IQ and job ability

DatabaseHead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0&t=57s

I found this to be extremely interesting, especially the piece about crystallized and fluid intelligence.

Danielm7

Interesting share, thanks. He brought up some points that I've had issue with before, mostly the idea that automation is going to kill tons of jobs (and not only fast food workers) but that not all those same people can just do any other job. I see the idea, often, that "they can just become automation engineers, or software developers!" ... It's just not that easy for everyone. For every feel good story we see about a homeless guy who taught himself programming at the library and is now a highly paid developer, there are likely tons of people who are incapable of doing that.

Jon_Cisco

Thanks for the link.

So often we want to say people are responsible for there own positions. While I agree with the idea in a general sense I also realize that everyone has limitations and obstacles that they face in life. It is not always as easy as it it made out to be.

DatabaseHead

I agree 100%

What's interesting from a personal level is the matrix he provided up top. He mentioned system analyst (essentially what I do) falls between 125 to 116. I've had my IQ tested; I'm ~120 on the dot, SD of 15. (Not one of these online ones where everyone is a genius or superior intelligence).

The interesting part for me is that where I fall in that range really does align with some of my collaborative meetings with others, architects, peers etc...

While I most certainly can hold my own and provide insights in my direct space, rarely am I a thought leader capable of putting everything together. Maybe I am getting out worked by these folks or they have more experience (all possible to a certain extent). However I don't believe that to be the main culprit. I think these individuals have higher IQ's than me and they are able to "get there" faster than I.

This stigma around someone being smart is ridiculous. So what. We all still have to work as a team to get things done.......

NetworkNewb

The only problem I got with this is, isn't IQ something that can be worked on and improved upon? This guy makes it sounds like people are stuck in situations. He stated that someone with a driver with an IQ of 85 won't be able to think of something else to do when they lose their job to AI... I get there are limitations for everyone, not everyone is going to be an engineer or whatever, but this guy makes it sound like people can't improve.

gespenstern

NetworkNewb wrote: »

The only problem I got with this is, isn't IQ something that can be worked on and improved upon? This guy makes it sounds like people are stuck in situations.

They are stuck.

While IQ can be improved, the IQ itself is just a somewhat imprecise measurement of a so-called "g-factor" or general cognitive ability. All experiments with improving IQ through environmental intervention so far have shown that a) IQ gains are temporary b) don't affect SES c) are essentially "training for the test". There's very little evidence of a so-called "skill transfer" i.e. training for a certain test and becoming skillful in passing one doesn't transfer to becoming skillful in passing a different test that requires a different skill or a somewhat raw ability. G-factor, on the other hand, predicts one's success in passing any previously unknown and untried tests.

That said, people can improve in certain skills, but not in g. G determines a ceiling for them and some occupations are just too hard for some and even if explicitly forcefully trained these individuals will forget "a" by the time they are taught "z" and there's not much can be done about it.

Overall, there's only two choices that work well that can be made to make yourself smart:

1) have smart parents;
2) don't get punched in your head too much and don't get poisoned/starved so it detrimentally impacts your development.

NetworkNewb

gespenstern wrote: »

a) IQ gains are temporary

Couldn't someone just continually work on their IQ and not give up working on it then? Just not sold on the IQ score as determining factor on who can do certain things.

Jon_Cisco

If my understanding is correct the idea behind IQ tests it to measure your intelligence as compared to other people in a way that excludes education.

So your not testing existing knowledge as much as your ability to use knowledge. This has shown to remain in a fairly consistent range over time. So the implication is that certain individuals will remain on the low end of the IQ scale and still need to function in today's society.

I can say that one of the most successful people I know is functionally illiterate. Education is not the only thing that makes a person but it certainly helps. Persistence and good intentions will go a long way too.

NetworkNewb

I Google'd this but here is the definition I found for what an IQ test measures (literally grabbed the first one I saw so maybe it is wrong) "[FONT=&quot]The IQ test consists of a number of tasks measuring various measures of intelligence including short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability and spatial recognition."

