3 ms·

are you disputing the "many" part because the lawsuits are limited in number? that aside, everything in that search results supports my statement which you quot

are you disputing the "many" part because the lawsuits are limited in number? that aside, everything in that search results supports my statement which you quoted. they won't tell applications "you're too smart", the ones that do get sued, and those are the ones you hear about. police hiring is much more insidious than that, it's more akin to gang member recruitment. But, I will say that regional variations exist. Smaller towns or well reformed major cities might not have these issues. But for example the LA sheriffs department is not only a plain-and-simple gang, you literally have to have gang associations and participate in race-driven hostility against specific groups to be accepted. This hiring practice is informal, similar to how last names influence hiring. the claim is also that they get rid of or reject applicants that are too smart. that doesn't mean they require applicants to be stupid, that's why as your search shows, the average IQ for cops is close to the general public's median. Compare that with lawyers. One can argue that he people that are licensed to use violence to enforce the law should have the same level of cognitive capacity and store of legal knowledge as those who litigate the law in court. I hope you agree with that.

tptacek 8mo ago
The claim that this has happened in the past is obviously well-supported. The claim that it's broad practice or representative in any general way of policing is more or less completely unfounded. In fact, general cognitive tests of any sort aren't common recruiting practice. States have standardized reading comprehension and writing tests, like CA PELLET-B, but there's no high-end cutoff score for them, and there's also no direct analog between them and IQ.
- notepad0x90 8mo ago
  I think we can all agree that police departments are allowed to reject applicants based on IQ. Cognitive tests are common from what googling I've done, although only about 10 states have IQ tests specifically. It's also hard to prove that candidates get rejected based on their IQ, it's not like this would be a department policy. Whether they exercise their right to do so, or how many exercise that right, there is no hard data that I could find, and you might be right that this is a bit exaggerated. However, from direct experience, and the endless videos of police interacting with citizens out there, it's hard to not to draw conclusions. I would imagine applicants would be told they're not a culture fit or something, similar to any other workplace that uses informal reasons to reject applicants. I would even agree that if you pass the right vibe-check, having high-IQ might not be an issue (e.g.: white supremacist tendency, or gang membership). Google AI overview regarding cognitive testing (sorry, too lazy to dig up specific sources, i assume you can google the same things I did and find out): While specific, standardized, state-wide cognitive test mandates for police hiring are not uniform across the U.S., approximately 37 states mandate or conditionally require psychological screening, which often includes cognitive assessment components. These evaluations are typically part of a broader, mandatory, and highly competitive selection process that often includes reading, writing, and, in some cases, critical thinking, or scenario-based assessments like the FrontLine Testing System.
  - tptacek 8mo ago
    I'm not sure how interesting you can make an axiomatic derivation of the claim that police departments widely have upper-end IQ cutoffs (or, more likely given that virtually no police departments administer actual IQ tests, high-end cutoffs on their existing domain-specific written tests). The fact is that there are a very small number of cases where tiny departments decades ago (a) administered IQ tests for recruits, and (b) disqualified at least one candidate for exceeding a threshold. That's all the empirical evidence there is. That evidence cannot itself support the weight of the extraordinary claim that police departments generally disqualify applicants for exceptional cognitive skills. In fact, the opposite thing is more likely to be the truth.
    - notepad0x90 8mo ago
      > In fact, the opposite thing is more likely to be the truth. If you can't prove the former, you can't prove that either. It is speculation, but not unfounded speculation. a small number of cases were taken to court, and since those cases were found in favor of police departments, no further cases we taken to court. Police departments don't record shady practices like this either. There is no definitive public data on which departments administer IQ tests, your supposition that it is a small number is unfounded. Nearly all administer cognitive tests, psychological and/or psychometric tests under various names are almost always administered, and from what I was able to look up on the subject, they usually contain IQ tests. In a corporate setting, I've taken a pre-hire psychometric test myself, it was in every way the same as an IQ test but they didn't use that term. We are left with no choice but to speculate, the historical cases you mentioned laid the ground work. reason dictates that ground work is followed by others. as i mentioned, if inference is all that is left, we're left with public documentations of police conduct and hear-say, and all of that supports the original claim that this is a widespread practice.
      - tptacek 8mo ago
        You're asking us to believe the extraordinary claim that police departments view high intelligence as a liability and not an asset, and the evidence you're presenting barely exists at all, and the countervailing evidence is significant. That's all.

