No, IQ tests aren’t really used in making HR decisions, but intelligence has a large effect upon a number of factors in one’s life. More intelligent people are more likely to go to college, go to better colleges, earn better grades in college, go on to more competitive post-graduate programs, more likely to produce exceptional results in the working world, and I don’t think it’s really much of a stretch to say that smarter people tend to make more money.
It’s possible to make money by being smart. But agree or disagree with the following statement: “My boss, who makes three times what I do, is a fargin’ genius!”
But not as much as the VP they answer to. The VP did not get his job by being a better engineer. Someone who is better at being an engineer is more likely to be an engineer.
My boss is at least 150% as smart as me, and makes WAY more than 3X. I guess he technically would have to be a fargin’ genius, but the term is overused.
I didn’t say stupid, so if someone is promoting that stereotype you should reply to them.
What intelligence do the tests that were used for this study measure? It’s not measuring the most important types of intelligence for financial success. Your mastery of the social graces* gets you promoted. You can be a genius and it won’t matter if you’re not able to present yourself, not as a genius but as someone who can handle the responsibility.
*No, I don’t mean manners. There are all sorts of social graces, and very few of them are found in Emily Post.
And why is a mastery of “social graces” not a form of intelligence?
Intelligence is a poorly defined term, and it’s used in a very limited way by the general public. I know I’ve been harping on this lately, but the existence of an independent, measurable quantity called “intelligence” (called g for general intelligence in psychology) is not uncontroversial. The evidence in favor of g is that it appears that there’s a certain amount of correlation between various different cognitive skills. For instance, people who are good at math are a bit more likely to have good verbal skills, and vice versa. Those things only hold true on the average, though. And since this measurement is not based on some independent quantity but rather on correlations between things that are more directly measurable, it’s rather arbitrary and ultimately, very difficult to justify deciding that the particular innate skills that make someone a good engineer are “intelligence” while those that make a good CEO are something else. After all, a great engineer and a great writer most likely don’t have very similar skills, but both are liable to be called “intelligent”. Why wouldn’t a business executive count as intelligent as well? (Though I would venture that most of the successful probably have a great deal of the more usual kinds of “intelligence” as well.)
Indeed. Despite the popular perceptions of “nerds and geeks,” intelligence in a math, science, language, and general book lernnin’ sense correlates with social skills. PErhaps not at the extreme upper ends of the intelligence scale, but the overally correlation is a positive one.
I never said it wasn’t. I said it wasn’t what the study measured, or correlated to financial success.
Absolutely. Two measurable variables.
I don’t define one as intelligence and the other not, I’m saying that the social intelligence that you need to be a manager is not intelligence that we measure with these tests. I don’t believe that this correlates to SAT scores, or results on other intelligence testing. I have not seen any evidence that it does.
Of course I get the study. They are saying short people are less intelligent and therefore earn less. They do not say unfair discrimination is not taking place as you assert. They say their thesis provides an alternative to expalanations that relay on pure discrimination as the cause for the discrepency.
But I can see any number of reasons to be skeptical of their conclusion that “taller people… are smarter.” (Though this is hardly a new conclusion. Men under 5’3" were prohibited from serving in the British army during World War 1 because they were presumed to lack the intellectual capacity for the service).
One could make a similar argument with say, Hispanics. We know hispanics score far lower than whites on standardized tests (such as those given to school children) at various age points. So we could conclude that white people are smarter. That would cause a maelstrom of controversy, however, and people would rightly point out that there are mitigating factors involved and one cannot reasonably conclude that Hispanics are less smart than whites based upon such standardized data.
Yet with this study we have far less data and it is being taken here as gospel truth. The study is too new to have been pier reviewed. I doubt any serious follow-up will be done for a long time with it either. It’s not like this has a good chance of appearing in JAMA. What happened to skepticism around here?
The authors spend a good deal of time using the importance of nutrition in the study, yet the data samples they employ make no allowance for nutritional variation. The data makes no attempt to seperate genetically short people from those whose shortness was caused by deprivation. A rather important point to sort out before making such a sweeping statement like “tall people… are smarter.”
Seems to me that the British Army might reject short candidates because they’d be assumed to be physically, not mentally, weak, and might not fit standard uniform/equipment sizes.
But, you’re welcome to provide evidence otherwise.
