Also, shoe size correlates with income (i.e. correlation is no proof of causality).
It may well be that it is an environment of cooperative learning that is conducive to both testing higher on IQ tests and cooperating on prisoner's dilemmata.
(The paper's "environment" robustness test only checked by factoring out private schools, which is a poor proxy.)
N.B.:
Yes; while we may surmise that part of that causation is based on height correlating with gender and social status which correlate with income (and for the latter, IQ), the major lurking variable that determines both height and income is age (children versus adults).
Factoring out all three of the aforementioned, the correlation remains (there's still e.g. nutritional status, and it's quite hard to factor out all aspects of an unformalized, soft criterion such as "social status" anyways).
the major lurking variable that determines both height and income is age (children versus adults).
Wait... I had always assumed such comparisons to control for age, or at least to not include underage people.
Not just WEIRD: US-only. That might be an American thing, not just a Western thing.
And it could be an SAT thing, not an intelligence thing. If my understanding is correct SATs reward conscientiousness as much as (or more than) intelligence. Conscientiousness being attributable for all of the difference to cooperation wouldn't be at all implausible.
If my understanding is correct SATs reward conscientiousness as much as (or more than) intelligence.
I doubt it. The SAT is still closer to an IQ test than an achievement test. Conscientiousness helps a lot with GPA, but not SAT. I used to work as a SAT tutor, and it is amazing/depressing how little even strong effort affected test scores.
My impression is that the SATs measure some combination of reasoning ability and retention of knowledge: I can see the latter being correlated with conscientiousness, but there are other ways to get it. As best I can tell, in college admissions the combination of a high SAT score and middling grades is taken to indicate a low-conscientiousness student, which if correct isn't what we'd expect if the SATs rewarded the two equally. If it's not correct, I'm not sure what it'd be measuring instead.
I've also seen fairly good evidence that intelligence correlates positively with: happiness, height, health, income, number of friends, parental income, and attractiveness. Intelligence is also negatively correlated with promiscuity and criminality. It's kind of depressing how many nice things are correlated with other nice things, and bad things are correlated with other bad things.
Intelligence is also negatively correlated with promiscuity and criminality. It's kind of depressing how many nice things are correlated with other nice things, and bad things are correlated with other bad things.
One of these things does not belong.
On your fourth point, that is the strategy Socrates recommends in Plato's dialogues (he also seems to think it's a good idea to try to help the people around you become smarter, and try to get their help in becoming smarter yourself).
The result is from 2008, but it's new to me. Abstract:
A meta-study of repeated prisoner’s dilemma experiments run at numerous universities suggests that students cooperate 5% to 8% more often for every 100 point increase in the school’s average SAT score.
Some obvious points from my first five minutes of thinking about it: