4 ms·
If you don't control for IQ, the observation is useless.
by neetdeth 7y ago
If you don't control for IQ, the observation is useless.
- lowdose 7y agoIQ is a vanity measure at best. Look at a site as brainstats this would imply if you control for IQ it would rule out people from whole continents. https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html
- cambalache 7y agoAre you really quoting a sketchy website based on the risible work of Vanhanen and Lynn?
- neetdeth 7y agoThat's not how controlling for a variable works. You don't "rule out people" - the question you need to answer is whether a college education makes people more successful than would be predicted by IQ alone, and if so, by how much? Is your contention also that SAT/ACT are vanity measures? The correlation between IQ and ACT is very strong, or in other words they are both strongly g-loaded and are good measures for general intelligence. http://iapsych.com/iqmr/koening2008.pdf http://iapsych.com/iqmr/koening2008.pdf We also have ample evidence that general intelligence correlates with economic success: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.004 http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.004 Vanity measure, my foot. Given that institutions of higher education aggressively select for high-scoring SAT/ACT individuals, and thus high IQ individuals, the burden of proof is on them to show that a degree results in significant socioeconomic success that cannot be explained by the preexisting psychometric attributes of the college bound population.
- scottlocklin 7y agoIt's possible for a group to have more smart people despite lower mean IQ; I learned that in college (hint; it's about the variance). Anyway, college is basically a badly formulated IQ test and DEFINITELY a vanity measure. I mean it costs a hell of a lot more.