Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Company Seeks US Workers With 125 IQ
CWmike writes "A Chinese IT outsourcing company that has started hiring new US computer science graduates to work in Shanghai requires prospective job candidates to demonstrate an IQ of 125 or above on a test it administers to sort out job applicants. In doing so, Bleum Inc. is following a hiring practice it applies to college recruits in China. But a new Chinese college graduate must score an IQ of 140 on the company's test. The lower IQ threshold for new US graduates reflects the fact that the pool of US talent available to the company is smaller than the pool of Chinese talent, Bleum said."
It's quite interesting how you can already predict how the world will change in the upcoming 10-20 years. The Chinese have the workforce (and hence more persons with high IQ), they're used to work hard for a living, and realistic economy. They don't let banks cheat and collapse the country like in the US where everyone must get the latest HDTV, big cars and just spend money on non-important items and entertainment. That is how US has been doing for many many years and loaning more and more money along the way.
Basing emplyment on IQ is pointless as it doesn't actually predict "real-world" performance. This is similar to college only accepting students with a score in the top 1% on the ACT/SAT - they can do well on a test, but that doesn't mean they are a good student.
Sent from my iPhone 5
I think the article missed the reason they are hiring US people. "To speak English"
They aren't hiring people from the US to do CS jobs, they are hiring them to train their mainland China employees on how to communicate in English on the specific topic (computer science) that otherwise would be completely lost on regular "GREAT ENGLISH JOBS IN CHINA TESOL" type of people who may know English but know little about computer science.
That's surprising because I would think that there are far more English-speaking Chinese, than Mandarin (or whatever)-speaking Americans.
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
Their banking industry is largely (if not all the way) corrupt. They take the savings of the people (who do indeed have a high savings rate), and then loan them out to largely state-owned enterprises. Who gets the money is largely politically directed, and has little to do with how likely it is the loan will be paid back.
Eventually those savers are going to want their money back, and it won't be there. So, it would be accurate to say that Chinese banks haven't collapsed their economy yet.
So, in the US, all the wasteful spending and foolish loans go to consumers. In China, they go towards state-owned businesses. I'm not sure one way or the other is better.
SirWired
Or on the other hand, one of the most intelligent people of his day only scored 120 because the test does not reflect intelligence, not in any meaningful/comparative sense. You can quite easily study for an IQ test, repeat a lot of the same types of problems before the test for a while and you easily score much better than if you walked in unprepared.
Or at least the ability to write more interesting and useful posts. Seriously, what is with shit like this and why does it get moderated up? Are you trying to make a statement of some kind? Then make it, don't sit there and be obtuse about it. Or are you just trying to make yourself appear smart by "predicting" something that is quite obvious?
Seriously, this is worthless. You have something to say on using IQ tests, say it. Don't try and be obtuse as though that somehow makes your post more interesting.
Google tests are (way) better than IQ, but guess what Google found out: the best performers are the ones who have the lowest scores on their interviews.
Then maybe Google tests are not that good then. IQ tests show a correlation with income and with education level. Correlation is not causation, but if a company wants someone with good education, IQ is not such a bad instrument.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
This is especially surprising because the average slashdotter is doing the same crap that the average developer in India is doing.
Everything built today is short-term throw-away crap, often because the cultural, organisational, specification and documentation requirements won't translate (and the people involved in outsourcing don't care anyway).
Try discussing a real-world requirement with a well-spoken Englishman who has lived in the same area as you and experienced the same social and workplace culture and worked with you in the company on similar projects, then try communicating it to a man living in India who has experienced none of the above. Sit down with that man in a quiet room and prepare, say, an API together; now do the same with Bob from Bangalore over MSN. If you don't experience /any/ barrier then your need is so simple you'd be better off spending the next hour fulfilling it yourself.
Outsourcing is often used because the guy who got the bonus from apparently saving money in the short term knows that he'll be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan. Sometimes it works really well, but just as often it's a cruel joke. Its essential premise is: let's move work to an area with a greater supply of desperate workers and fewer workers protections because that'd be cheaper. It assumes that saving, say, $500,000 on the salary line of the budget for some project is not going to be offset by the disadvantages of not having someone with a local understanding. Communication takes longer, requests are more likely to be misinterpreted, there is no link between robustness of output and long-term advancement of the worker so his code is likely to suffer worse engineering practice, etc.
