So your reference prevails over other theories that a unipolar, numerical score is a great predictor of "success" )in what field -- adolescents in academia, the white collar world as it's now structured, etc.?) Like I said, I've never met anyone personally who claims to have any IQ lower than 140. That includes my deadbeat dad. Someone's lying somewhere.
And: Who's taking these tests past adolescence, and why are they even taking them, for Christ's sake? I was giving my Stanford-Binet by state's orders because I refused to go to school at age 11. So do Wharton business dudes take them now for shits and giggles? They costs hundreds to take in a proper way -- unless forced on you by the state, as it was me. I guess some adults want to spend $300 to find out their IQ score -- on a scale that'll be revised or recalibrated a decade or so later. Why? I dunno. Gets'em laid?
Like I said, cultural pissing contest, mainly. And, also like I said, social scientists get awfully defensive of this stuff.
-B.
Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> This is a well establishing finding. One relevant
meta-analysis:
>
> Hunter, J.E. and Hunter, R.F. (1984). Validity and
utility of alternate predictors of job performance.
Psychological Bulletin, 96(1):72-98.
>
> If you go back to Binet around 1900, yes, his test
was originally developed to identify children with
"learning problems". However, shortly after that, in
the early 1900s, psychometricians like Terman began
arguing that IQ score = intelligence in the general
population.
>
> Miles