Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad

[Keltest]

That is a good place to start.

In general, those with an education have a higher IQ.
In general, teachers have a higher IQ.
In general, the higher level that a teacher teaches at, the higher IQ.
In general, people with higher IQs make more money.
In general, more money means more investing.
In general, more investing means more practice.
In general, more practice equals more skill.
In general, more skill investing equals more return on the investment (heck even the average, or the average of the S&P 500 is GREAT)
In general, teachers are a good source of information, better than average
In general, teachers are easy to access

Interesting the higher your IQ, the more likely that you invest in stocks. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-sign-...ing-in-stocks/

-----

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2002-hauser.pdf

Figure 12. Wisconsin Men's Henmon-Nelson IQ Distributions for 1992-94 Occupation Groups with 30 Cases or More

1. Janitors and sextons
2. Precision machine operatives
3. Machine operatives, misc and ns
4. Operatives, other
5. Truck drivers
6. Metalworking crafts
7. Carpenters
8. Freight and materials handlers
9. Transportation equip. oper. (except truck)
10. Checkers and inspectors
11. Craftsmen, construction (exc. carpenters)
12. Assembler
13. Crafts, other
14. Plumbers
15. Mechanics, heavy equip.
16. Farm laborers (paid)
17. Mechanics, auto
18. Mechanics, other
19. Foremen
20. Electricians and related occs
21. Clerical, supervisory
22. Protective service workers (exc. police)
23. Service workers (exc. prot. and cleaning)
24. Clerical, other
25. Farmers, owners and managers
26. Policemen and detectives
27. Sales, other
28. Draftsmen and surveyors
29. Service managers
30. Managers, nec - salaried
31. Buyers and purchasing agents
32. Sales representative, manufacturing
33. Clerical, accounts-related
34. Engineering-related occs
35. Sales, services (not FIRE)
36. Kindergarten/elementary teachers
37. Education occs, other
38. Sales managers
39. Administrative occs
40. Managers, nec - self-employed
41. Public administration managers
42. Creative occs
43. Social workers and clergy
44. Accounting occs
45. High school teachers
46. Finance, insurance, real estate occs
47. Sales, FIRE
48. Miscellaneous engineers
49. Computer occs
50. Materials and design engineers
51. Natural science - physical, life, and math
52. Social scientists
53. Legal occs
54. Electrical engineers
55. College professors
56. Medical occs - MD or equiv.

The results of 36/56, 37/56, 45/56, and 55/56 are not too shabby. Two-thirds up the occupation ladder at the minimum ranking of the teaching professions is not-bad.

Now if only I can find a study on investment rates of return based on occupation/profession and/or IQ.

I'd like to see sources on a lot of these claims please. The alleged correlation between IQ and income in particular seems suspect to me, especially given how little value IQ has as an actual measure of intelligence.

[Razade]

I'd like to see sources on a lot of these claims please. The alleged correlation between IQ and income in particular seems suspect to me, especially given how little value IQ has as an actual measure of intelligence.

The study he linked doesn't even make that claim. Here's the conclusion to the paper he's trying to say makes his case for him.

On the basis of the evidence reviewed here, I think it is fair to conclude that the traditional
psychometric literature on cognitive ability—popularly resurrected in The Bell Curve—vastly
overstates the case for the role of IQ in the stratification process. On the other hand, to say that
the case has been overstated—even that it has been overstated with great lapses of scholarship and
with racist overtones—does not say that there is no place for cognitive ability in our understanding
of the stratification process. Both as defense against excessive claims on both sides of the “IQ
debate” and in pursuing the scientific enterprise, we ought to seek and produce new evidence of
the role of cognitive abilities in social stratification.

