In the Federal Eugenics thread I offered that
“IQ is a TERRIBLE indicator of future societal contributions.”
To which Shodan responded with a number of cites pointing to a correlation between IQ and work success and lack of criminality.
He ended with, “Unless you are defining “societal contributions” as something other than work success and abstention from crime.”
To avoid derailing the other thread, I thought I’d take this over here.
Desiderata, I do not think that work success is an entirely valid indicator of societal contributions. In fact, I believe that basing the measure of societal contributions on such a factor is alarmingly shortsighted. That would discount contributions from stay-at-home moms or just homemakers without kids. They have no work success.
Similarly for the contributions of artists such as Vincent Van Gogh. During his career he made very little money on his artwork. It was the savvy marketing of his heirs that made him the famous artist that he is today. Did VVG contribute or his sister?
I would offer that the soft contributions from non-work success persons far outclass the societal contributions of those who show success in one specific marketplace (that of the working world). Certainly earning money is good, but to think of such success as the overall indicator of contributions is too shallow for me.