Thank you, reviewers, for your ideas, time and patience. I have now made all of the most recently requested changes to the article.
Do you refer to this version ?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QqVsnF8D_Pys6EnS8YCYOR5xzqvS7ar-y0XGeVAhfRE/edit#
You should have said it in your post, otherwise it's difficult to guess. Since that file is constantly updated, you should probably add this in the initial post :http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=140
By the way, I think you must be careful with the file. For example, I see that I'm able to edit the article. You should restrict this function to co-authors only. An accident can easily happen, otherwise.
Regardless, I see the changes you have made. I think you should talk about the influence that politics has on educational systems (not just g, if we accept the very odd idea that politics cause IQ/g). But that's really the least of my problem. I can live without that.
My problem has to do with your conclusion. You say finnish people have higher Gf, given CPS PISA scores, even though WAIS-IV matrices show finnish people have lower Gf, because PISA data has larger N. Ok, but if you average the two, you will see that the difference is not obvious anymore. You didn't talk about the differences in tests. Gf is measured with only two tests. I don't know the properties of WAIS matrices (perhaps someone can show me a sample of what the items in that subtest may look like) but if it's different from CPS PISA, perhaps it's that difference that may explain why you get conflicting results. Also, I still don't know which of these two tests are the best approximate of Gf.
Do you have other evidence (direct or indirect) that may support the idea that finnish people have higher IQ and/or Gf, other than this one
And finally :
This is possible, however a meta-analysis by Kirkegaard (2014) of all the PISA results showed only weak evidence of conscientiousness explaining variance that was not explainable by measured IQs, and this was only for reading (standardized β = .17, p = .03) not for the CPS test which we used here (standardized β = -.03).
Given the reference, it's just a blog post. However, it's not the central topic of the article, so I won't cry. But I clearly prefer to see a peer-reviewed paper when you cite an analysis. If you cite an article, say, a review, or a commentary, it's fine to cite blog posts. I don't know if others will agree with me, but that's what I think.