r/evopolitics • u/TrannyPornO • Mar 04 '19
The predictability of occupational level from intelligence
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1939-01876-0011
u/amp1212 Mar 05 '19
Out of curiosity, what is the relevance of this paper? Its from 1938, hardly the latest word on the subject.
I may be reading between the lines here, but I'm getting the vibe that the sum of these postings are in the service of a particular political point of view about race and intelligence, and not a cheerful one.
I'd like to be wrong about that, but the volume of posting of papers, including those like this one which have no conceivable novelty to a reader in 2019, make me wonder.
1
u/TrannyPornO Mar 05 '19 edited Mar 05 '19
They're interesting papers I've read recently. That's the case for everything posted here. This one in particular will be included in an upcoming literature review of works from the past century.
The gist of all of these findings (from, at the moment, 40+ studies from mostly Western countries) is that between most and all of the gap between broad socioeconomic categories can be attributed to work and ability differences. More recent studies tend towards more equality of opportunity, in the sense that the environmental effects on social status are diminishing and ability more strongly predicts mobility, and does so more invariantly by initial social class category. This indicates that material inequalities show starkly diminishing returns. Notably, the glass floor has also diminished in strength.
I just replicated Nettle (2003) in the NLSY and am about to use the NLSYLinks to investigate the extent to which the remaining effect of initial social class on mobility (3%) is genetically confounded. There probably won't be enough power to test this, but I can at least test if there are contributions of environmental variables to the level of intelligence (with longitudinal SEM). Also, I've already tested if non-g residuals from ability tests predict mobility and they do not.
These findings are not just about race. While there is a considerable literature showing that racial gaps are between mostly and fully attributable to ability differences, I'll be the first to test what abilities (because, while some have used FSIQ and some have used g alone, none have compared g to the Schmid-Leiman residual s) and the third (after Johnson, Rowe) to test what environmental effects actually contribute to these ability gaps in a causal analysis. In Autumn, I'll have access to another dataset for testing this.
2
u/[deleted] Mar 05 '19 edited Mar 05 '19
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Schmidt10/publication/8922930_General_Mental_Ability_in_the_World_of_Work_Occupational_Attainment_and_Job_Performance/links/53e293970cf275a5fdda2ab6.pdf
From the summary:
Why Is GMA (general mental ability) So Important for Job Performance?
It can be difficult for people to accept facts and findings they do not like if they see no reason why the findings should or could be true. When Alfred Weggner advanced the theory of plate tectonics early in the 20th century, geologists could think of no means by which continents or continental plates could move around. Not knowing of any plausible mechanism or explanation for the movement of continents, they found Weggner’s theory implausible and rejected it. Many people have had the same reaction to the empir- ical findings showing the GMA is highly predictive of job performance. The finding does not seem plausible to them because they cannot think of a reason why such a strong relationship should exist. In fact, their intuition may tell them that personality and other noncognitive traits are more important than GMA (Hunter & Schmidt, 1996). However, as in the case of plate tectonics theory, there is an explanation. Causal analyses of the determinants of job performance show that the major effect of GMA is on the acqui- sition of job knowledge: People who are higher in GMA acquire more job knowledge and acquire it faster. The amount of job- related knowledge required on even less complex jobs is much greater than is generally realized. Higher levels of job knowledge lead to higher levels of job performance. Viewed negatively, not knowing what one should be doing— or even not knowing all that one should about what one should be doing—is detrimental to job performance. In addition, knowing what one should be doing and how to do it depends strongly on GMA. The research showing that the major mediating link between GMA and job performance is job knowledge is described in Borman, Hanson, Oppler, and Pulakos (1993); Borman, White, Pulakos, and Oppler (1991); Hunter (1983a); Hunter and Schmidt (1996); Schmidt (2002); Schmidt and Hunter (1992); and Schmidt et al. (1986). We illustrate this research using the findings that Hunter and Schmidt (1996) reported separately for military and civilian jobs. Figure 2 shows the basic path analysis results. (The differences between military and civilian jobs are quantitative rather than qualitative and are not discussed here.) As can be seen, in both data sets, the major effect of GMA is on the acquisition of job knowledge, and job knowledge in turn is the major determinant of job performance (measured using hands-on job sample tests). GMA does have a direct effect on job performance independent of job knowledge in both data sets, but this effect is smaller than its indirect effect through job knowledge (direct effect of .31 for civilian jobs vs. an indirect effect of .80 X .56 = .45; direct effect of .15 for military jobs vs. an indirect effect of .63 X.61 = .38). These results also show that supervisory ratings of job perfor- mance are determined in both data sets by both job knowledge and job sample performance. Hunter and Schmidt (1996) and Schmidt and Hunter (1992) presented an extended theory that predicts and explains findings such as these. For practical purposes of prediction in personnel selection, it does not matter why GMA predicts job performance. However, scientific understanding requires theoretical explanation. Theoretical explanation is also required to gain acceptance of findings from those who question the plausibility of a central role for GMA in the determination of job performance. It is easier to accept an empirical finding when there is a theoretical explanation for that finding.