6 ms·

Another major glaring problem that no one wants to admit is that lots of tech work requires (at the very least) college-level-IQ, which excludes the majority of

Another major glaring problem that no one wants to admit is that lots of tech work requires (at the very least) college-level-IQ, which excludes the majority of the population. And the lower-IQ jobs are quickly being automated away.

mlloyd 9y ago
Maybe - or maybe it just requires a specific way of thinking about things i.e. Problem Solving and Time/Task Management? As well as the ability to learn the task of course.
- umanwizard 9y ago
  What's the difference between "problem solving" and "IQ" ? They seem like almost the same thing.
  - madamelic 9y ago
    Problem-solving: the ability to deconstruct a problem into atomic pieces and construct solutions IQ: How fast you do it. tl;dr: Problem-solving is software, IQ is hardware
  - jaibot 9y ago
    "IQ" is a scalar semi-objectice well-defined metric that predicts some things about the much more complicated and less-well-defined concept of problem solving.
  - goialoq 9y ago
    "IQ" measures something called "G", which is pattern-recognition ability (coincidentally the cutting edge of today's ML neural nets). The scientific theory of IQ is that that if you are good at pattern recognition, then you will be good at a wide range of cognitive tasks.
SamReidHughes 9y ago
A college-level IQ these days means something low like 100 -- you're probably thinking of a more stringent standard.
- ivl 9y ago
  I was under the impression among people with undergraduate degrees it was closer to 110-115.
- learc83 9y ago
  An IQ of 100 is supposed to represent the mean score of the general population. The average IQ of someone with a college degree is a good bit higher than that. From a quick Google search it looks like it's around 115, which is a standard deviation higher than the general population.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    I was referring to more of a minimum than an average.
- Joeri 9y ago
  Isn't half the population below 100? How can you consider that low?
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    That's lower than half the population.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    Because it's terrible. Pretty much the same way we can consider the median personal income ($31,100 in 2016 - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N ) "low". Because it's low.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Gargoyle 9y ago
The vast, vast majority of tech work doesn't require any exceptional intelligence. It just requires a system of thinking, one which can be...trained.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  ... and the ability to be trained into learning arbitrary skills is IQ. Higher IQ means its easier to train yourself into being able to use a new system of thinking. Like, being a soldier doesn't require any sort of exceptional intelligence either. It doesn't even require average intelligence. What it requires is an IQ of 85 - below that point, and the US army cannot effectively train you to become a soldier. Despite having every incentive in the world, the US army still rejects about 15% of the population.
  - nerpderp83 9y ago
    15% of the population doesn't apply to join the Army. And those that do self select. Using the Army rejection rates for determining the IQ level of the population isn't a good method.
    - smhost 9y ago
      It's the definition of IQ. 15 points is 1 standard deviation, so about 15% of the population has an IQ of 85 or below by definition.
      - kazinator 9y ago
        Just following up to add that these two 15's are unrelated, in case any readers get the wrong idea. The area under the normal distribution curve from minus infinity to -1 (one standard deviation left of centre) is about 0.1586 or about 15-16%. The 15 points = 1 stddev property of IQ is arbitrarily established.
vilmosi 9y ago
IQ just means potential not capability. Given enought time I believe most people can be trained to do almost any job. I don't think our brain suddenly evolved in 200 years from illiterate peasants to software engineers. We just have more school time these days.
- sunir 9y ago
  Since it is empirically obvious that 200 years ago the world was not entirely populated by illiterate peasants ...perhaps your population model of the distribution of IQ and causes thereof is inaccurate.
  - vilmosi 9y ago
    Not entirely but the vast majority. It's empirically obvious writting existed 200 years ago therefore someone somewhere knew how to write. What do you think people did before the industrial revolution?
    - sunir 9y ago
      A lot.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > IQ just means potential not capability. Ok, you can say that. > Given enough[] time I believe most people can be trained to do almost any job. That's a statement about potential, not capability.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
BjoernKW 9y ago
That's not true. It's a common complaint among engineers that developing line-of-business or CRUD applications is tedious and not challenging enough as it doesn't require a lot of creative thinking. Truth of the matter is that most tech work doesn't involve AI, machine learning, self-driving cars or augmented reality but down-to-earth business applications. Developing those requires abstract thinking, empathy and problem-solving skills but it doesn't necessarily require a college-level IQ. In fact a high IQ could even be harmful in that situation because apart from getting bored quickly highly intelligent people can display a tendency to overthink problems (which is probably how many notorious enterprise frameworks came about ...).
