3 ms·

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/cg

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.

Consultant32452 8y ago
If we're going to have a discussion about ending the requirement for a college degree or other seemingly arbitrary job requirements we have to understand why companies seek those things. The answer is that companies want to hire smart workers. It's fine to suggest that the degree requirement is wasteful, but I don't think we can expect employers to stop using that metric if we can't offer a better one. IQ is already something employers are looking for, even if they use coded language like "smart" or "problem solvers." Let's at least make it explicitly legal for them to ask for it. I'm not going to suggest that there's absolutely no bias in the IQ tests themselves, but we've come a long way with them, and they're certainly going to be less biased than the average human who is hiring. Your IQ has no race or gender.
- Nav_Panel 8y ago
  I didn't mention anything about "ending the requirement for a college degree", my claim was that IQ does matter but other features matter just as much, and a college degree turns out to be a solid proxy for _many_ of those features. I also did not claim that the IQ test itself was biased. I'm not quite certain which of my claims you're responding to.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    I'm responding to the actual context of this entire thread, not attempting to make a point by point rebuttal to anything you said. If IQ isn't the only thing a college degree is a proxy for, that just means we'd need to offer companies even more than just IQ test if we want to remove the college degree requirement.

Consultant32452 8y ago

If we're going to have a discussion about ending the requirement for a college degree or other seemingly arbitrary job requirements we have to understand why companies seek those things. The answer is that companies want to hire smart workers. It's fine to suggest that the degree requirement is wasteful, but I don't think we can expect employers to stop using that metric if we can't offer a better one. IQ is already something employers are looking for, even if they use coded language like "smart" or "problem solvers." Let's at least make it explicitly legal for them to ask for it. I'm not going to suggest that there's absolutely no bias in the IQ tests themselves, but we've come a long way with them, and they're certainly going to be less biased than the average human who is hiring. Your IQ has no race or gender.

Nav_Panel 8y ago
I didn't mention anything about "ending the requirement for a college degree", my claim was that IQ does matter but other features matter just as much, and a college degree turns out to be a solid proxy for _many_ of those features. I also did not claim that the IQ test itself was biased. I'm not quite certain which of my claims you're responding to.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  I'm responding to the actual context of this entire thread, not attempting to make a point by point rebuttal to anything you said. If IQ isn't the only thing a college degree is a proxy for, that just means we'd need to offer companies even more than just IQ test if we want to remove the college degree requirement.