Agreed. I didn't actually say it was representative of the wider community. I said it was a pretty good sample - I meant size, which I left off, assuming that would be understood. However, these men started off in the army and the test results were taken from their entry exams/tests to determine which were suitable for officer training. Later they accounted for future emplymet status outside the army - so it was not a sample of soldiers, but rather army applicants. And, many of them went on to other employment, had families and so on - outside the army in the wider community. In many ways this is a better sample than taking 160 000 people off the street due to the above points mentioned by Big AD. They are apparently doing a similar study on sisters of the origianl 160 000 to see what that turns up. I agree that IQ is not necessarily a good indicator of a lot of things - but IQ was the variable they chose to investigate for reasons they outlined. You have to start somewhere with research and then you rule thigns out and move to the next step.
Upon rereading the first few paras above, I see that they state that IQ outweighed income in their results - even high IQ lower income did better than low IQ and high income.
Economists are to the economy what Alchemists were to the modern science of Chemistry. A group of self-important mystics who practice their art based on 300 year old concepts. Their great consuming passion, to somehow find a way to turn paper into Gold.
You could also ask the question, are most people who buy shares smart? Or are most property investors smart for that matter? Smart money and dumb money.
Finland = Compulsory National Service Therefore all males (females can volunteer) will go through the military at some stage between the ages of 19 and 29. You don't just have a small group of society who happen to be the type who join the military. While they are at the mercy of the military any number of studies and questionnaires can be performed on them. You might not like the findings of the study but the people who did the study put a lot more effort into the research than you have, are more likely to be better trained in their field than you are, and probably much better looking too.
You see? They are retards. It's obvious to blind Freddy and there is no puzzle at all. People get excited about stocks = invest in stocks = lose half their life savings = don't participate in stocks for the rest of their lives. Stocks are like gold lotto, you inevitably lose more than you gain.
This 'participation puzzle' is very simple to answer: 50% of American households are BROKE - no assets, no savings and therefore no investments! Solved - where do I collect my Nobel Prize ?