[/FONT]I can agree that higher someone scores in these areas would transfer over to being able to handle harder job functions better, but I find these are also things people can improve upon with practice. While IQ tests are supposed to exclude education, someone with more education would have a lot more practice in these areas over many years...

gespenstern

NetworkNewb wrote: »

Couldn't someone just continually work on their IQ and not give up working on it then? Just not sold on the IQ score as determining factor on who can do certain things.

The IQ is just a measurement. It is a result of a specific test. Yes, you can work on learning the test for your whole life and score on it 100%. A different test, for example, mental rotation vs pattern spotting in a row of numbers will not show any gains. An IQ test is as useful as a person tested isn't prepared for it.

People often confuse g-factor and IQ. G-factor is what determines your intelligence and predicts life success. And it can't be boosted much.

NetworkNewb

gespenstern wrote: »

People often confuse g-factor and IQ. G-factor is what determines your intelligence and predicts life success. And it can't be boosted much.

I can get on board with that. I just wasn't a fan of how the video is just referring IQ score and how the presenter said somethings about it.

DatabaseHead

gespenstern wrote: »

The IQ is just a measurement. It is a result of a specific test. Yes, you can work on learning the test for your whole life and score on it 100%. A different test, for example, mental rotation vs pattern spotting in a row of numbers will not show any gains. An IQ test is as useful as a person tested isn't prepared for it.

People often confuse g-factor and IQ. G-factor is what determines your intelligence and predicts life success. And it can't be boosted much.

And this is the best predictor of someone's success in advanced level roles. It's not going to tell you who is going to be the best ditch digger, but it can most certainly predict which students will perform better in medical school or who will make the best architect on the team.

In fact there are studies out there that show that an IQ test is a better employment strategy that any single other variable. (Just what I have read).

Interesting stuff....

Jon_Cisco

NetworkNewb wrote: »

Couldn't someone just continually work on their IQ and not give up working on it then? Just not sold on the IQ score as determining factor on who can do certain things.

I think the professor is taking a more statistical approach to this then you are.

There will always be exceptions to everything. When people point to certain success stories to emphasize the possibility of something they are not disproving a statistical probability. In your case you are making the argument that with continued effort someone might be able to be successful while the odds may have been against them. However from a larger statistical perspective this portion of the population is not going to be as productive as their peers.

In the lecture he refers to his work with training low IQ individuals. He indicates that while they can learn a task it often takes considerable time to train with poor results. From an employment perspective this will leave certain individuals with limited opportunities.

gespenstern

DatabaseHead wrote: »

In fact there are studies out there that show that an IQ test is a better employment strategy that any single other variable. (Just what I have read).

This is true. An IQ test, according to modern research, is second only to a real work test in its job performance predicting power. The only catch here is intelligence testing is prohibited for businesses in one of the provisions of the civil rights act, that's why it's not widely used and businesses have to resort to various proxies such as degrees and years of education. Some still do it though while accepting the risk of lawsuits.

tedjames

Anybody here read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut? He addressed a lot of this many decades ago.

DatabaseHead

gespenstern wrote: »

This is true. An IQ test, according to modern research, is second only to a real work test in its job performance predicting power. The only catch here is intelligence testing is prohibited for businesses in one of the provisions of the civil rights act, that's why it's not widely used and businesses have to resort to various proxies such as degrees and years of education. Some still do it though while accepting the risk of lawsuits.

Interestingly enough, businesses can use the Wunderlich test which has been classified as a cognitive ability test. Equifax dropped one on me ~6 years ago.

cyberguypr

Ah the Wonderlic test! A few jobs ago I lost good candidates that did not do well on this test and I was convinced were more than able to do the job (helpdesk). The company had a stupid hard requirement that hires must do well on this test. It was hilarious seeing high performers in the test fail at their job duties in other departments.

DatabaseHead

cyberguypr wrote: »

Ah the Wonderlic test! A few jobs ago I lost good candidates that did not do well on this test and I was convinced were more than able to do the job (helpdesk). The company had a stupid hard requirement that hires must do well on this test. It was hilarious seeing high performers in the test fail at their job duties in other departments.

