3 ms·

> Their are around 1.17 million programmers in the US, that’s far from an elite field. There were 162.63 million people employed in the US as of October 2018,

> Their are around 1.17 million programmers in the US, that’s far from an elite field. There were 162.63 million people employed in the US as of October 2018, according to the BLS: https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?graph_name=LN_cpsbref1&request_action=wh https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?graph_name=LN_c... That makes programmers 0.7% of the total working population. It can easily be seen as an elite field. Tech companies could theoretically disqualify anyone with an IQ less than 130 and still be left with over x3 times more candidates than working programmer positions in the US.

Retric 8y ago
You are assuming 25% of high IQ people theoretically enter programming which is absurd. Having a high IQ is only associated with ‘success’ not any particular interest. So, you see high IQ actors, athletes, soldiers, teachers, even janitors not just fields like engineering and mathematics which are thought to attract such. Any profession that wants to attract 1+ million people simply can’t be that selective.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  I'm sorry, but your arguments no longer make sense. You keep making claims, then reliable data is presented to refute these claims, which you ignore, and pile up more unsubstantiated claims. Most recently in this thread, you claimed: > Their are around 1.17 million programmers in the US, that’s far from an elite field. I showed by official BLS data that this means only 0.7% of US workers are programmers, and it can thus certainly be considered an "elite field", and employers can certainly limit job offers to high-IQ candidates. You just ignored that and proceeded to make absurd more absurd, patently false claims: > Any profession that wants to attract 1+ million people simply can’t be that selective. An absurd claim, demonstrating complete ignorance of statistics. If I have to choose 1m out of 1.5m, I can't be very selective. If I have to choose 1m out of a work force of 162m, then I can certainly be very selective. It no longer makes sense to resume this discussion.
  - Retric 8y ago
    and it can thus certainly be considered an "elite field" You are confusing theory with practice. In theory some field like investment banking could attract every single one of the smartest people, in practice that does not happen. Doctors are considered an ‘elite field’ yet their are 950,000 active licensed physicians (ALPs) in the U.S. Lawyers are not nessisarily as presegious and cover 1.3 million jobs. Sure, a top law firm, research hospital, etc can be selective. But, you don’t see even 1/5 of the smartest people enter any one field. Chess grand masters have higher IQ’s than the average population but that’s in large part because it’s a small group. Medicine, Science, Art, Law, Computers, etc all have very smart people at the top of the field, but the elite don’t represent the minimum. Even the professional world does not have a monopoly as you will find some people with 160+ IQ’s working in fast food or raft guides for various reasons.

Retric 8y ago

You are assuming 25% of high IQ people theoretically enter programming which is absurd. Having a high IQ is only associated with ‘success’ not any particular interest. So, you see high IQ actors, athletes, soldiers, teachers, even janitors not just fields like engineering and mathematics which are thought to attract such. Any profession that wants to attract 1+ million people simply can’t be that selective.

dunpeal 8y ago
I'm sorry, but your arguments no longer make sense. You keep making claims, then reliable data is presented to refute these claims, which you ignore, and pile up more unsubstantiated claims. Most recently in this thread, you claimed: > Their are around 1.17 million programmers in the US, that’s far from an elite field. I showed by official BLS data that this means only 0.7% of US workers are programmers, and it can thus certainly be considered an "elite field", and employers can certainly limit job offers to high-IQ candidates. You just ignored that and proceeded to make absurd more absurd, patently false claims: > Any profession that wants to attract 1+ million people simply can’t be that selective. An absurd claim, demonstrating complete ignorance of statistics. If I have to choose 1m out of 1.5m, I can't be very selective. If I have to choose 1m out of a work force of 162m, then I can certainly be very selective. It no longer makes sense to resume this discussion.
- Retric 8y ago
  and it can thus certainly be considered an "elite field" You are confusing theory with practice. In theory some field like investment banking could attract every single one of the smartest people, in practice that does not happen. Doctors are considered an ‘elite field’ yet their are 950,000 active licensed physicians (ALPs) in the U.S. Lawyers are not nessisarily as presegious and cover 1.3 million jobs. Sure, a top law firm, research hospital, etc can be selective. But, you don’t see even 1/5 of the smartest people enter any one field. Chess grand masters have higher IQ’s than the average population but that’s in large part because it’s a small group. Medicine, Science, Art, Law, Computers, etc all have very smart people at the top of the field, but the elite don’t represent the minimum. Even the professional world does not have a monopoly as you will find some people with 160+ IQ’s working in fast food or raft guides for various reasons.