My point was hypothetical. I skeptical a correlation actually exits,--damn lies in all—but that’s beside the point. My point is a society that is into boiling complex, difficult to define concepts like intelligence down to a simple metric is liable to have lots of other analogous, oversimplified metrics that are known, if not to coworkers to teachers and whoever else makes the decisions. And I’d wager people who do well on tests are apt to be the same ones who get high marks on Cognos reports—i.e., the same prejudices affect what’s deemed valuable for both.
As far as our actual society, there is only partial truth to this, we are metric obsessed of course—but nepotism and, more than anything else, the circumstances one was born into, probably play the biggest role apropos success as conventionally defined.
I’d wager people who do well on tests are apt to be the same ones who get high marks on Cognos reports—i.e., the same prejudices affect what’s deemed valuable for both.
You do realise that it’s rare for co-workers to know each other’s IQs? Obviously there’s a third thing that both IQ and success correlate with.
My point was hypothetical. I skeptical a correlation actually exits,--damn lies in all—but that’s beside the point. My point is a society that is into boiling complex, difficult to define concepts like intelligence down to a simple metric is liable to have lots of other analogous, oversimplified metrics that are known, if not to coworkers to teachers and whoever else makes the decisions. And I’d wager people who do well on tests are apt to be the same ones who get high marks on Cognos reports—i.e., the same prejudices affect what’s deemed valuable for both.
As far as our actual society, there is only partial truth to this, we are metric obsessed of course—but nepotism and, more than anything else, the circumstances one was born into, probably play the biggest role apropos success as conventionally defined.
Well, fair enough.