Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion IQ phobia

Organizations that are selecting for high IQ often pretend they are not. Is there a difference between "general cognitive ability" and IQ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-to-get-a-job-at-google.html
How to Get a Job at Google
by Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times
FEB. 22, 2014

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — LAST June, in an interview with Adam Bryant of The Times, Laszlo Bock, the senior vice president of people operations for Google — i.e., the guy in charge of hiring for one of the world’s most successful companies — noted that Google had determined that “G.P.A.’s are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless. ... We found that they don’t predict anything.” He also noted that the “proportion of people without any college education at Google has increased over time” — now as high as 14 percent on some teams. At a time when many people are asking, “How’s my kid gonna get a job?” I thought it would be useful to visit Google and hear how Bock would answer.

Don’t get him wrong, Bock begins, “Good grades certainly don’t hurt.” Many jobs at Google require math, computing and coding skills, so if your good grades truly reflect skills in those areas that you can apply, it would be an advantage. But Google has its eyes on much more.

“There are five hiring attributes we have across the company,” explained Bock. “If it’s a technical role, we assess your coding ability, and half the roles in the company are technical roles. 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. We assess that using structured behavioral interviews that we validate to make sure they’re predictive.”

This is interesting. I remember when interviewing with a famed management counslting firm in late 90s and there was a lot of brain teaser types of questions. I thought that was outdated. I wonder what this kind of structured behavioral interviews look like.

When I read the subject line, I anticipated the thread would be about test fatigue. I was intrigued.

This is even better. Great article. Real-life stuff: What can a person do with whatever level of formal education and life-learning they have amassed?

This brought to mind a website I recently came across after reading another discussion thread... a web search for "Writing Sample Readability Analyzer" shows an interesting tool and includes an "About Me" page... the website author is a Google employee. I found the tool provided worked consistently and well... also found a number of typographical or spelling errors. How might this relate to the article shared in this thread? Some might say the employee's website shows a focus on the essentials, without perfectionistic tendencies.

While some readers may hop into comparative/competitive mode and know they could create a better website, there is something to be said for meeting deadlines and keeping life in balance despite one's mistakes. We'd all rather be known for our positive contributions than our foibles. This is what we advocate for, in terms of challenging/supportive academic learning environments for our kiddos. We don't want formal education, test-preps, and grade-chasing to disrupt abilities to process on the fly and pull together disparate elements.

Thank you for posting a thought-provoking article.

I think that IQ is a way to get at that same something that Google is apparently interested in.

We've talked a lot here about the hallmark of HG+-- it's not WHAT they learn, or when.

It's how FAST, in most cases. It's the number one problem in school fit, once you take away quite basic (stupidly basic, really) barriers like AR reading restrictions and getting "perfect" scores to "show mastery" of math concepts.

Most HG+ kiddos can go through all of K-12 in about 4-6 years, all other things being equal. They don't need the repetition, they don't need a lot of hand-holding and drill. They are learning machines.

IQ is an attempt to measure THAT quality. That's my guess.

Taken altogether, it looks like Google is more interested in personality than ability, and in ability more than experience.

I had to laugh at myself on this bit, because it is SO me:

It's things I've interviewed for that show up in conversations. It's intellectual curiosity. It's flexible heuristic development, passion to learn, etc. IQ can be a light proxy for some of this, and as per the article grades are an even lighter proxy. Degress at least represent some incoming body of knowledge (if they can put it to use.)

This shows on IQ tests with the processing speed or working memory disconnect often shown for gifted. The more aptitudinal processing speed shows in leaps in thought with the dull and obvious bits swept under. It's not showing your work. Working memory is more interesting about how much of a puzzle can you hold in your head, how well you prop it together to hold even more.

An easy interview trick is to use a jargony acronym that you are highly confident the candidate doesn't know. Do they ask about it? Mention an interesting problem in passing, do they scoot forward in their seat, can you see them itching to want to solve it?

At first I confused it with this article that I saw yesterday by a friend who works at google. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/b...e-such-a-big-deal.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

I haven't read the above article yet, but I went to a conference last year where I got to meet with a HR Rep from google to try and get an inside into how to get a job there. And I must say I was intimidated by what one needed to do to just LAND the interview. (I'm a programmer with 15 yrs experience but have been out of the job market for 10.)

I like the article's take on leadership... traditional leadership... emergent leadership. It reminded me of this recent discussion thread on How to get noticed by college admission officers .

