3 ms·
Also IQ seems structured this way, but even more heritable and almost nothing to do with shared environment. Incidentally IQ is also strongly correlated with l
by eloff 7y ago
Also IQ seems structured this way, but even more heritable and almost nothing to do with shared environment.
Incidentally IQ is also strongly correlated with lifetime earnings. In fact if you can know only one thing about a job candidate, it's the measure you should pick.
- NateEag 7y agoA candidate that will earn a lot of money is not what you're looking for when hiring. You want someone who will do the work well and will help the company succeed. Indeed, you could argue that a high earner is, all else being equal, something you should avoid selecting as a hiring manager.
- jdavis703 7y agoThis means the manager needs to correctly align employee incentives. For example pay sales people a commission or give employees shares. This is business school 101.
- NateEag 7y agoI do not believe a person's salary history gives you any useful information about their effectiveness as an employee. I have worked with people who had higher salaries than I did who were clearly much worse at the job (a backend architect at a past gig told me that UTF-8 supported only 256 characters, and refused to acknowledge it when I pointed out sources that showed he was wrong).
- krageon 7y agoAm I correct in reading this as you making the claim that your salary is not directly (or even at all) commensurate with your contribution to the company?
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoThe claim was only that hiring by previous income is not commensurate with contribution at the new job.
- eloff 7y agoSorry, I see how that can be confusing that I switched topics like that. I mean IQ is the best single measure predictor of success on the job. It's also strongly correlated with lifetime earnings. And it should surprise nobody that success on the job and lifetime earnings are very tightly coupled.
- Symmetry 7y agoIt has almost nothing to do with shared environment in the wealthy first world countries we study this in. But malnutrition, disease, and other factors can certainly have large effects. The introduction of iodized salt in the US raised IQs by 10 points in certain areas where people's diets and water were sufficiently iodine-deficient.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoAnd the 'free lunch program' raised public health/reduced malnutrition by a large factor when introduced in the US. Urban legend has it that the military mandated it because of poor WWII conscript health, but free lunch predated that by 50 years. It was a federal act only after WWII because of scarcity and the decline of local programs.
- eloff 7y agoYes, that's an excellent point. The socioeconomic status of your parents is a big influence up to a point. In developed counties we don't see this effect as much because it's the baseline. Almost everybody gets sufficient nutrition and medical care to meet the very low standards where it would otherwise negatively affect your intelligence and development.