Joined: June 2009
|Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 07 2011,08:57)|
|The universe implodes as DeNudes opines on IQ, snatching an illustration from the Wikipedia article on IQ, uncredited. |
That article also states:
"The American Psychological Association's report 'Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns' states that wherever it has been studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence tend to learn more of what is taught in school than their lower-scoring peers. The correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50. This means that the explained variance is 25%."
"The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6. The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods were controlled for. While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function, IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations."
"The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about quarter of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes."
There are many caveats; academic performance, job performance and income are all complexly and multiply determined. IQ has a relationship with each of them, stronger in some instances than in others.
From this DeNudes concludes:
|within a normal range - there is no systematic relationship between IQ and achievement.|
Isn't the data skewed because a lot of the high IQ people were not interested in "achieving". I've met a lot of very smart people who were contented with a job that gave them enough resources to follow their own passions.