>>8988729Hogwash and wishful thinking, mostly.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10888691.2014.983635Hundreds of studies prior to the 1970s reported that correlations between IQ tests and job performance were low (approximately 0.2–0.3) and variable, sometimes even negative. Then some folks pushing for IQ based filtering "corrected" that data in rather arbitrary ways, and came up with their own numbers, magically doubling the correlations. Pretty much all the "predictive" IQ statements made since then are all based on a single, very flawed, study. Then you get into shit like the Fortune 500 claim, that simply ignore the fact that their IQ's are actually average for their demographic.
Which is all odd, as one would assume people who are better at pattern recognition and memory would do better at school and thus do better in the job market, but those two factors alone seem to be rather marginal in the grand scheme of things, probably because it's a narrow range of things to test for to begin with, and tested for in a very narrow fashion, even within that already narrow scope.
It's basically akin to stating that folks who can read the top E on the chart have 20x20 vision, do better in school as a result, while ignoring the fact that glasses exist.
Psychometry is a combination of social statistics and psychology - two things that, under any other circumstance, /sci/ will insist aren't science.
