[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.