Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops

[Tim Nunan]

Can't find the words to describe my feelings: Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops - ABC News

[mav]

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

I have suspected as much, and this article confirms my suspicion.

[MattCary]

So, now can we set a minimum IQ for working the drive-thru window at McDonalds?

[Jonnin]

What blew my mind was his score is actually pretty low. I mean he is better than average, but average people are not all that smart, proven time and time again...

[Guest Lester Weevils]

What blew my mind was his score is actually pretty low. I mean he is better than average, but average people are not all that smart, proven time and time again...

Yes that 125 IQ is over 1 and it is almost 2 standard deviations above the mean. In a random crowd of 100 people he is most likely at least among the 5 smartest. Smart in what the test measures, which is only a restricted kind of smarts.

There are many kinds of smarts not measured by generic IQ tests, and some high IQ people can seem pretty dumb in real-world performance. The exceptional are the ones who are the smartest one out of a thousand, or the smartest one out of a million.

If that police department promotes detectives and supervisors from the ranks, then wouldn't this policy guarantee that the department's detectives and supervisors ain't exactly gonna be Sherlock Holmes?

Awhile ago was reading about equivalence between IQ and military entrance aptitude exams. Found a gov-contracted Rand report PDF claiming that IQ and military tests map pretty consistently.

The military seems "doing it right" as best I could tell reading about it. Under non-emergency conditions, a person is not accepted unless he is at least at the peak of the bell curve. The minimum acceptable is very near the mean. So any veterans we meet are almost certainly smarter than average. Or at least they were on the day they took the test.

[TN-popo]

Stupidly silly.

I supervise 11 officers. More than half of them have 4 year college degrees. Those that don't, have military experience. Many have both (myself included).

I have a great, professional crew that I'm very proud of.

To apply at my Dept, at a minimum you need at least one of the following:

2 years military

2 years college

2 years prior LE experience

To me, that article is very telling about the people running that city/Dept. If turnover is an issue for THEM, maybe they need to look for the real problem.

Edited January 1, 2012 by TN-popo

[TMF]

I can't believe the court ruled against him. What's next?.... too much money in the bank account? One could argue that a LE applicant that has a significant amount of money shouldn't be hired because he could easily leave the job due to the fact he doesn't require the income. How would that NOT be discrimination? Having discriminatory policies for the purpose of preventing turnover is ridiculous. Make them sign a contract if that is the concern.

[Defender]

Although this doesn't seem "smart" on behalf of this dept, lol, I get tired of people always hollering discrimination all the time, like its such a terrible thing. Sheesh, we discriminate consistently, day in and day on. Official racial discrimination gave all discrimination a bad name. What about a dept discriminating against people who are criminals and want to be cops? Thats discrimination too, isnt it? All too often I don't agree with the decisions of our liberal courts, but this time they got ti right...The dept's policy, although it may not be smart, isnt illegal discrimination.

[TN-popo]

I have suspected as much, and this article confirms my suspicion.

Just oozing superiority...

[TMF]

Although this doesn't seem "smart" on behalf of this dept, lol, I get tired of people always hollering discrimination all the time, like its such a terrible thing. Sheesh, we discriminate consistently, day in and day on. Official racial discrimination gave all discrimination a bad name. What about a dept discriminating against people who are criminals and want to be cops? Thats discrimination too, isnt it? All too often I don't agree with the decisions of our liberal courts, but this time they got ti right...The dept's policy, although it may not be smart, isnt illegal discrimination.

Well this is bad discrimination, not good discrimination. Not hiring a felon is discrimination, but is understandable because they have shown themselves not to be trustworthy. Discriminating against someone with a low IQ is okay too, since they can't perform the duties if they lack the mental capacity. But discriminating against a high IQ would be like not hiring a woman because someday she might get pregnant. The article states that the reason for the discrimination is to prevent turnover. My wife stopped working when we had our first kid. Many women do. That demonstrates the possibility for high turnover. As an employer would it be okay for me not to hire women because of that?

[Ebow1]

Nashville's Airport Police have a great method of preventing turnover. If you go somewhere else and you've been on for less then five years, you owe them money. I forget how they figure the amounts but it's based on how long you've been with them. Basically, if you get trained and go to somebody else shortly after, you owe them money for the money they spent training you. Seems completely fair to me, and if you don't agree with it you don't have to work there.

[mav]

Just oozing superiority...

[tnhawk]

We need IQ test reqirements for elected positions in our government.

[Good_Steward]

We need IQ test reqirements for elected positions in our government.

Obviously, high IQ's were banned in those positions already.

[mav]

Obviously, high IQ's were banned in those positions already.

I find that statement highly offensive. Our politicians are our best and brightest. For example, here is a clip of Congressman Hank Johnson fretting over the possibility that Guam may tip over if it becomes too populated.

[Good_Steward]

I find that statement highly offensive. Our politicians are our best and brightest. For example, here is a clip of Congressman Hank Johnson fretting over the possibility that Guam may tip over if it becomes too populated.

I have seen the error of my ways. Please consider my previous statement retracted.

By the way, I actually, honest to goodness, belly laughed at the verbage and body language used to describe the possibility of Guam capsizing.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Good_Steward

[daddyo]

I find that statement highly offensive. Our politicians are our best and brightest. For example, here is a clip of Congressman Hank Johnson fretting over the possibility that Guam may tip over if it becomes too populated.

Things like this make me think that one should have to pass an intelligence test in order to vote.