So my thoughts on this exercise is that interpreting correlation magnitudes is flawed unless they’re quite far apart (which these are not).
I think this is not as simple, but I agree with the trust of your argument. The closer the magnitudes of the correlation coefficients (or anything for that matter), the more resilient the estimates have to be for one to conclude one is robustly higher/lower than the other.
We find national IQ to be the “best predictor” of economic growth, with a higher average coefficient and average posterior inclusion probability than all other tested variables (over 67) in every test run. Our best estimates find a one point increase in IQ is associated with a 7.8% increase in GDP per capita, above Jones and Schneider’s estimate of 6.1%.
I have only read the abstract, and so do not have any views on how trustworthy their conclusion is.
I think this is not as simple, but I agree with the trust of your argument. The closer the magnitudes of the correlation coefficients (or anything for that matter), the more resilient the estimates have to be for one to conclude one is robustly higher/lower than the other.
Meanwhile, the article National Intelligence and Economic Growth: A Bayesian Update has been brought to my attention. It claims that:
I have only read the abstract, and so do not have any views on how trustworthy their conclusion is.