4 ms·

There is a strong correlation between national average IQ and GDP per worker [0]. >A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the bes

There is a strong correlation between national average IQ and GDP per worker [0]. >A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the best predictor of job performance [1]. >Beware of I.Q. tests. Many companies rely on I.Q. tests that are not professionally developed and have not demonstrated that only people with an I.Q. above a certain level can be successful in the job. Before administering any I.Q. test, you should make sure your legal counsel reviews the test, you know who developed it, you understand how it’s being applied and how the results will be used to screen candidates before you administer a test to any employee or applicant! The main issue when administering a pre-employment I.Q. test is, how can the "threshold" you set for hire/not-hire be defended? For example, if you state that an applicant must have an I.Q. of 108, can you demonstrate how an applicant or employee with an I.Q. of 107 is not capable of doing the job but a person with an I.Q. of 108 has what it takes to succeed? This is one important reason why many companies will not use I.Q. tests for pre-employment testing. [2] Basically, while technically IQ tests are not banned explicitly it's such a high risk legal venture that almost no one does it. Instead, they use other proxies such as credentialism, SAT scores, etc. [0]: https://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/IQandNationalProductivity.pdf https://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/IQandNationalProductivity.pdf [1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influences-your-success-at-work-2017-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influenc... [2]: https://www.hiresuccess.com/blog/is-employment-testing-legal https://www.hiresuccess.com/blog/is-employment-testing-legal

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Basically, while technically IQ tests are not banned explicitly it's such a high risk legal venture that almost no one does it. Instead, they use other proxies such as credentialism, SAT scores, etc. Which have exactly the same legal problem, the only advantage is they don't have the “this is illegal” myth about them, so are somewhat less likely to be challenged. But, the evidentiary requirements for them to be upheld if challenged is exactly the same, and most of them have as little (or less) scientific link to performance in the jobs they are used to hire for as IQ tests. If you evidence that IQ has a particular weight in job performance, using it as a hiring signal with that weight is not illegal (thresholding may be particularly problematic and hard to support, but that's something a red herring—using an IQ test doesn't require using it as a threshold-based filter rather than a weighted input to a multifactorial decision criteria. If you don't have that evidence and the use of the test has the effect of unequal impact against a protected class, it's illegal, but that's true of anything used as a hiring input, not something specific about IQ tests.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  I provided two citations already. One showed that GDP per worker is directly correlated to national IQ. That suggests a strong trend across the entire GDP of countries, not one-off highly specific jobs. The second described the growing body of evidence that an IQ test is the single most useful datum you could get about a potential hire. The only serious debate I've seen is which is really more useful: EQ or IQ. Companies and hiring managers will try to use the best proxies for guessing potential worker productivity they can get. Denying them objective data leads to them relying on much less accurate, more subjective, and more biased "wisdom." For example, the "ban the box" movement has totally backfired. Employers still don't want to hire criminals, so they just avoid groups with high crime rates even more, specifically: minorities [0]. By denying employers to treat you as an individual who has a specific criminal, educational, IQ record, you are left with them treating you as your group identity. [0]: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ban-the-box-does-more-harm-than-good/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ban-the-box-does-more-har...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > One showed that GDP per worker is directly correlated to national IQ. That suggests a strong trend across the entire GDP of countries, not one-off highly specific jobs. Seems to me it suggests national wealth strongly predicts ability to alleviate the environmental conditions (such as, but not limited to, malnutrition) known to adversely impact IQ. But that's neither here nor there. > The second described the growing body of evidence that an IQ test is the single most useful datum you could get about a potential hire. And if that is really supportable generally, it's probably also easily supportable for a great many specific jobs; where that's the case, IQ tests, regardless of unequal impact on protected classes, are legal, and, as I've said, contrary to your claim of illegality, they've been upheld in a number of cases for just that reason. > Companies and hiring managers will try to use the best proxies for guessing potential worker productivity they can get. That's probably less true in practice than you think, though it's the natural expectation of you make a lot of simplifying assumptions. > Denying them objective data leads to them relying on much less accurate, more subjective, and more biased "wisdom." Perhaps, but literally nothing but cargo cult “wisdom” is denying them objective information in the form of IQ where they actually empirically is the best tool for the job.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Basically, while technically IQ tests are not banned explicitly it's such a high risk legal venture that almost no one does it. Instead, they use other proxies such as credentialism, SAT scores, etc. Which have exactly the same legal problem, the only advantage is they don't have the “this is illegal” myth about them, so are somewhat less likely to be challenged. But, the evidentiary requirements for them to be upheld if challenged is exactly the same, and most of them have as little (or less) scientific link to performance in the jobs they are used to hire for as IQ tests. If you evidence that IQ has a particular weight in job performance, using it as a hiring signal with that weight is not illegal (thresholding may be particularly problematic and hard to support, but that's something a red herring—using an IQ test doesn't require using it as a threshold-based filter rather than a weighted input to a multifactorial decision criteria. If you don't have that evidence and the use of the test has the effect of unequal impact against a protected class, it's illegal, but that's true of anything used as a hiring input, not something specific about IQ tests.

Consultant32452 9y ago
I provided two citations already. One showed that GDP per worker is directly correlated to national IQ. That suggests a strong trend across the entire GDP of countries, not one-off highly specific jobs. The second described the growing body of evidence that an IQ test is the single most useful datum you could get about a potential hire. The only serious debate I've seen is which is really more useful: EQ or IQ. Companies and hiring managers will try to use the best proxies for guessing potential worker productivity they can get. Denying them objective data leads to them relying on much less accurate, more subjective, and more biased "wisdom." For example, the "ban the box" movement has totally backfired. Employers still don't want to hire criminals, so they just avoid groups with high crime rates even more, specifically: minorities [0]. By denying employers to treat you as an individual who has a specific criminal, educational, IQ record, you are left with them treating you as your group identity. [0]: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ban-the-box-does-more-harm-than-good/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ban-the-box-does-more-har...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > One showed that GDP per worker is directly correlated to national IQ. That suggests a strong trend across the entire GDP of countries, not one-off highly specific jobs. Seems to me it suggests national wealth strongly predicts ability to alleviate the environmental conditions (such as, but not limited to, malnutrition) known to adversely impact IQ. But that's neither here nor there. > The second described the growing body of evidence that an IQ test is the single most useful datum you could get about a potential hire. And if that is really supportable generally, it's probably also easily supportable for a great many specific jobs; where that's the case, IQ tests, regardless of unequal impact on protected classes, are legal, and, as I've said, contrary to your claim of illegality, they've been upheld in a number of cases for just that reason. > Companies and hiring managers will try to use the best proxies for guessing potential worker productivity they can get. That's probably less true in practice than you think, though it's the natural expectation of you make a lot of simplifying assumptions. > Denying them objective data leads to them relying on much less accurate, more subjective, and more biased "wisdom." Perhaps, but literally nothing but cargo cult “wisdom” is denying them objective information in the form of IQ where they actually empirically is the best tool for the job.