"Als übergeordnetes Lebenskriterium erscheint bei allen Organismen ihre Fortpflanzungsfähigkeit. Alle übrigen Charakteristika sind entweder Voraussetzung oder Folge dieser einen zentralen Eigenschaft."

P. Sitte et al.

Zweierlei Unsicherheiten:

Vereinfachend lassen sich die Unsicherheiten, mit denen der Mensch konfrontiert wird, in zwei Kategorien einteilen:

(A) in eine Unsicherheit bezüglich dem, was sich in der Vergangenheit erreignete; bezüglich dem, was sich künftig erreignen wird; darüber, welche Beziehungen zwischen diversen Ereignissen, Phänomenen oder Gegenständen bestehen; etc.

(B) in eine Unsicherheit darüber, wie wir uns in der Situation, in der wir uns befinden, zu verhalten haben

Die zweite Unsicherheit lässt sich nicht mehr als eine rein kognitive Unsicherheit bezeichnen, und bezieht sich bereits auf den Menschen als ein wollendes und handelndes Lebewesen.

Informationsgehalt von Vorträgen:

Es verhält sich keineswegs so, dass Personen bloß Vorträge als langweilig empfinden, die einen geringen Informationsgehalt aufweisen. Ähnlich häufig werden Vorträge als langweilig empfunden, die über einen sehr hohen,  für diverse Zuhörer zu hohen, Informationsgehalt verfügen.

Unsicherheit:

Unsicherheit kann bestehen:

(A) über dasjenige, was sich in der Vergangenheit erreignete

(B) darüber, was sich künftig erreignen wird

(C) über die Beziehungen der Objekte oder Phänomene zueinander

...

Denken im Sinne von Informationsverarbeitung zielt darauf ab, Unsicherheit zu reduzieren.

Intelligenz:

Intelligenz ermöglicht (A) Beziehungsgeflechte der eigenen Um- und Innenwelt aufzudecken, (B) Wissen um Zusammenhänge und Beziehungen schlussfolgernd zu verwerten.

Major findings on g’s impact on job performance

g, Jobs and Life; Linda S. Gottfredson (2003):

Utility of g 

(1) Higher levels of g lead to higher levels of performance in all jobs and along all dimensions of performance. The average correlation of mental tests with overall rated job performance is around 0.5 (corrected for statistical artifacts). 

(2) There is no ability threshold above which more g does not enhance performance. The effects of g are linear: successive increments in g lead to successive increments in job performance. 

(3) (a) The value of higher levels of g does not fade with longer experience on the job. Criterion validities remain high even among highly experienced workers, (b) That they sometimes even appear to rise with experience may be due to the confounding effect of the least experienced groups tending to be more variable in relative level of experience, which obscures the advantages of higher g. 

(4) g predicts job performance better in more complex jobs. Its (corrected) criterion validities range from about 0.2 in the simplest jobs to 0.8 in the most complex. 

(5) g predicts the core technical dimensions of performance better than it does the non-core “citizenship” dimension of performance. 

(6) Perhaps as a consequence, g predicts objectively measured performance (either job knowledge or job sample performance) better than it does subjectively measured performance (such as supervisor ratings). 

Utility of g relative to other “can do” components of performance 

(7) Specific mental abilities (such as spatial, mechanical or verbal ability) add very little, beyond g, to the prediction of job performance, g generally accounts for at least 85-95% of a full mental test battery’s (cross-validated) ability to predict performance in training or on the job. 

(8) Specific mental abilities (such as clerical ability) sometimes add usefully to prediction, net of g, but only in certain classes of jobs. They do not have general utility. 

(9) General psychomotor ability is often useful, but primarily in less complex work. Their predictive validities fall with complexity while those for g rise. 

Utility of g relative to the “will do” component of job performance 

(10) g predicts core performance much better than do “non-cognitive” (less g-loaded) traits, such as vocational interests and different personality traits. The latter add virtually nothing to the prediction of core performance, net of g. 

(11) g predicts most dimensions of non-core performance (such as personal discipline and soldier bearing) much less well than do “non-cognitive” traits of personality and temperament. When a performance dimension reflects both core and non-core performance (effort and leadership), g predicts to about the same modest degree as do non-cognitive (less g-loaded) traits. 

(12) Different non-cognitive traits appear to usefully supplement g in different jobs, just as specific abilities sometimes add to the prediction of performance in certain classes of jobs. Only one such non-cognitive trait appears to be as generalizable as g: the personality trait of conscientiousness/integrity. Its effect sizes for core performance are substantially smaller than g’s, however.

Utility of g relative to the job knowledge 

(13) g affects job performance primarily indirectly through its effect on job-specific knowledge. 

(14) g’s direct effects on job performance increase when jobs are less routinized, training is less complete, and workers retain more discretion. 

(15) Job-specific knowledge generally predicts job performance as well as does g among experienced workers. However, job knowledge is not generalizable (net of its g component), even among experienced workers. The value of job knowledge is highly job specific; g’s value is unrestricted. Utility of g relative to the “have done” (experience) component of job performance 

(16) Like job knowledge, the effect sizes of job-specific experience are sometimes high but they are not generalizable. 

(17) In fact, experience predicts performance less well as all workers become more experienced. In contrast, higher levels of g remain an asset regardless of length of experience. 

(18) Experience predicts job performance less well as job complexity rises, which is opposite the trend for g. Like general psychomotor ability, experience matters least where g matters most to individuals and their organizations.

Affektives Vorausleben:

Der Mensch denkt nicht nur voraus, sondern lebt auch voraus. Er ist nicht bloß in der Lage, sich die Zukunft abstrakt-theoretisch auszumalen, sondern seine Voraussicht geht mit einer anderen Emotionalität: mit neuen Sorgen und Ängsten, mit Sehnsüchten, Träumen, Wünschen und Hoffnungen einher. Zeitlich ausgreifende Affekte bestimmen sein Leben, wie das keines anderen Tieres. Er denkt nicht nur in die Zukunft. Er lebt auch in ihr.