21–30 of 86 posts
I get "aptitude" tests for specific roles and abilities, but the concept of IQ as a standardized and reliable method to test a persons "intelligence" is far from proven, standardized or reliable.
Interestingly, an IQ test is used for entrance into Medicine: the Critical Analysis and Reasoning section of the MCAT
> The CARS section is similar to verbal reasoning sections providing passages with questions testing reading comprehension. The 500-600 word passages can cover topics ranging from the social sciences to the humanities, sometimes presenting in a convoluted or biased manner requiring the reader to consider what is being written from multiple perspectives.[25] The passages are designed to discuss topics that are unfamiliar to the reader, but success in this section requires strictly using information from the passage without using previously known knowledge.[
"...a 1971 Supreme Court ruling that decreed IQ tests and other tests unrelated to the job to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964..." Plenty of programming screens and interviews involve all sorts of brain puzzlers that are never used in actual programming. Does that mean they are racist too?? An IQ test would be inappropriate for an occupation that does not involve heavy analytical skills, but if that VC firm posti…
"...a 1971 Supreme Court ruling that decreed IQ tests and other tests unrelated to the job to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964..." Plenty of programming screens and interviews involve all sorts of brain puzzlers that are never used in actual programming. Does that mean they are racist too?? An IQ test would be inappropriate for an occupation that does not involve heavy analytical skills, but if that VC firm posti…
> is discrimination against individuals who can do well on IQ tests. Presumably, those people could prove their worth through other methods, ideally one closely related to job at hand. If they can't do that, then maybe the IQ test was a bad proxy. > Does that mean they are racist too?? Also probably yes, but I don't want to argue that.
I'm not saying not to test using other methods too.
It's a sneaky way of administering an IQ test but it is essentially what this industry is doing.
Jeesh. Why can't they be normal and perform algorithmic whiteboard interviews which are an obvious proxy for general IQ capacity with a thin facade of CS on top.
Interestingly, an IQ test is used for entrance into Medicine: the Critical Analysis and Reasoning section of the MCAT
No, this is not an IQ test. > The CARS section is similar to verbal reasoning sections providing passages with questions testing reading comprehension. The 500-600 word passages can cover topics ranging from the social sciences to the humanities, sometimes presenting in a convoluted or biased manner requiring the reader to consider what is being written from multiple perspectives.[25] The passages are designed to dis…
"...a 1971 Supreme Court ruling that decreed IQ tests and other tests unrelated to the job to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964..." Plenty of programming screens and interviews involve all sorts of brain puzzlers that are never used in actual programming. Does that mean they are racist too?? An IQ test would be inappropriate for an occupation that does not involve heavy analytical skills, but if that VC firm posti…
There's a lot more to diversity and civil rights than just race, although racism is very visible.
> Seems to me that preventing IQ tests from being used as a criteria for positions requiring heavy analytical work is discrimination against individuals who can do well on IQ tests.
Some people just aren't test takers. Anxiety, ADHD, neurodiversity in general for example. Or maybe they came from a place that didn't teach standardized tests, or is taking the test in a non-native language. Blind. Who knows. Someone could be a genius but suck at test taking.
Why should an IQ test be a job requirement anyways? Why not an EQ test? Does an IQ test discriminate against high EQ people? It's a straw man argument.
> It disgusts me to see anybody "apologize" for this. It's like as soon as they get accused of being "un-inclusive" they start "apologizing" before some imaginary mob bursts in and hurts their social media rankings. This is so spineless.
I wonder if there's a middle ground where someone else's success isn't seen as taking away another person's. That would make for less hostile rhetoric on both sides of your argument.
There can be a lot of social and family support/pressure to get good grades, attend good schools, and not everyone gets the right people surrounding them to create those types of opportunities. And checking all the right boxes still doesn't make someone entitled to a special set of job opportunities. At least not in the US. China, maybe so. Other countries maybe different too.