Perhaps a more compelling reason to invest in studies of the effects of test performance on
social stratification is the growing role of tests in the schooling process from elementary school
onward. The issue is not “meritocracy,” but “testocracy.” That term, in my opinion, is more
descriptive of the dystopias that Michael Young described and towards which we may now be
headed. It is fair to say, without ignoring the substantial history of test use and misuse in the past
century (National Research Council, Committee on Appropriate Test Use 1999: Ch. 2), that we
have been and are now experiencing an unprecedented growth in scholastic testing that almost
outdoes Michael Young’s imagination.
To many observers, college entrance exams are the most visible manifestation of testing in
the American educational system. Surely, their effects have been more studied and debated than
those of tests at other levels of schooling (Lemann 1999), and we are now seeing major changes in
the design and content of the SAT–to change its focus from scholastic ability to academic
achievement. However, standardized college entrance exams have been around for nearly 80 years

and have been in wide use for half a century. The most significant changes in the use of tests will
be in the secondary and elementary schools.40
There is a powerful movement for more extensive use of high school exit exams with
passing levels set well above minimum competence. There is more controversy than evidence
about the effects of these tests, most of it from the Texas exam (TAAS), which actually sets a
rather low standard (Haney 2000; Haney 2001; Toenjes and Dworkin 2002; Carnoy, Loeb, and
Smith 2001). We will soon learn the immediate consequences of the Massachusetts exit exam,
MCAS, whose passing standard is set at roughly the national average, and of the revised New
York Regents exams. A reasonable speculation is that these exams will encourage early school
dropout, especially among African-American and Hispanic youth, and that they will create new
barriers to post-secondary education and training and to labor-market entry. High stakes exit
exams will also deny high school diplomas to large numbers of non-minority students, and we
have yet to learn the social and political consequences of that reversal of the widespread
expectation that the children of the middle class will at least graduate from high school.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)–deemed “N-CLUB” by its critics–introduces a
federal mandate for testing of all schoolchildren in grades 3 through 8. Unlike the Clinton
administration’s proposal for Voluntary National Tests, NCLB requires major revisions in many
of the more progressive and innovative state testing programs, to permit assessment of every child
at the mandated grade level. There is every likelihood that new and old tests will be used to raise
rates of grade retention, which are already too high in many places. These tests will often be used

in violation of professional standards of appropriate test use (American Educational Research,
American Psychological, and National Council on Measurement in 1985; American Educational
Research Association and National Council on Measurement in 1999), and with negative longterm consequences for academic achievement and high school completion (Hauser, Pager, and
Simmons 2000; Hauser, Simmons, and Pager 2000; Hauser 2001).
There is much more to be said about the reasons for the current public fixation on tests as
a tool of educational reform (Linn 2000) and about its immediate consequences for the
educational system. As sociologists, we ought also to take a longer view and start thinking now
about how to measure, analyze, and assess the long term consequences of test use for life
chances. The apparently benign story of the Wisconsin cohort began more than sixty years ago,
but we had to wait half a century to learn how it all turned out. What will we know half a century
from now about the role of tests and of abilities in the life chances of the youth of the 1990s?

The study also only had 18,00ish participants. All white (male and female however) and all army vets. If you don't want to read the whole thing quoted above the tl;dr is this.

The study says that cognitive ability is not indicative of stratification in the work place as strongly as previously thought. The paper concludes it is testing in school that more determines that outcome. Big shock there. It also warns of worsing conditions on that front. Considering this paper was published almost 20 years ago, I fear their fears have come to life.

Big shock as well that Darkrose posted a study he thought agreed with him when it didn't and not only didn't agree with him strenuously, outright states in its conclusion that the role of IQ is the opposite of what he wants to push.

[darkrose50]

I'd like to see sources on a lot of these claims please. The alleged correlation between IQ and income in particular seems suspect to me, especially given how little value IQ has as an actual measure of intelligence.

IQ is not the only measure of intelligence, but it is a measure of intelligence. It is often culturally specific, and often identifies those who excel at culturally specific problem solving skills (more specifically speedy problem solving skills).

For example we mainly use IQ to test to see if someone has over a 69 IQ. This is likely the most common use for IQ tests in American schools. It is rather a useful tool in helping to identify those with special cognitive needs. I would argue that this is its primary purpose.

Look at studies that compare IQ and professions. Doctors tend to have an IQ of ~140, for example. There are doctors with more, and doctors with less. But the tendency that they have an IQ of ~140 tells us something.

Big shock as well that Darkrose posted a study he thought agreed with him when it didn't and not only didn't agree with him strenuously, outright states in its conclusion that the role of IQ is the opposite of what he wants to push.

