Hacker News Reader

Comment by fiatmoney | Hacker News Reader

"For every job, though, the No. 1 thing we look for is general cognitive ability, and it’s not I.Q. It’s learning ability. It’s the ability to process on the fly. It’s the ability to pull together disparate bits of information."

The cognitive dissonance required to say "general cognitive ability... is not IQ" is astounding.

IQ testing bad! Hiring smart people good! Does not compute!

View on HN

He specifically said that he defined general cognitive ability as the ability to learn, process on the fly, and pull together disparate information. Which is indeed distinct from IQ.

Intelligence varies, and people differ in which tasks they are good at. They very well might not think that IQ is a good predictor that they are looking for.

> ... the ability to learn, process on the fly, and pull together disparate information. Which is indeed distinct from IQ.

Do you have cites for that?

To be fair, "ability to learn, process on the fly, and pull together disparate information" is indeed "indeed distinct from IQ", but only in the pedantic sense that it'd be more accurate to say such capacities refer to g.

But then...IQ is indeed a reliable, verifiable, and efficient indicator of g, so...indeed.

Well, he did say 'indeed'.

IQ is not "cognitive ability", it's a fallible (and arguably biased) quantification/quotient of a (not exhaustive) set of measures of (some form of) cognitive ability.

People generally don't have their IQs "measured", and even when they are, the things they are kind of good at predicting are only a small subset of important qualities, so it would hardly be a good measure by which to compare applicants.

I think the problem you have with this is that you're assuming "high IQ" and "smart" are automatically the same thing. A high IQ is only one slice of the "smart" pie.

IQ is defined as a point estimate of the value of a general factor of intelligence, which is in turn defined as the statistical construct that most strongly correlates with performance on disparate cognitively-loaded tasks. To the extent that there can be such a thing as "general cognitive ability", which they are apparently looking for, the only question is whether whatever specific test they're using correlates strongly with that g-factor. To the extent that it does, it is axiomatically an IQ test.

While you're correct, the fact that someone can define an IQ test as the test that most strongly correlates with the g-factor (itself merely a composite factor from a number of different measures) doesn't mean that IQ, or the g-factor, or "general cognitive ability", corresponds to any physical causative factor: http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.htm...

Could it be that it's something he is (if he brings up the subject at all) politically or legally required to say irrespective of its truth value? (Not a rhetorical question, I actually don't know the answer.)

Calling all Gwerns...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com