4 ms·

I'm grasping at straws looking for a counter example to my overall assertion, that it is not a great counter example does not undermine my case. I made a genuin

I'm grasping at straws looking for a counter example to my overall assertion, that it is not a great counter example does not undermine my case. I made a genuine good faith effort to find them - you could help me out a lot if you could list these companies that boast publicly about administering IQ tests. That would go a long way to demonstrating that such tests are not in effect illegal. My assertion is that IQ tests are already known to have disparate impact and with laws as they are in effect they are illegal. My next assertion is that aptitude tests will suffer the same fate as IQ test because they too will be shown to have disparate impact for the same reasons. That not all such aptitude tests have been sued already under this law does not make them safe from lawsuits as the burden of proof is on the company using them.

tptacek 2y ago
Were that the case, several of the largest employers in the country should be getting routinely sued for hiring discrimination. They are not.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  Ok, so what several largest employers are you talking about? If this is pubic knowledge as you allege then there is no need to be obtuse. And again, that list of employers that publicly brag about continued administering of IQ tests would be rather helpful to your case and would allow me to substantively check your assertion. I don't understand why in good faith you would not want to share this information. You cannot use the absence of lawsuits for a list of companies that you are keeping secret as evidence of absence of legal liability.
  - kasey_junk 2y ago
    Procter & Gamble famously uses “cognitive assessments” for hundreds of thousands of applicants per year. There are test prep firms for it much like you’d find for the mcat or gre.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      As best I can tell P&G is an aptitude test that only resembles fake IQ tests and more resembles a mix of leetcoding and personality tests - probably sharing the same benefit of opacity. Other info I found on it suggests that it’s easily gamed which is something real IQ tests are designed to be resistant to. I’m not trying to ‘no true Scotsman’ this but it would be helpful if the company described their test at least as an intelligence test. They seem to describe it more as a personality test; “Discover the PEAK Performance Assessment from Procter & Gamble (P&G) tand get an insight into how your personal profile matches the company's needs.” My specific focus on IQ tests is to be less opaque alternative to leetcode, the P&G assessment seems to be similarly and perhaps more opaque and thus, for now, confers the same protections from disparate impact lawsuits.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        The extent to which the test is arbitrary and gameable would make it more suspect under employment law, not less, so you're working against your own argument.
        cjbgkagh 2y ago
        Disparate impact is US civil rights law, not employment law, that law applies to employment because it applies to everything. I think I’ve been very clear about which laws and legal precedents I am talking about. When it comes to breaking a law it’s better for the company to do it with opacity than clarity. At least then it would be more difficult to show intent which would instead be disparate treatment which is far worse and more damaging for the company. Intentional breaking of the law is always worse than unintentional breaking of the law.
      - kasey_junk 2y ago
        The search terms you are looking for are P&G Digit, P&G Switch and P&G Grid. Here is official AON documentation (who also use P&G Switch) on Switch calling it a Deductive Logical Reasoning test. https://assessment.aon.com/aon.assessment/media/files/factsheets/Practice-Tasks_switchChallenge.pdf https://assessment.aon.com/aon.assessment/media/files/factsh...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

tptacek 2y ago

Were that the case, several of the largest employers in the country should be getting routinely sued for hiring discrimination. They are not.

cjbgkagh 2y ago
Ok, so what several largest employers are you talking about? If this is pubic knowledge as you allege then there is no need to be obtuse. And again, that list of employers that publicly brag about continued administering of IQ tests would be rather helpful to your case and would allow me to substantively check your assertion. I don't understand why in good faith you would not want to share this information. You cannot use the absence of lawsuits for a list of companies that you are keeping secret as evidence of absence of legal liability.
- kasey_junk 2y ago
  Procter & Gamble famously uses “cognitive assessments” for hundreds of thousands of applicants per year. There are test prep firms for it much like you’d find for the mcat or gre.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    As best I can tell P&G is an aptitude test that only resembles fake IQ tests and more resembles a mix of leetcoding and personality tests - probably sharing the same benefit of opacity. Other info I found on it suggests that it’s easily gamed which is something real IQ tests are designed to be resistant to. I’m not trying to ‘no true Scotsman’ this but it would be helpful if the company described their test at least as an intelligence test. They seem to describe it more as a personality test; “Discover the PEAK Performance Assessment from Procter & Gamble (P&G) tand get an insight into how your personal profile matches the company's needs.” My specific focus on IQ tests is to be less opaque alternative to leetcode, the P&G assessment seems to be similarly and perhaps more opaque and thus, for now, confers the same protections from disparate impact lawsuits.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      The extent to which the test is arbitrary and gameable would make it more suspect under employment law, not less, so you're working against your own argument.
      - cjbgkagh 2y ago
        Disparate impact is US civil rights law, not employment law, that law applies to employment because it applies to everything. I think I’ve been very clear about which laws and legal precedents I am talking about. When it comes to breaking a law it’s better for the company to do it with opacity than clarity. At least then it would be more difficult to show intent which would instead be disparate treatment which is far worse and more damaging for the company. Intentional breaking of the law is always worse than unintentional breaking of the law.
    - kasey_junk 2y ago
      The search terms you are looking for are P&G Digit, P&G Switch and P&G Grid. Here is official AON documentation (who also use P&G Switch) on Switch calling it a Deductive Logical Reasoning test. https://assessment.aon.com/aon.assessment/media/files/factsheets/Practice-Tasks_switchChallenge.pdf https://assessment.aon.com/aon.assessment/media/files/factsh...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]