There is no law prohibiting the use of IQ tests in hiring, but it is considered to be legally indefensible. The colloquial term for legally indefensible is "illegal". The joys of English.
No, it's not. Huge companies that are enormous targets for employment attorneys routinely do IQ testing. The companies that deliver and proctor general cognitive tests for employment have logo crawls, like any other SAAS company. This is just a big Internet myth.
The reason more companies don't IQ test is that it's an ineffective tool for candidate screening. We all intuitively get that as software developers: imagine hiring off an IQ test rather than just having someone write code.
It's not what? Your train of thought seems to have gotten cut off. The huge company story is fun too, but it also seems to have gotten cut off not going anywhere. You're right that the "internet myth" considers it to be legally indefensible, and thus, colloquially, illegal. But we already covered that earlier, so whatever it was you were trying to add on top of that also appears to have gotten cut off as well, unfortunately. The last few days have not been kind to technology!
Regardless, you vastly overestimate how much effort is put into hiring. The large majority of companies would never study the effectiveness of IQ tests to know if they are useful to them or not. Researching what works and what doesn't isn't on their radar and they wouldn't know how to anyway. If they had a gut feeling that an IQ test would be helpful they would try it on that basis, except they wouldn't try it because they've read online that IQ test use is illegal; meaning that it is considered to be legally indefensible.
It's not legally indefensible. It's not illegal in any sense. It's not proscribed. It's presumptively fine in white-collar employment. Large companies screen candidates with general cognitive tests. Well-established companies administer those tests and brag about their large clients. None of this is a secret.
So it's difficult to see how to square what was previously said on this thread, about IQ testing in employment being "illegal" or "legally indefensible". Those are trivially falsifiable claims. Every HR department in the world knows that.
It would appear my message also arrived malformed. What a terrible week for tech!
What I said, quoting from earlier, was "considered to be legally indefensible". Whether or not it is legally defensible is for the courts to decide, but it is clear that it is not considered to be. Unfortunately your full comment didn't arrive, but what we did get was "This is just a big Internet myth" which appears to have you echoing that it is considered to be legally indefensible. You cannot have a "myth" without belief.
Where the law is abundantly clear (YMMV, law is jurisdictional) is that hiring criterion must be related to the job. It asserts that selection tests must be reasonable, bona fide, and tailored to actual job duties. That does not strictly prohibit IQ tests, but there are effectively zero jobs where an IQ test could be seen as reasonable, bona fide, and tailored to the actual job. Whatever exception you can find is just that: an exception.
IQ tests as a hiring practice are most definitely illegal, as the word is colloquially used. That doesn't mean you cannot use them in certain circumstances. Much to the chagrin of programmers, law isn't binary.
It doesn't prohibit IQ testing at all and your argument fails empirically because large companies do in fact broadly employ IQ testing. None of the rest of your comment makes sense in light of that fact.
You know who I think has a better grasp of the law on this than you do? The HR department at Allstate.
It looks like your message got cut off again. Allstate is well known for not using IQ tests, rather their proprietary JEPS assessment, so be aware that whatever followed to connect IQ tests and Allstate is missing.
Moreover, on JEPS, Allstate does not use JEPS in my jurisdiction. There is no public knowledge as to why, but legal compliance would be a reasonable explanation. Use of JEPS may even be illegal.
It is true that Allstate is a Wonderlic client, but Wonderlic does not use IQ tests, so the connection is not clear. Did your message get truncated again?
Could it be that you are using "IQ test" as some catchall term for any type of cognitive test? You could define it that way in a vacuum, but that is not how it is being used here. The initial comment was clear about how it was being used. In context, "IQ test" was being used to refer to IQ tests that are academically recognized as IQ tests (WAIS, Stanford–Binet, etc.). HR department pet assessments crafted for hiring purposes do not fall under that.
