Perhaps I've made it sound like I'm saying financial good fortune is the only cause of intelligence, or only people from well-off backgrounds are intelligent, or no poor people are. I'm saying none of these things.

It is, however, easily proveable that
(1) on average, people from wealthier backgrounds score higher IQs than people from poorer backgrounds,
(2) education has a direct influence on IQ scores, even though IQ is supposed to test some natural intelligence separate from mere learned information or skills.

That's not a particularly pleasant (or even useful) thing to say. But it's true.

I see no basis for saying bad fortune causes intelligence. I've lived among all kinds of poor, middle-class, and upper-class people, and not seen any extra intelligence on the parts of poorer peoples. From personal experience I can tell you the only thing keeping 90% of Arabs alive right now is stubborn adherence to traditional ways of doing things - ways modern Arabs have no intelligence, or understanding, about. Anyway, I've seen the studies. The differences continue right across the board.

I think we can agree we're not talking about KNOWLEDGE (ie, long division, or the elusive capital of North Dakota); we're talking about intelligence, which *should* be (and mostly is) a measure of problem-solving, critical-thinking, and pattern-finding abilities, among other things distinct from knowledge. These shouldn't be affected by standardized education, but they are. Wealthier people have greater access to education; ergo, higher IQ on average.

Comfort is the greatest promoter of innovation. Otherwise, how is America (and, specifically, moderately well-off America) the leader in every kind of innovation, while NO poor country or culture has innovated anything of note since fire? Yes, America has more resources and opener social norms pushing for innovation, but how did America get those resources and norms. Mostly by innovation. On another track, I bet you'd be hard-pressed to name 5 political, artistic, or technological innovators who weren't from well-off backgrounds, if not well-off at the time of their innovations.

I don't have the figures with me, but if I were forced to guess (at gunpoint, natch,) I'd say the statistical difference between various income levels' IQs is greater than the difference across genetic lines. Otherwise, how do you explain that America (ie, the most diverse genetic pool ever) is more intelligent by every measure than, say, Japan (ie, a more-or-less homogenous group proven to be genetically inclined toward intelligence)?

I don't agree with any of the rest of your comment, for reasons which should be obvious. Making a point with Ayn Rand? That's shaky. Very shaky.

It seems to me that "wealth, money" are more often than not, the cause of amesome stupidity.

I know, Alchemy, but as I have a feeling you know, American democracy has moved far from it's original idealistic beginings. We move closer to socialism, growing in apathy and contempt for the corruption that eats away at its wholesome core, and watch as freedoms are whittled away chip by chip. When money buys power and presidents, when people buy into the belief that intellegence belongs to the wealthy, and when people no longer feel they have control of their own destinies, then Democracy, as powerful as we know it capable of being, will fail to be what it should be. So much of what people say, in order to explain Democracy, actually implies or states a mandate that one man owes another a hand out in order to raise the whole (collective). Democracy was founded on the thought that every man should have the absolute right to his own property, earned through his own effort and labor. If a man is ordered to give away (mandated by law) any of his property to another man, because the other man does not have it, then the man that succeeds is punished for succeeding, and the man that fails is rewarded for his failure. It is a brute government of thugs that takes from a man what is rightfully his and gives it to a man that has not worked for it. I do understand the sense of community that is spoken of and how that helps build democracy. But when that sense of community is spoken of in words that imply an absolute responsibilty for your neighbor, and language that mandates each man must think of and live in such a way that supports the individuals and collective of his community, first and before himself -then it smacks of going down a slippery road, to me.

I wonder who you are asking. And since you asked, I wonder how old you are. And I wonder why you don't want to process the conversation on its merits without wanting to pigeon-hole people into little boxes of age, and thus supposed perspective.
I am old enough to know better, and young enough to still chance it.
I am an ancient soul as old as time, with generations of children behind me; But I am child forever standing in wonderment at the miracle of beauty and life that stretches on into eternity and infinity.
I am all that there is and yet I am nothing compared to what is.
I have walked millions of miles and talked zillions of whiles and yet I've just begun to walk.
How old are you?

Again, I would refer you to Ayn Rand...she says it as eloquently as I could vere suppose to. I do not think it benefits anyone to pay off thugs. I do not believe in giving in to extortion and corruption, for to do so only encourages more. i do not believe in violence unless acted violently upon. In order to TAKE what they want they would have to take up arms. In that case, it is clearly wrong. Why give them sanction and a (false?) sense of power by GIVING it to them? Will it stop them from coming back to take more? No. They will be back, asking for more. (ie: Korea, etc) I say my future should not be in the hands of anyone but me. I say that to be subject to anyone who holds a gun to your head is against man's best interest. I say if they want it, then come and TAKE it, if they dare, and let them suffer the consequences if they choose that route.
America, and myself, personally, should never pay extortionists and thugs who seek to take what does not belong to them. Your statement about handouts is based on the assumption that a handout would prevent violence. Such an assumption is wrong. Eventually, if you give and give, you run out of what they want, or you refuse out of necessity, or they come to take all you have and are...then what? Violence and defending yourself would be necessary. Paying off someone to leave you unmolested never works...thugs always come back for more. Handouts only appease for a short while. Paying extortionists prevent nothing; it only prolongs the inevitable. You use the term 'worthless guy'; I ask, Why would you want to sustain and support someone who is worthless and a thug?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for today, and he shows up to be fed again tomorrow, resenting you because he needs you.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, and he goes away your friend.
"Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."