> The government is in fact legally prohibited from trying to get top talent, because the methods to distinguish top talent are typically found to have disparat

> The government is in fact legally prohibited from trying to get top talent, because the methods to distinguish top talent are typically found to have disparate impact on the non-top talent, and so run afoul of civil rights laws. What are you referring to? This is a very generic statement, and I'm willing to bet it's generic because any specific claim would be falsifiable in 99% of cases. > the one branch of government that is distinguished by OP as still somewhat competent and capable, the military, is the only one that’s using IQ tests (ASVAB etc) in hiring. LMAO. 1. The ASVAB is not a test for identifying high intelligence. It's exactly the opposite -- a test for filtering out extremely low intelligence. A low ASVAB score probably signals a serious learning disability or massive educational deficit. A really high ASVAB score probably means you won't fail out of a mediocre college in your first semester. That's about the extent of the signal because it's calibrated so low. 2. Some other civil services do have required exams (eg the post office), but they tend to be on the lowest end of the skills/education spectrum. Again, exams filter out the worst, but aren't helpful for separating the good from the best. 3. The services that don't have exams would not benefit from the ASVAB (eg NASA asking applicants with graduate degrees in STEM multiple choice questions such as "why is water denser than air"... if a candidate is that unintelligent/uneducated they won't have made it to the interview stage in the first place). Also: Most highly selective private sector employers do not use IQ tests. Not sure why IQ tests are so fetishized among a certain set. They really aren't particularly useful interview instruments.