In the interests of due diligence, they split Openness into IQ and Creativity.
IQ was the only factor that produced any quantifiable differences--though those differences were negligible. The researchers of the study were less than enthusiastic about this result. And here's why:
IQ as a determiner of anything except IQ has long been disputed. It has no definitive link to grades or any type of career/academic success. A recent study concluded, for instance, that "achieving good grades depends on many factors other than IQ, such as 'persistence, interest in school, and willingness to study.'"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2f6cb/2f6cb77804522e89dfcb0824000c804bad6986b7" alt=""
This is compounded by the fact that IQ changes--within cultures, with age as well as with an increase in skill-sets. It is not the "now you have it/you're a genius" factor imagined by IQ advocates in the mid-twentieth century. Genius actually doesn't work that way.
Unfortunately, often times, the assumption that IQ equals high performance creates its own self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e. students who test high receive more attention and access to resources and consequently, increase their abilities/skills. But the true impact was likely the attention and the resources, not the initial IQ score.
Even that last statement, however, is debatable. Me--I'm a maverick. I think outcome/performance is all about free-will. That is, nearly all studies that try to ground personality/long-rang results in genetic inheritance or in environmental impact inevitably come up empty: there is a failure of direct correlation, an inability to show that A definitively led to B, which is probably the reason that sociology drives hard scientists crazy.
1 comment:
I tend to think that any personality trait is a combination of three factors: Heredity; environment, and free will. Free will tends to get get short shift because how do you scientifically measure it?!
I really like that Dilbert strip.
Post a Comment