- briholt 9y ago
  You've clearly never met a person who is unable to place a hanger inside of a shirt and hang it on a rack, or a person who can't sort 5 single-digit numbers mentally. What you are describing are 120+ IQ problems.
  - BjoernKW 9y ago
    You make this sound like someone with an IQ less than 120 is mentally impaired. An IQ of 100 is defined as the median IQ level for a population. The range between 90 and 130 covers the whole gamut of human intelligence that's commonly considered normal. Much of the day-to-day work in IT often doesn't need original thinking but merely skillful application of known methods and patterns, which in turn doesn't require a college education.
    - briholt 9y ago
      Find one successful programmer at Google/Apple/Facebook/Cisco/etc. with an IQ of 90. Remembering basic equations, keeping long sequences of functions sorted in your head, even understanding FTP/Git/CL instructions require this level cognitive ability. When you deal with people who can't hang shirts you'll start to understand this. There are just under 200 million Americans with IQs between "can't hang shirts" and "productive programmer."
nerpderp83 9y ago
The vast majority of the population already has a "college-level-iq" for whatever definition of. Tech work is not a geniuses' only game.
scythe 9y ago
IQ is standardized to a population distribution. As such someone with an IQ of 120 is not 50% smarter than someone with an IQ of 80; rather, they simply have a 50% higher "score". But there is no standard zero-point on the IQ scale; the "IQ of a rock" could be anywhere from -5000 to +50 or so. That doesn't mean IQ is meaningless -- it correlates with a variety of positive outcomes -- but that low-IQ people are not "proportionally" less intelligent as measured by the IQ. Rather the IQ scale is set up to have a seemingly normal distribution relative to the observed distribution of fluid reasoning in the human population. The standard deviation of IQs is arbitrarily set at 15, and the mean is set at 100. We could easily reform the IQ scale to have a mean of 1000 and a sigma of 1, or a mean of zero and a sigma of 100. The number, itself, is meaningless without context. There is no evidence that a person with low IQ cannot accomplish the the tasks involved in e.g. software engineering, although they would probably do so more slowly than a person with high IQ. From Wiki: "The prevailing view among academics is that it is largely through the quicker acquisition of job-relevant knowledge that higher IQ mediates job performance. " Also, going to college has no effect on IQ, so "college-level IQ" is meaningless gobbledygook.
- andrewwharton 9y ago
  Re. college level IQ, I think they were referring to the level of IQ required to be able to successfully complete a college degree, ie. keep up with courses (which requires quick acquisition of knowledge), rather than the level of IQ 'acquired' after completing a college degree.
tdb7893 9y ago
It probably helps but saying it's necessary seems a little far fetched to me. Also since pretty much everyone I knew growing up went to college I don't think "college-level" is really meaningful for much except wealth nowadays
- blacksmith_tb 9y ago
  That may say as much about you as it does about the population at large, right now about a third of adults in the US have a bachelor's degree[1]. 1: http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/326995-census-more-americans-have-college-degrees-than-ever-before http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/326995-census-more-a...
  - tdb7893 9y ago
    I would guess the vast majority of people in my highschool were in the top fourth of income in America (including my family, we were well off but not super rich because my dad was in the military and then a commercial pilot and my mom was a teacher). I'm sure other people have different experiences but waaaayyyy more than the national average of people from my highschool went to college and I can tell you that while it was a decent school it was not filled with geniuses. It's why I think a large amount of the reason people go to college is cultural and that to many people college ends up being more of a symbol of status than a intellectual achievement.
jas_far 9y ago
What exactly is a college-level IQ? Does everybody who goes to college have a college-level IQ?
jas_far 9y ago
What is it about tech work that requires such a high intelligence, as you state? Because I'm a tech employee and would argue that your claim is completely unfounded. There's nothing special about learning how to code—it's a very trainable skill. Takes a lot of time and dedication, sure, but trainable nonetheless.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  You can't even teach calculus to some people to the point where they can pass a class. Some people in programming classes can't even submit homework that compiles.
  - jas_far 9y ago
    Calculus and programming are in two different leagues of complexity, and most programming doesn't require a knowledge of calculus. Like any other skill, programming comes more easily to some than others, but with the right approach can be acquired by anyone.
    - SamReidHughes 9y ago
      Calculus classes are more passable than programming classes, and the claim you're making is just pulled out of your hat, made in such a way that you could never be found wrong, because no matter what you could just say you're not taking the right approach.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

mlloyd 9y ago

Maybe - or maybe it just requires a specific way of thinking about things i.e. Problem Solving and Time/Task Management? As well as the ability to learn the task of course.

