5 ms·

Psychometrics has clear value. Cognitive ability predicts academic/job performance (Schmidt & Hunter 1998, Psych Bull), and standardized tests reliably forecast

Psychometrics has clear value. Cognitive ability predicts academic/job performance (Schmidt & Hunter 1998, Psych Bull), and standardized tests reliably forecast college outcomes (Kuncel, Hezlett & Ones 2004, Science). Conscientiousness adds further predictive power (Poropat 2009, Psych Bull). The science is robust. The issue is the discomfort it causes, not lack of benefit or predictive power.

shermantanktop 1y ago
Intelligence testing is not widely used in employment hiring, despite many attempts. Why is that?
- bofadeez 1y ago
  Of course it is[1]. Every single method used to screen a candidate is essentially testing for general mental ability. Being admitted to an Ivy League school is basically an IQ test. Interviews are basically IQ tests. Employers want to hire smart people. The fact that his is even a debate is crazy. [1] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-10661-006 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-10661-006
  - rixed 1y ago
    Your definition of an IQ test seems to be so vague as to be meaningless. Last time I passed a job interview, on several rounds of interview not one was about general intelligence, or general knowledge, or general anything. It was about my ability to solve the kind of problems they were solving and I had some experience solving. Last time I failed a job interview it was because of a bad culture fit. I have not looked at the numbers, but I would suspect Ivy league admissions to be more correlated with wealth / geography than possibly anything else, but you probably square that with a belief that intelligence is hereditary as wealth is. IQ tests measure the ability to solve quickly some abstract problems in an exam-like situation. There is certainly a use case for that, but thinking it captures the whole of "cognitive ability" is like thinking that duolingo captures the whole of litterary. By the way, anytime one can't understand why $DEBATED_TOPIC is debatable should be an indication that one should switch to a slower though process.
    - Avshalom 1y ago
      >Your definition of an IQ test seems to be so vague as to be meaningless. This is actually like one of the primary tricks of the IQ perverts. They'll take literally any test, run the results through a transformation function to get it into their bell curve, and start making claims about how IQ correlate with This-Or-That based on it.
      - bofadeez 1y ago
        If you dismiss IQ research, you might as well disregard all of psychology. The psychologists who developed intelligence tests were pioneers in using the statistical methods (e.g. factor analysis) that now underpin the entire field. IQ is defined more precisely than almost any other psychological construct. Discarding it leaves you with poorly defined concepts and no clear way to handle them. [1] [1] https://youtu.be/D7Kn5p7TP_Y?t=47m50s https://youtu.be/D7Kn5p7TP_Y?t=47m50s
        Avshalom 1y ago
        Oh for fuck's sake. So: the people that developed intelligence tests were not psychologists; lies, damned lies and statistics; "pioneering" the idea of using math doesn't mean that people using math today are doing the same thing; whatever the definition of IQ might be is irrelevant because "IQ tests" are not rigorously defined; however precisely IQ is defined is also irrelevant because it's supposedly just a proxy for "g"; psychology is not psychometry and so discarding IQ does nothing to the field of psychology.
    - bofadeez 1y ago
      In practice, intelligence tests don’t depend on the specific questions asked. If you let a group of people generate their own questions, pool them together, sample randomly, and then rank scores, the same individuals would tend to rise to the top. This is because people with higher general cognitive ability perform better across virtually any cognitive task, a phenomenon first documented by Spearman (1904) and repeatedly confirmed in psychometrics research (e.g., Jensen 1998; Deary 2012).
- gruez 1y ago
  Because the supreme court ruled that it's racist to do so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
  - d1sxeyes 1y ago
    No, the Supreme Court ruled that you have to have a concrete business reason for implementing a test that is disproportionately likely to favour one ethnic group over another: > The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.
    - bofadeez 1y ago
      So the NBA is discriminating by using physical tests that require height? Any kind of skill-based testing is obviously racist. Thanks for teaching me.
      - olddustytrail 1y ago
        The NBA doesn't discriminate by height. They have chosen players that are 5'3" over players who are 6'6". You're welcome for me educating you.
        bofadeez 1y ago
        Oh you're right, it is very diverse in the NBA in terms of height and race. Not at all dominated by tall guys. The Duke Power Company had as many black people in management as the NBA has short players. Your argument is not even internally consistent.
        olddustytrail 1y ago
        That is discriminating by ability not height. It happens to be easier for taller people to have that ability but that's secondary.
- mothballed 1y ago
  It's used by police, because if you're too smart you might refuse tyrannical orders. Whoops, I meant, you would get bored. https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
  - jurking_hoff 1y ago
    [dead]
- avazhi 1y ago
  Actually it is, if you're talking about white collar knowledge economy jobs, like law jobs. Top tier law firms routinely give either actual IQ tests or IQ test-like assessments during interviews.
- ACow_Adonis 1y ago
  I don't know where you live, but it quite clearly is where I'm from. Oooh, to be sure they don't call them IQ tests explicitly, but the psychometric capabilities and performance tests they've gotten me to do (mathematical, logical, verbal, reasoning etc) are pretty obviously IQ proxies.

