Do the makers of the various IQ tests each publish a document that says how well people with various IQs will perform at other tasks?
Typically, a technical manual for each new brand of IQ test, which may only be available to authorized psychologists but perhaps not to the general public, will publish the results of the test's norming administration, which might include statements that IQ test scores of people in certain defined occupational categories ranged from X to Y. As you can imagine, there is overlap between the scores of the smartest manual laborers and the dumbest professionals. Most occupational categories have a wide range of scores, but in general the occupations you'd expect tend to have higher mean IQ scores than the occupations not considered to require much smarts.
Yes, the measurement issue is very interesting in psychology. I have huge buy-in to Michell's conclusion that most of what is called measurement in psychology should not be called "measurement" at all. I see the consequences of the usual terminology in arguments by analogy in popular discussions of psychological tests (such as this thread), where it is commonplace for participants who have not read many psychological treatises to treat, say, IQ test scores in a way that is not warranted by how they are derived.
Typically, a technical manual for each new brand of IQ test, which may only be available to authorized psychologists but perhaps not to the general public, will publish the results of the test's norming administration, which might include statements that IQ test scores of people in certain defined occupational categories ranged from X to Y. As you can imagine, there is overlap between the scores of the smartest manual laborers and the dumbest professionals. Most occupational categories have a wide range of scores, but in general the occupations you'd expect tend to have higher mean IQ scores than the occupations not considered to require much smarts.
Yes, the measurement issue is very interesting in psychology. I have huge buy-in to Michell's conclusion that most of what is called measurement in psychology should not be called "measurement" at all. I see the consequences of the usual terminology in arguments by analogy in popular discussions of psychological tests (such as this thread), where it is commonplace for participants who have not read many psychological treatises to treat, say, IQ test scores in a way that is not warranted by how they are derived.