This test focuses on both crystallized intelligence and fluid, with a heavy lean on crystallized. (I'm guessing of course, but as memory serves me ~85% crystallized, 15%.

A Mensa IQ test, Raven etc.... Use symbols and patterns to test your speed and accuracy for decoding,solving abstract problems. The test bank is massive so you can't memorize the real version of it. (not one of those goofy online ones, albeit some can get you as close as 15 SD per score). EG Mensa, Raven Matrix.

If they struggled with this test, IMO they would have a hard time solving for X. Basic Algebra is required for the upper level questions. (As memory serves me)

shochan

This garlic butter popcorn is tasty!

LeBroke

I've known mathematicians with an IQ of 90.

While it's a useful construct for broadly determining correlations or comparing ability across broad populations, it's pretty useless (edit: had useful here before) when applied to an individual.

There's multiple studies that show an individual's IQ is about 25% correlated with their long-term success (i.e. high-paying jobs or doing well in college). Dilligence, work ethic, and emotional intelligence (i.e. social skills) are all a lot more important.

That someone is a cab driver isn't because of their IQ, it's because of the choices they made, or choices that were made for them (i.e. new immigrant that can't find other work, or someone from a poor background).

Finally, specifically IQ measures a pretty narrow range of abilities. Mainly, spatial reasoning, and verbal ability (i.e. ability to decipher anagrams). There is some correlation g-factor as people have already mentioned, but g-factor isn't really measurable. It's more of a hypothetical construct.

Source: psych degree is useful for something once in a blue moon.

UnixGuy

LOL...NO, High IQ dont predict corporate success...it might be a hinderance...


you need low IQ to rub the right shoulders, kiss the right ar*s, and luck to be in the right place at the right time. It helps if you can talk well, but not too well that the boss feels threatened. You need to be a little dumb and behave like a genuine YES man. A high IQ will make you question things...not recommended for senior leadership positions in corporate environments.....

Wait did you think that your GM at your favourite govt department was a high IQ fellow????

LeBroke

UnixGuy wrote: »

you need low IQ to rub the right shoulders, kiss the right ar*s, and luck to be in the right place at the right time. It helps if you can talk well, but not too well that the boss feels threatened. You need to be a little dumb and behave like a genuine YES man. A high IQ will make you question things...not recommended for senior leadership positions in corporate environments.....

You're conflating emotional intelligence and social skills with being dumb.

They are not the same.

The takeaway you're trying to propose is to not make people feel inferior, which as you've correctly deduced, makes them dislike you. But has very little to do with whether you're smart or dumb.

On the other hand, "This is wrong and I know better" is bound to annoy anyone, whether or not you're right. It's not about being right, it's about being able to push your message forward.

UnixGuy

LeBroke wrote: »

You're conflating emotional intelligence and social skills with being dumb.

They are not the same.

The takeaway you're trying to propose is to not make people feel inferior, which as you've correctly deduced, makes them dislike you. But has very little to do with whether you're smart or dumb.

On the other hand, "This is wrong and I know better" is bound to annoy anyone, whether or not you're right. It's not about being right, it's about being able to push your message forward.

I really am not. while emotional intelligence is great, and IQ is great - you're thinking too logical. You are thinking Skill + effort = reward. This is not always the case. We work hard and grow our skills but that doesn't always lead to Senior management roles.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating being rude or being condescending at all...I'm all for diplomacy and relationship building...all I'm saying is that those things don't necessarily lead to big roles. Look at people with big roles objectively and assess what they did to get there (I'm not talking about technical experts, I'm talking about C-Level execs and VPs).

EANx

UnixGuy wrote: »

LOL...NO, High IQ dont predict corporate success...it might be a hinderance...


you need low IQ to rub the right shoulders, kiss the right ar*s, and luck to be in the right place at the right time. It helps if you can talk well, but not too well that the boss feels threatened. You need to be a little dumb and behave like a genuine YES man. A high IQ will make you question things...not recommended for senior leadership positions in corporate environments.....

