One other illustration may serve to warn the
unwary about accepting uncritically simple state-
ments about the role of ability, as measured by
intelligence tests, in life outcomes. It is stated
widely that intelligence promotes general adjust-
ment and results in lower neuroticism. For ex-
ample, Anderson (1960) reported a significant cor-
relation between intelligence test scores obtained
from boys in 1950, age 14-17, and follow-up ratings
of general adjustment made five years later. Can
we assume that intelligence promotes better ad-
justment to life as has been often claimed? It
sounds reasonable until we reflect that the "intel-
ligence" test is a test of ability to do well in school
(to take academic type tests), that many of Ander-
son's sample were still in school or getting started
on careers, and that those who are not doing well
in school or getting a good first job because of it
are likely to be considered poorly adjusted by them-
selves and others. Here the test has become part
of the criterion and has introduced the correlation
artificially. In case this sounds like special reason-
ing, consider the fact, not commented on particu-
larly by Anderson, that the same correlation be-
tween "intelligence" test scores and adjustment in
girls was an insignificant .06. Are we to con-
clude that intelligence does not promote adjustment
in girls? It would seem more reasonable to argue
that the particular ability tested, here associated
with scholastic success, is more important to success
(and hence adjustment) for boys than for girls.
But this is a far cry from the careless inference that
intelligence tests tap a general ability to adapt suc-
cessfully to life's problems because high-IQ children
(read "men") have better mental health (Jensen,
1972)