umanwizard 9y ago
What's the difference between "problem solving" and "IQ" ? They seem like almost the same thing.
- madamelic 9y ago
  Problem-solving: the ability to deconstruct a problem into atomic pieces and construct solutions IQ: How fast you do it. tl;dr: Problem-solving is software, IQ is hardware
- jaibot 9y ago
  "IQ" is a scalar semi-objectice well-defined metric that predicts some things about the much more complicated and less-well-defined concept of problem solving.
- goialoq 9y ago
  "IQ" measures something called "G", which is pattern-recognition ability (coincidentally the cutting edge of today's ML neural nets). The scientific theory of IQ is that that if you are good at pattern recognition, then you will be good at a wide range of cognitive tasks.

SamReidHughes 9y ago

A college-level IQ these days means something low like 100 -- you're probably thinking of a more stringent standard.

ivl 9y ago
I was under the impression among people with undergraduate degrees it was closer to 110-115.
learc83 9y ago
An IQ of 100 is supposed to represent the mean score of the general population. The average IQ of someone with a college degree is a good bit higher than that. From a quick Google search it looks like it's around 115, which is a standard deviation higher than the general population.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  I was referring to more of a minimum than an average.
Joeri 9y ago
Isn't half the population below 100? How can you consider that low?
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  That's lower than half the population.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  Because it's terrible. Pretty much the same way we can consider the median personal income ($31,100 in 2016 - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N ) "low". Because it's low.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Gargoyle 9y ago

The vast, vast majority of tech work doesn't require any exceptional intelligence. It just requires a system of thinking, one which can be...trained.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ThrustVectoring 9y ago
... and the ability to be trained into learning arbitrary skills is IQ. Higher IQ means its easier to train yourself into being able to use a new system of thinking. Like, being a soldier doesn't require any sort of exceptional intelligence either. It doesn't even require average intelligence. What it requires is an IQ of 85 - below that point, and the US army cannot effectively train you to become a soldier. Despite having every incentive in the world, the US army still rejects about 15% of the population.
- nerpderp83 9y ago
  15% of the population doesn't apply to join the Army. And those that do self select. Using the Army rejection rates for determining the IQ level of the population isn't a good method.
  - smhost 9y ago
    It's the definition of IQ. 15 points is 1 standard deviation, so about 15% of the population has an IQ of 85 or below by definition.
    - kazinator 9y ago
      Just following up to add that these two 15's are unrelated, in case any readers get the wrong idea. The area under the normal distribution curve from minus infinity to -1 (one standard deviation left of centre) is about 0.1586 or about 15-16%. The 15 points = 1 stddev property of IQ is arbitrarily established.

vilmosi 9y ago

IQ just means potential not capability. Given enought time I believe most people can be trained to do almost any job. I don't think our brain suddenly evolved in 200 years from illiterate peasants to software engineers. We just have more school time these days.

sunir 9y ago
Since it is empirically obvious that 200 years ago the world was not entirely populated by illiterate peasants ...perhaps your population model of the distribution of IQ and causes thereof is inaccurate.
- vilmosi 9y ago
  Not entirely but the vast majority. It's empirically obvious writting existed 200 years ago therefore someone somewhere knew how to write. What do you think people did before the industrial revolution?
  - sunir 9y ago
    A lot.
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> IQ just means potential not capability. Ok, you can say that. > Given enough[] time I believe most people can be trained to do almost any job. That's a statement about potential, not capability.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

BjoernKW 9y ago

That's not true. It's a common complaint among engineers that developing line-of-business or CRUD applications is tedious and not challenging enough as it doesn't require a lot of creative thinking. Truth of the matter is that most tech work doesn't involve AI, machine learning, self-driving cars or augmented reality but down-to-earth business applications. Developing those requires abstract thinking, empathy and problem-solving skills but it doesn't necessarily require a college-level IQ. In fact a high IQ could even be harmful in that situation because apart from getting bored quickly highly intelligent people can display a tendency to overthink problems (which is probably how many notorious enterprise frameworks came about ...).

