> Apparently having a high IQ is a better predictor of being a good business guy than a good hacker.

By a very tiny margin. I'd have to dig to accurately say whether it's statistically significant, but I assume it's not.

(Assuming you refer to the high/medium level complex technical jobs with .56 and .51 versus the manager's .58)

Take any "meta-analysis" with a large grain of salt (or better yet, and industrial size vat of salt).

Meta-analysis suggests that men under the age of 26 have a 60% chance of being sex offenders. This same type of meta-analysis is also the reason that all sex crime offenders (including drunk people pissing in a park and amorous couples getting it on in a dark parkin glot) are lumped together for sex offender registration purposes, because the meta-analysis suggests that the recidivism rate for "sex offenders" (regardless of actual offense) is greater than 90% (without regard to the actual recidivist offense).

TLDR: Meta-analysis can be used to support any claim.

Would you care to elaborate on what, specifically, is flawed about meta analysis? I'd definitely be interested in a source on that 60% number and how that source arrived at a number that seems, on it's face, so incorrect.

"I'd definitely be interested in a source on that 60% number and how that source arrived at a number that seems, on it's face, so incorrect."

I'd be curious to see if anyone has actually done a study on this, but to me this number actually seems quite low. I would guess that it would easily be 90+%.

Being prepared to do GMA style tests correlates with business guys.

Telling the interviewer to go XXXX himself and starting your own company correlates with good tech guys