All general cognitive tests are IQ tests, unless you don't believe in psychometric g or the positive manifold. Further: any general cognitive test intersects Griggs v. Duke the way the Wechsler or Ravens does. This is becoming tedious.
His business manager stole all his money from Breaking Bad so dude actually ended up in debt because of all the taxes he owed. She never paid his taxes which he didn't find out until years later. She was sending him fake documents.
> According to the actor, the manager allegedly diverted money intended for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and provided falsified documents showing that his taxes had been paid. Mitte remained unaware of the problem for several years until the IRS notified him of outstanding taxes, penalties, and interest. [0]
That seems true from our perspective. But from his, there may be a huge difference between committing murder, no matter how justified it may seem, and just leaving the world.
It's very confusing because the way the Internet has described it is multiple counts of fraud and theft but I can't find a single reputable source confirming it.
Rather than too innocent, I would say let down by his elders.
It may have changed by now (though I doubt it) but this kind of thing was not covered in my high school or college education and nobody else taught me anything about how taxes work, and so when I entered the workforce in my 20s I was subject to a crash course on the subject after I wound up with a surprise bill from the IRS.
Given that he entered the industry at a young age he very well may have not had anybody teach him any better which enabled the accountant to take advantage of him.
You don't understand how the entertainment business works.
Actors don't get or pay bills, their agent or manager does.
That's part of the justification for taking their 10%: you don't have to worry about anything, anymore. If they were young when they started, it was always like this, and they never learned such basic skills.
Do you think when someone famous drops their phone in a toilet they go stand in line at the Apple store with the normies?
No.
I wonder how many know how to write a check.
More than once I've heard a celebrity explain to an interviewer, "I don't know where the bills go."
> I give him check writing ability to make it smoother for me to pay bills.
I immediately smell a giant red flag! I'm dealing with a lawsuit in another country, so I can't be there more than once or twice a year. To handle that situation, I'd have to sign a power of attorney. That document was shocking to read. It gave my lawyer pretty much every possible permission, including withdrawing from the suit at his will, and it said I can't sue him, I can't change attorney, and whatnot. Funny, the doc had been in circulation for the last 50 years. I wrote a new doc and gave him the absolute minimum :-)
Cohen discovered that he had unknowingly paid a credit card bill of Lynch's for $75,000, and that most of the money in his accounts was gone, including money from his retirement accounts and charitable trust funds. This had begun as early as 1996, when Lynch started selling Cohen's music publishing rights, despite the fact that Cohen had no financial incentive to do so.
Dane Cook was famously assfucked out of $12 million by his own (half) brother, who was also his manager. Dude was hiding cash in jars of spaghetti sauce.
IIRC he did prison time for it and it was in the news again recently as it was made into a documentary.
What’s said is that yahoo “article” is really an ad for a budgeting app, offered towards the end as a potential way to protect yourself from the same outcome.
It was way more than just the idea of a deterministic world. For example the idea that the world is Gods creation made it godly to discover the Lords laws for the world.
And more unique Christian theology like the Fall of Man, which made human thinking inherently corrupted by original sin, led to the argument that this could (must) be alleviated by new rational and objective methods. To quote from:
> experimental knowledge was also deemed to be the more appropriate form of knowledge for a fallen world. It was commonly argued that while human beings in a prelapsarian state may have had direct access to the essence of things owing to a natural affinity between the mind and nature, that connexion had been lost as a consequence of the Fall. Knowledge after the Fall would now have to be painstakingly gathered from observations, aggressive experimental intrusions into (a fallen) nature, conducted by numerous individuals, over extended periods of time, and yielding only makeshift and probabilistic knowledge.
