Should IQ be a requirement?
 

:idea:

Depends on the job - some things are "no" brainers.

I thought IQ exists regardless of requirements?

oooh sorry. The question and poll didn't pop up the first time. Weird.

No. IQ doesn't determine success. Sure, there is a point where a person's IQ is so low that they can't possibly handle a job well. As long as you're at least average, I think you should be allowed to achieve whatever you can. (So says the man with a significantly above average IQ.)

Although intelligence is needed for many jobs, I don't think an IQ score should be a component of any hiring decision. So, no.

Absolutely. I don't want a dumb doctor.

And it should be a requirement for, say, President or something.:rolleyes:

i personally think it should be a requirment for some jobs. i think perry winkle's heart is in the right place when he said if you're at least born average you should be able to do whatever you want, however there are TONS of jobs that mandate certain physical requirments, such as professional athletes, fire fighters, ninjas...

Specific jobs need people with specific skill sets and the IQ to fulfill what the job demands. If it is your job to be brilliant- then yea.
It doesn't even take an IQ test to determine that either.

shawnee thats actually what i had in mind when i thought this question up. :p

Well, yeah. But if you have a dumb doctor, that means a dumb person was able to get through medical school and get a medical license. Throwing in an IQ test won't keep that from happening.

'High IQ" does not equal wisdom. Just means you are good at taking IQ tests.

I have worked with many people who probably score higher than me on a typical IQ test, but are dumb as posts about more things than not.

I got a 31 (perfect in the science reasoning section) on the ACT (eons ago) but have a hell of a time spelling. Chemistry kicks my ass. English? Dumb as a box of rocks. *shrug*

We all are experts at something, some of us more somethings than others. Some of us, at things that can't be 'measured' on a currently available scale.

That's what's cool about the cellar. A whole bunch of intellegent people who are experts in a whole lotta different areas.

It's already been said but I mean c'mon, a designated IQ test for a job? Getting the job is already an indirect way of expressing your intellectual quotient, why discriminate so openly.

why does the NFL discriminate so openly against out of shape people?

Because they can't keep up with the competition of professional football players.

"intelligence" is different than an intelligence quotient score. People are more than a number.

IQ measures the ability to learn, not what you've learned. You can have a high IQ and know jack shit.

Yeah, numbers are toopid.

The way things work is that if you have a high IQ (and high motivation too), you receive high scores (SAT, ACT, grades), thus getting into the better universities and receiving better a education, which leads to fields of study and employ that generally require above-average intelligence people.

That being said, I don't really believe there is a truly accurate measure of intelligence.

I think it's easier to measure stupidity.

if IQ tests were accurate all the time, then maybe.

How about personality tests?

Your IQ score accurately measures how well you have done on an IQ test.

aye, it do.

EQ > IQ I always say.

A sky breaching IQ with no EQ (emotional quotient [people skills and the like]) is useless. But even someone with low IQ but high EQ can go far. Very far.

Tail Post
 

Human beings cannot be quantified (by currently available methods); we aren't like computers with "specs" you can measure. For example, one "leap" of associative thinking can out-perform a thousand linear calculations. Which kind of thinker is better? Neither. If you can get the job done, you can get the job done.

Many famous people, in their respective fields, weren't the "right type" of person to do that job (as was traditionally understood); but they excelled in that field by breaking down the barriers that others were not equipped to understand. . . . And I'm citing that right out of my ass.

People who are really smart, but are not sensitive to others, rise to the top and dont care who gets hurt on the way.

People who are really dumb, but have great sensitivity don't rise to the top, but they don't care about that because they're too dumb to know the difference, and people like them because they're so nice.

People who are really smart and really sensitive are fucked.

Maybe you are but I think you're right. The "right type" of people for the job, often become the "right type", by following the traditional path to the job. That means they don't bring much new to the job in the way of experience and education.

You go to medical school to become a doctor. The course of study should be (more than) difficult enough to weed out anyone who's not bright enough.

The problem is there are people who lie, cheat, steal, or coast through to becoming a doctor. Regardless of IQ, you don't want this person to be your doctor.

Nope just skill and aptitude. IQ tests are just tricks and tell you nothing.
Someone raised on a farm will test very low on IQ tests yet may be a genius, the questions are based on "common" knowledge.
Shows those who came up with them must have had low "IQ"s.

If I am honest on an IQ test I do pretty well, around 170-175, but if I decide to give answers that I know the test "wants" I get insanely high scores.

Both tests are the same in this respect.

Someone may have an aptitude that has nothing to do with their general knowlege... it is a ridiculous idea.

My heart doesn't enter into it. Physical requirements are easy to measure: speed, strength, whatever. However, IQ is a good indicator of potential, but it is not a hard and fast measure of intelligence or aptitude for a specific task.

Discriminating based on a task's physical requirements makes sense (if you also take into account other qualifications also). Using IQ to determine whether someone can complete a task is nonsense.

