> If that's your strategy then I'm screwd, I was always too slow on IQ tests.
Right, this approach would just select those people who are good at completing IQ tests. Which is a pretty common criticism of IQ tests.
Right, this approach would just select those people who are good at completing IQ tests. Which is a pretty common criticism of IQ tests.
There is broad clinical and professional consensus that IQ tests are both statistically reliable and valid for a number of generally useful measurements of cognitive ability.
I think you can make a compelling case that IQ tests can be misused as a hiring filter - for example, you might not need to hire people who score highly on it. But as a standalone assessment, modern literature doesn't leave much room for debate on its psychometric merit.
____________________________________________
1. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf
IQ has a higher correlation with future income than parent's earnings. If you had a choice between having 99th percentile IQ and being born into the 1% you'd be better off taking the IQ. The issue is that because IQ is highly heritable many in the 1% tend to be intelligent as well so the rich get richer.
It's important to note here that we're not discussing the well-off, two vacations a year types here, we're talking about the 1%. I would be extremely surprised if the correlation between your future earnings and your parents' earnings (if they are 1%) weren't -a lot- stronger than your having a 99th percentile IQ. Any sources?
I'm sorry, do you have a citation for this? I find this highly suspect. Everything I know about money and power and society suggests the reasons the rich get richer are money, power, and society. Nothing to do with IQ. This idea that the poor are poor because they are dumb is something rich people (who don't want you to be rich) want you to believe.