tptacek 8mo ago

The claim that this has happened in the past is obviously well-supported. The claim that it's broad practice or representative in any general way of policing is more or less completely unfounded. In fact, general cognitive tests of any sort aren't common recruiting practice. States have standardized reading comprehension and writing tests, like CA PELLET-B, but there's no high-end cutoff score for them, and there's also no direct analog between them and IQ.

notepad0x90 8mo ago
I think we can all agree that police departments are allowed to reject applicants based on IQ. Cognitive tests are common from what googling I've done, although only about 10 states have IQ tests specifically. It's also hard to prove that candidates get rejected based on their IQ, it's not like this would be a department policy. Whether they exercise their right to do so, or how many exercise that right, there is no hard data that I could find, and you might be right that this is a bit exaggerated. However, from direct experience, and the endless videos of police interacting with citizens out there, it's hard to not to draw conclusions. I would imagine applicants would be told they're not a culture fit or something, similar to any other workplace that uses informal reasons to reject applicants. I would even agree that if you pass the right vibe-check, having high-IQ might not be an issue (e.g.: white supremacist tendency, or gang membership). Google AI overview regarding cognitive testing (sorry, too lazy to dig up specific sources, i assume you can google the same things I did and find out): While specific, standardized, state-wide cognitive test mandates for police hiring are not uniform across the U.S., approximately 37 states mandate or conditionally require psychological screening, which often includes cognitive assessment components. These evaluations are typically part of a broader, mandatory, and highly competitive selection process that often includes reading, writing, and, in some cases, critical thinking, or scenario-based assessments like the FrontLine Testing System.
- tptacek 8mo ago
  I'm not sure how interesting you can make an axiomatic derivation of the claim that police departments widely have upper-end IQ cutoffs (or, more likely given that virtually no police departments administer actual IQ tests, high-end cutoffs on their existing domain-specific written tests). The fact is that there are a very small number of cases where tiny departments decades ago (a) administered IQ tests for recruits, and (b) disqualified at least one candidate for exceeding a threshold. That's all the empirical evidence there is. That evidence cannot itself support the weight of the extraordinary claim that police departments generally disqualify applicants for exceptional cognitive skills. In fact, the opposite thing is more likely to be the truth.
  - notepad0x90 8mo ago
    > In fact, the opposite thing is more likely to be the truth. If you can't prove the former, you can't prove that either. It is speculation, but not unfounded speculation. a small number of cases were taken to court, and since those cases were found in favor of police departments, no further cases we taken to court. Police departments don't record shady practices like this either. There is no definitive public data on which departments administer IQ tests, your supposition that it is a small number is unfounded. Nearly all administer cognitive tests, psychological and/or psychometric tests under various names are almost always administered, and from what I was able to look up on the subject, they usually contain IQ tests. In a corporate setting, I've taken a pre-hire psychometric test myself, it was in every way the same as an IQ test but they didn't use that term. We are left with no choice but to speculate, the historical cases you mentioned laid the ground work. reason dictates that ground work is followed by others. as i mentioned, if inference is all that is left, we're left with public documentations of police conduct and hear-say, and all of that supports the original claim that this is a widespread practice.
    - tptacek 8mo ago
      You're asking us to believe the extraordinary claim that police departments view high intelligence as a liability and not an asset, and the evidence you're presenting barely exists at all, and the countervailing evidence is significant. That's all.