If IQ is determined primarily by genetic inheritance, then it should ultimately be measurable at birth or early childhood. If IQ is a primary determinant for success later in life, then there should be profitable to offer scholarships to poor, but high IQ children, in exchange for a percentage of their future earnings. It’s too bad that such arrangements are probably not legal.

However, K.A. Ericsson’s research suggests that practice is a bigger determinant of expertise than native IQ:

“… When experts exhibit their superior performance in public their behavior looks so effortless and natural that we are tempted to attribute it to special talents.

A fascinating book I read recently on the relationship between schooling, IQ, social background, race and economic success is a collection of essays edited by Kenneth Arrow: Meritocracy and Economic Inequality. Some of the essays are a bit technical, but the gist of them can be followed without a background in econometrics.

One of the unexplored miseries of modern life is the connection between poverty, whole language teaching in inner cities, and the rate of illiteracy among the incarcerated.

Not all–not even the majority–of high IQ (140+) are early self-taught readers. There’s a certain overlap of ability and dyslexia–so the bright kid needs to be explicitly taught the sound-symbol association. Whole language just assumes, la la la, expose a child to good writing and the child WILL learn to read. Not.

Oh, and another comment:

There is good evidence that the human race is progressively gaining IQ points at the rate of about 3 points per decade. For some strange reason, this phenomenon, called the Flynn Effect, has received very little attention in the popular press.

You can read about the Flynn effect here:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/FLYNNEFF.html

…and here:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037F65-D9C0-1C6A-84A9809EC588EF21

In his book, Emotional Intelligence, Psychologist Daniel Goleman makes a convincing case (convincing to me, anyway) that IQ is highly over-rated as a predictor of success in life. Goleman argues that other factors — such as the ability to get along well with others, to delay gratification, and to recover quickly from set-backs — are far more important than IQ. I think the book is worth reading.

I badly worded my introduction to the NYT article. (A sign of my average IQ, perhaps?) Yes, higher IQ does equal better opportunities to earn more, but greater income doesn’t equate to more sex or sex partners, as legions of techies can attest.

Unfortunately, the Indians are targetting that too-

http://www2.dimag.com/globalfaceofradiology/world/?id=4180&news_section_id=14

Average salary for radiologist in India – $15,000.

Sean: Thanks for that last article. I love this guy Dr. Arndt! Reading New Yorker magazine, going to the gym to get buff, having sex with 15-year-old boys, making piles of money. He could have been a Roman emperor.

I also like the fact that Arndt identifies with Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, the Army physician who was convicted of murder and is currently represented by our friend and neighbor Harvey Silverglate (see http://www.silverglategood.com/cases/macdonald/).

[A useful bit was "the 2002 median salary for spine surgeons was more than $545,000, according to the Medical Group Management Association". I've been telling my students to go into radiology (average salary around $300,0000) but this might be better.]

How about this guy?

Oh yes, Sean, let me know when you find an experienced surgeon with an IQ of 100 who made it through the MCATs, medical school, internship, residency, and the Boards…