey, it's a free country. :) When I imagine other hypothetical books titled things like The Case Against Capitalism, The Case Against Monogamy, or The Case Against Atheism, though, I note that I don't get an "insider propaganda" vibe from any of them, even though I would probably strongly dislike what they have to say.

The thing is that education is important. Some of it is signalling, but not all of it is useless.

There was a time when most people couldn’t read or do basic algebra and you don’t want to go back to this.

Even a dumb kid can understand compound interest and absolutely has to in order to thrive in our society.

Dr. Caplan in fact does cover this point in TCAE, of course. He comes to conclude that only about 70-80% of the effect of education is attributable to signalling. A solid 20-30% still looks like good old fashioned human capital improvement, and it is largely concentrated around the basic primary education skills of reading and arithmetic. (He even has the spreadsheets where he calculated all this out online, and he has talked before about how sad he is nobody has ever tried to fiddle with the actual numbers.)

Probably not actual "2a+4=12, how much is a?" style basic algebra, though. In the United States, which is about lower-middle of the pack on PISA, about 1 in 3 adults would struggle with that level of algebra according to the PIIAC, to say nothing of e.g. the actual compound interest equation, even if the rough idea makes sense.

That's not "most people", but it's definitely "a plurality" of people. And yet life is pretty great!

To your last point: I think that the current threat to American democracy is partially caused by a lack of education.

There is no reason that anti-wokeism had to come with totalitarian tendencies.

My last point is that life in America is pretty great. You don't deny this, to your credit. But I don't see why that would link to "American democracy is threatened". If anything I would expect the opposite to be true.

"There's a threat to American democracy" seems like a strong claim to me by itself, let alone "There's a threat to American democracy partially because of its education quality." But, I'm an American myself, and I don't want to play inside baseball with how likely that actually seems to me.

Let's instead take Germany, where you yourself seem to be located. Germany has PISA scores quite close to the US's own, maybe slightly above or below depending on which recent year you look at.

If poor education leads to collapse, and if the two countries are about equal in their poor education, you should then be willing to accept, say, a 1 to 20 bet that German democracy will itself self-immolate in, say, 15 years. But, if poor education doesn't justify even a 5% risk of this happening in Germany, then I don't see why I would think it's a relevant factor in predicting the collapse of democracy in another country with a much longer uninterrupted democratic tradition.

(You could of course argue "No, comparisons based on PISA scores are misleading, actually there's robust pro-totalitarian brainwashing happening in US high schools that doesn't happen in German gymnasiums", or something, but (a) that's a much more precise claim than merely "US education is bad", (b) that seems really unlikely to me given I've never actually met or had an openly pro-fascist teacher at any level, and (c) even if it was true, the signalling hypothesis would still suggest any attempts at this just wouldn't matter very much by the time these kids are 25 or so.)

> say, a 1 to 20 bet that German democracy will itself self-immolate in, say, 15 years.

I don’t see why it matters where I am located, but if we must talk about Germany then yes, I would say the odds are higher than that actually.

Fascinating. I'll check back in with this HN account in 2040 then just for kicks.

I like HN because you can have interesting discussions, and because people usually argue their points.

I think this is the first time that someone has responded to me in such a mean-spirited way, while providing no substantive response.

I would prefer if you left this forum.

There's nothing mean-spirited about asking people to put rough numbers to their beliefs, even approximately. But I do think most people would be genuinely surprised to hear you think there's over a 5% chance Germany the Western democracy won't exist in a generation. If it does happen I need to remember to revisit a lot of things about how I myself understand the world.

I for one like books which are willing to explicitly make a controversial point; it makes for much more interesting reading, even if I remain in disagreement throughout.

I would prefer books to make correct points, such as “education is really important, but some education is not really useful except for signalling”

With all else being equal, I'm willing to believe that more intelligence would lead to greater income. But if you're claiming that IQ is the sole/main predictor for income that'd be a hard [citation needed] in my opinion.

In fact I recall a study (I saw on HN I believe) that showed that IQ is only correlated up to a certain value (not very high, I.e. Lower upper middle class IIRC) but then becomes quite uncorrelated. This certainly matches my anecdotal evidence that most of the rich kids during school were not very smart. The smart ones were typically the kids from academic middle class households.

Here is a different study (I am certain I read a different one) with similar results https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/442975-do-you-make-much-...

> I don't find it too surprising that people who are smarter make more money.

Yeah, being smart definitely helps with making money, but honestly, that bar’s not as high as people think. There’s a bunch of other stuff that matters too, like being likable and humble. But if we're being real, you’ll probably get richer with cunning and greed. And history is pretty clear, the more opportunistic ones tend to stack higher piles. Money is cruel, man.

None of the parent comment is about being smarter, that's the core disconnect.

those with success like the idea of meritocracy because it means they deserve it, makes it easier to deal with the injustices of the world. very very rarely will someone at the top of their field say "i was lucky"

ish, yeah, but when you go work at a job it seems like half the people there are because they're smart and half are they're because they're upper-class/wealthy background, and some are there because they worked really hard, and a few are there by accident. at a daily experience level it's very clearly more complicated than smart=money; it's just one weight out of many.