Intelligence - Politically Incorrect?

[Nighthawk]

It seems that in our society, any attempt to measure a person's intelligence is deemed politically incorrect. In the USA, it is even illegal for employers to use intelligence tests as a basis for hiring people.

Now, if I wanted to be a professional basketball player, wouldn't my physical skills be tested before I were hired for that position? If I could not run, shoot, and jump with the best of them, I would never make it onto the court. If I wanted to be a professional artist, wouldn't I have to display my skill through a portfolio of previous work? Nobody would take my word for it to hire me.

Why then, if intelligence is a person's strong suite, is it politically incorrect to hire that person for a complex position based upon that person's intelligence? I sometimes feel cheated because that is what I have to offer, yet it is almost never taken into consideration for employment or anything else. Is it because for a person to be intelligent, another person must be stupid? There seem to be no problems classifying a person as unathletic or non-artistic ... yet intelligence/stupidity is an off limits designation. Is this perhaps because methods of measuring intelligence are so controversial? But ... are they any less controversial than measuring artistic ability ... which is done all the time.

Your thoughts?

[songbird36]

Where's your evidence for this? I've been on interview panels for recruiting legal staff many times, and we always (invariably) look at a person's intelligence as evidenced by their achievements and positions held, and attainment within those positions. We also apply aptitude testing.

There is nothing inherently discriminatory in requiring a person to demonstrate a level of intelligence commensurate with the job they are expected to perform.

[Nighthawk]

Where's your evidence for this? I've been on interview panels for recruiting legal staff many times, and we always (invariably) look at a person's intelligence as evidenced by their achievements and positions held, and attainment within those positions. We also apply aptitude testing.

There is nothing inherently discriminatory in requiring a person to demonstrate a level of intelligence commensurate with the job they are expected to perform.My evidence is that IQ and aptitude tests are illegal in the USA for hiring purposes. Also, former employers tend to only say positive things about people, lest the open themselves up to law suits. I've worked at more than one place where I was directed not to say anything negative when people called for employee background checks.

Hmmm ... so aptitude tests for employment are legal in New Zealand? Sounds very progressive IMHO.

[songbird36]

My evidence is that IQ and aptitude tests are illegal in the USA for hiring purposes. Hmmm ... so aptitude tests for employment are legal in New Zealand? Sounds very progressive IMHO.

Haha.

Illegal? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Who was responsible for it?

[Chicken]

Athletes are most often picked up by scouts, who base their judgement on the players reputation. Professional artists also have to make up for the lack of scouting by presenting portfolios and displaying what they are capable of. As far as intelligence goes, that is what schooling/college/university is supposed to measure. Well, at least a specific type of intelligence, but more so perseverence and determination. Considering that people with degrees do precent their credentials when attempting to attain a job, how is it unfair? They are also presenting proof of their abilities through experience, after all.

I think if Michael Jordan or some other sports icon did poorly on some "test" of his/her physical abilities, there would be no weight put on it. Just as, some very successful and determined people do not perform well on IQ tests. Also, some very nice artwork is done by people who have work that the majority of society would find objectionable or distasteful. So really, the only bias I would see in this situation is coming from the person/people doing the hiring.

You can have endless talents, but you need to prove yourself in action. Prove that you are intelligent, and capable of taking on the pressures of college/university, and you will be recognized for your skills by being rewarded with a degree. Good luck.

[Nighthawk]

Haha.

Illegal? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Who was responsible for it?
I wish I knew. I'll try to dig up some information on that.

[Nighthawk]

You can have endless talents, but you need to prove yourself in action. Prove that you are intelligent, and capable of taking on the pressures of college/university, and you will be recognized for your skills by being rewarded with a degree. Good luck.
I have a baccalaureate and a masters ... and I have to admit that they have opened employment doors for me. So, is there a general consensus that degree = measure of intelligence? If so, is that more fair than a standardized test?

[songbird36]

Well just to put you in the picture about the situation here, we have Human Rights laws which protect prospective employees against discrimination on such grounds as age, race, gender, sexual orientation and disability, but there is no way on earth we would sanction legislation precluding employers from assessing the intelligence or skills of candidates.

That is patently ridiculous.

[Nighthawk]

Well just to put you in the picture about the situation here, we have Human Rights laws which protect prospective employees against discrimination on such grounds as age, race, gender, sexual orientation and disability, but there is no way on earth we would sanction legislation precluding employers from assessing the intelligence or skills of candidates.

That is patently ridiculous.
Now, the law here does permit tests based upon the skills for which a person is being considered for employment. I suppose that could be considered an intelligence test of sorts.

