6 ms·

Employers are generally looking for a proxy for iq, since testing iq directly has potential legal problems. SAT, ASVAB, grades, degree attainment are often jus

Employers are generally looking for a proxy for iq, since testing iq directly has potential legal problems. SAT, ASVAB, grades, degree attainment are often just proxies for iq. I think if Congress passes a law explicitly allowing iq tests for all job applications we'll see many of these seemingly irrational job requirements fade away.

passivepinetree 8y ago
This isn't true at all. IQ is much less important than work ethic and attitude at many/most jobs.
- j_gu 8y ago
  So why then does the US military place people according to the ASVAB?
  - JasonFruit 8y ago
    The military provides the motivation.
  - topkai22 8y ago
    The ASVAB is a vocational (subject) test, not an IQ test. I think it does try to measure general intelligence in some sections, but it’s really focused on “can you do this type of job.” When I took it over a decade ago there was basically a “clerking” section which I flunked.
    - blueseaadmin 8y ago
      The ASVAB is what you say it is. I took it back in the mid 80s, scored just shy of perfect, yet I chose a combat MOS because of my interests and desire for going the "hard route". Looking back, I regret not going into a technical role in the Air Force rather than going Marines, but I've now been in IT for 20 years, and Uncle Sam paid for my degree when I left the service. All in all, a good gig.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      http://asvabmilitarytest.com/asvab-compared-other-iq-tests http://asvabmilitarytest.com/asvab-compared-other-iq-tests >The ASVAB measures cognitive ability like other common IQ test, but it dependent upon the individual’s previous education for successful scores. It removes the individual attention received in common IQ test, but gathers much of the same information.
  - freeopinion 8y ago
    College degree and ASVAB results are not similar criteria at all. They serve completely different purposes. A college degree shows an ability to complete a specific course of discipline. It does not really even indicate aptitude in the discipline. Just the ability to follow through and complete the requirements. I suppose it shows a minimum level of aptitude in that you didn't give up hope and quit. ASVAB doesn't indicate the ability to follow through with anything. It tries to hint at aptitude in a wide range of disciplines. It purports to provide your relative capabilities and interest in many topics. That is why the military relies on ASVAB. They don't need to know your level of stick-to-it-ness or discipline. They will beat that into you or drum you out very quickly. They are more interested in where among hundreds of specialties you are most likely to fit.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - snovv_crash 8y ago
      > It does not really even indicate aptitude in the discipline. I don't know what standards are like in the U.S., but at least where I went to university a good 30% (of those who were in the top 20% of the highly selective entrance exam) ended up getting kicked out because they didn't pass enough courses in their first or second year. Yes, for some people it was an inability to concentrate, but I also know a few who put in more than the minimum hours but for some reason it just didn't 'click'. I don't know if the US is suffering from grade inflation which lets through people who should have been failed, or if you are just in a bubble of people who are successful, but what you describe is nothing like what I experienced.
      - freeopinion 8y ago
        For sure, my experience is US-centric. I cannot speak to systems outside the U.S.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      ASVAB is an IQ test. Education correlates strongly with IQ. IQ isn't the only thing you get from the type of degree earned and where it's earned from, but it's a big component.
  - xkjkls 8y ago
    Mainly because it is really hard to measure work ethic over any short period of time. College being 4 years gives a pretty good proxy.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influences-your-success-at-work-2017-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influenc... >A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the best predictor of job performance.
SilasX 8y ago
It's more like a combination of general intelligence/aptitude and willingness to put up with BS and stick to a plan.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Nav_Panel 8y ago
IQ doesn't seem nearly as relevant as conscientiousness and ability to follow directions. College success really acts as a proxy for "I am able to complete assigned tasks under stress." I also imagine the relationship between IQ and productivity isn't exactly linear...
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influences-your-success-at-work-2017-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influenc... >A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the best predictor of job performance. Of course there are other factors as well, but IQ is one of the biggest factors and it's taboo to even mention it.
  - Nav_Panel 8y ago
    There are a few ways I could reply to this comment. 1. I could try and attack the evidence, by linking studies such as http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=psych_fac http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar... which found that conscientiousness is better correlated with grades (a proxy for job performance) than SAT score (a proxy for IQ), but that's not a very strong claim considering all the proxy measures involved (and it still does show that IQ matters). 2. I could attack the article you linked: "employers are more interested in employees' social skills than their cognitive ability" seems correct, in that communication is a key difficulty in jobs at large organization, much more than any individual's cognitive capacity. One could claim it's better at a large org to "satisfice" for IQ while optimizing for social skill. "Emotional Intelligence" vs "Cognitive Ability" as linked later in the article also doesn't seem to capture a sufficiently broad space of factors. And what is "culture fit" about, then? 3. We could talk about the taboo on discussing IQ. I could discuss my experience talking with supporters of "human bio-diversity", geneticists who seemed quite interested in discussing correlations between "various socio-cultural factors" and IQ, mostly with the intent of riling up people, or playing a contrarian position. Many people have a weak understanding of IQ and genetics, and end up drawing incorrect and occasionally repugnant conclusions based on the data (typically due to a lack of understanding that, across generations, genetics are malleable, IQ is malleable, etc). "Some people use the data badly" isn't a strong argument against mainstreaming discussion of IQ. A stronger argument might be that individuals like to feel ownership over their own lives. Telling people that "IQ, which is determined mostly genetically, is the largest factor in your job performance (read: life success)" chips away at the common knowledge that an individual has significant personal agency, which is important as a philosophical basis behind various facets of western culture. Scott Alexander at Slate Star Codex tries to synthesize the two sides (one side wants to mainstream IQ, the other feels their self-narrative is threatened, hence the synthesis that it doesn't matter so much on an individual level) here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/27/against-individual-iq-worries/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/27/against-individual-iq-w... but not everyone finds his arguments compelling. All this isn't to say I agree or disagree that there should be a taboo -- I personally don't have a stance, but would prefer not to hire based on the metric -- but I did want to share some reasons that an objector might give against making it an acceptable measure.
derefr 8y ago
Sure, the employer (maybe) can’t test for IQ it themselves—but why not have a public policy of “appreciating” if people bring you a credential from an external IQ testing firm? (I.e. the sort of formal testing MENSA does, but without the social club.)
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  It's illegal to require an IQ test/score for a job unless you can reasonably prove that a particular iq score is required. If you say that 130 is required, you have to explain why 129 is not capable of doing the work. As you might imagine, this is a high risk endeavor which is why most places don't ask for it. The SAT, however, is largely an IQ test in disguise and allows employers/universities to skirt the legal problem.
  - derefr 8y ago
    My point is: don’t require it. Just encourage people (perhaps in guides you submit to job-search programs or the like, or even in a newspaper PSA) to get the IQ tests done themselves, and then bring the proof of their IQ with them as an unrequested document. Basically, make it a social more that people should bring IQ test results to the employer, whether or not the employer wants them. Also, don’t actually call it an IQ test. Get a third party that tests IQ and then issues a branded certification named after the IQ tier you fall into. Like CompTIA certifications: you could be a holder of a “FooTesting Genius Certification”, and employers could ask for that. You know, like a college degree. Except shorter.

