I was about to mention them but you beat me to it. I was subscribed to the GenXMs Yahoo group for a while and always found myself thinking, "A lot of these people are total idiots". The group seemed to be dominated by right wing trolls. I unsubscribed in disgust and rarely attend any Mensa events. I thought the high IQ requirement thing would keep the riff raff out, but I learned by experience that stupidity knows no bounds.
In any case, scoring high on an IQ test really only means that you can score high on a test designed for you. Ever read Isaac Asimov's essay 'What is Intelligence, Anyway'?
That's one of my favorite Asimov pieces - of all his literal thousands of articles, that's one of the creams of the crop.
What are Mensa forums? Are there any links? Not surprising that it's right-wing based: any hierarchical system will be pervaded by the sorts of people who think they deserve something great because of their natural talents, and while I'm of a similar mindset in some ways, a lot of people like that are boring and fanatic about it. (Fun times joining an Objectivist forum as a kid - goes to show that any good idea portrayed simply will attract a lot of misinterpreters.)
But that piece is completely wrong. Asimov claims that the talented craftsmen that he's known throughout his life would have scored poorly on IQ tests. His evidence is entirely anecdotal.
In fact, when people have studied this, they've found strong correlations between IQ and all sorts of job performance: Hunter, J. E. and Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.
Please don't confuse armchair reasoning about IQ with actual science about IQ.
This isn't a craftsman. This is a mechanic. You don't need a high IQ to do manual labor. At the same time, it requires a great deal of efficiency at a single task, both physically and mentally.
Obviously, IQ isn't going to be wholly useless. Somebody who's bright at something won't be entirely dull everywhere else, so yeah, IQ is going to give some measure of mental capacity. Asimov's argument is that IQ isn't everything, and that it's not a good way to justify "intelligence" per se, and with that I wholly agree.
But your agreement or non-agreement doesn't matter, since it's based on armchair reasoning. There is real research on this subject, and numbers trump whatever you'd like to be true.
Did you just willingly ignore what I said? I just said that yes, there's no surprise that IQ and overall intelligence correlate. It's like how if an auto mechanic made an intelligence test, Asimov would do better than a retarded person. IQ isn't wholly random. At the same time, it still is not an overall measure of intelligence.
Your fun little snide numbers comment is great and all, but numbers mean nothing on their own. Interpretation is also important, and interpretation is almost always subjective. It's why there are so many tests that say the exact opposite thing. So unless you cite specific examples of that paper you cited, don't just throw it up and assume that's the end of your case. That's snotty, arrogant, and allows for no counterresponse because the rest of us don't all read the exact same journals as you.
Yes, I willingly ignored your armchair reasoning. You are saying crazy things directly contradicted by the science and citing no sources. What do you expect me to do?
In any case, scoring high on an IQ test really only means that you can score high on a test designed for you. Ever read Isaac Asimov's essay 'What is Intelligence, Anyway'?
http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html