A lot of things are correlated. Let me know when causation is determined.

Also, your Vox link was pay-walled, but nevertheless, I am fairly well versed in some of the data. I have my own archive of research on this topic for what it is worth (not likely much).

Any hoot, the correlations, while positive, are nothing to write home about in my opinion. Sure, IQ might have more breadth of predictably, but it definitely lacks depth of predictably compared to more granular models depending on the domain.

For example, IQ is not a better predictor of chess performance than say a chess tournament.

▲

rayiner 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The breadth of predictability is why it’s such an effective measure. Most tasks involve many different skills, so it’s helpful to have a single measure that’s correlated with a bunch of different competencies. That’s why we use what are essentially IQ tests in everything from assigning jobs in the military (ASVAB) to selecting lawyers (LSAT). There’s tremendous social value in a single test that can scaleably sort through millions of people even if it’s not the most predicative test for a specific problem domain or a specific individual.

Also, IQ predicts chess performance as well: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.h...

	▲	hirvi74 a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Also, IQ predicts chess performance as well: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.h... "The study found that intelligence was linked to chess skill for the overall sample, but particularly among young chess players and those at lower levels of skill." We might have different definitions of the word well. Edit: Upon reading the linked study in the article, it's even worse than I thought: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602... "Effect sizes were small-to-medium in magnitude; variance in chess skill explained by cognitive ability was similar in magnitude for Gf (6%), Gsm (6%), Gs (6%), and Gc (5%), with an average of 6%. Full-scale IQ explained < 1% of the variance in chess skill."

▲

Jensson 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> For example, IQ is not a better predictor of chess performance than say a chess tournament.

So we should determine who to give chess lessons to with chess tournaments? That seems pretty dumb.

There are many times where we don't want to select for current ability but for potential ability, and then a direct test like you suggest is a much worse predictor than IQ is.

	▲	hirvi74 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> So we should determine who to give chess lessons to with chess tournaments? That seems pretty dumb. By your logic, we could even declare grandmasters based on IQ scores alone without anyone needing to play. Clearly that misses the point of skill assessment. History also doesn’t support the claim of potential ability all that well, in my opinion. Lewis Terman’s study tracked high-IQ children across several decades. Many of the children went on to lead ordinary lives and did not reach noteworthy achievements. However, two lower-IQ children that were excluded went on to become Nobel Prize winners. IQ alone does not seem to be a robust predictor of domain mastery.