This is evidence. Now we can look for more. But this is still evidence, and it is interesting. To dismiss it out of hand does not further your understanding of the topic.

[Razade]

This is evidence. Now we can look for more. But this is still evidence, and it is interesting. To dismiss it out of hand does not further your understanding of the topic.

I'm not dismissing the evidence you provide. I'm pointing out that the evidence you provided to support your claim doesn't. It counters your claim. Why would I dismiss something that you presented as proving you're assertion when it demonstrably doesn't? That'd be crazy of me. Not all evidence is good evidence and it's more than reasonable to dismiss bad evidence when it's proven t be faulty. Normally people lead with their best evidence. This obviously wasn't your best. The fact that you want to "look for more" just tells me that you've settled on something you want to believe and you're going to lead the evidence to your pre-made conclusion instead of following the evidence to where it actually leads.

[darkrose50]

I am also not opposed to having my hypothecs proven wrong.

Hypothesis: Teachers can be a source of information on investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are intelligent
Hypothesis: Intelligence is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are educated
Hypothesis: Education is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Cultural capital surrounding wealth accumulation and maintenance is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers tend to come from the upper-middle-class and are highly likely to have this cultural capital surrounding wealth accumulation and maintenance . . . and that is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are *a* source to be specifically targeted for information on investing (due to likelihood of possessing cultural capital, and the ease of access)

I am a bit shocked that folks do not take these as a given.

IQ is *a* test for intelligence, not the only one.

[Keltest]

I am also not opposed to having my hypothecs proven wrong.

Hypothesis: Teachers can be a source of information on investing
Hypothesis: Intelligence is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Education is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Cultural capital surrounding wealth accumulation and maintenance is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers tend to come from the upper-middle-class and are highly likely to have this cultural capital surrounding wealth accumulation and maintenance . . . and that is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are *a* source to be specifically targeted for information on investing (due to likelihood of possessing cultural capital, and the ease of access)

I am a bit shocked that folks do not take these as a given.

IQ is *a* test for intelligence, not the only one.

"Can be a source" may be technically true, but at that point its such a broad hypothesis that its useless for actually making a decision or acting on. What you really need to do is demonstrate that theyre a good source. Furthermore, you have a huge problem with seeing two groups overlap a little bit here and assuming that there must be causation. How many millionaires are teachers? How many of those actually earned their money rather than inheriting it or marrying into it? And of those, how many actually earned their wealth as the only contributor? Its a lot easier to pool together a million dollars if you have three or four people all putting their money in the same fund, but "find three other people willing to share their money with you" is probably not practical advice.

[Chen]

I am also not opposed to having my hypothecs proven wrong.

Hypothesis: Teachers can be a source of information on investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are intelligent
Hypothesis: Intelligence is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are educated
Hypothesis: Education is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Cultural capital surrounding wealth accumulation and maintenance is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers tend to come from the upper-middle-class and are highly likely to have this cultural capital surrounding wealth accumulation and maintenance . . . and that is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are *a* source to be specifically targeted for information on investing (due to likelihood of possessing cultural capital, and the ease of access)

I am a bit shocked that folks do not take these as a given.

IQ is *a* test for intelligence, not the only one.

You realize I could replace "Teachers" in all those hypotheses with all sorts of different professions and they'd all be equally or more true right? Like "Engineers", or "CPAs" or "Doctors" or "Lawyers"

[Peelee]

You realize I could replace "Teachers" in all those hypotheses with all sorts of different professions and they'd all be equally or more true right? Like "Engineers", or "CPAs" or "Doctors" or "Lawyers"

Also, given that the teachers most people have easy access to are going to be the least educated (bachelors or associates degrees for the most part), and part of the theory is "the more educated one is the greater likelihood they'll be able to give advice on how to get rich," most people will be scraping the bottom of the barrel regardless.

Also, doctorates are pretty infamous for being a "you don't get this because you want to be rich" kind of degree, which undercuts a good part of the claim.

[darkrose50]

Inheriting money can come with information on acquiring or maintaining wealth. Definitely something to keep an eye out for. Keeping an eye out for something is not the same as always expecting it to be there.

