LinkedinLunatics

5047 readers

28 users here now

A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com

(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

csm10495@sh.itjust.works

crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz

243

"Superior" level (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 days ago by alphacyberranger@sh.itjust.works to c/linkedinlunatics@sh.itjust.works

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

This is a good point to bring up, but this correlation is still being debated: the causal connection between the IQ test and the correlation is unclear, and there is debate on whether the correlation is being constructed through bad data or analysis techniques. Because of this, no one can confidently claim whether IQ tests predicts good job performance, employment, etc.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4557354/

[Skip to the conclusion at the end to get the tldr, since this is a long scientific publication]

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

Thanks for the study. I agree on all points. This is the challenge with sociological research: it is unethical to conduct controlled studies. We will never have controlled IQ research. The study suggests we continue to perform better quality primary research, and I fully agree. Until then, as per the data in the study, the correlative evidence remains compelling. At least as far as sociological research goes.

I tend to think this research is more compelling and useful at the macro level. We should bear in mind that the correlative coefficient between IQ and income is only between 0.2 and 0.4. There are many other factors which also impact outcomes.