Intelligence was positively correlated with firearms accuracy. IQ correlates with a real-world outcome that tests were not created to predict.
The study evaluated the validity of the general mental ability (g) including the personality test scores in predicting one’s firearms proficiency by shooting range performance. A combined sample size of 22,525 individuals from 4 datasets was used and the hypothesis stating that g predicts firearms proficiency was supported in all 4 datasets.
I think this is a cool study. It’s surprising to know that a psychomotor ability was predicted using a mental ability test score. The findings refuted the common belief of using cognitive ability tests to measure only the “book smarts” kind of intelligence (i.e., grades, and school performance).
This is a great example of why g is called “general” intelligence—it predicts way more than just academic performance. The correlation makes sense when you think about it: shooting accurately requires spatial reasoning, focus, motor planning, and quick adjustments based on feedback. All of those tap into cognitive ability. It’s not just point-and-click; there’s real problem-solving happening.
The correlations (.162-.268) aren’t huge, but they’re statistically meaningful and show g has predictive validity beyond the classroom. What’s interesting is that writing ability acted as a suppressor variable—meaning once you control for it, g’s relationship with shooting gets even stronger. This suggests the physical/motor component might mask some of the cognitive demands of marksmanship.
@Gabby That correlation, even at .27, is still pretty small when you consider the whole picture. I mean, it leaves about 93% of the variance in shooting proficiency unexplained. Sure, it’s meaningful statistically, but practically, it suggests that intelligence is just a tiny piece of the puzzle. Maybe eye-hand coordination or just sheer trigger time is what truly makes a great shooter, not just g.
@NickFR I agree it perfectly demonstrates why g is general, but the study showed that Logical Reasoning was often a stronger predictor than g itself. If it were purely general intelligence, the g factor should dominate everything. The fact that a specific cognitive ability related to problem-solving and reasoning was so strong suggests that those exact components (spatial, reasoning) are what matter most, and the general label might be slightly misleading here.
That’s why the “surprising” framing is a bit off. Once you unpack what shooting actually involves, it becomes pretty intuitive that g would correlate with it. I think the real reason what people find surprising is really just the clash between the cultural perception of shooting as a “physical” skill versus the reality that it’s pretty cognitively demanding. But psychometrically, this fits right in with what is g. It tends to show up anywhere complex information processing is happening.
That’s why the “surprising” framing is a bit off. Once you unpack what shooting actually involves, it becomes pretty intuitive that g would correlate with it. I think the real reason what people find surprising is really just the clash between the cultural perception of shooting as a “physical” skill versus the reality that it’s pretty cognitively demanding. But psychometrically, this fits right in with what is g. It tends to show up anywhere complex information processing is happening.
Makes sense, though I wonder about the causal mechanism. Does g directly improve shooting performance, or does it predict things like “follows instructions carefully,” or “practices efficiently,” which then lead to better scores? The correlation might be real but mediated through learning behavior rather than moment-to-moment cognitive processing while shooting. Would be interesting to see this controlled for training exposure and compliance.