Now I would say that there was a higher likelihood of it to be there. It only takes a question "I am interested in learning about investing, what can you tell me about investing?" You might learn something, and I would imagine that the odds of learning something useful would be higher than randomly asking people in society.

I remember a 6th grade housing project that showed me that some people want immediate gratification at the expense of long-term profit and gratification. I remember being wildly confused over these poor choices. basically we could rent a desk, or bid on a desk to rent. Some folks spent their "money" on candy/prizes, and ended up paying future "money" to others who then bought more candy/prizes.

I remember an 8th grade stock buying project where I wanted to invest in Toys' R Us before Christmas (maybe in September or October), my teacher telling me that is not how it works, and I ended up being right. I learned a lot from that teacher, this is likely the only thing I remember him being wrong about. I learned that adults are not always right, and that I might be good/lucky at this investing thing.

I think in 10th grade it just took one lesson from my high-school dean about compound interest for it to stick with me for the rest of my life. That compound interest is no joke. I also learned that some people I knew had parents that invested.

When I was in my mid 20's it just took one conversation with my wife's grandfather to learn that a sound investing theory for a recession is to invest in consumer staples that offer a high dividend. A lifetime of experience, summed up in one conversation. I think that him telling me his story served me well during the great recession.

I am no stock genius, but I do better than most picking sectors based off of politics (seriously just save and invest in the S&P 500). My life wisdom would be to seek out these conversations and experiences in school and out of school. It only takes one conversation to earn a big return. Dismissing teachers out of hand is blasphemy.

You realize I could replace "Teachers" in all those hypotheses with all sorts of different professions and they'd all be equally or more true right? Like "Engineers", or "CPAs" or "Doctors" or "Lawyers"

I would agree with you, that would be true, and okay. Not many kids have access to these though.

[Peelee]

Inheriting money can come with information on acquiring or maintaining wealth.

It can also come with a pony but Im not about to go to the college and assume a few of the teachers are equestrians.

[darkrose50]

It can also come with a pony but Im not about to go to the college and assume a few of the teachers are equestrians.

But if you were raised with ponies, then you would more likely know about ponies. If I had a pony, and I knew someone with a pony, then I would ask them about ponies. Now it could be that they have a stable-hand that does all the pony stuff (and my friend could know nothing), but it could also be that they could end up being a wealth of information about ponies. What would asking hurt?

[Keltest]

But if you were raised with ponies, then you would more likely know about ponies. If I had a pony, and I knew someone with a pony, then I would ask them about ponies. Now it could be that they have a stable-hand that does all the pony stuff (and my friend could know nothing), but it could also be that they could end up being a wealth of information about ponies. What would asking hurt?

Let me put it to you this way. What youre suggesting here is that because somebody works on a farm, they must be knowledgeable about cooking. Never mind that the two skills are unrelated, some of them are good cooks and they work with food, so they must be a reasonable source to ask about cooking, right?

If your goal is to find a good cooking instructor, this is a terrible way of going about it. Its only slightly more effective than literally just asking random people off the street, because what youre selecting for isn't actually related to what youre looking for. If you want to find somebody who has good financial advice, you need to specifically be looking for people who have become wealthy under their own efforts. There is some small overlap with teachers, but theres some small overlap with a lot of different groups. Asking teachers for financial advice is not going to net you any better results than asking carpenters, or plumbers, or electricians, or any other group that isn't defined specifically by the qualities youre looking for. You might luck out and stumble onto somebody who has the answers you want, but it would be exactly that: luck.

[darkrose50]

It is a pretty good bet that a son of a fisherman would know about fishing. Now it is not a sure thing, but it is a good bet.

Same idea with money. Honest to god there are fundamental investing ideas that can be taught with words and example. I learned a lot about money from my folks. Not the stock market, but other things. There are rules, practices, and procedures that are profitable. Just being there growing up with money very may well have influenced their understanding of money.

One conversation with my wife's grandfather helped me out. He set a good example that it could be done too. He was a Forman for a printer. His aunt taught him about investing.

I know I want to let my kids know everything I know about money. It's not much, but it could be enough to help out a little in life.

-----

But really saving and investing in say the S&P 500 is really all it takes.

