4 ms·

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

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.
    - notepad0x90 8mo ago
      You haven't presented a single "countervailing evidence", or even a claim of one. You can't sue a police department if there is precedent that ruled they have the right to do that thing, so what are you expecting other than lawsuits? I mentioned already that they don't document these things. Lawsuits settled the matter, and I won't repeat for the 3rd time all the other corroborating evidence I mentioned. I agree that evidence in general is significant, countervailing or not. I already changed my mind and conceded based on evidence that a lot of this is speculative, and exaggerations might exist. I'm more than open and receptive to evidence to support that high-iq or doing well on cognitive tests does not affect hiring in a negative way at all. but if empirical evidence to that effect existed, it would have settled our debate much sooner. Let me use an analogy. Let's say the courts ruled 20 years ago that tech companies can refuse to hire employees that score really well on IQ tests for some reason. Over that time, the quality of work in the tech industry by developers declines rapidly. however, companies have no need to formally use that as a reason for not hiring due to PR reasons, and candidates can't sue them due to precedent. The most reasonable deduction is that a significant number of tech companies have followed suit and using high-cognition to reject candidates. outliers are to be expected. This is further corroborated by the fact that like police departments corporations copy-cat trends a lot (e.g.: RTO, layoffs,etc.. with companies. with PD's: militarization, treating the public as subjects, using "I feared for my life" to excuse behavior that would have had them hung not too long ago). Trends, behaviors, precedent and witness testimony. People are tried for murder for far less.

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.
  - notepad0x90 8mo ago
    You haven't presented a single "countervailing evidence", or even a claim of one. You can't sue a police department if there is precedent that ruled they have the right to do that thing, so what are you expecting other than lawsuits? I mentioned already that they don't document these things. Lawsuits settled the matter, and I won't repeat for the 3rd time all the other corroborating evidence I mentioned. I agree that evidence in general is significant, countervailing or not. I already changed my mind and conceded based on evidence that a lot of this is speculative, and exaggerations might exist. I'm more than open and receptive to evidence to support that high-iq or doing well on cognitive tests does not affect hiring in a negative way at all. but if empirical evidence to that effect existed, it would have settled our debate much sooner. Let me use an analogy. Let's say the courts ruled 20 years ago that tech companies can refuse to hire employees that score really well on IQ tests for some reason. Over that time, the quality of work in the tech industry by developers declines rapidly. however, companies have no need to formally use that as a reason for not hiring due to PR reasons, and candidates can't sue them due to precedent. The most reasonable deduction is that a significant number of tech companies have followed suit and using high-cognition to reject candidates. outliers are to be expected. This is further corroborated by the fact that like police departments corporations copy-cat trends a lot (e.g.: RTO, layoffs,etc.. with companies. with PD's: militarization, treating the public as subjects, using "I feared for my life" to excuse behavior that would have had them hung not too long ago). Trends, behaviors, precedent and witness testimony. People are tried for murder for far less.