> potentially more intelligent than the poorest group

It's easy to think this but its not true. There is just a ton of privilege involved in life. There are groups in India who purely tutor slum kids to the top IITs(the JEE exams in India are very hard).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_30

They said "on average". Selecting 30 of the most talented from the poorest group does not contradict that.

On average more educated? Yes. More intelligent? Nah I see no data. Given the same access to resources I expect the kid from a poor family and a kid from a rich family to perform similarly.

I do not. Where do unintelligent people exist in your society?

And at a certain point the argument about equal access is entirely hypothetical. For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted.

> Where do unintelligent people exist in your society?

Everywhere? Both in rich and poor households.

> For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted.

Ah I thought the argument was more about genes(aka born smart) and not something like nutrition.

I think a good thought experiment is Formula 1. Most top F1 racers come from super rich backgrounds. Does that mean that more money == better driver? Its mostly a accessibility problem.

Which premise do you disagree with?

1. Financial and career success are correlated with good test skills.

2. Good test skills are strongly influenced by genetics or early childhood.

If you agree with both then you expect some correlation between wealth and test performance.

I disagree that being born to rich parents == you have better genetics.

It's mostly privilege. And just being born in America is one of the biggest privileges wrt career and wealth.

Well I’ll be charitable and interpret == as correlation as we are talking about averages.

From your conclusion you’re telling me wealth is completely random or the capabilities of children is completely random. Neither of those holds up to any scrutiny.

I don’t know what being born in the US has to do with the conversation.

Sorry I’m not familiar with Indian culture and power structures.

better educated I get, but more intelligent? That doesn't track.

Yes, very unintelligent people tend to not do well financially.

The problem seems to be that intelligence is not entirely heritable; that just because unintelligent people fail to do well financially doesn't mean that their children are doomed to the same fate.

Not entirely heritable? Or has no genetic correlation?

> just because unintelligent people fail to do well financially doesn't mean that their children are doomed to the same fate.

Correct, my statement is about expectation of averages. Not a claim that we should exclude an individual because of who their parents are.

> Not entirely heritable? Or has no genetic correlation?

My understanding is that there is some genetic correlation but it's not a certainty; smart/rich parents can have dumbass kids and vice versa.

It's hard to quantify because a direct "IQ" measurement is fraught with issues and trying to measure by "success" has its own issues. If you've not met a lawyer/doctor/PhD that you'd put in the "dumbass" category, you probably haven't met many.

Agreed. All children of smart people are not smart. All financially successful people are not smart.

Yeah it'd be very slight, but things like stress and nutrition can affect your memory in the long term which is a part of intelligence.

Assuming that’s true, wouldn’t that mean you are less capable?

Yes. There as difference between unfair and unreal; someone who is malnourished when growing up will forever likely be weaker than someone who received a proper sequence of meals.

We should perhaps recognize that and try to compensate for it, and it's not a value judgement on the person so afflicted, but pretending it doesn't exist just confuses matters.

If the difference is real I don’t think the test is the place to compensate as its function is to select people who will succeed in that area.

That's been the entire fight over the last 20+ years, does the test identify anything real and if so, what should be done with it (equality of outcomes vs equality of opportunity, e.g.).