Money + time + a share of the economy = profit over 10-30 years

As long as you leave it be. Don't mess with it. Don't try to time the market. Don't buy and sell all the time. Save, invest and wait. It will crash and go down 20% to 40% . . . just ride it out . . . the market will go back up.

When you are 10-years away from retirement make sure that you have 5-years (up-to 10-years) of operating expenses in bonds. Let the rest ride. Perhaps do the 70% bonds 30% stocks thing. Perhaps a target retirement date fund.

Money from not working is a thing. It really is, and it is easy. This compound interest thing might just work for me, and it is dirt simple.

[Peelee]

It is a pretty good bet that a son of a fisherman would know about fishing. Now it is not a sure thing, but it is a good bet.

The son of a doctor won't know much about medicine without dedicating a large chunk of schooling towards it. Same for the son of a lawyer. They may have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, though.

But they'll have knowledge about how to invest because if there's one you can trust doctors to do, it's practice medicine invest and teach about investing.

[darkrose50]

The son of a doctor won't know much about medicine without dedicating a large chunk of schooling towards it. Same for the son of a lawyer. They may have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, though.

But they'll have knowledge about how to invest because if there's one you can trust doctors to do, it's practice medicine invest and teach about investing.

It is a reoccurring theme to have multiple generations of doctors (I am not sure how prevalent it is). Think about how much you could learn if you had multiple doctors in the family. Hands down a bonus (I would bet). Evidently it seems common enough that there are parents who are doctors that pressure there kids to become doctors . . . the schools may no longer like this multigenerational doctor stuff as much as they once did (apparently).

Here is something I found quick on Google.

https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2016/09...-children.html

[Peelee]

It is a reoccurring theme to have multiple generations of doctors (I am not sure how prevalent it is). Think about how much you could learn if you had multiple doctors in the family. Hands down a bonus (I would bet).

Why, it's almost as if colleges and medical schools carry crushing debt and doctors are able to carry that burden for their children, along with legacy status to get into said schools and generous donations to the universities. The bonuses are largely financial.

[Xyril]

Hypothesis: Teachers are *a* source to be specifically targeted for information on investing (due to likelihood of possessing cultural capital, and the ease of access)

I am a bit shocked that folks do not take these as a given.

Every hypothesis you state is a reasonable--but not necessarily true one. What shocks me, however, is that you honestly don't seem to notice the substantial daylight between that last hypothesis and all the strong assertions you were making in the first page. Or, for that matter, that you honestly don't seem to understand that much of the criticism is about very specific, specious reasoning that you explicitly articulated (i.e., "1/6 of teachers are millionaires, thus teachers are clearly a good source of information on becoming wealthy.)

[snowblizz]

Funnily enough ran into an article which brings up that some aspects are even genetic (as one component in a mixed bag of circumstances). Inherent factors will affect your upbringing, if your inclination is already towards perceived positive traits you'll get mostly positive feedback which will reinforce those. Parents have a lot less influence than they think. Link (article in Swedish, an it may sit behind a paywall)

And just because someone is going to rant about genetics and predisposition. Me and my brother, same parents, two sides of the save and spend coin.

Who would get fired for talking about compound interest and investing?

A person who is talking about compound interest and investing in a biology class. Or English Lit. Or any number of subjects not related at all. You are aware that teachers have a general goal set to them, usually a nation- or statewide lessonplan. It's not their job to deviate from that. Especially in a place like the USA who are, as I hear teachers complaining, "teaching to the test".
Schools don't have a laissez-fair approach to teaching. Generally. Exceptions do exist, but most public schools have a fairly rigid set up guidelines for what each teacher is allowed to teach. E.g. for something that's super controversial in the USA, sex ed classes. Around here "investing" would probably be decried as "filthy capitalism" if someone would randomly start teaching about investing. Not by all, but still, it would be a departure from the agreed upon lesson plan and am convinced a schoolboard somewhere would have to answer why is this in the lessonplan and if not what business (hah!) does the teacher have teaching it. Angry parents are a teacher's worst nightmare. And I live in a place where teachers are still garner respect for their important contribution to society.

If you want teachers teaching about investing it's going to have to be in an appropriate class. Mathematics is close at hand but it would probably be divorced from any meaningful context. Home economics might be another place. Normally though there's no generalist "stuff that might be important for living in this society" class, but a lot of it is split into discrete subjects. And not quite labelled that way. Could also be it's considered something that should be taught at home.