passivepinetree 8y ago

This isn't true at all. IQ is much less important than work ethic and attitude at many/most jobs.

j_gu 8y ago
So why then does the US military place people according to the ASVAB?
- JasonFruit 8y ago
  The military provides the motivation.
- topkai22 8y ago
  The ASVAB is a vocational (subject) test, not an IQ test. I think it does try to measure general intelligence in some sections, but it’s really focused on “can you do this type of job.” When I took it over a decade ago there was basically a “clerking” section which I flunked.
  - blueseaadmin 8y ago
    The ASVAB is what you say it is. I took it back in the mid 80s, scored just shy of perfect, yet I chose a combat MOS because of my interests and desire for going the "hard route". Looking back, I regret not going into a technical role in the Air Force rather than going Marines, but I've now been in IT for 20 years, and Uncle Sam paid for my degree when I left the service. All in all, a good gig.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    http://asvabmilitarytest.com/asvab-compared-other-iq-tests http://asvabmilitarytest.com/asvab-compared-other-iq-tests >The ASVAB measures cognitive ability like other common IQ test, but it dependent upon the individual’s previous education for successful scores. It removes the individual attention received in common IQ test, but gathers much of the same information.
- freeopinion 8y ago
  College degree and ASVAB results are not similar criteria at all. They serve completely different purposes. A college degree shows an ability to complete a specific course of discipline. It does not really even indicate aptitude in the discipline. Just the ability to follow through and complete the requirements. I suppose it shows a minimum level of aptitude in that you didn't give up hope and quit. ASVAB doesn't indicate the ability to follow through with anything. It tries to hint at aptitude in a wide range of disciplines. It purports to provide your relative capabilities and interest in many topics. That is why the military relies on ASVAB. They don't need to know your level of stick-to-it-ness or discipline. They will beat that into you or drum you out very quickly. They are more interested in where among hundreds of specialties you are most likely to fit.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - snovv_crash 8y ago
    > It does not really even indicate aptitude in the discipline. I don't know what standards are like in the U.S., but at least where I went to university a good 30% (of those who were in the top 20% of the highly selective entrance exam) ended up getting kicked out because they didn't pass enough courses in their first or second year. Yes, for some people it was an inability to concentrate, but I also know a few who put in more than the minimum hours but for some reason it just didn't 'click'. I don't know if the US is suffering from grade inflation which lets through people who should have been failed, or if you are just in a bubble of people who are successful, but what you describe is nothing like what I experienced.
    - freeopinion 8y ago
      For sure, my experience is US-centric. I cannot speak to systems outside the U.S.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    ASVAB is an IQ test. Education correlates strongly with IQ. IQ isn't the only thing you get from the type of degree earned and where it's earned from, but it's a big component.
- xkjkls 8y ago
  Mainly because it is really hard to measure work ethic over any short period of time. College being 4 years gives a pretty good proxy.
Consultant32452 8y ago
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influences-your-success-at-work-2017-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influenc... >A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the best predictor of job performance.