Wait did you think that your GM at your favourite govt department was a high IQ fellow????

Wow. Just, Wow.

UnixGuy

EANx wrote: »

Wow. Just, Wow.

each to their own mate, we don't have to agree on everything. and I'm clearly exaggerating and generalising but this is the world that we live in

N7Valiant

NetworkNewb wrote: »

The only problem I got with this is, isn't IQ something that can be worked on and improved upon? This guy makes it sounds like people are stuck in situations. He stated that someone with a driver with an IQ of 85 won't be able to think of something else to do when they lose their job to AI... I get there are limitations for everyone, not everyone is going to be an engineer or whatever, but this guy makes it sound like people can't improve.

Depends on what the reality is, whether IQ is largely determined by genetics.

As a 5'4" Asian I doubt any amount of hard work can make me any taller.

Pseudonym

Dr. Peterson is specifically talking about high IQ relating to the actual performance in a given job.

He's not talking about people moving up the ladder, or general life success. These are both predicted largely by disagreeableness and conscientiousness respectively. (As well as IQ). He talks at length about these subjects in many of his other lectures.

gespenstern

UnixGuy wrote: »

I really am not. while emotional intelligence is great, and IQ is great - you're thinking too logical. You are thinking Skill + effort = reward. This is not always the case. We work hard and grow our skills but that doesn't always lead to Senior management roles.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating being rude or being condescending at all...I'm all for diplomacy and relationship building...all I'm saying is that those things don't necessarily lead to big roles. Look at people with big roles objectively and assess what they did to get there (I'm not talking about technical experts, I'm talking about C-Level execs and VPs).

Confirm all that... That's, I say, pretty much any >10-30K employees enterprise and ultimately the government.

If you are very bright your best bet would be to work for MSP contractors who always get hired by those enterprises to get real work done because nobody is capable of that at the enterprise itself.

DatabaseHead

Pseudonym wrote: »

Dr. Peterson is specifically talking about high IQ relating to the actual performance in a given job.

He's not talking about people moving up the ladder, or general life success. These are both predicted largely by disagreeableness and conscientiousness respectively. (As well as IQ). He talks at length about these subjects in many of his other lectures.

And your ability to handle stress/anxiety/neurosis.

From my personal experiences I have witnessed a lot of people who have it together on all fronts except for stress. They burn out, and IMO that's the biggest reason for job hoppers. Their inability to handle stress.

Chitownjedi

DatabaseHead wrote: »

And your ability to handle stress/anxiety/neurosis.

From my personal experiences I have witnessed a lot of people who have it together on all fronts except for stress. They burn out, and IMO that's the biggest reason for job hoppers. Their inability to handle stress.

Some people say handle, some people say tolerate. While anecdotal, handling stress has never been an issue to me, but only until recently was it worth tolerating stress because I received something back that I felt made that exchange worth it.

I know some folks who take on and deal with stress for crappy positions, doing crap work for crappy bosses. Being able to handle stress in those situations are actually detriments, as it is quite evident they don't want to be there, but they are resolved to deal with it because they can handle the stress. If "handling" the stress doesn't spur evolution and development in the person to either make their situation at work better, or put themselves in a better situation, then I feel that it shows a lack of problem solving.

Earlier in my career I would not tolerate a level of stress that did not seem to be "worth it." I like solving problems, and being told that the situation is the situation, grin and bear it, doesn't go over to well with me. I'd rather read 20 books in 3 months, and take 10,000 practice test, and give up my nights and weekends until I got another opportunity versus be stressed . I would say the amount of work you force upon yourself to improve your situation can be just as stressful, but you put yourself under that stress without hesitation because it is worth it to you.

DatabaseHead

Some people are wired to handle stress easier and of course previous experiences can help prepare someone as well. While to you it might seen unbearable, others may see it as a breeze, a walk in the park.......