In the research literature, IQ is typically linked to outcomes with a correlation of about 0.4 to 0.5.
Mixed Partly true and partly false in roughly equal measure.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
Judged as of 2023-09-02. The claim, given with some hedging, is that the research literature typically finds IQ correlated with life outcomes (such as job performance, education and income) at roughly r = 0.4–0.5. True: major reviews and meta-analyses (for example Strenze 2007, Schmidt & Hunter) report typical correlations around 0.4–0.5 between IQ and key outcomes such as job performance or educational attainment. Mostly true: typical correlations fall roughly in 0.3–0.6, with 0.4–0.5 representative for the main outcomes but lower for some others. Mixed: the 0.4–0.5 range holds for some major outcomes (for example education) but typical figures for others (for example income) are clearly lower, around 0.2–0.3, so the claim is about half right as a 'typical' figure. Mostly false: most reported correlations are well below 0.4, with 0.4–0.5 found only for a narrow outcome or corrected estimates stated as typical. False: the literature typically reports correlations far from that range (for example below 0.2) or no meaningful link.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (4)
-
E1 Intelligence and Socioeconomic Success: A Meta-Analytic Review of Longitudinal Research. ERIC (record of Strenze 2007, Intelligence v35 n5, Elsevier) · 2007
“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.”
-
E2 IQ and Income: What 739 Jobs Reveal | IQ Career Lab IQ Career Lab · 1 January 2025
“Across decades of longitudinal research, the pooled correlation between IQ and income is about r = 0.20 (Strenze, 2007), which sits between two earlier meta-analytic estimates, 0.15 (Bowles et al., 2001) and 0.27 (Ng et al., 2005).”
-
E3 IQ and Income: What 739 Jobs Reveal | IQ Career Lab IQ Career Lab · 1 January 2025
“A large 2024 re-analysis put the tie between general cognitive ability and job performance near r = 0.22 once corrected for unreliability and range restriction, about 0.16 as observed (Sackett et al., 2024).”
-
E4 IQ and Income: What 739 Jobs Reveal | IQ Career Lab IQ Career Lab · 1 January 2025
“and it sits well below the classic 0.51 that ruled textbooks for a generation.”
Reasoning
E2 cites Strenze's (2007) meta-analysis as finding a pooled IQ–income correlation of about r = 0.20, with other meta-analytic estimates of 0.15 and 0.27. All of these are well below 0.4–0.5. E4 calls 0.51 the "classic" figure that "ruled textbooks for a generation," which by context with E3 means the link between cognitive ability and job performance. So the claimed range matched a widely cited figure for at least one major outcome as of 2023. E1 calls intelligence a powerful predictor but gives no figures. The 2024 re-analysis in E3 came after the judging date, so it is not used. The evidence fits the "mixed" criterion: 0.4–0.5 holds for one major outcome, while the typical figure for income is clearly lower, around 0.2.
Cite this claim
Marc Andreessen, “In the research literature, IQ is typically linked to outcomes with a correlation of about 0.4 to 0.5.” (said 2 September 2023). Verdict: mixed. Reliability API, claim c_13194a663c22, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_13194a663c22
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Marc Andreessen
-
Mostly true
“Like, almost nothing is 40% causative on anything out of a very small number of exceptions.”
Almost nothing is 40% causative of anything, apart from a very small number of exceptions.
-
Mostly false
“We know one-to-one tutoring can reliably increase education outcomes by two standard deviations (the Bloom two-sigma effect)”
-
Mixed
“It just can’t have been AI.”
-
Mixed
“Basically, within less than 12 months, four or five Chinese companies have caught up to the industry front - line.”
-
Mostly true
“Here's the key: What's happening to the price of AI? It's dropping faster than Moore's Law.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.