IQ tests for employees and potential employees are illegal in the USA, for historical reasons.  Hence the rise of "coding tests", which are like IQ tests but far less useful and predictive of mostly nothing other than high functioning autism.

Quote from: Brendan;1100599IQ tests for employees and potential employees are illegal in the USA, for historical reasons.  Hence the rise of "coding tests", which are like IQ tests but far less useful and predictive of mostly nothing other than high functioning autism.

They're not strictly illegal, but because of 'disparate impact' the organisation has to be able to show that they're necessary. Most can't afford to do this - the US military can.

In reality, IQ tests predict job performance very well, in basically any and every job a higher IQ score correlates with better average job performance. Of course some jobs need high IQ more than others; a janitor may perform well with a low IQ, but on average a high IQ janitor will do a better job than a low IQ janitor.

In Britain IQ tests aren't illegal AFAIK, but in general the culture here prefers personal interviews to standardised testing.

Quote from: S'mon;1100612In reality, IQ tests predict job performance very well, in basically any and every job a higher IQ score correlates with better average job performance. Of course some jobs need high IQ more than others; a janitor may perform well with a low IQ, but on average a high IQ janitor will do a better job than a low IQ janitor.

Oh, if I had my own company and lived in Ancapistan I would require all coders to take both an IQ test and a "can you handle your high" test, just to make sure I want to deal with them on a daily basis.

Regarding legality, I should have specified by state.  I think it is prohibited in California, but I could be wrong.  That's what a corporate lawyer told me, but you know lawyers.  Even if not illegal, California is such a litigious state it would probably be employer financial suicide to attempt it.  

Now that you mention it, I do remember hearing something a few years back about a Police dept somewhere back east getting shit for weeding out potential employees with IQs both below and ABOVE a certain threshold.  Their rational was that if you're too smart you aren't going to stick with this job for very long.  I'm not so sure about that.  One of the most perceptive, wisest, men I know is a homicide detective in, of all places, Florida.

Quote from: S'mon;1100612but on average a high IQ janitor will do a better job than a low IQ janitor.

I don't know if that's true - my experience is generally that it is not.  Highly intelligent people look for intellectual challenges and may get bored or spend their creative energy avoiding work.  Someone that is fully concentrating to do a good job may put themselves fully into the work in a very different way.  

There's nothing to be ashamed of in honest work, and there is nothing wrong with having a job that you are exactly qualified for (rather than over- or under-qualified).  Even if that is cleaning toilets.

Quote from: Brendan;1100614Oh, if I had my own company and lived in Ancapistan I would require all coders to take both an IQ test and a "can you handle your high" test, just to make sure I want to deal with them on a daily basis.

Regarding legality, I should have specified by state.  I think it is prohibited in California, but I could be wrong.  That's what a corporate lawyer told me, but you know lawyers.  Even if not illegal, California is such a litigious state it would probably be employer financial suicide to attempt it.  

Now that you mention it, I do remember hearing something a few years back about a Police dept somewhere back east getting shit for weeding out potential employees with IQs both below and ABOVE a certain threshold.  Their rational was that if you're too smart you aren't going to stick with this job for very long.  I'm not so sure about that.  One of the most perceptive, wisest, men I know is a homicide detective in, of all places, Florida.

That an organization might weed out the excessively bright should come as no surprise. I remember reading, a long time ago, a memoir about the early years of the CIA. I think it was one of  Miles Copeland's. He said the CIA avoided recruiting the "over-intelligent." And this was for essentially analytical work, we're not talking James Bond here. Quintessentially academic work, and they did want academic qualifications, they just didn't want the A students. They wanted solid Bs and C+s. I didn't get the sense it was about retention rates though, the reasons were maybe partly that the brightest would get down in the weeds and might give better analyses eventually but not in a timely manner, but mostly that the brightest were politically suspect, i.e. more likely to be reds.

Quote from: Zirunel;1100630That an organization might weed out the excessively bright should come as no surprise. I remember reading, a long time ago, a memoir about the early years of the CIA. I think it was one of  Miles Copeland's. He said the CIA avoided recruiting the "over-intelligent." And this was for essentially analytical work, we're not talking James Bond here. Quintessentially academic work, and they did want academic qualifications, they just didn't want the A students. They wanted solid Bs and C+s. I didn't get the sense it was about retention rates though, the reasons were maybe partly that the brightest would get down in the weeds and might give better analyses eventually but not in a timely manner, but mostly that the brightest were politically suspect, i.e. more likely to be reds.

Or more likely to connect dots that the company didn't want them to connect.  

