Not really, no? There's a lot of things that IQ predicts; we just take them for granted as just 'being smart'.
You'll find a lot more high-iq than low-iq people at top jobs, for example. I'd be very surprised to meet a google/facebook/amazon/etc senior developer with IQ of 85 or less; and while those companies are big enough that maybe some such people exist, it's immediately obvious that iq correlates with success at such jobs.
What I wonder is, if genetics predicts IQ, and IQ predicts your occupation, then why not dispense with IQ and say that genetics predicts your occupation? Perhaps we are only keeping IQ as an idea because it's traditional, or because we like to form our own beliefs about what predicts IQ and what IQ predicts. Likewise, we stopped believing that certain families had "fate" when we learned about genetics.
Well, there is an environmental component to all phenotypic traits. So when you want to know how an organism actually turned out, it’s more useful to measure the phenotype, rather than the genotype. Also, the understanding of which genetic variants contribute to higher IQ is rapidly improving, but still very far from practically useful.
>>What I wonder is, if genetics predicts IQ, and IQ predicts your occupation
I don't think it says that, it says that IQ determines the level you could likely get to in an intellectually rigorous occupation. i.e. Top, world-renowned surgeons have a higher IQ than mediocre surgeons, top lawyers tend to have a higher IQ than mediocre lawyers etc.
Actually there's an interesting statistical phenomena where at the very top of a hierarchy, the correlation between success and the factor that generally drives success becomes low.
For example if you look at NBA players, you'll see that they're on average quite tall, but also that height only has a weak correlation with 'basketball ability' in that sample. That's because those people were already heavily selected on height; and all the not-that-tall people in the sample compensate with the other things that make them good at basketball.
So if you want to look at how useful IQ is, you should be looking at the average IQ of successful people vs average IQ of unsuccessful people, and not how successful people are in a relatively high IQ subsample (i.e. all surgeons).
>What I wonder is, if genetics predicts IQ, and IQ predicts your occupation, then why not dispense with IQ and say that genetics predicts your occupation?
People tend not to understand weak or loose correlations, and they will assume that race, gender, ethnicity or other factors strongly predict IQ, and that, therefore, systems of prejudice built around those factors can be justified as an expression of the natural order.
> People tend not to understand weak or loose correlations, and they will assume that race, gender, ethnicity or other factors strongly predict IQ, and that, therefore, systems of prejudice built around those factors can be justified as an expression of the natural order.
Whereas really if genetics strongly predicted IQ, it would be a great argument for a bigger support net. If we believe in equal opportunity, and some people were denied equal opportunity due to genetics, it makes sense to help them. You can no longer say that they're just 'lazy', or whatever.
Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki
Who takes them for granted as being smart? Western business culture? You might find a different definition for "smart" outside of that machine but that's probably the "low-iq" definition.
There's no way to address your comment unless you present the alternative definition of "smart" you would like to use. As is, I don't even know whether it's relevant - if you're just discussing definitions, I'm not particularly interested.
Which of the following do you think are not 1. being smart 2. related to IQ:
1. Ability to reason out answers to questions or problems
2. Ability to make plans
3. .. learn
4. .. generalize - build abstract models from limited data
These are all very much IQ things that people generally call being "smart", and which very much correlates with success in life.
I'm not surprised you're not particularly interested in discussing definitions re: smart. I bet you feel the same way about the definition of success too.
Since "success" in IQ tests is fairly well correlated with how privileged your upbringing has been, it's not at all surprising that it correlates with "success" at jobs.
You'll find a lot more high-iq than low-iq people at top jobs, for example. I'd be very surprised to meet a google/facebook/amazon/etc senior developer with IQ of 85 or less; and while those companies are big enough that maybe some such people exist, it's immediately obvious that iq correlates with success at such jobs.