[Chen]

Do you not have economics class in high school?? Thats crazy...

[Razade]

Do you not have economics class in high school?? Thats crazy...

Some do. Some don't. Sometimes its rolled into other classes. Sometimes its not. Depends on the high school.

[darkrose50]

Every hypothesis you state is a reasonable--but not necessarily true one. What shocks me, however, is that you honestly don't seem to notice the substantial daylight between that last hypothesis and all the strong assertions you were making in the first page. Or, for that matter, that you honestly don't seem to understand that much of the criticism is about very specific, specious reasoning that you explicitly articulated (i.e., "1/6 of teachers are millionaires, thus teachers are clearly a good source of information on becoming wealthy.)

The point here, in this thread, originally was that teachers do not teach you how to be poor. Teachers definitely tend to come from the upper-middle-class and the upper-class. You need money to learn how to manage money via investing. The upper-middle-class and the upper-class are likely to better understand investing money than most. It is easier to learn a skill from someone, than to learn it alone. Doing something and theory crafting are not equal. So advice like: my grandmother says that "when <this> happens, then do <this>" . . . could result in a bunch of money.

Seriously one conversation could be REALLY profitable. You need money to invest. Children learn money habits from their parents. Asking the children on those from the upper-middle-class and the upper-class could result in useful information.

I suppose a point of contention is the notion of what a good source is. I think this is a good source, the opposite of a bad source. I would actively look here because folks going to school are there anyways, and there is a crazy likelihood of the teachers being from a family that understands and has first-hand multi-generational experience with investing.

I suppose a point of contention is how one goes about gathering information on a topic. By no means am I suggesting that you go to one teacher, and follow that teacher's advice. Gather the information, and then compare and contrast it, vet it, talk to others about it, go on a forum and discus it, mull it over, and think about when the information will be valuable.

Seriously this seems rather straight forward. I could just be terrible at explaining things. Look for information on investing. A good place to look is where you are (at school). Look to get experience from those who have done investing. Good people to ask are those from upper-middle-class or upper-class families, because money is needed for investing.

[snowblizz]

Do you not have economics class in high school?? Thats crazy...

Not here no. The closest I can remember getting is secondary school, 16-19 years, had an elective course that IIRC went into some broadstrokes economics. It was found in the history/society/politics range of courses. I had a curriculum filled with extra language, math and physics so couldn't fit it in.
If you want to learn economics you go to business school at university (I did, partly because I realised economics was something I was interested in) or university of applied sciences.

At least not when I went to school. There was also a time when tv news broadcast didn't have economic news. Then it was a seperate segement. Now it's rolled into the regular broadcast usually.

Basically "economics is for filthy business people and they'll sort it out as needed themselves". If I wanted to be glib and American about it.

[darkrose50]

I'd like to see sources on a lot of these claims please. The alleged correlation between IQ and income in particular seems suspect to me, especially given how little value IQ has as an actual measure of intelligence.

IQ is primarily a test that schools (and the military) use to identify who may be an individual with a cognitive disability, or who is likely too much trouble for the military to try and train.

IQ, over all, seems to be a test for problem solving ability and speed. Definitely useful, but not the end-all and be-all. Someone who is a slow methodical thinker who comes up with good ideas could be better to have around than someone with a blazing-quick-troubleshooting-mind, a high IQ, and no good ideas. IQ is a form of intelligence, I guess. It is not intelligence. It just is the en vogue type of intelligence at the moment.

For example vocabulary was once a test for intelligence pre ~1960. Now scoring really well on a vocabulary test could be a form of intelligence, but it is not as widely used, and fell out of favor.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf
"The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades."

I mean give me an iron willpower over IQ (or both if I can have both). Mastering something takes 10,000 hours. I would rather be a master at something profitable and/or useful, then have a high IQ without the willpower to master something useful and/or profitable.

IQ will probably be a factor in success overall, but there are other factors. I mean it is often useful to troubleshoot a problem, and to do so with speed. However these skills are not all one needs to succeed.