I would not get too focused on Google. I predict the technology will be moving at this continual fast speed and by the time our children are the age of the average Google employee, that little empty box on the screen for the search engine is going to seem so rudimentary (check out Bing for awesome pix and info. each day, just as an example). I have always observed the dynamics in a large metropolitan area and traced the feeder schools (public, parochial, private and now there are charter, cyber, etc.) and the tracks people take to their various universities and careers and I think that IQ holds up as a measure scientifically meaning that you can see the pattern genetically and trace it consistently from early childhood through adulthood. Remember, the gifted people are the Jobs, Dell and Gates of the world. The Google article might be talking about their employees. Think of a pyramid, when they say that it is lonely at the top that is because there are few people there. In terms of wealth, they speak of the top 1%. You know the name Warren Buffet but we probably cannot think of the name of his top Chief Financial Officer. Every time a professor says they are teaching to the top 5%, they literally mean that they are not teaching to the level of 95% of the class (think of the tuition those students may be paying). Nobody I know thinks that every person who works at Google is at the highest level, because they would leave and start their own company. You can see the pattern. That is why Jobs and Gates had to have separate companies. Hope that helps.

I forgot to add that the field of journalism is in a huge state of flux right now, so take what the journalists are writing with a dose of really healthy scrutiny.

Wesupportgifted: You're just advancing the nonsensical notion that the highest in ability will necessarily be the wealthiest, the leaders of companies, entrepreneurs, etc.

Numerous scientific studies have been performed which consistently prove that the single best predictor of future wealth is the socioeconomic status of the parents. Not IQ.

Some HG+ people are introverts, who have no interest in leading companies.

Some HG+ people are risk averse, and prefer a steady job to entrepreneurial activity.

Some HG+ people reject the Wealth = Human Value paradigm, and find other, more meaningful ways to contribute to society. For example, Ben Franklin gave away the intellectual rights to the lightning rod. Jonas Salk did the same with the polio vaccine.

Many HG+ people seek employment that is intellectually satisfying rather than wealth producing.

And finally, many HG+ people fail to actualize their talents due to the challenges of low SES backgrounds, poor community understanding/support for gifted education, etc.

Finally, considering the size of the US labor force (approx. 155 million), there are plenty of available employees for Google in the top 1%.

ROFL. Ah, me too.

Yes, and this is a real problem over here (sigh) Read: mom needs to contribute more financially... how do I rewire my brain so that I'm motivated by money?

LOL I used to rent a basement suit (this was yeeeears ago) from a co-worker of mine who owned the house. We are the same age. He is NT and attaches his self worth to his income, as many NT males do.

He didn't believe that I have a high IQ - he needed to see my test scores... the first words out of his mouth were "why aren't you rich?"

sigh

how do I rewire my brain so that I'm motivated by money?

Ahhh.

That is the million-dollar question, isn't it?

This logic doesn't compute for me. My husband was working part time with for one of those tiny tech companies in the early 80's, that went huge with the tech boom. If he had taken a full time job with them instead of going to graduate school at a young age. He might have been rich.

I value intellectual stimulation more than expensive cars/clothes/homes, but I have tried to explain why making money is virtuous in

http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....ving_the_Gifted_book_Tho.html#Post182703 .

Earning a lot also enables you to afford a large family. Society needs smart children.

Other companies are using metrics like test scores and grades:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579395220334268350
Job Hunting? Dig Up Those Old SAT Scores
Employers Still Want Candidates' Test Results—Sometimes Decades Later
By MELISSA KORN
Wall Street Journal
February 25, 2014

...

Proving the adage that all of life is like high school, plenty of employers still care about a job candidate's SAT score. Consulting firms such as Bain & Co. and McKinsey & Co. and banks like Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ask new college recruits for their scores, while other companies request them even for senior sales and management hires, eliciting scores from job candidates in their 40s and 50s.

A low score doesn't necessarily kill a person's chances, hiring managers say; instead, they say they believe SATs and other college entrance exams like the ACT help when comparing candidates with differing backgrounds or figuring out whether someone has the raw brainpower required for the job.

But some companies do set targets, particularly on the math section. Mark Rich, managing director of consulting-industry recruiting firm Whitehouse Pimms, says clients often tell him to screen for candidates whose SAT scores placed them in or above the 95th percentile. Investment firm D.E. Shaw Group asks candidates to break out their math and verbal results.

Boston Consulting Group Inc. has long used SAT scores as a factor in its hiring process. The firm doesn't set a minimum score for applicants, said Jennifer Comparoni, head of Americas recruiting. But candidates with weak math results would need to demonstrate other strengths, such as subject-matter expertise or leadership ability, she added.

BCG managers won't say that SAT results predict job performance, but Ms. Comparoni said the company uses the test as a standard measure of "the basic building blocks of success," such as critical thinking, problem-solving skills and quantitative abilities.

Cvent Inc., a McLean, Va., event management software company, asks all job applicants to provide SAT or ACT scores, results from graduate-school entrance tests and grade-point averages along with their work history. Scores count most heavily for candidates in their first years out of college, though the company has received scores from applicants well into middle age, said Eric Eden, Cvent's vice president of marketing.

Never been lucky enough to have someone request my SAT or ACT scores as part of a job application. Though I did have a pre-IPO internet company that gave an IQ-esque test and did personality profiles, pity it was 2000 when they hired me.