SilasX 8y ago

It's more like a combination of general intelligence/aptitude and willingness to put up with BS and stick to a plan.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Nav_Panel 8y ago

IQ doesn't seem nearly as relevant as conscientiousness and ability to follow directions. College success really acts as a proxy for "I am able to complete assigned tasks under stress." I also imagine the relationship between IQ and productivity isn't exactly linear...

Consultant32452 8y ago
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influences-your-success-at-work-2017-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influenc... >A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the best predictor of job performance. Of course there are other factors as well, but IQ is one of the biggest factors and it's taboo to even mention it.
- Nav_Panel 8y ago
  There are a few ways I could reply to this comment. 1. I could try and attack the evidence, by linking studies such as http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=psych_fac http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar... which found that conscientiousness is better correlated with grades (a proxy for job performance) than SAT score (a proxy for IQ), but that's not a very strong claim considering all the proxy measures involved (and it still does show that IQ matters). 2. I could attack the article you linked: "employers are more interested in employees' social skills than their cognitive ability" seems correct, in that communication is a key difficulty in jobs at large organization, much more than any individual's cognitive capacity. One could claim it's better at a large org to "satisfice" for IQ while optimizing for social skill. "Emotional Intelligence" vs "Cognitive Ability" as linked later in the article also doesn't seem to capture a sufficiently broad space of factors. And what is "culture fit" about, then? 3. We could talk about the taboo on discussing IQ. I could discuss my experience talking with supporters of "human bio-diversity", geneticists who seemed quite interested in discussing correlations between "various socio-cultural factors" and IQ, mostly with the intent of riling up people, or playing a contrarian position. Many people have a weak understanding of IQ and genetics, and end up drawing incorrect and occasionally repugnant conclusions based on the data (typically due to a lack of understanding that, across generations, genetics are malleable, IQ is malleable, etc). "Some people use the data badly" isn't a strong argument against mainstreaming discussion of IQ. A stronger argument might be that individuals like to feel ownership over their own lives. Telling people that "IQ, which is determined mostly genetically, is the largest factor in your job performance (read: life success)" chips away at the common knowledge that an individual has significant personal agency, which is important as a philosophical basis behind various facets of western culture. Scott Alexander at Slate Star Codex tries to synthesize the two sides (one side wants to mainstream IQ, the other feels their self-narrative is threatened, hence the synthesis that it doesn't matter so much on an individual level) here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/27/against-individual-iq-worries/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/27/against-individual-iq-w... but not everyone finds his arguments compelling. All this isn't to say I agree or disagree that there should be a taboo -- I personally don't have a stance, but would prefer not to hire based on the metric -- but I did want to share some reasons that an objector might give against making it an acceptable measure.

derefr 8y ago

Sure, the employer (maybe) can’t test for IQ it themselves—but why not have a public policy of “appreciating” if people bring you a credential from an external IQ testing firm? (I.e. the sort of formal testing MENSA does, but without the social club.)

Consultant32452 8y ago
It's illegal to require an IQ test/score for a job unless you can reasonably prove that a particular iq score is required. If you say that 130 is required, you have to explain why 129 is not capable of doing the work. As you might imagine, this is a high risk endeavor which is why most places don't ask for it. The SAT, however, is largely an IQ test in disguise and allows employers/universities to skirt the legal problem.
- derefr 8y ago
  My point is: don’t require it. Just encourage people (perhaps in guides you submit to job-search programs or the like, or even in a newspaper PSA) to get the IQ tests done themselves, and then bring the proof of their IQ with them as an unrequested document. Basically, make it a social more that people should bring IQ test results to the employer, whether or not the employer wants them. Also, don’t actually call it an IQ test. Get a third party that tests IQ and then issues a branded certification named after the IQ tier you fall into. Like CompTIA certifications: you could be a holder of a “FooTesting Genius Certification”, and employers could ask for that. You know, like a college degree. Except shorter.