[Chicken]

I have a baccalaureate and a masters ... and I have to admit that they have opened employment doors for me. So, is there a general consensus that degree = measure of intelligence? If so, is that more fair than a standardized test?

Well, again I'd think people would look at it more from your accomplishments themselves rather than one test, or a few tests. Showing that you are capable of something over a longer period of time is more respectable to an employer than a simple IQ test. Unless the employer was looking for a very short term employee, then I don't see why they would choose someone with a higher IQ on a test without experience, vs someone who has proven to be a dedicated person over years of work to attain a degree. Same goes for any profession, including sports and even entrepreneurship. The basis of it all seems to be determination and dependability. Employers seek to find stability.

Let's say they did start using IQ tests as a basis for hiring. What about all the people who have spent chunks of their lives in continued education and proven they are working material? They would begin losing jobs to people who didn't work for their positions, and who were born with a skill of scoring high on an IQ test. That is really a form of discrimination.

Come to think of it, this already exists in the capitalistic sense. Those born with money can buy their educations. They are born in the same predisposition someone with a high IQ would be in a society which supported hiring based on standardized test results.

However, that still doesn't make it fair.

Just my opinion, anyway..

[songbird36]

Well that's OK then.

I doubt that we would use an IQ test here as a measure. It would be too unspecific.

Yes the attainment of a degree is a measure of intelligence (as is the quality of the degree attained). Post graduate study requires a much higher level of intelligence and creative/original thinking than undergraduate study.

[baniak]

Here are a few thoughts:

1. IQ tests attempt to measure the entire breadth of intelligence (and fail, see point 2) from verbal to spatial to logical, etc. etc. In most jobs there isn't a need for a breadth of intelligence - a nuclear physicist doesn't really need verbal intelligence, a computer programmer certainly doesn't need verbal intelligence nor spatial intelligence (unless s/he is a CAD or graphics programmer), but they need a finely tuned aptitude for logical intelligence. A brain surgeon might not need verbal or even logical intelligence, but they need a acute spatial intelligence.

According to IQ tests, I have an IQ of ~130, but there are a large chunk of jobs that require intelligence that I am not really suited for, such as diplomat, psychologist... basically anything involving human interaction is out of my league.

We all know the story about Einstein flunking math, and Thomas Edison being labelled a retard when he was young, and I think that these two have accomplished more than their IQ tests would have slated them for. They didn't necessarily have aptitudes in certain fields, but they had incredible focus that allowed them to excel at their fields.

Using IQ tests to weed out "dumb" people is flawed - judging talent in a particular field by looking at the entire breadth of intelligence is really a waste of resources, and isn't going to give you any answers.

Instead of IQ tests, maybe we should gear tests toward certain aptitudes required by certain disciplines - diplomacy would test for "interpersonal" skills, computer programming tests for logic, TV news anchor would test for impeccably coifed hair.

2. IQ tests, though they attempt to test the breadth of human intelligence, still miss about 90% of intelligence, in my opinion. IQ test don't test for interpersonal skills which is a form of intelligence (I know INTPs - and I am one - don't really believe that this is important, but it is... just look at who is president and tell me that his IQ test would be much above 100). IQ tests also don't test for reaction time, split second decision making skills, how people respond under pressure, and on and on and on. Even though these aren't job skills that are tested for, they are talents that are incredibly important.

So that's my thoughts.

[Nighthawk]

Well, again I'd think people would look at it more from your accomplishments themselves rather than one test, or a few tests. Showing that you are capable of something over a longer period of time is more respectable to an employer than a simple IQ test. Unless the employer was looking for a very short term employee, then I don't see why they would choose someone with a higher IQ on a test without experience, vs someone who has proven to be a dedicated person over years of work to attain a degree. Same goes for any profession, including sports and even entrepreneurship. The basis of it all seems to be determination and dependability. Employers seek to find stability.

Let's say they did start using IQ tests as a basis for hiring. What about all the people who have spent chunks of their lives in continued education and proven they are working material? They would begin losing jobs to people who didn't work for their positions, and who were born with a skill of scoring high on an IQ test. That is really a form of discrimination.

Come to think of it, this already exists in the capitalistic sense. Those born with money can buy their educations. They are born in the same predisposition someone with a high IQ would be in a society which supported hiring based on standardized test results.

However, that still doesn't make it fair.

Just my opinion, anyway..
I see your point ... and I certainly do agree that a proven track record in a certain area should count for more than an IQ test or degree.