Ideally, you discriminate based on past accomplishments (education, work experience, references, whatever) and physical ability to do the work. You can't use one in exclusion of the other and make a good decision.

If someone with average IQ has shown they can do the job as well as I can, let them do it.

(I hope that made sense. I usually don't make serious posts...)

I guess that explains how you've mastered (what seems like) practically every profession known to man. At the low end you claim to be a genius, at the top end you claim to be a "profound genius" or a savant.

Saw this article...breakdown that states IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, with a list of general categories for a certain IQ level.

Did you read what I wrote at all? Seems to be an issue lately, the test is just a game. I claim nothing more than what I have stated before.
I think I am slightly above average in intelligence, with some problems with dyslexia that is overcome with a very strong memory.
I have stated this before.

It was a joke, man.

You made a claim about your IQ, in terms of that test your IQ makes claims about you. That's all I was saying.

Sorry, did not detect the sarcasm.

Nah, I think he's full of shit too.

170 is like super genius range, right?

I think it's "Evil Genius" but not quite "Mad Scientist" ...

Does that mean we're related?

The basis of my fun poking was that you have a couple of distinct characteristics to what you post: one is that you always seem to have done any profession anyone brings up (I said seems, i.e., a perception not necessarily a fact); another is your persistent statement that someone has not read what you said or that someone is putting words in your mouth, regardless of how apparent it is that this has, in fact, not happened. (It's weird, you often do this whether they are mostly agreeing with you or not. I think it's a perception of being misunderstood.)

you should be smart enough to figure that out, einstien

I have never stated that I have done a job I have not done.
Name one that you question and I will do my best to scan documentation or a photo.
I resent the implication, it is sad of you... I am not surprised however.
Lending my perception to a conversation based on something I experienced being viewed by you as making a statement beyond exactly what I am writing is on you and your issue alone.
As stated above, if someone states that my post carries meaning not stated in the post, that it is only their personal assumption is a fact, nothing more.
It is not about being misunderstood, it is about people who choose not to separate their ego from other's statements.

LOL... so sad.

I never said nor had such a thought.

I didn't make any implications. I was explaining my humor as a reflection of my own perceptions and as a verifiable fact (a fact founded on the set of your posts that I have read, which is far from all of them).

It took me a couple minutes to parse that sentence. But I have to agree. If I see a message to what you say that isn't explicitly stated, you didn't say it.

Gotcha... pot. kettle. black. At least I don't get all reactionary about it when it someone does it to me, or when I perceive that they've done it to me.

Which causes misunderstanding.

LOL Shawnee!:D

Is there a comedic intelligence quotient test (c.i.q.t.)posted anywhere? I would say cellarites excel in that. Oh and pissing contests.

Even if they do lie about their IQ score at least they're funny. (sometimes)

Oh and that career guide to IQ comparable was suprisingly dead-on in my case. (that was most unexpected)

How exactly is it sad? did I hurt your feelings? do you pity me for my lowly 130's IQ? Are you just feeling blue because it seems like everyone is breaking your balls lately?

Or is it something else?

The trouble with IQ tests is that they're very crude measures of intelligence. The more we learn about the human brain and the different kinds of intelligence, the less relevant those tests become.

No. Thats called nepotism.

How about the job of President of the United States? Should a person with an IQ that's below average be allowed to run one of the most powerful countries in the world? Could you imagine what kind of horrific decisions a person like that might make?

I think everyone except the person who posted 50th on this thread is stupid.

It depends on what you're trying to measure. IQ doesn't say much, and IQ test results can vary depending on alertness level, physical condition (if you've spent the previous night spewing your guts out with a stomach flu you won't do yourself any justice) etc. A general IQ test isn't the best, but some sort of aptitude tests, of which the IQ test may be a small part, are common these days.

I would only use IQ tests to weed out the below average intelligence people in non-manual tasks, but I wouldn't require a manager to have a membership in Mensa, say. Many people with extremely high IQs have a very low EQ. I know I'd far rather work with a people person who isn't afraid to ask his or her co-workers when they're unsure about something than a hyper-smart know-it-all who thinks the sun shines out of his orifices.

Maybe the real question is, "Should there be aptitude and knowledge testing requirements for politicians?"

An IQ test would do well to indicate a person's ability to do a job...as a developer of IQ tests. That's probably all, though.

Counting to 50 again? I bet momma's proud.
:D
j/k

Given the content of the written answers, the poll votes surprise me.

I think one of your ass-ets is that you are ass-tute. It must be the way you were reared.
To check one's asshole quotient?

No, that I stated that my numbers are incorrect due to the nature of the tests, but you don't see that... you take them personally because you buy into the game.
No, an empathy test.

maybe i didnt understand what you meant by honest.

I personally haven't voted because none of the answers exactly matches my opinion.

Ditto.