Discussion about this post

User's avatar
PaleoPolak's avatar

> Given the sample size of 263, correlations above or below .14 are p < .05

Needless pedantic comment: you obviously meant correlations with an absolute value greater than .14, the way I read your line is that only a correlation of exactly .14 would be statistically insignificant

(I apologize for this)

Expand full comment
Freedom Fox's avatar

I just discovered your Stack and commented on another more recent one, reviewing some of your older ones I came across this, so I know it's been awhile since this one was active.

I find a lot interesting in this one, and what stands out the most is the five OCEANS tables you open with, the top professions in the highest and lowest samples. Reason being, I have worked professionally in and/or completed advanced studies in several professions that land in both the Top 10 and Bottom 10 of fields in each of the five tables. And excelled in them all, not like they were poor fits for my abilities. Though, some were poor fits for my long term happiness and sense of accomplishment. But even in those taking pride in my work has always been important. The classic "if you're going to be a garbage man or janitor be the best garbage man or janitor you can be" work ethic.

This is one of the reasons I'm instinctively skeptical of the value of intelligence and other aptitude tests. I've always scored well in pretty much every area I've been measured and found it comes down to the basics of curiosity, effort, resilience, ethics and confidence. These traits aren't exclusive to IQ or any quotient scores. They are matters of character. And those possessing higher character will do well in most anything they endeavor to do. Test scores only provide a small insight about the totality of success and achievement in life one will experience. And why we should do what interests us most, not what a test result says we should do.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts