[2xpress]

"...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 posting was for some VC analyst and not a janitor, then I don't see any problems with trying to hire workers with high IQs as long as they feel that would be the best for their organization.

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.

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.

[stadium]

> Does that mean they are racist too??

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.

[Dharmat55]

> Anxiety, ADHD, neurodiversity

> non-native language. Blind

If we're being brutally honest here, this makes the test a good filter if only for this reason. These are not advantageous traits. All else being equal, a sensible employer ought to prefer the candidate without these ... 'neurodivergences'.

If diversity is such a boon for business, I'm sure the company next door with less discriminating recruitment policies will be glad to take them on board...

[boondaburrah]

Those non-advantageous traits may have no bearing on the ability to do the job though, only the ability to take the test. This is precisely why it's illegal.

[jokethrowaway]

> 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's not the job of a faceless entity to decide on what criteria I should hire someone. If I value EQ I should very well be able to do a test for EQ.

IQ tests sound perfectly reasonable and don't discriminate anymore than any other mental gimmick is requested in interviews today.

[fallingknife]

And why not for a janitor? A smart janitor is quicker to train.

[jokethrowaway]

Sure, but it would cost you more.

All of this for a job with a huge degree of repeatability, which doesn't require a high iq.

[vineyardmike]

> 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.

[2xpress]

> 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.

I'm not saying not to test using other methods too.

[zeruch]

As a long time hiring manager, I would never use an IQ test to determine feasibility. They simply (for the most part) confirm an aptitude for test taking, and for tech jobs I've never seen that as an intrinsic good.

People usually can be evaluated on their analytic skills through other means that are more conversational and interrogatory, which in turn also assess soft-skills, which contrary to McNamara Fallacy adherents, are in truly short supply here in techville.

[jokethrowaway]

You don't understand how IQ tests work.

It's not measuring aptitude of test taking, it's measuring your ability to detect and apply patterns.

[zeruch]

And you don't seem to have understood my point. Thanks for covering the delta of any irony deficiency in my diet this week.

[fnordsensei]

There seems to be a general assumption that the brain is a muscle. If you train a muscle, it’s going to get strong regardless of what you lift with it.

If you train yourself to get better at seeing patterns of dots in boxes, that doesn’t generalize nearly as well as a muscle does. It doesn’t make you a better chess player. There’s plenty of science to back this up.

At large, IQ tests in recruiting are training applicants to be good at IQ tests.

[bmn__]

The three hypotheses you expressed are false.

[floodyberry-]

You seem fairly upset over this. Have you considered organizing like-minded individuals and forming a campaign to raise awareness on the issue until they apologize to you for apologizing for being inept bigots?