shermantanktop 1y ago

Intelligence testing is not widely used in employment hiring, despite many attempts. Why is that?

bofadeez 1y ago
Of course it is[1]. Every single method used to screen a candidate is essentially testing for general mental ability. Being admitted to an Ivy League school is basically an IQ test. Interviews are basically IQ tests. Employers want to hire smart people. The fact that his is even a debate is crazy. [1] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-10661-006 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-10661-006
- rixed 1y ago
  Your definition of an IQ test seems to be so vague as to be meaningless. Last time I passed a job interview, on several rounds of interview not one was about general intelligence, or general knowledge, or general anything. It was about my ability to solve the kind of problems they were solving and I had some experience solving. Last time I failed a job interview it was because of a bad culture fit. I have not looked at the numbers, but I would suspect Ivy league admissions to be more correlated with wealth / geography than possibly anything else, but you probably square that with a belief that intelligence is hereditary as wealth is. IQ tests measure the ability to solve quickly some abstract problems in an exam-like situation. There is certainly a use case for that, but thinking it captures the whole of "cognitive ability" is like thinking that duolingo captures the whole of litterary. By the way, anytime one can't understand why $DEBATED_TOPIC is debatable should be an indication that one should switch to a slower though process.
  - Avshalom 1y ago
    >Your definition of an IQ test seems to be so vague as to be meaningless. This is actually like one of the primary tricks of the IQ perverts. They'll take literally any test, run the results through a transformation function to get it into their bell curve, and start making claims about how IQ correlate with This-Or-That based on it.
    - bofadeez 1y ago
      If you dismiss IQ research, you might as well disregard all of psychology. The psychologists who developed intelligence tests were pioneers in using the statistical methods (e.g. factor analysis) that now underpin the entire field. IQ is defined more precisely than almost any other psychological construct. Discarding it leaves you with poorly defined concepts and no clear way to handle them. [1] [1] https://youtu.be/D7Kn5p7TP_Y?t=47m50s https://youtu.be/D7Kn5p7TP_Y?t=47m50s
      - Avshalom 1y ago
        Oh for fuck's sake. So: the people that developed intelligence tests were not psychologists; lies, damned lies and statistics; "pioneering" the idea of using math doesn't mean that people using math today are doing the same thing; whatever the definition of IQ might be is irrelevant because "IQ tests" are not rigorously defined; however precisely IQ is defined is also irrelevant because it's supposedly just a proxy for "g"; psychology is not psychometry and so discarding IQ does nothing to the field of psychology.
  - bofadeez 1y ago
    In practice, intelligence tests don’t depend on the specific questions asked. If you let a group of people generate their own questions, pool them together, sample randomly, and then rank scores, the same individuals would tend to rise to the top. This is because people with higher general cognitive ability perform better across virtually any cognitive task, a phenomenon first documented by Spearman (1904) and repeatedly confirmed in psychometrics research (e.g., Jensen 1998; Deary 2012).
gruez 1y ago
Because the supreme court ruled that it's racist to do so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
- d1sxeyes 1y ago
  No, the Supreme Court ruled that you have to have a concrete business reason for implementing a test that is disproportionately likely to favour one ethnic group over another: > The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.
  - bofadeez 1y ago
    So the NBA is discriminating by using physical tests that require height? Any kind of skill-based testing is obviously racist. Thanks for teaching me.
    - olddustytrail 1y ago
      The NBA doesn't discriminate by height. They have chosen players that are 5'3" over players who are 6'6". You're welcome for me educating you.
      - bofadeez 1y ago
        Oh you're right, it is very diverse in the NBA in terms of height and race. Not at all dominated by tall guys. The Duke Power Company had as many black people in management as the NBA has short players. Your argument is not even internally consistent.
        olddustytrail 1y ago
        That is discriminating by ability not height. It happens to be easier for taller people to have that ability but that's secondary.
mothballed 1y ago
It's used by police, because if you're too smart you might refuse tyrannical orders. Whoops, I meant, you would get bored. https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
- jurking_hoff 1y ago
  [dead]
avazhi 1y ago
Actually it is, if you're talking about white collar knowledge economy jobs, like law jobs. Top tier law firms routinely give either actual IQ tests or IQ test-like assessments during interviews.
ACow_Adonis 1y ago
I don't know where you live, but it quite clearly is where I'm from. Oooh, to be sure they don't call them IQ tests explicitly, but the psychometric capabilities and performance tests they've gotten me to do (mathematical, logical, verbal, reasoning etc) are pretty obviously IQ proxies.