For this study, --I'd be interested to know if statistical analysis was used to combine the data (a meta-analysis).  It looks like there is some sort of correlation, assuming that sound statstical methodology was used to combine the results.  I'd be interested in further looking at the methodology for this one.

Why you're confusing an obvious survey w/ scientific method is beyond me.  Yes I support science, but that has nothing to do with this. 

For your information, and Flanders and the Scare Crow, the graph was generated from a 1990 population concensus.  Not too scientific, but accurate non the less. 

8Days, please stop trying to paint yourself as someone with knowledge of science, when it is clear to anyone reading this thread that you do not even know what scientific method is.  This is simply trying to pass off sheer ignorance (and a very pseudo-scientific attitude) as science. At this point you are clearly too uneducated in this area to even present a rational argument beyond empty rhetoric.  Learn what scientific method is.

In terms of my profession, you do not even know what it is, so I'll educate you there. It's Industrial/Organizational Psychology. If you believe it is a 'pseudo science,' then your views are at odds with those of practitioners of the hard sciences (including those in all of the major pharmecutical companies employing many of us), as well as the US army, which has relied on us since World War I to develop every single one of their employment/selection tests, as do police departments, fire departments, public utilities, and nuclear power plants, to name a few. 

But I guess that 8DaysDazed, being the limitless fount of wisdom that he is, knows more than every one of the major pharmaceutical companies and nuclear power plants about what is scientific and what is not... 

My point is that those in the hard sciences employ industrial/organizational psychologists  because they want to have the most scientific approach possible to employment testing and other organizational processes (in the case of, say, a nuclear power plant, they cannot afford to have anything other than the most scientific approach possible, given the potential cost of on-the-job mistakes).  They would not be doing so if they did not have a basic understanding of the approach and agree that it is scientific. I would honestly be interested in knowing how you define science, and if scientific approach is something that you believe only applies to labs. I also wonder if you hold the common (and very inaccurate) perception that I/O psychology is anything like clinical psychology (e.g., sitting someone down on a couch and having them spill their guts--very exciting to the media, but in my mind the least scientific/objective area of practice in psychology).

To give you an idea of the approach of an I/O psychologist, I'll use your question about how you'd do in the army as an example. This may bore you to death--but don't forget that you asked, even if you weren't expecting a serious answer!

Predicting your ability to perform in the army would largely depend on the job you were applying for. In that setting, the role of an I/O psychologist might be to do an in-depth analysis of the job (breaking it down into specific tasks and components of those tasks performed, as well as knowledge, skills, abilities relevant to those  job components, and the levels that are needed for successful performance--a process also involving subject matter experts from the army itself who are familiar with the job), and then to design a test battery (probably using existing test instruments that have already been established through predictive studies to measure those KSAs) to assess the candidate's levels of those knowledge, skills and abilities. This could involve specific knowledge tests, motor coordination tests, possibly real-life or computerized simulations to approximate actual work conditions, among others. For most job positions, this would be designed in a way so that the army itself could then conduct all of the actual testing independently, without involvement of the psychologist at all. Then a predictive validity study would be performed to ensure that the selection battery works in practice by actually differentiating high and low performers on the job (i.e., determining whether or not those who do better on the test battery also perform better on independent performance appraisals down the line). It sounds pretty dry--but it is, in actuality, application of scientific method to a real-life setting.  This approach is also considered the 'gold standard' that was used as the basis for essentially all of federal standards/laws concerning fairness in employment testing.

The only reason I state all of this is to give you an idea of (one limited area of) I/O psychology, as well as the overall approach. If it doesn't sound anything like "traditional" clinical pyschology, that's because it is about as far from clinical psychology as you can get and still be called a psychologist.  But to me, it's also a much more empirical/objective field, which is based on a very scientific approach (albeit one that is much less interesting to the average person than psychoanalysis).

I know that this is a pretty extensive response, and that we have also gotten way off-track from your original purpose of this thread.  For that reason, if you want to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me.  If not, then don't.