3 ms·

Specifically, I am unaware of any actual data that shows a correlation between raw intelligence, as measured by any of the standard metrics (educational achieve

Specifically, I am unaware of any actual data that shows a correlation between raw intelligence, as measured by any of the standard metrics (educational achievement, intelligence tests, or skill at solving logic puzzles) and company success. I don't mean to be nit-picky but I enjoy an internally consistent burden of proof in a blog post. In this post he seemed to move the goal posts. He dismisses intelligence as valuable because it doesn't meet an impossibly high burden of evidence. But then argues you should instead should use drive, curiosity, and ethics without substantiating his claims. For example, test programmers on basic algorithms -- linked lists, binary searches. Just in pseudocode -- it doesn't matter if they know the relevant Java library calls. Programming and algorithms are two different sets of skills. Writing a stable, easy to use, useful java/ruby/python/javascript library is a very different skill set from solving algorithmic puzzles, which are both unrelated to recreating a linked list from scratch in 10 minutes on a whiteboard.

danieltillett 11y ago
Yes arguing from your own ignorance is not the most reliable way to convince someone of something. In regards intelligence it is the only thing other than work tests that has been shown to have any major correlation with job performance. Edit. This paper make for a great read on this topic. 1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227600464_Stubborn_Reliance_on_Intuition_and_Subjectivity_in_Employee_Selection https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227600464_Stubborn_...
- dlss 11y ago
  Conscientiousness is also correlated with job performance, and is about on par with IQ for predicting lifetime earnings. Agreeableness (also a Big-Five trait) is also quite important in cooperative settings (though both have small effects relative to IQ for single shot task performance). http://www.gwern.net/Conscientiousness%20and%20online%20education#conscientiousness http://www.gwern.net/Conscientiousness%20and%20online%20educ... has a nice overview of the literature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness does a reasonable job describing the trait. Edit: while we're listing large causal factors for work performance, I feel appalled I forgot to mention genetics... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9739126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9739126
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    The problem is conscientiousness is heavily g loaded so what you are mostly measuring is the effect of g.
silvestrov 11y ago
I'm guessing all his candidates have high IQ as the lower ones already have been filtered. He is not talking about the difference between 100 IQ and 140 IQ, but e.g. 130 and 140 IQ. So I read it a bit differently: he doesn't think that intelligence doesn't matter, but at the high end of the scale, intelligence doesn't matter as much as drive. High intelligence can't make up for lack of drive: A person with 130 IQ with a lot of drive is better than 140 IQ with low drive, but no matter the amount of drive, an 80 IQ person is not usable as a programmer. Similar to: if a jobs offers you $50,000 and another $100,000, most will take the second job without hesitation. But if you have to choose between $250,000 and $300,000 the difference in wage might not matter as much as other aspects of the job, e.g. location, what to work on and the colleagues. aka The law of diminishing marginal utility.

danieltillett 11y ago

Yes arguing from your own ignorance is not the most reliable way to convince someone of something. In regards intelligence it is the only thing other than work tests that has been shown to have any major correlation with job performance. Edit. This paper make for a great read on this topic. 1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227600464_Stubborn_Reliance_on_Intuition_and_Subjectivity_in_Employee_Selection https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227600464_Stubborn_...

dlss 11y ago
Conscientiousness is also correlated with job performance, and is about on par with IQ for predicting lifetime earnings. Agreeableness (also a Big-Five trait) is also quite important in cooperative settings (though both have small effects relative to IQ for single shot task performance). http://www.gwern.net/Conscientiousness%20and%20online%20education#conscientiousness http://www.gwern.net/Conscientiousness%20and%20online%20educ... has a nice overview of the literature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness does a reasonable job describing the trait. Edit: while we're listing large causal factors for work performance, I feel appalled I forgot to mention genetics... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9739126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9739126
- danieltillett 11y ago
  The problem is conscientiousness is heavily g loaded so what you are mostly measuring is the effect of g.

silvestrov 11y ago

I'm guessing all his candidates have high IQ as the lower ones already have been filtered. He is not talking about the difference between 100 IQ and 140 IQ, but e.g. 130 and 140 IQ. So I read it a bit differently: he doesn't think that intelligence doesn't matter, but at the high end of the scale, intelligence doesn't matter as much as drive. High intelligence can't make up for lack of drive: A person with 130 IQ with a lot of drive is better than 140 IQ with low drive, but no matter the amount of drive, an 80 IQ person is not usable as a programmer. Similar to: if a jobs offers you $50,000 and another $100,000, most will take the second job without hesitation. But if you have to choose between $250,000 and $300,000 the difference in wage might not matter as much as other aspects of the job, e.g. location, what to work on and the colleagues. aka The law of diminishing marginal utility.