Hacker News Reader

Comment by new_realist | Hacker News Reader

“General Mental Ability (GMA) tests (like the IQ test) are very predictive of future job performance, largely because people with high intelligence can learn the skills needed to be successful on the job more rapidly. However, due to legal concerns they’re not recommended for companies hiring in the US.”

This is what a classic FAANG interview is: an IQ test which is disguised as a relevant skills test for legal reasons. And they work quite well.

View on HN

you can pass every facebook iterview by practicing facebook tagged questions on leetcode. People do that every single day, here is an example from today

https://leetcode.com/discuss/interview-question/551434/faceb...

Its NOT related to IQ.

You can search leetcode forum for tons of examples of actual FB questions, all of them are tagged on leetcode.

You can get better at IQ tests by practicing them.

What a loaded statement. 1) You're already assuming these FAANG tests are an IQ test when people are discussing whether they are. 2) You're taking an assumed characteristic that tests that can be practiced and that makes them IQ tests.

Practicing for these tests makes you a rote learner and and rote learners by definition have too much crystallized knowledge, and they fail when met with new situations, which is not what intelligence tries to define. FAANG tests hence are not IQ tests if you can practice them.

Essentially these assumptions that FAANG tests are disguised IQ tests are just a reflection of the ego of those who are perpetuating them.

Anyone who feels like replying to this out of emotion they because they're in FAANG or whatever should take a psychology/psychometrics class first (yes, something outside of the software sector) before replying.

Your post makes absolutely no sense given that you can practice for IQ tests and improve your score on them. This isn't up for debate. You can improve things measured by IQ tests (i.e. spatial reasoning and pattern recognition) without rote. You can also improve them with rote. You can improve them with or without another person helping you as a mentor/tutor. It doesn't matter which one you do, the end result is the same if you invest enough time.

And you've lost the point. If these FAANG tests are meant to be IQ tests and you can rote learn them they are NOT a good measure of intelligence unlike some people claim them to be.

Edit: Also, good IQ testing involves a 2-3year break in between IQ tests. The thing is, you can leetcode continuously to game these tests.

You're arguing that real IQ tests don't exist, then. Any test is gameable.

They exist if you dont game them too much. And there isnt that much incentive to do so given the wide variety of tests.

so any test in the world is a disguised IQ test? lol

My first job out of university was answering tech support calls and the interview process was primarily based on the Wonderlic test[0] (famously given to NFL players).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderlic_test

by "classic" do you mean the "if you were stuck in a blender?" questions? you haven't interviewed in a while if you think they're asking those. it's all standard DS&A whiteboarding, etc. there's nothing even close to resembling a general aptitude test

Do they?

They’re the worst form of interview, except for all the other ones.

Why not just give an actual IQ test?

Not allowed by law.

> IQ tests (for interviewing) are typically spatial comparisons, some math, logic puzzles, reading comprehension, and pattern recognition

I definitely got these in tech interviews. Thoughtworks gave me one last year.

It might have been a de facto IQ test, but they should have disguised it carefully.

That opens you up to liability for race-based discrimination. The accepted wisdom is that IQ tests are inherently racist and favor white evaluees over black and brown ones.

Wouldn't coding interviews show the same bias?

The difference is, the Supreme Court has already made a ruling on IQ tests.

Isn't this ruling inherently racist?

That's formulated the wrong way. An IQ test per se cannot be racist because it is not a human being with intentional behaviour. This means blame must fall on the test designer or test conductor to introduce a racist biasing. In places where accurate results matter, the best available methods of psychometrics are used: http://enwp.org/Progressive_Matrices These are free of bias: culture, language, reading/writing ability does not matter. If these are used and assuming the test conductor did not screw up, and if white evaluees score better than black and brown ones, then it is an objective measurement of reality, not racism. Thus I think the "accepted wisdom" is wrong. If you know of any examples of racism through IQ tests, indicating intention, I'd be glad to hear of them.

I agree, but it's not obvious that courts would agree, and lawsuits are expensive even if you win. The legal liability worries are still there, alas.

What about other countries?

>The accepted wisdom is that IQ tests are inherently racist and favor white evaluees over black and brown ones.

Huh? Where did you hear that?

The reality is that Asians score the highest on IQ tests, whites score somewhat below, blacks score lowest.

The accepted wisdom is that Asians have the highest IQs, followed by whites, followed by blacks.

Well, that's not entirely true. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQs, but their IQ-advantage is in the verbal area, which is why when you see lists of the highest-paid lawyers a disproportionate number are Tribe members.

