“Education is wasted on the lazy and stupid, and they’re the same people. That’s Dunning-Kruger. They’re blind to what they’re missing because they’re missing it!”
“If someone works harder than you, they deserve to beat you! Add up hours studied and you’ll find female (and male) conscientiousness isn’t bias, they activate with their IQ the traits which help them. The guy or girl “winging it” the night before deserves to fail*. Low IQ don’t have the IQ to know what they’re NOT doing! That isn’t everyone else’s fault! If there are systemic forces against men in some fields, the same must be true of women in other fields because that is how systems work, ya dummies!”
“..It just so happens by nature that there are more lazy men! So yeah, they fail! Confound!
You’re supposed to control for prevalence without ignoring the population. It’s like the IQ studies conducted by men that exclude stupid, lower class men to push the middle-class male genius narrative because the former dwarfs the latter mathematically if they don’t rig it.
(They also don’t control for education and class because they’re faking, like saying ugly people are intelligent in spite of correlations).
Another example of ignoring half: promiscuity/divorce risk studies that never look at men. That is scientism, like ignoring cooling data. They have looked but refuse to publish because it hurt their feelings. I’d like to see an atheist/divorce risk study.
You cannot ignore the left half of the bell curve, men overpopulate it!
Muh Bell Curve (ignores 50%).
They’ve simply never survived in these numbers before because responsibility is the new leprosy in a decadent West. It makes a lot of sense actually. No prior society (that didn’t collapse) ever had to tolerate this much stupid and it shows.”
I decided to drag up a study or two for the idiots who’d dispute it.
First, look at the materials put out to businesses.
“Of the five main personality factors, Conscientiousness has been shown to be the most consistent, significant predictor of workplace performance.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 For example, meta-analyses on the prediction of job performance from personality dimensions have demonstrated that broad measures of Conscientiousness predict overall job performance,15, 16 even controlling for cognitive ability.17, 18
AKA you can’t cry sexism, conscientious men (like Christians) do fine. Actually, that might be why. There are plenty of conscientious men so it isn’t an exclusive thing, the averages only vary slightly.
In addition to overall job performance, broad measures of Conscientiousness have been shown to predict a number of other valued workplace behaviors, such as organizational citizenship 19, 20 and leadership 21
as well as undesirable behaviors such as procrastination, 22 to name a few.
Conscientiousness is the best noncognitive predictor of performance across a wide variety of job types and work outcomes.”
NON COGNITIVE PREDICTOR OF PERFORMANCE.
Mr “Emotional Intelligence isn’t real”.
You have emotions. You have intelligence. You have an EI score, like it or not.
“17 Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial-organizational
psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 272–290.
18 Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. [doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262]”
“we framed the article as a series of 7 questions. These 7 questions deal with (1) personality and multidimensional models of performance, (2) personality taxonomies and the five‐factor model, (3) the effects of situations on personality–performance relationships, (4) the incremental validity of personality over cognitive ability, (5) the need to differentiate personality constructs from personality measures, (6) the concern with faking on personality tests, and (7) the use of personality tests in attempting to address adverse impact. We dovetail these questions with our perspectives and insights in the hope that this will stimulate further discussion with our readership.”
reference B, 85 years of research
This article summarizes the practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research in personnel selection. On the basis of meta-analytic findings, this article presents the validity of 19 selection procedures for predicting job performance and training performance and the validity of paired combinations of general mental ability (GMA) and Ihe 18 other selection procedures.
Overall, the 3 combinations with the highest multivariate validity and utility for job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (mean validity of .63), GMA plus an integrity test (mean validity of .65), and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity of .63). A further advantage of the latter 2 combinations is that they can be used for both entry level selection and selection of experienced employees. The practical utility implications of these summary findings are substantial. The implications of these research findings for the development of theories of job performance are discussed.
And when you look for a genetic connection ‘cos genes, like hips, don’t lie.
“The heritability of conscientiousness facets and their relationship to IQ and academic achievement”
“Our findings confirmed positive associations between IQ and the facets of Competence and Dutifulness (ranging 0.11–0.27), with academic achievement showing correlations of 0.27 and 0.15 with these same facets and 0.15 with Deliberation. All conscientiousness facets were influenced by genes (broad sense heritabilities ranging 0.18–0.49) “
Whew, up to 50%!
The idea of a smart douchebag is a myth to keep them appeased, or at best, they’re only mildly above average (1-2SD), true genius can cooperate (and self-regulate) but idiots can’t perceive anyone above them.
Your IQ isn’t an excuse to be antisocial.