I definitely value a strong work ethic, and see virtue in that. While some may see money as a proxy for hard work and/or intelligence others may primarily see character as the indicator of work ethic and/or intelligence.

Character cuts through all cross-sections of SES and IQ to connect people. Regardless of wealth or credential all have the ability to uplift, enlighten, and encourage others.

Money is neutral. A level of money which can be called wealth is also neutral. As Bostonian points out, it is what one does with money/wealth that matters. Entrepreneurism, benevolence, endowments, philanthropy... many of us know someone who has benefitted in some way. We may also know someone who has been scammed on some level and suffered a loss.

Intelligence is neutral. A level of intelligence which can be called gifted is also neutral. The value lies in what one does with intelligence/giftedness. Gifted kiddos often pursue scratching the itch of their curiosity as this may be a soothing balm. Self-directed learning and experimentation, applying out-of-the-box creativity is intellectual freedom and may provide the ultimate motivation. Being a life-long learner and/or gaining credentials through formal education may sometimes align with acquiring wealth, and often does not.

A difficulty arises when a person sees a path, or probes for a path, and is shut out from receiving the information, advice, or mentorship needed to position themselves to complete their efforts, and reap a benefit for themselves and society. Posts on this forum provide considerable help in finding a known path, forging a new path, learning what lies ahead on the path, and removing roadblocks. I appreciate the many wonderful articles and posts contributed to the forum by Bostonian.

With the gifted being a minority 1%-10% of the population, there is a huge population out there staring slack-jawed in incredulous amusement and resentful schadenfreude at the "first world" problems of the gifted, perhaps because in some minds giftedness is bundled with wealth, power, and a sense of superiority. This simply ain't so!

Stepping down from soapbox.

Making money is neither virtuous nor evil. Money is a tool. It's how you seek it, and what you do with it, that defines you.

For example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was brought up before, as a virtuous use of wealth. Well, 5% of its assets are distributed in the form of grants each year, some of which do some good (and some of which do significant harm, see recent "reforms" in US education, in which the Foundation has been a huge player), and the other 95% goes to investments in businesses that do a lot of harm, with profit the sole objective.

Full story

Money has psychological impacts on individuals and interpersonal relations.

It's not "neutral" in the sense that electricity is neutral.

Also, lack of money results in effective reduction of intelligence in the modern economy.

Good point, Jon.

I figure that MONEY can't buy happiness, but abject poverty can certainly purchase misery, if little else.

It's just not a zero-sum game.

I question the accuracy of the claims in the article. I've done the recruiting gamut with all the major consulting firms and was never once asked for my scores by any of them. Other things spoke to ability-- winning competitions, scholarships, interesting/prestigious work experience, the ideas I shared.

I would be loath to work at a firm that used such crass and, frankly, uncreative measures as standardized tests to assess me. If they don't have the skills to identify me as a desirable candidate by my burning passion for my subject, my knowledge displayed in heated conversations, or my experience, that tells me that they a) are dull, b) probably don't have much knowledge in the field, which means a low ceiling on growth opportunities, and c) don't share my values.

And as to $$ as a motivator, I think we're all familiar with the literature on extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation above subsistence levels.

If more employers used test scores rather than or in addition to college degrees to screen applicants, more young people could get good jobs without paying the heavy college toll.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/sunday-review/how-businesses-use-your-sats.html
How Businesses Use Your SATs
By SHAILA DEWAN
New York Times
MARCH 29, 2014

This has been true in a number of industries. For a brief few minutes, I fantasizes becoming a management consultant. The info we got said to put any standardized tests score front and center, assuming you did well of course. The interviews feel like brain teaser types of questions as well.

You still may not be measuring what you want to measure.

What they really want to do is to "match employee capability to job complexity" or something like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requisite_organization

Apparently, what you want to measure isn't IQ, but something similar.

Which really means that the IQ test is the wrong tool to measure this in the corporate context, where you are dealing with organizations.

I'm certainly not a corporate consultant. I don't even play one on TV.

Technically, I play a lawyer on the internet.

I'm not sure if that ad is still running, though.

It does not really seem like IQ they are looking for but executive functioning. For instance problem solving is mental flexibility and sequential thinking for the learning of new information. Also, just the general ability to get along with others and work as part of a team.

I did the management consulting thing in the mid 90s in the Silicon Valley. I learned a lot but was miserable working all the time just for money. I decided to move across country and get a PhD. Then, decided to get married, have kids, and teach a my hometown local university. I would never go back to that life. The only reason that I can think that they use these IQ things for interviews is because early in your career, you often have to walk into a project and learn a lot about the industry, the project, etc really fast. You don't really become focused until you have been on a few projects with overlapping characteristics, then you start getting placed on other projects with those same characteristics. They also test for your ability to sell yourself and think quickly on your feet.