The claim for g is that it is by far the best single intellectual performance indicator. That is not the same as the idea that it accounts for most of the variation. There could be lots of variation that is governed by many small factors—each of low significance.
From the cited page:
“Arthur Jensen claims that although the correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4” …and… “Daniel Seligman cites an IQ income correlation of 0.5″
I am not entirely sure about the implicit idea that people’s aim in life is to make lots of money either. Surely it is more reasonable to expect intelligent people—especially women—to trade off making income against making babies—in which case, this metric is not a very fair way of measuring their abilities, because it poorly represents their goals.
The claim for g is that it is by far the best single intellectual performance indicator. That is not the same as the idea that it accounts for most of the variation. There could be lots of variation that is governed by many small factors—each of low significance.
From the cited page:
“Arthur Jensen claims that although the correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4” …and… “Daniel Seligman cites an IQ income correlation of 0.5″
I am not entirely sure about the implicit idea that people’s aim in life is to make lots of money either. Surely it is more reasonable to expect intelligent people—especially women—to trade off making income against making babies—in which case, this metric is not a very fair way of measuring their abilities, because it poorly represents their goals.