Hacker News Reader

Comment by zaptheimpaler | Hacker News Reader

The g factor is predictive of performance in jobs and income though. Even in your own example, yes we could make a test that involves running and throwing, and yes it would be predictive of performance in various sports. One of the tests for aerobic capacity is called VO2max. It is a number with units mL/g/min. Like IQ, this is not the only factor but it does have predictive power.

View on HN

The result of a test can be predictive of job performance simply because the result of /any/ test would be predictive of it, because it shows you're willing and able to take and complete tests. This does not mean the score on a specific test is "real".

Minimal example: if you gave a test to a living person and a corpse, only one of them would finish it, and that one would also have a higher income.

Also note the "highest intelligence" jobs don't always have the highest income, like academia, but rather involve taking lots of tests as a prerequisite.

How would that test do at predicting achievement in archery? How about curling? Are those not "real" sports, or is athleticism a squishy human concept rather than an objectively measurable value?

The amount of strength to draw an archery bow, and steady ones body, would be closely related to strength and VO2Max - with O2 being required for both muscle activity and holding ones breath. And curling is a highly phsyical sport, and for sweepers () its very similar to a full body sprint for each hurl.
There are plenty of metrics you can use to quantify someones atheletic capability, not least of which is your bodies ability to hold and transport oxygen.

() I don't know the technical term, but the point stands.

This study found a correlation between VO2max and archery performance of 0.68 https://aassjournal.com/browse.php?a_id=897&slc_lang=en&sid=...

As noted in the study, the largest influence they tested for archery performance was height. I'd bet a large sum of money that height is also a strong positive influence on many sports (eg basketball), similar to how G is an influence on many cognitive 'sports' like occupations. We can easily measure height and most would have no trouble believing that (largely genetic) factor greatly influences athletic performance. Why is IQ so different?

Wonder if it's likewise applicable to snooker.

Didn't take much googling:

https://aassjournal.com/browse.php?a_id=897&slc_lang=en&sid=...

I didn't see any specific research related to curling, but it is definitely a fairly high peak intensity activity that demands a high level of fitness:

https://curlnoca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Curling-Heart...

Well i listed 2 activities, you could certainly add more to the test. Just as we add many questions to an IQ test.

Even if the test doesn't predict performance in every single sport, that doesn't mean it has zero predictive power in all sports.

---

Similarly, I'm not saying IQ is destiny or even the largest factor in any given endeavour, its not. But its equally wrong to say its not a factor at all. It is somewhere in the middle.

Like most metrics, it doesn't capture the entirety of the squishy concept as you say, but it does capture something about it.

I think we understand this in many other areas. Look at PE ratio or revenue growth for a stock, look at goals on target for a football striker, VO2max or running economy for a runner, mileage for a car. IQ is understandably more controversial but the concept is the same.

Is g factor more predictive of income than the financial class of the family you were born into?

Why not just associate intelligence with how wealthy your parents are and call it done?

> Is g factor more predictive of income than the financial class of the family you were born into?

No, but it predicts variation that is not explained by family wealth.

> Why not just associate intelligence with how wealthy your parents are and call it done?

Because they are separate factors with distinct contributions.

that something is predictive does not mean it measures something else. Nobody will argue with you that IQ tests are predictive of some things, but it still doesn't measure intelligence. It measures something, whatever that something is, that has some predictive power on some other things

Reply on news.ycombinator.com