A firearms instructor I happen to be fond of said that, when he was involved in certain special teams, they found the optimal range of IQ for combat around 105 to around 130.  Below average and they had a hard time generalizing from training to deal with diverse circumstances.  Above 130 they had a strong likely hood of freezing under pressure due to "paralysis by analysis".  They saw so many potential paths and possibilities that they kept cycling through them trying to find the "right" answer.  He hastened to add that high IQ individuals could train past this limitation, but it required a lot of work and generally wasn't worth their time.  Being that IQs above 130 are so rare to begin with, they would just shuttle them off to higher level departments - planning, logistics, etc and leave the pipe hitting jobs for others.  This was in another country where they had a more, lets say brutally pragmatic, approach to such matters.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1100618I don't know if that's true - my experience is generally that it is not.  Highly intelligent people look for intellectual challenges and may get bored or spend their creative energy avoiding work.  

Well they might, but I have a highly intelligent friend I met at Grammar School (selective entry) who stacks shelves for Asda on the night shift. He was telling me how his boss keeps calling him asking to do extra shifts because he's one of the two best shelf stackers in the team, who does a night's work for a night's pay.
He likes the job while he writes very complex gearheady D&D stuff, or creates superhero type comic books, for a hobby. He avoids earning too much so he doesn't have to pay income tax.

Quote from: Brendan;1100631Above 130 they had a strong likely hood of freezing under pressure due to "paralysis by analysis".  

Doing field training/combat exercises in the TA (army reserve) I remember that during daytime team combat exercises under close observation exactly this would happen to me - I would freeze exactly like you say. Whereas at night, not being/feeling observed, I was fine and combat effective - much more combat effective than the other trainees, from what I saw. I feel the latter was closer to real combat. But it might just have been a day/night thing. Less data input at night = less risk of information overload. But I think it may also have been an issue around a feeling of "this is a training scenario - what is the right answer?" In a nightfighting free fire exercise where I knew it wasn't a structured scenario, I could immediately see stuff like where to flank, where to shoot from cover, need to move/roll after firing since the enemy would be aiming at my gun flash, etc. While most of my team were often basically just sitting there hunkered down.

IQ 130 is very high (ed) as you say, so this is a pretty small population sliver & won't come up that often.

From what I have read, in terms of actual job performance more IQ is always better for the company/organisation. Very high IQ people earn less money (and have fewer offspring) than moderately high IQ people, though, and may be less of a good 'corporate fit' as they tend to be more iconoclastic. I think the CIA may have been right about them being more likely to become Reds or other extreme ideologies, too. Certainly academia is a hotbed of far left extremism.

Edit: It occurs to me that in something like a hostage situation, high IQ might cause paralysis for the police officer as he tries to think of all the future branching pathways. But it can also lead to greater initiative because high IQ types may be less likely to be crowd followers. For instance in the Bataclan massacre, most of the French police responders were standing outside following standard hostage procedure. One officer listening to the sounds of the massacre inside said "Screw it, I'm going in", went inside and AIR killed most of the terrorists single handed.
Organisations love lumpen intelligentsia rules-followers because they can do their job procedures and won't rock the boat. Very high IQ types are less good at not-rocking-the-boat as they tend to see flaws in the procedures and think they can do better.

Quote from: S'mon;1100665Very high IQ people earn less money (and have fewer offspring) than moderately high IQ people, though, and may be less of a good 'corporate fit' as they tend to be more iconoclastic. I think the CIA may have been right about them being more likely to become Reds or other extreme ideologies, too. Certainly academia is a hotbed of far left extremism.

Edit: It occurs to me that in something like a hostage situation, high IQ might cause paralysis for the police officer as he tries to think of all the future branching pathways. But it can also lead to greater initiative because high IQ types may be less likely to be crowd followers.

Sounds about right and thanks for the interesting response.

Quote from: Brendan;1100692Sounds about right and thanks for the interesting response.

I'm very glad not to have said anything to offend you B!

Quote from: S'mon;1100694I'm very glad not to have said anything to offend you B!

LOL!

Quote from: Brendan;1100599IQ tests for employees and potential employees are illegal in the USA, for historical reasons.

Robert Jordan (no relation to the author) was denied application to the Connecticut police department on the grounds that his IQ is too high. The courts ruled that the denial was perfectly legal.

Quote from: Zalman;1100697Robert Jordan (no relation to the author) was denied application to the Connecticut police department on the grounds that his IQ is too high. The courts ruled that the denial was perfectly legal.

Yes, thanks for the clarification.

Quote from: S'mon;1100495IQ tests certainly seem to predict performance in the modern workplace. That's why the US military uses the AFQT, which is a test of general intelligence. Stupid people are dangerous to themselves and to others and need to be kept away from weapons. Smart people tend to deal well with complex situations such as the battlefield.

This post is entirely off-topic. Post another one like that and you'll be sanctioned.

Quote from: Brendan;1100599IQ tests for employees and potential employees are illegal in the USA, for historical reasons.  Hence the rise of "coding tests", which are like IQ tests but far less useful and predictive of mostly nothing other than high functioning autism.

This post is entirely off-topic. Post another one like that and you'll be sanctioned.