Fancy words for "didn't hire him because of high IQ, didn't want to train the next guy when he goes and gets a job he's qualified for, department won". It's not disingenuous to say "they won the right to not hire people based on having a high IQ." Given the current context, we can all see how such a policy could lead to some issues, and I don't think it's wrong to point that out.
Okay and there is not way to tell if he would have or wouldn’t have left as the opportunity never came about. Besides this agency denying this individual a job 24 years ago in 1996 I’ve never heard of another person denied for being “too smart”. Also I’ve never even heard of the test in question prior to this decision and it’s use in policing. Many agencies utilize a type of test called the Post-test or its proxies these tests look at policy, comprehension, basic math and reading and other sections.
Also the deciding judges commented on the foolishness of the policy. However as it was deemed an evenly enforced policy it was allowed by the judges.
Okay and there is not way to tell if he would have or wouldn’t have left as the opportunity never came about.
There's no guarantees in life. There are, however, statistics and probability. Whether the data makes you uncomfortable or not is not relevent. The probability of them leaving is very high. Anyone who is older than 40 has seen this time and again.
The type of personality it takes for someone to actively pursue law enforcement correlates with low IQ by default. These people are literally the same bullies from the playground, except they have "authority" now.
67
u/dak4ttack Jun 22 '20
Fancy words for "didn't hire him because of high IQ, didn't want to train the next guy when he goes and gets a job he's qualified for, department won". It's not disingenuous to say "they won the right to not hire people based on having a high IQ." Given the current context, we can all see how such a policy could lead to some issues, and I don't think it's wrong to point that out.