Francis Bacon accordingly proposed that the object of the new natural philosophy was to seek, as far as possible, to restore the original connection between the human mind and the natural world that had existed in our prelapsarian condition.82 Subsequently, Robert Hooke, the first curator of experiments at the Royal Society, wrote that on account of an innate ‘derived corruption’, human beings have a natural tendency towards error. ‘These being the dangers in the process of humane Reason’, he concluded, ‘the remedies of them all can only proceed from the real, the mechanical, the experimental Philosophy’. Experimentation was thus a palliative for original sin
> I expected it to be more like "write a 500 page novel that a publisher accepts",
It only has 272 pages, but there is a big scandal right now about France's most prestigous literary award remobing a critically aclaimed(!) bestseller(!!) novel because it likely was "almost entirely written by AI"
Note that the author denies the claim. And it also appears that AI detectors are split on the matter, and likely don’t have a rich training corpus of Haitian-French to draw on.
His publisher also said the original draft was submitted in 2019, though they’ve also become lukewarm in their backing of the author lately (he was also just accused of classic plagiarism for an unrelated short story).
Note that "bestseller" doesn't mean anything and hasn't for a long time as it's been manipulated to all hell with stuff like wash sales. Neither does "critically acclaimed" which never did.
I agree with you. I read it cover to cover at the time and felt like a smart ass ("AksHuALLy renewables can't work alone!"), then wondered a few years ago how his calculations turned out in the real world.
1. Sad that he died from cancer
2. Noticed he compared primary energy and felt stupid for missing that
I never got a blanket claim of "actually renewables can't work alone" from the book. It seemed more like "actually you need to understand things quantitatively or you are doomed to talk nonsense".
MacKay's "renewables can't work alone" claim always seemed carefully scoped to the economics of 02008 (when solar modules cost 33× as much as they do now) and also his own densely populated, rather polar country. Renewables were already working nearly alone, at scale, in equatorial countries and more sparsely populated countries; I live in Argentina, whose grid was mostly hydroelectric at the time, and next door to Brazil, where a large fraction of the automotive fleet ran on sugar-cane-derived ethanol, which is a viable renewable energy source (unlike, apparently, corn ethanol).
There is nowhere that renewables are remotely close to working "nearly alone" if you are talking about total energy needs (which MacKay is/was).
There's some incredible progress for electricity generation, but there's still huge amounts of energy being used in ways that are not currently electrified and not close to electrifiable in the short term.
We should celebrate the forward progress, but also not be blind to what is not yet feasible (while also hoping that it may soon be so).
You're right, and I appreciate the correction — even Norway mostly runs its transport on fossil fuels, not electricity, and trucking and ships aren't going to be electrifiable in the short term. Here in Argentina, when we ran our grid mostly on hydroelectric, the cars were still running mostly on gasoline and compressed natural gas.
Right, as long as you specify “without energy storage”, renewables “can’t work alone,” even though energy storage is included in most common sense definitions of “renewables”
Thankfully, energy storage is being deployed worldwide, so this is a moot point, and renewables can and will replace fossil fuel electricity generation.
We're going to need more than grid-scale batteries to electrify trucks, ships, and long-distance airplanes. PaulDavisThe1st is right about that! Solar-powered fuel production from CO₂ is one possibility.
Planes are unlike other sorts of transportation in that their energy consumption is pretty closely proportional to their weight, because they are constantly spending energy throwing air downward to support their weight, so the low energy densities of rechargeable batteries are very unappealing for long-distance flight. Plausible alternatives include airships, ultra-low-stall-speed planes like gliders and Burt Rutan's Voyager, aluminum-air batteries, and synfuel. Of course, short-distance planes are already going electric with Joby.
Ships, we'll see. Most shipping ships are container ships (as opposed to, say, tankers, cruse ships, or ship shipping ships shipping shipping ships), and those are already slow enough that a substantial part of world trade is by airplane now, because inventory on a container ship is inventory you can't sell yet, or at least can't deliver yet. You could imagine a future where container ships are partly powered by onboard sails and partly powered by giant lightweight solar farms towed behind them on hydrofoils, but I don't think we're going to see container ships powered by lithium-ion batteries. Aluminum-air, maybe.
reply