Also we all know tests can suck and sometimes idiots write idiot questions. Some folks are not good at taking tests. Some days are off. People get brain-foggy sometimes.

Do you not have economics class in high school?? Thats crazy...

We used to have "Home Economics" as a required class for girls, and then the boys would take "Woodshop".

Home economics would be about budgeting money, buying groceries, cooking, sewing and stuff that is really kind-of sexist. So economics was tossed in with running a home as a housewife, I don't know likely because women were expected to do all the shopping.

I never had a single class that covered this. But we did cover it in various other classes as a lesson here or there.

[Peelee]

IQ is primarily a test that schools (and the military)

I'm gonna ask for a source here. To the best of my knowledge, the US military neither performs nor even accepts IQ tests. I also question where any schools do this, if if so, then how prevalent it is.

[Willie the Duck]

The point here, in this thread, originally was that teachers do not teach you how to be poor.

I don't think others see that as the original point of this thread (actually wasn't the original point that Robert Kiyosaki was a conman?). I think (this is my impression) that we all think that, in the first page of this thread, the point was much more that teachers were specifically a good source of information, and that this movement towards teachers not teaching you to be poor/not being a bad source of information is a later clarification (and thank you, btw, for clarifying your position).

I suppose a point of contention is the notion of what a good source is. I think this is a good source, the opposite of a bad source. I would actively look here because folks going to school are there anyways, and there is a crazy likelihood of the teachers being from a family that understands and has first-hand multi-generational experience with investing.

The point of contention seems more along the whether we're talking about good as in 'the opposite of bad' or as in 'genuinely quite good.'

Seriously this seems rather straight forward. I could just be terrible at explaining things.

I would say you are having trouble explaining yourself (connecting A to B to C, some poor sourcing, plus it was hard to tell for a long time if you were conflating cause and effect), however subject matter is also an issue. Yes, the 'reduced to base form' part of your argument is straightforward-- so straightforward, it is uncontroversial. If you had simply stated, 'Robert Kiyosaki argues that teachers are a bad source of investment advice. I think he's wrong. They are trained to teach, and, compared to the population average, more likely to be upper-middle or upper class and/or come from such families (and thus might have some experiential exposure to the subject),' it'd be so uncontroversial as to simply garner 'yeps' all around. So I think people are looking for subtext, and focusing on whether teachers are particularly good investment SMEs (and I think the consensus is somewhere around, 'better than the Chapter 11 club, but not moreso than most other white collar jobs').

Exceptions do exist, but most public schools have a fairly rigid set up guidelines for what each teacher is allowed to teach. E.g. for something that's super controversial in the USA, sex ed classes. Around here "investing" would probably be decried as "filthy capitalism" if someone would randomly start teaching about investing. Not by all, but still, it would be a departure from the agreed upon lesson plan and am convinced a schoolboard somewhere would have to answer why is this in the lessonplan and if not what business (hah!) does the teacher have teaching it. Angry parents are a teacher's worst nightmare. And I live in a place where teachers are still garner respect for their important contribution to society.
If you want teachers teaching about investing it's going to have to be in an appropriate class. Mathematics is close at hand but it would probably be divorced from any meaningful context. Home economics might be another place. Normally though there's no generalist "stuff that might be important for living in this society" class, but a lot of it is split into discrete subjects. And not quite labelled that way. Could also be it's considered something that should be taught at home.

Basically "economics is for filthy business people and they'll sort it out as needed themselves". If I wanted to be glib and American about it.

When/where in America are investing and capitalism poo-pooed? We're a capitalist nation, one of the most capitalist and one where, without going into real-world politics very far, most deviations from capitalism are controversial at least. I mean, sure there was a brief period in the mid-90s where business types where vaguely 'the man' and something to resist becoming as a young person (I recall movies like Reality Bites belittling business types and people who drove around in BMWs), but that seems pretty tame compared to labelling investment classes 'filthy capitalism.'

[darkrose50]

Sometimes I need to better explain things, and not assume that others know what I am talking about.

I don't think others see that as the original point of this thread (actually wasn't the original point that Robert Kiyosaki was a conman?). I think (this is my impression) that we all think that, in the first page of this thread, the point was much more that teachers were specifically a good source of information, and that this movement towards teachers not teaching you to be poor/not being a bad source of information is a later clarification (and thank you, btw, for clarifying your position).