briholt 9y ago
You've clearly never met a person who is unable to place a hanger inside of a shirt and hang it on a rack, or a person who can't sort 5 single-digit numbers mentally. What you are describing are 120+ IQ problems.
- BjoernKW 9y ago
  You make this sound like someone with an IQ less than 120 is mentally impaired. An IQ of 100 is defined as the median IQ level for a population. The range between 90 and 130 covers the whole gamut of human intelligence that's commonly considered normal. Much of the day-to-day work in IT often doesn't need original thinking but merely skillful application of known methods and patterns, which in turn doesn't require a college education.
  - briholt 9y ago
    Find one successful programmer at Google/Apple/Facebook/Cisco/etc. with an IQ of 90. Remembering basic equations, keeping long sequences of functions sorted in your head, even understanding FTP/Git/CL instructions require this level cognitive ability. When you deal with people who can't hang shirts you'll start to understand this. There are just under 200 million Americans with IQs between "can't hang shirts" and "productive programmer."

nerpderp83 9y ago

The vast majority of the population already has a "college-level-iq" for whatever definition of. Tech work is not a geniuses' only game.

scythe 9y ago

IQ is standardized to a population distribution. As such someone with an IQ of 120 is not 50% smarter than someone with an IQ of 80; rather, they simply have a 50% higher "score". But there is no standard zero-point on the IQ scale; the "IQ of a rock" could be anywhere from -5000 to +50 or so. That doesn't mean IQ is meaningless -- it correlates with a variety of positive outcomes -- but that low-IQ people are not "proportionally" less intelligent as measured by the IQ. Rather the IQ scale is set up to have a seemingly normal distribution relative to the observed distribution of fluid reasoning in the human population. The standard deviation of IQs is arbitrarily set at 15, and the mean is set at 100. We could easily reform the IQ scale to have a mean of 1000 and a sigma of 1, or a mean of zero and a sigma of 100. The number, itself, is meaningless without context. There is no evidence that a person with low IQ cannot accomplish the the tasks involved in e.g. software engineering, although they would probably do so more slowly than a person with high IQ. From Wiki: "The prevailing view among academics is that it is largely through the quicker acquisition of job-relevant knowledge that higher IQ mediates job performance. " Also, going to college has no effect on IQ, so "college-level IQ" is meaningless gobbledygook.

andrewwharton 9y ago
Re. college level IQ, I think they were referring to the level of IQ required to be able to successfully complete a college degree, ie. keep up with courses (which requires quick acquisition of knowledge), rather than the level of IQ 'acquired' after completing a college degree.

tdb7893 9y ago

It probably helps but saying it's necessary seems a little far fetched to me. Also since pretty much everyone I knew growing up went to college I don't think "college-level" is really meaningful for much except wealth nowadays

blacksmith_tb 9y ago
That may say as much about you as it does about the population at large, right now about a third of adults in the US have a bachelor's degree[1]. 1: http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/326995-census-more-americans-have-college-degrees-than-ever-before http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/326995-census-more-a...
- tdb7893 9y ago
  I would guess the vast majority of people in my highschool were in the top fourth of income in America (including my family, we were well off but not super rich because my dad was in the military and then a commercial pilot and my mom was a teacher). I'm sure other people have different experiences but waaaayyyy more than the national average of people from my highschool went to college and I can tell you that while it was a decent school it was not filled with geniuses. It's why I think a large amount of the reason people go to college is cultural and that to many people college ends up being more of a symbol of status than a intellectual achievement.

jas_far 9y ago

What exactly is a college-level IQ? Does everybody who goes to college have a college-level IQ?

jas_far 9y ago

What is it about tech work that requires such a high intelligence, as you state? Because I'm a tech employee and would argue that your claim is completely unfounded. There's nothing special about learning how to code—it's a very trainable skill. Takes a lot of time and dedication, sure, but trainable nonetheless.

SamReidHughes 9y ago
You can't even teach calculus to some people to the point where they can pass a class. Some people in programming classes can't even submit homework that compiles.
- jas_far 9y ago
  Calculus and programming are in two different leagues of complexity, and most programming doesn't require a knowledge of calculus. Like any other skill, programming comes more easily to some than others, but with the right approach can be acquired by anyone.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    Calculus classes are more passable than programming classes, and the claim you're making is just pulled out of your hat, made in such a way that you could never be found wrong, because no matter what you could just say you're not taking the right approach.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]