The mystery isn’t why IQ pays, but why it pays so little.
In your long list of possible answers, you seem to miss the obvious: IQ does not equal productivity. Simply being high-IQ does not automatically increase the economic value of your work. High-IQ people are predisposed to various errors, like overengineering, overconfidence, unnecessary experimentation, contrarianism, etc. Some high-IQ people event end up as philosophers or libertarian economists.
I am confused why you would think this even needs stating, or why you think this post missed it. Feels needlessly hostile, especially the snipe at the end.
This needs stating, because you don’t list this obvious and correct explanation, but you do answer the question “why [IQ] pays so little” with “Productivity doesn’t primarily determine pay”. It’s ironic because elsewhere you criticized academics for conflating “education” with “schooling”, and now you’re conflating “IQ” with “productivity” in the exact same way, which is worse, if anything.
To be fair, stories 1 and 2 do suggest how high IQ might not imply high productivity, but they refer to very specific contexts, and the lack of correlation between the two goes far beyond that.
Regarding the hostility, I’m seeing you make a post after post, with fairly obvious problems that you don’t substantially address, written in a rather emotional and arrogant tone, and it upsets me. It is questionable whether that hostility is useful for me, but I’m not yet convinced that it isn’t. Also, I find your posts quite hostile as well, maybe I’m just trying to match your tone.
In your long list of possible answers, you seem to miss the obvious: IQ does not equal productivity. Simply being high-IQ does not automatically increase the economic value of your work. High-IQ people are predisposed to various errors, like overengineering, overconfidence, unnecessary experimentation, contrarianism, etc. Some high-IQ people event end up as philosophers or libertarian economists.
I am confused why you would think this even needs stating, or why you think this post missed it. Feels needlessly hostile, especially the snipe at the end.
This needs stating, because you don’t list this obvious and correct explanation, but you do answer the question “why [IQ] pays so little” with “Productivity doesn’t primarily determine pay”. It’s ironic because elsewhere you criticized academics for conflating “education” with “schooling”, and now you’re conflating “IQ” with “productivity” in the exact same way, which is worse, if anything.
To be fair, stories 1 and 2 do suggest how high IQ might not imply high productivity, but they refer to very specific contexts, and the lack of correlation between the two goes far beyond that.
Regarding the hostility, I’m seeing you make a post after post, with fairly obvious problems that you don’t substantially address, written in a rather emotional and arrogant tone, and it upsets me. It is questionable whether that hostility is useful for me, but I’m not yet convinced that it isn’t. Also, I find your posts quite hostile as well, maybe I’m just trying to match your tone.