![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
You got a lot of flack for it because iq doesn't test creativity or intelligence and it's not an objective measure of what it does test
Manholes aren't drilled, they use precast boxes and pipe, then are back filled with dirt and gravel. Don't call us, we'll call you
Define "intelligence"... good luck. I have a feeling that the fact the test is called an "intelligence quotient" is what gets people so bent out of shape. They take one of the popular tests, they score poorly, and since its not a score you can really improve through education or practice, they feel that this test implies they are unintelligent and thus reject it entirely.
I missed that, and was told that was illegal.
You can't ask if someone is married, their religion, whether they smoke, their age, whether they have kids or plan to have kids soon, any of that as it sets up the company for a discrimination lawsuit if they aren't hired. While it's true it's not any of those "I'll sue you" worth things, it also does not accurately test the intelligence of a person. There's a reason why savants can test so damn high on IQ tests yet functionally be absolutely idiots at every other facet of life.
This example IQ test question is not sexist, racist, persecutes a religion, or requires cultural knowledge. A healthy well developed brain would recognize the answer D within seconds using very basic skills and proceed to the next question to finish the test in the allotted time.
I already said you can't even easily DEFINE intelligence without it being so broad a definition, that it'd be impossible to test for... and I explained exactly what it tests.
Not only is that complete and utter bullshit because savants score EXTREMELY poorly on IQ tests, but it would be painfully obvious during the rest of the interview process I outlined. IQ tests require too broad a capacity for a savant to perform well in. Where did you read such completely nonsense???
Want a cliffs notes of what your article said? All they said is that the IQ test alone doesn't fully capture someone's "intelligence", providing no real reason why, and then reveals its political leanings going on a rant about how race doesn't even exist.... yeahhhhh.
That's what I was trying to achieve, but with questions that have a right and wrong answer (otherwise its subjective), and the questions can't be biased against gender, race, cultural, or specialized education, and you end up with... an IQ test, lol!!! That's the whole point of the test, is to make questions that can have a right and wrong answer (these Apple, Google, and Twitter questions don't have that), and can't be something that an American might know that a Indian might be unfamiliar with.
Define "intelligence"... good luck. I have a feeling that the fact the test is called an "intelligence quotient" is what gets people so bent out of shape. They take one of the popular tests, they score poorly, and since its not a score you can really improve through education or practice, they feel that this test implies they are unintelligent and thus reject it entirely.
What it does is test your reasoning and information processing skills and speed, memory, and creative problem solving and identification of relationships from abstract material. If you don't understand how this would be relevant to virtually any job, I don't know what to say.
And of course its inherently objective by being a standardized test.
This example IQ test question is not sexist, racist, persecutes a religion, or requires cultural knowledge. A healthy well developed brain would recognize the answer D within seconds using very basic skills and proceed to the next question to finish the test in the allotted time.
Or you could ask someone what a pink elephant would see when drunk.... *facepalm*
African or European?What variant? How much fuel? How many passengers? What seating layout? How much cargo is on board? Is it pulling negative Gs?
What variant? How much fuel? How many passengers? What seating layout? How much cargo is on board? Is it pulling negative Gs?
It tells you exactly how a person functions at the variety of tasks they are asked to solve. It has nothing to do with subject matter expertise, which I have said before and said again.. which is why I also developed a standardized test that covers our daily task, the IQ test is supplemental to test how someone is able to handle unfamiliar challenges. I find it far more useful than asking "how many chucks would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood" and patting myself on the back for thinking of such an unusual and clever question, and then having the fun of deciding which answer I thought was best.
They aren't, they are click-bait to encourage you to share the score on facebook etc with a hyperlink.
And I claim to be endowed like a shire horse, and yet I mangroom for that oh so important extra optical inch.
I dont understand this one. Assume you have two rows of infinite equally spaced dots. The rows are parrallel to eachother and 4 units apart from eachother on an infinite plane. No white dot is ever going to be 1 unit distance from one black dot.
It tells you exactly how a person functions at the variety of tasks they are asked to solve. It has nothing to do with subject matter expertise, which I have said before and said again.. which is why I also developed a standardized test that covers our daily task, the IQ test is supplemental to test how someone is able to handle unfamiliar challenges. I find it far more useful than asking "how many chucks would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood" and patting myself on the back for thinking of such an unusual and clever question, and then having the fun of deciding which answer I thought was best.
They aren't, they are click-bait to encourage you to share the score on facebook etc with a hyperlink.
And I claim to be endowed like a shire horse, and yet I mangroom for that oh so important extra optical inch.
Oh well, from further discussion I understand the butthurt... people don't mind being told that they are unqualified for the job, after all that could just mean they didn't apply themselves or could study harder or are good at other things. People don't like the implication that they are inherently unintelligent. Most of this could have been avoided had they chosen a different name for the type of test. Ugh.
But you can have an infinite number of points between 0 and 1 that are discontinous (and therefor can't really be defined as a single unbroken line)
eh, I think Ducman meant that an IQ test will tell you how they perform at solving the tasks that the IQ test asks them, not the tasks of the job in general.