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 t

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.