|
0 members (),
254
guests, and
34
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,478
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,478 |
Good link, kmbunday, it's nice to know Terman was aware of the problem with the wagging tail.
To illustrate part of this numerical problem with an IQ, SB5 used a normative sample of 4800 people. Which gives about a 50% chance of the sample including 1 person with an IQ of 150 or above. And to make the sample even more hardly relevant for HG+ kids, it includes a full range of ages from 2 to 85.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
On average, intelligent people are more productive How are you defining "productive"? What is your proof of this claim?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3 |
On average, intelligent people are more productive How are you defining "productive"? What is your proof of this claim? Intelligence would not be so highly valued if it did not make people more productive. Here is a paper documenting my assertion. http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci708/cdocs/Schmidt_Hunter_2004.pdf General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance Frank L. Schmidt University of Iowa John Hunter Michigan State University The psychological construct of general mental ability (GMA), introduced by C. Spearman (1904) nearly 100 years ago, has enjoyed a resurgence of interest and attention in recent decades. This article presents the research evidence that GMA predicts both occupational level attained and performance within one’s chosen occupation and does so better than any other ability, trait, or disposition and better than job experience. The sizes of these relationships with GMA are also larger than most found in psychological research. Evidence is presented that weighted combinations of specific aptitudes tailored to individual jobs do not predict job performance better than GMA alone, disconfirming specific aptitude theory. A theory of job performance is described that explicates the central role of GMA in the world of work. These findings support Spearman’s proposition that GMA is of critical importance in human affairs
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
Having looked at that study, it seems that by "productivity," you mean "job performance as rated by supervisors." Not the same thing, in my book! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1 |
I think this paper harkens us back to earlier points made in this thread about the danger of making inferences in the tails of statistical distributions from statistics derived about the sample mean. The highest median "IQ" for a profession is 128, and ranges for all the professions included capture the ~140+ spectrum at the upper end.
Aquinas spitballing...
If I may, can I please restate what I think your underlying (unspoken) thought process is? I come from an economics and business background, so human capital theory is dear to my heart.
I get where you're coming from. From your posts, it sounds like you're attributing an aggregate theory of diminishing marginal returns to human capital to a specific subset of the population, namely gifties. But, the correlations and concavity of earnings in ability (loosely proxies by educational attainment and/or profession) from that literature are derived from the broad calibration sample. They carry no meaning for particular population subsets because they weren't derived *in entirety* from those subsets.
ETA: Per ultramarina's point, I've had average job evaluations by an old boss who didn't understand my work. I wouldn't say perceived productivity is a good proxy for actual productivity, especially when the group of interest is one whose expected ability outstrips the average ability of managers.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 36
Junior Member
|
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 36 |
Here's a link to a FAQ about company hiring procedures that includes a reference to the Schmidt and Hunter paper, along with more recent literature. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4613543 Note that because most companies do NOT hire on the basis of IQ (especially so in the United States), it is often not the case that the highest-paid persons are the smartest persons, even in the same company and the same job classification. There are definite individual advantages to having higher rather than lower IQ, and the secular increase in IQ scores over the last century http://www.psychometrics.cam.ac.uk/news.13.htm has probably been good for all the countries that have enjoyed it, but that's not at all to say that IQ cannot be swamped by other factors in setting the income of particular families, especially the younger members of those families whose well being is influenced by the choices of their elders.
"Students have no shortcomings, they have only peculiarities." Israel Gelfand
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3 |
The issue of socioeconomic status (and social mobility) in relation to IQ is an empirical issue, and it is investigated empirically from time to time. An old article that I somehow missed at the time of publication, but which I coincidentally saw while searching for something else a few days ago, mentions some of the other influences on socioeconomic status besides IQ (that is, "controlling for IQ") in one study sample. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11711-smarter-people-are-no-better-off.htmlThat article confirms my assertion that IQ and income are positively correlated: On the surface, Zagorsky's analysis confirms the findings of previous studies linking higher intelligence with higher income. "Each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year," he says. For example, a person with a score of 130 (in the top 2%, in terms of IQ) might earn about $12,000 more per year than someone with an average IQ score of about 100.
On the surface, people with higher intelligence scores also had greater wealth. The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100.
But when Zagorsky controlled for other factors - such as divorce, years spent in school, type of work and inheritance - he found no link between IQ and net worth. In fact, people with a slightly above-average IQ of 105 , had an average net worth higher than those who were just a bit smarter, with a score of 110. Finding no link between IQ and wealth (rather than income) when controlling for educational attainment and type of work is not very meaningful, because IQ is a major determining factor of educational attainment and the type of work one does. Yes, if you have a drop out of high school and work your whole life in a low-skilled job, you probably won't be wealthy, but high-IQ people tend not to be high school dropouts working their whole lives at low-skilled jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3 |
Here's a link to a FAQ about company hiring procedures that includes a reference to the Schmidt and Hunter paper, along with more recent literature. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4613543 Note that because most companies do NOT hire on the basis of IQ (especially so in the United States), it is often not the case that the highest-paid persons are the smartest persons, even in the same company and the same job classification. Some management consulting and financial firms ask candidates for SAT scores, a proxy for IQ. The most prestigious colleges stay that way by using the SAT/ACT filter. The most prestigious law schools use the LSAT, and law firms that hire only from certain law schools are using the LSAT filter. Companies that require candidates to have a bachelor's degree are screening for IQ and persistence. So do companies that require a high school diploma, at a lower level. The U.S. military, a big employer, screens out the bottom 1/3 of the IQ distribution using the AFQT: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/04/almost-100-million-people-arent-smart.html Almost 100 million people aren't smart enough to enlist in the military by Steve Sailer April 10, 2013 .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Finding no link between IQ and wealth (rather than income) when controlling for educational attainment and type of work is not very meaningful, because IQ is a major determining factor of educational attainment and the type of work one does. No. The finding is HIGHLY illuminating, because it shows that individuals with divergent IQs but similar SES backgrounds make the same amount. This shows that SES matters more than IQ. You're just ignoring this because it's inconvenient to your argument, and repeating an assumption you have been unable to support. It's not like we needed a study, though, because this point is self-evident on this site. Raising high-IQ children is EXPENSIVE, and failure to provide certain interventions can set these children up for failure. For a family that can't afford the investments in time and resources...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
No. The finding is HIGHLY illuminating, because it shows that individuals with divergent IQs but similar SES backgrounds make the same amount. This shows that SES matters more than IQ. You're just ignoring this because it's inconvenient to your argument, and repeating an assumption you have been unable to support. Career track matters more than IQ. Ideally, you want to be a dermatologist and you don't need to have a top 2% I.Q. to be a dermatologist. I'm filing this under "things that are obvious."
|
|
|
|
|
