Any_Monitor5224 t1_j1zqkmg wrote
I frankly don’t think intelligence is the driver of improving one’s socioeconomic status any more. It is more so the ability to be strategic. Use your strengths in a way that is rewarded by society and fulfilling to you.
There are plenty of highly intelligent people who live very below average lives and vice versa.
Particularly for lower SES kids I’d be more interested in their life outcomes than their intelligence. If we can show they get smarter, but they still can’t improve their lot in life - what’s the value?
gunnervi t1_j2031ro wrote
There have always been highly intelligent people who fall to be upwardly mobile. People who just never had the opportunities, or whose courses in life were derailed by tragedy or bigotry.
ThrowbackPie t1_j21cxie wrote
From my own experience (assuming the many people in my life calling me smart are correct), I think decision-making is a huge part of it too. I have poor decision-making skills despite my possible intelligence.
enigmaroboto t1_j20aj7w wrote
A students work for B students at companies founded by C students
Cognitive_Dissonant t1_j20f1vr wrote
While I'm sure this happens, statistically GPA is predictive of future income, so the reverse hierarchy is probably more likely. See here for example:
gunnervi t1_j214jhd wrote
It could easily be that B and C students are overrepresented amongst "the elites" but grades are still a good predictor of future income. Like, there just aren't that many billionaires, even if like half of them were C students I doubt it would meaningfully affect the median income of C students nationwide.
In fact I would very much expect the grades vs income distribution to be much flatter for the upper classes simply because their income is largely based on "already being rich, powerful, and connected" rather than succeeding in a pseudo-meritocratic competition.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments