3 ms·

>Metric for what? Metric for capability. Even though imperfect, IQ appears to reasonable good predictor of how capable a person is in learning a new task. The

>Metric for what? Metric for capability. Even though imperfect, IQ appears to reasonable good predictor of how capable a person is in learning a new task. The better way is of course to actually tech the person to find out how well he can learn it, which is time consuming. High IQ people can easily learn and do most jobs, low IQ people cannot. >How many people parrot Charles Murray to justify their racism with "science"? Charles Murray just says that races have statistically different IQ. This is different from my understood definition of racism which manifest as: "I will not hire you because you belong to race X"

rglullis 6y ago
Assuming you are right, the metric of capability could still work as a pass/fail filter, and if IQ tests were just that the discussions would be way less controversial. The problem is when you have a whole lot of either naive or malicious people trying to drive this hammer into any and every thing, trying to draw crazy correlations from IQ: drug abuse, income, life expectancy, social status... > This is different from my understood definition of racism which manifest as: "I will not hire you because you belong to race X". Yeah, it would be crazy to hear that from a hiring manager saying that nowadays. But put the veil of science and suddenly it is easy to consistently choose the White with an IQ of 107 over the Hispanic with "only" 98, even though both of them are perfectly capable of doing the job - or to get a plant with 100 new workers and end up with a bias to White/Asian due to a test where they score "statistically higher" but that is completely irrelevant for actual job performance.