[VanVeen]

Dude, how can you make the argument that one's ability to solve randomly chosen problems has no correlation with his ability to solve a randomly chosen problem?

Of course it's true that if we define intelligence as one's ability to solve randomly selected problems that those possessing a greater helping of intelligence are more likely to be correct than persons possessing less intelligence when they encounter a novel problem and have the same data to work with. Admittedly, there is no reason why 'intelligence' must be the most important criterion when handicapping a debate, but to say it 'may not be relevant' is nonsensical.

[ QUOTE ]
And doesn't the fact they're all in disagreement indicate that jumping to conclusions based on personal experience might be hasty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, any psychometrician worth anything would agree that the data conclusively demonstrates a causal relationship between one's 'raw neurologic potential' as measured by standardized tests of fluid g and one's financial success and self-reported level of personal satisfaction. How you define 'success' determines what kind of conclusion you will draw, but using popular objective metrics of success there is no debate whatsoever.

little data correlating 'confidence in performance' (after the fact) and actual performance, and i think the correlation is lower when the respondent is 'very confident' and 'very unconfident' (at the extremes). mentioned in some popular sci books and i'm sure the studies are online somewhere if anyone cares to look.