The point of contention seems more along the whether we're talking about good as in 'the opposite of bad' or as in 'genuinely quite good.'

A good place to go and look for knowledge on the subject due to proximity and probability of multi-generational experience. A source that I would not write-off. A source that I have used personally.

I would say you are having trouble explaining yourself (connecting A to B to C, some poor sourcing, plus it was hard to tell for a long time if you were conflating cause and effect), however subject matter is also an issue. Yes, the 'reduced to base form' part of your argument is straightforward-- so straightforward, it is uncontroversial. If you had simply stated, 'Robert Kiyosaki argues that teachers are a bad source of investment advice. I think he's wrong. They are trained to teach, and, compared to the population average, more likely to be upper-middle or upper class and/or come from such families (and thus might have some experiential exposure to the subject),' it'd be so uncontroversial as to simply garner 'yeps' all around. So I think people are looking for subtext, and focusing on whether teachers are particularly good investment SMEs (and I think the consensus is somewhere around, 'better than the Chapter 11 club, but not moreso than most other white collar jobs').

Multigenerational wealth is a feedback loop. It is both a cause and an effect. The money itself is damned useful to buy one towards success (not a sure thing, but damned useful . . . like crazy damned useful). The skills on how to manage money, and invest money are damned useful as well. So having a parent with money helps, and having a parent teach good money and investment skills also helps.

Money [cause] = helpful [effect]

Learning about making money [cause] = making money [effect] = money [cause] = helpful [effect]

Heck you could switch cause/effect, or put an and/or in there.

When/where in America are investing and capitalism poo-pooed? We're a capitalist nation, one of the most capitalist and one where, without going into real-world politics very far, most deviations from capitalism are controversial at least. I mean, sure there was a brief period in the mid-90s where business types where vaguely 'the man' and something to resist becoming as a young person (I recall movies like Reality Bites belittling business types and people who drove around in BMWs), but that seems pretty tame compared to labelling investment classes 'filthy capitalism.'

Yeah he wrote the book some 20-years ago, and “the man” is keeping you poor by having teachers teach you things like jobs are not bad. Seriously he says that those with jobs are the parasites, and those with money, not paying taxes, are the true heroes.

[lio45]

You realize I could replace "Teachers" in all those hypotheses with all sorts of different professions and they'd all be equally or more true right? Like "Engineers", or "CPAs" or "Doctors" or "Lawyers"

Actually there's a statistically much richer group than teachers that you should ask for advice on the basis that they're rich: lottery winners.

[Peelee]

A good place to go and look for knowledge on the subject due to proximity and probability of multi-generational experience.... Multigenerational wealth is a feedback loop. It is both a cause and an effect. The money itself is damned useful to buy one towards success (not a sure thing, but damned useful . . . like crazy damned useful). The skills on how to manage money, and invest money are damned useful as well.

Wealth seeker: "Hey, do you have any advice on how to invest money?"
Wealthy teacher: "Sure, how much money do you have?"
Wealth seeker: "I live paycheck to paycheck."
Wealthy teacher: "Well, literally everything i know requires a healthy amount of start-up capital at the absolute least. Come back when you have a few hundred thousand and we can start from there, OK?"

Helpful!

[Keltest]

Actually there's a statistically much richer group than teachers that you should ask for advice on the basis that they're rich: lottery winners.

That depends on how much later you ask them after they win. I believe that lottery winners, in particular, actually have a significant trend of hemorrhaging money specifically due to their lack of financial management skills.

[darkrose50]

Actually there's a statistically much richer group than teachers that you should ask for advice on the basis that they're rich: lottery winners.

Lottery winners would likely not have the cultural capital on money and/or investing. You would need to be a from a family that knows how to use money, grow up around the concepts, and see examples for this to be useful (that is basically what cultural capital is).

Unless you were one of those groups who would routinely win due to math and an oddball game. Basically sometimes the rules would change and they were almost guaranteed to win, and playing the lottery was crazy super profitable for them.

Now learning how someone made money first hand could also be the way to go, if you could replicate it in whole or in part.