Cognitive Ablility

[Zzzptm]

And I'm sure you can trot out a dozen other academics who have expressed concurring views, in whole or in part, with the notion that average IQs for one group are greater or less than average IQs for another.

And I'm equally ready to point out that the overwhelming body of research does not support such a view. Like China vs. Luxembourg overwhelming. USA vs. Belize overwhelming. AND that such overwhelmed views are clung to by right-wing advocates of separatism, eugenics, or ethnic cleansing. It's bad science that supports extremist positions.

The research is bunk. Some cling to it because it supports their views, some because those views pay the bills. But it's bunk.

And it's not that the research that "finds" one group to have a higher average IQ than whites is treated as a good thing. It's frequently used as a call to action to hamstring that group in some way or to ban it from society. Suppositions of Jews being, on average, smarter than Aryans was used as justification for policies to target and then eliminate them by the Nazi government. In the modern racist movement, there was a schism at an American Renaissance meeting between the antisemitic racists and the racists that classified Jews as whites. Those same IQ "findings" used by the Nazis are the same ones used by antisemites to justify their views. There will always be ways to further subdivide and bad science will always be at the ready to provide the tools needed to justify those divisions. The idea of "whites" or "Europeans" is so broad... the temptation is always there to say that, among Europeans, such and such a group is more fit for leadership because it's in their genes/heritage/culture, and that others need to die off / make room / convert and assimilate because they're not part of that "dominant" group.

It's fruit from a poisonous tree.

[Typhon]

^^^^^^
You have made your position crystal clear, so there is no need to keep on repeating it.

------------
Now, moving on:  A couple of things to ponder.

The idea of diversity has become a huge talking point in today's society.  "There should be diversity in every aspect of life," they say.  This idea is fine, but one shouldn't lower the requirements for a job in order to achieve this goal.  Nor should capable applicants be moved aside in order to meet a quota.  Lets say you needed a heart operation.  Would it be more important to have the staff in the operating room be racially diverse, or that they be the best qualified?  Clearly the latter.  Yet, in nearly every line of work, the opposite seems to be the way it goes.

Did you know, that in the U.S., it is illegal for a company to give an IQ test to someone applying for a job at that company?  I'm not sure what the rule on this is in other countries.  As Professor Peterson said in the previous video, "IQ claims are more psychometrically rigorous than any other phenomena that's been discovered by social scientists."  So here we have an incredibly accurate predictor of a person's performance that is not being utilized.  This has to change.

[Charger]

Now, moving on:  A couple of things to ponder.

The idea of diversity has become a huge talking point in today's society.  "There should be diversity in every aspect of life," they say.  This idea is fine, but one shouldn't lower the requirements for a job in order to achieve this goal.  Nor should capable applicants be moved aside in order to meet a quota.  Lets say you needed a heart operation.  Would it be more important to have the staff in the operating room be racially diverse, or that they be the best qualified?  Clearly the latter.  Yet, in nearly every line of work, the opposite seems to be the way it goes.

I am a firm believer that companies, governments should ALWAYS hire the most competent and qualified person for the job. Gender and ethnicity should NEVER be a deciding factor. But ofcourse in today's world that does not happen...and sadly then we get completely unqualified people in many positions...

Did you know, that in the U.S., it is illegal for a company to give an IQ test to someone applying for a job at that company?  I'm not sure what the rule on this is in other countries.  As Professor Peterson said in the previous video, "IQ claims are more psychometrically rigorous than any other phenomena that's been discovered by social scientists."  So here we have an incredibly accurate predictor of a person's performance that is not being utilized.  This has to change.

Well I can understand why IQ tests are forbidden...they are somewhat subjective. Like I stated earlier IQ test is NOT a 100% certain indicator of intelligence.

But for it to be illegal...that's just ridiculous though.

[Zzzptm]

So here we have an incredibly accurate predictor of a person's performance that is not being utilized.  This has to change.

It's not. Honestly, even if it was OK to administer, I wouldn't, as IQ says nothing about work ethic, ability to work with others, willingness to work extended shifts, things like that which normally come out in the interview process.

[Vyn]

I.Q. is not an incredibly accurate predictor of performance. In the video, Peterson states it's about a .3 or .4, leaving 60 - 70 percent of performance up to other variables.

He did say I.Q. tests are very rigorous pyschometrics, and that it is the best we currently have.

And consider this: the standard deviation for I.Q. is about 15, as indicated by Peterson, and in Rushton's video. That is a massive ledge on such a small scale.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I.Q. is worthless. Merely pointing out that is is not incredibly accurate, there are more influences on performance that I.Q., and that using it as the scale by which to measure performance potential in an individual is fraught with peril.

[Typhon]

I.Q. is not an incredibly accurate predictor of performance. In the video, Peterson states it's about a .3 or .4, leaving 60 - 70 percent of performance up to other variables.

He did say I.Q. tests are very rigorous pyschometrics, and that it is the best we currently have.

Well, if it's the best we currently have, then we should certainly be using it in the application process.  Never was I saying that it is the only thing that should be used.

I am a firm believer that companies, governments should ALWAYS hire the most competent and qualified person for the job. Gender and ethnicity should NEVER be a deciding factor. But ofcourse in today's world that does not happen...and sadly then we get completely unqualified people in many positions...

True, true, true.  With the results being inferior products, inefficient governing, and so on.

[Typhon]

So here we have an incredibly accurate predictor of a person's performance that is not being utilized.  This has to change.

It's not. Honestly, even if it was OK to administer, I wouldn't, as IQ says nothing about work ethic, ability to work with others, willingness to work extended shifts, things like that which normally come out in the interview process.

I.Q. is not an incredibly accurate predictor of performance.

I was talking about intellectual performance.  I should have been more specific.

[Zzzptm]

No, they shouldn't be used... Makes me ask, how many people have you been involved in hiring? How many people have you been involved in firing? Because I've never needed a test to tell me if someone is suited for a troubleshooting role or more of a break/fix operational role. Likewise, IQ has no bearing on work ethic or capability to handle job stresses or ability to succeed in interpersonal relationships.

And heaven forfend we see the day where there's a preferred IQ range defined for a job and someone "too smart" gets turned down as "overqualified". We already see that overqualification nonsense for other reasons, no need to extend it.

[Typhon]

Likewise, IQ has no bearing on work ethic or capability to handle job stresses or ability to succeed in interpersonal relationships.

As I already clarified, I was talking specifically about intellectual performance, not overall job performance.

And if a private business feels it necessary to test applicants in a certain way, what right does the government or you or anyone have to tell them that they can't?  It is silly.