Fortunately, I've seen some more progressive measures that make up some of the educational disparity between those with money, and those without. I was raised in a poverty level houshold, but managed to cobble together enough government programs and scholarships to pay for all my higher education. While the system is far from perfect, I think poor intelligent people have a better chance at becoming educated than they did 100 years ago.

[Nighthawk]

1. IQ tests attempt to measure the entire breadth of intelligence (and fail, see point 2) from verbal to spatial to logical, etc. etc. In most jobs there isn't a need for a breadth of intelligence
Excellent point!




Instead of IQ tests, maybe we should gear tests toward certain aptitudes required by certain disciplines - diplomacy would test for "interpersonal" skills, computer programming tests for logic, TV news anchor would test for impeccably coifed hair.
That was my next question. Should we rely on things like MBTI for job placement? I know I would love a job where they left me alone for the majority of the day to pursue my INTP-ness.

[baniak]

I really don't think that IQ tests should be illegal, nor should MBTI tests, when hiring someone, but neither should they be encouraged for all situations. I think like all things, it should depend on the situation - if your hiring a burger flipper, you should look for an easily amused person with strong wrists.

A computer programmer (like myself) might benefit from a logical aptitude test, mixed with a MBTI test - just so they know that I should never have to deal with management.

These things should not be set in stone, and they should be flexible enough to meet the hiring needs of the company and position. No one test will do the trick, but none of them should be illegal - except for tests that would be inherently discriminatory.

People should also know themselves well enough to know what situations they would thrive in, so they can apply for those jobs and not be disappointed when they don't meet the necessary skill sets for the job... and if they really want the job, they can work on improving their skills so that they get it. There is nothing wrong with testing for skills, intelligence, etc. it offers good, somewhat unbiased feedback on your strengths and weaknesses.

[Shai Gar]

we always (invariably) look at a person's intelligence as evidenced by their achievements and positions held, and attainment within those positions.
seems biased against those with great intelligence and skills but little to no experience.

[Dman]

Here are a few thoughts:

1. IQ tests attempt to measure the entire breadth of intelligence (and fail, see point 2) from verbal to spatial to logical, etc. etc. In most jobs there isn't a need for a breadth of intelligence - a nuclear physicist doesn't really need verbal intelligence, a computer programmer certainly doesn't need verbal intelligence nor spatial intelligence (unless s/he is a CAD or graphics programmer), but they need a finely tuned aptitude for logical intelligence. A brain surgeon might not need verbal or even logical intelligence, but they need a acute spatial intelligence.

According to IQ tests, I have an IQ of ~130, but there are a large chunk of jobs that require intelligence that I am not really suited for, such as diplomat, psychologist... basically anything involving human interaction is out of my league.

We all know the story about Einstein flunking math, and Thomas Edison being labelled a retard when he was young, and I think that these two have accomplished more than their IQ tests would have slated them for. They didn't necessarily have aptitudes in certain fields, but they had incredible focus that allowed them to excel at their fields.

Using IQ tests to weed out "dumb" people is flawed - judging talent in a particular field by looking at the entire breadth of intelligence is really a waste of resources, and isn't going to give you any answers.

Instead of IQ tests, maybe we should gear tests toward certain aptitudes required by certain disciplines - diplomacy would test for "interpersonal" skills, computer programming tests for logic, TV news anchor would test for impeccably coifed hair.

2. IQ tests, though they attempt to test the breadth of human intelligence, still miss about 90% of intelligence, in my opinion. IQ test don't test for interpersonal skills which is a form of intelligence (I know INTPs - and I am one - don't really believe that this is important, but it is... just look at who is president and tell me that his IQ test would be much above 100). IQ tests also don't test for reaction time, split second decision making skills, how people respond under pressure, and on and on and on. Even though these aren't job skills that are tested for, they are talents that are incredibly important.

So that's my thoughts.

The main point with using IQ tests for hiring purposes is not necessarily to strictly measure the intelligence of the candidate. Everyone knows there are exceptions and people who are highly skilled in one area and morons in everything else.

But the primary purpose is because a high IQ is strongly correlated with a multitude of other factors that are favorable for employers. For example, people with higher IQs are less likely to be involved in risky activities such as drug and alcohol abuse, stealing from the company, and other irresponsible behaviors that would prove detrimental to the company.

There have been some highly regarded statistical studies that back this up, but it is not "PC" to talk about it so no one ever does. But for all intents and purposes, a higher IQ person is likely to be a much more valuable/reliable/efficient employee than a similarly qualified but lower IQ person, for various external and indirect reasons.

BTW - I haven't looked it up, but I believe here in the US the Supreme Court ruled years ago that companies cannot use IQ tests to determine job candidates. Naturally many companies get around this, Microsoft for example.