Oh crap, my bad, shouldāve looked closer! (And thatās ironic given my comment, although at least Iād say the epistemic standards for comments can/āshould be lower than for posts.) Sorry about that.
Though still I think ānot predictiveā seems like a strong misrepresentation of that source. I think correlations of .41 and .31 would typically be regarded as moderate/āweak and definitely not āapproximately zeroā. (And then also the apparently high incremental validity is interesting, though not as immediately easy to figure out the implications of.)
I agree that āthe points of [your] post rely only lightly on this articleā. But I still think this is a sufficiently strong & (in my view, seemingly) obvious* misrepresentation of the source that it would make sense to see this issue as a reason for readers to be skeptical of any other parts of the post that they havenāt closely checked.
(I also find it surprising that in your two replies in this thread you didnāt note that the table indeed seems inconsistent with ānot predictiveā.)
*I.e., it doesnāt seem like it requires a very close/ācareful reading of the source to determine that itās saying something very different to ānot predictiveā. (Though I may be wrongāI only jumped to the table, and I guess itās possible other parts of the paper are very misleadingly written.)
Okay, you convince me. Iāve rewritten that item.
The reason why I wasnāt noting that the table is inconsistent with ānot predictiveā is that I was unconsciously equating ānot predictiveā with ānot sufficiently predictive to be worth the candidateās timeā. Only your insisting made me think about it more carefully. Given that unconscious semantics, itās not a strong misrepresentation of the source either. But of course itās sloppy and you were right to point it out.
I hope this somewhat restores your expectation of my epistemic integrity. Also, I think there is not just evidence against, but also evidence for epistemic integrity in my article. That should factor into how āskepticalā readers ought to be. Examples: The last paragraph of the introduction. The fact that I edit the article based on comments once Iām convinced that a comment is correct. The fact that I call out edits and donāt just rewrite history. The fact that itās well-structured overall (not necessarily at the paragraph level), which makes it easy to respond to claims. The fact that I include and address possible objections to my points.
Addendum: I would explain the high incremental validity by the fact that a GMA test barely measures conscientiousness and integrity. In fact, footnote āc,dā mentions that āthe correlation between integrity and ability is zeroā. But conscientiousness and integrity are important for job performance (depending on the job). I would expect much lower incremental validity over structured interviews or work samples. Because these, when done well, tell a lot about conscientiousness and integrity by themselves.
Oh crap, my bad, shouldāve looked closer! (And thatās ironic given my comment, although at least Iād say the epistemic standards for comments can/āshould be lower than for posts.) Sorry about that.
Though still I think ānot predictiveā seems like a strong misrepresentation of that source. I think correlations of .41 and .31 would typically be regarded as moderate/āweak and definitely not āapproximately zeroā. (And then also the apparently high incremental validity is interesting, though not as immediately easy to figure out the implications of.)
I agree that āthe points of [your] post rely only lightly on this articleā. But I still think this is a sufficiently strong & (in my view, seemingly) obvious* misrepresentation of the source that it would make sense to see this issue as a reason for readers to be skeptical of any other parts of the post that they havenāt closely checked.
(I also find it surprising that in your two replies in this thread you didnāt note that the table indeed seems inconsistent with ānot predictiveā.)
*I.e., it doesnāt seem like it requires a very close/ācareful reading of the source to determine that itās saying something very different to ānot predictiveā. (Though I may be wrongāI only jumped to the table, and I guess itās possible other parts of the paper are very misleadingly written.)
Particularly when the most predictive things in that table were .51 and .54.
Okay, you convince me. Iāve rewritten that item.
The reason why I wasnāt noting that the table is inconsistent with ānot predictiveā is that I was unconsciously equating ānot predictiveā with ānot sufficiently predictive to be worth the candidateās timeā. Only your insisting made me think about it more carefully. Given that unconscious semantics, itās not a strong misrepresentation of the source either. But of course itās sloppy and you were right to point it out.
I hope this somewhat restores your expectation of my epistemic integrity. Also, I think there is not just evidence against, but also evidence for epistemic integrity in my article. That should factor into how āskepticalā readers ought to be. Examples: The last paragraph of the introduction. The fact that I edit the article based on comments once Iām convinced that a comment is correct. The fact that I call out edits and donāt just rewrite history. The fact that itās well-structured overall (not necessarily at the paragraph level), which makes it easy to respond to claims. The fact that I include and address possible objections to my points.
Addendum: I would explain the high incremental validity by the fact that a GMA test barely measures conscientiousness and integrity. In fact, footnote āc,dā mentions that āthe correlation between integrity and ability is zeroā. But conscientiousness and integrity are important for job performance (depending on the job). I would expect much lower incremental validity over structured interviews or work samples. Because these, when done well, tell a lot about conscientiousness and integrity by themselves.