Keep in mind that these are averages. There are plenty of dumb Asians and there are plenty of smart blacks! You can't apply group statistics to individuals.

I'd rather have a hard worker with an average IQ than someone who's lazy with a high IQ.

Besides, IQ tests have biases that don't translate to good job performance. For example, if English isn't your first language you may do worse on an English-based IQ test.

Agreed. Ambition is an intangible that should also be assessed during the hiring process.

Have you by chance read anything by Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord? He’d strongly disagree with you:

> I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage.

This is a quote from one man's experience and you're going to treat it as though it's the answer to his concerns? really?

That’s what they think, there is a bias when all you do is the same interviews. Is like eating Your fav cake from the same bakery and thinking that is the best in the world

FAANG coding interviews are definitely not IQ tests.

IQ tests (for interviewing) are typically spatial comparisons, some math, logic puzzles, reading comprehension, and pattern recognition and are done so under a time budget of around 30s to 1 minute per question

FAANG coding requires CS basics - hashmaps, arrays, sorting strategies, trees, recusion, basic ops for all of the data structures, and a few other concepts. There are typically only a handful of questions with 60 - 90 minutes per question

That's why the parent said that they're "disguised" IQ tests.

If they used a test that strongly correlated with the outcome of an IQ test, then it would also, legally, be an IQ test, and they'd have to stop doing it.

So instead, they use a test that weakly correlates with the outcome of an IQ test, and then try to extract the a measure of IQ from the "noise" that is all the other variables the test depends on.

IQ has nothing to do with whether you know CS basics or not, that's the problem. It doesn't matter that they said it's a disguised IQ test because it's not an IQ test in any fashion.

> IQ has nothing to do with whether you know CS basics or not, that's the problem.

In practice the Google/Facebook interview has nothing to do with knowing the CS basics either.

Edit: In practice understanding CS basics is the baseline that gets you to the interview - kind of like English is the baseline for an IQ test delivered in English.

> In practice the Google/Facebook interview has nothing to do with knowing the CS basics either.

What the heck is this statement? You do realize many algorithms that they test for are taught in an algorithms class for a Computer Science course?

I doubt you took an IQ test before or even properly accessed what it is. there are IQ tests composed of entirely of pattern matching shapes and they do not have any knowledge/language prerequisites. Get outta my internet.

> What the heck is this statement?

If you think knowledge of CS fundamentals is what is separating the hired from the rejected...

My experience from interviewing hundreds of candidates over the years at a top tech company is that the majority of candidates we reject have strong CS fundamentals.

> there are IQ tests composed of entirely of pattern matching shapes

And there are IQ tests/proxies that are entirely “verbal” like the GSS Wordsum - what is your point?

> I doubt you took an IQ test before or even properly accessed what it is.

I’m certified in my state to administer IQ tests....

> If you think knowledge of CS fundamentals is what is separating the hired from the rejected...

I've never stated that. I am aware of the other behavioral tests if that's what you're referring to. But the fact remains that they give you algorithms questions that we dont use in most of our daily work and if you can't meet the rather high basics you are rejected.

> And there are IQ tests/proxies that are entirely “verbal” like the GSS Wordsum - what is your point?

That you can have IQ tests without knowledge prerequisites unlike what you stated before the edit?

> I’m certified in my state to administer IQ tests....

Well either you're BS-ing or you've been confined to some kind of corporate environment where they've somehow convinced management people (who dont code) to adopt a test so detached from reality.

> I am aware of the other behavioral tests if that's what you're referring to.

No I’m not. I’m saying FAANG are hiring based on fast pace general problem solving skills that are difficult to game and have very little to do with computer science.

That is why “our” interview processes are being compared to IQ tests.

“We” have rejected people who teach computer science fundamentals at prestigious schools and hired teenagers who only started learning about algorithms a few months before the interview.

> That you can have IQ tests without knowledge prerequisites unlike what you stated before the edit?

How is that relevant at all?

> to adopt a test so detached from reality.

How is it detached from reality?

> No I’m not. I’m saying FAANG are hiring based on fast pace general problem solving skills that are difficult to game and have very little to do with computer science.

These are very vague words. What are these tests then? Can you give a sample? You're telling me that you get engineers to interview these candidates and they don't give questions that involve computer science? What are they supposed to ask then?

Or are you telling me you have tests that weakly correlate to an IQ test thanks to a number you computed? And therefore that makes it an IQ test?

> How is it detached from reality?

IQ tests are inherently just a number for one's potential, and they don't tell how someone will perform on the job - there are so many other factors involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com