3 ms·
The author's argument under the heading, "IQ selection vs random selection" could use some more work. Presently, it supports Taleb's argument presented under th
by fractionalhare 6y ago
The author's argument under the heading, "IQ selection vs random selection" could use some more work. Presently, it supports Taleb's argument presented under the heading, "Correlation only for low IQ."
The example shows that an employer gains a significant improvement (450%) in avoiding candidates two sigma below the mean, with only a minor improvement (16%) in obtaining candidates above the mean. A better example (if it exists) would show a very strong improvement in finding candidates at least one sigma above the mean.
- tartoran 6y agoIQ metric is not necessary to make this assment, a regular job interview could weed out the two sigma below the mean candidates. I think it’s common sense at this level. On the other hand it really depends on the job. You don’t need a hugh IQ to be a supermarket bagger. Low IQ people in low responsibility positions don’t pose much risk, I’d actually think high IQ in highly responsible positions may pose a higher risk: think of hiring a high IQ malefic narcissist who would ruin your business just for fun
- sokoloff 6y agoI don’t favor giving IQ tests to candidates for private sector employment, but a 16% improvement in candidate outcomes would seem to be massive overall, not minor, for many companies where company outcome is highly correlated with employee performance (SpaceX tech, self-driving tech, EV/battery tech, some areas in many other science disciplines)