In some cases (where IQ's much higher), the worker may come up with solutions radically faster.
Or mull around over-engineering. Or not make much difference because the IQ test didn't identify skills applicable to the problem.
Hence it makes sense to link pay to IQ (at the start) and pay to IQ and results as time passes.
Why don't we link pay to colour? And any other number of immutable measures of an individual which have some correlation with intellectual performance.
"Google found out: the best performers are the ones who have the lowest scores on their interviews." [citation needed]
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Just because there are more English-speaking Chinese does not mean there are more highly fluent English-speaking Chinese with specialization in CS.
IQ is highly overrated
In practice, it's almost useless...
It's true that it's not all you need to do well. Citation needed on it being almost useless, in the same way that citation is needed on water not being wet.
Google tests are (way) better than IQ, but guess what Google found out: the best performers are the ones who have the lowest scores on their interviews.
The best performers are those that were hired in spite of having a low score in one interview out of several. These are people that are so impressive for some reason or other that even a low score in an interview does not rule them out. Citation needed on Google tests being way better than just an IQ test - I only know that they are more laborious, not that they outperform 100 years of research into IQ. If they do I expect it's because they include either an actual IQ test or an IQ test by proxy such as riddles or hard subject-specific questions you can't just memorize ahead of time. In any case, citation needed.
IQ is not concerned with - the candidate knows about the job - the candidate has good (enough) people skills - the candidate showers, shaves, etc
... and yet IQ tests still predict performance very well in many jobs. It's both fantastic and fantastically politically unacceptable.
If you are up in arms about IQ, then just wait till you read about the general fitness factor. This is the first link I found on google: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ698164&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ698164
Feynman was an unconventional thinker is so very many ways. That was where a large part of his brilliance came from. He did not work in the world of numbers and equations, despite being a theoretical physicist. He was an examples kind of guy. He always had to have a physical example running in his head of a theory, and was always challenging people to provide them for him. As such he often found errors they could not, as he was mapping the problem in a completely different way.
It was his unconventional methods that made him so very brilliant, that lead him to his Nobel research. It was also part of why he was so good at teaching. He could explain things to undergrads that most people could only explain to others with advanced knowledge. He could do that because he saw through all the equations and such to the real essence of what the theory was, and he could come up with examples because that was what he did anyhow.
That an IQ test can't measure that well is a failing of the test, not of Feynman. The IQ test is one mold for how people can be smart, one particular way. He didn't fit that. So while the test rated him above average, because he was just so smart overall, it could not truly measure the depths of his genius.
It is a good lesson: Don't put too much stock in a single test. Tests test for particular things, they are not generalizable to everything.
As an analog, take a blood test for liver function. A simple test can be done to determine if your liver works right (just takes blood now, they don't need urine anymore as well). It does so reliably and well. However, that's all it does. Passing a LFT doesn't mean you are in good health, it means your liver is doing its job. It doesn't even mean your liver is undamaged, it just means that to whatever extent it has been damaged, it is still currently capable of filtering as needed.
The test is useful, but you must understand its limits for it to be so.
there are people with
1. high traditional iq, high social iq,
2. high traditional iq, low social iq,
3. low traditional iq, high social iq,
4. low traditional iq, low social iq
your inability to conceptualize more than one axis in the formulation of your comment doesn't speak very well for your iq, any iq
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
how many presidents have we had with a PhD?
answer:
one. Woodrow Wilson
yes, Barack Obama is someone with a high traditional iq and a high social iq
but as GW Bush demonstrates that you can be well below 100 on both social iq and traditional iq and still become president. you just need to score high on the nepotism iq test and the oil money iq test
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The biggest idiots I know are in Mensa. Just a bunch of incompetent morons who like taking IQ tests.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
McDonald's had a training model "green is growing" and that's probably the effect Google is seeing. If you ace every single area, then you might be really smart and motivated... but you're probably not reaching far ENOUGH for challenging work. From an employment point of view, somebody reaching "over their head" is more likely to TRY harder to make themselves better. It would be like paying somebody good in the 100 yd dash to walk your dog.... they could probably DO the job quite well, but they wouldn't better themselves with the job and shortly after boredom would set in and they would do worse than hiring a chubby girl that really likes dogs and benefits from the daily exercise.
As the parent says: "IQ tests still predict performance very well in many jobs. It's both fantastic and fantastically politically unacceptable". This is so well known as to be beyond any credible dispute. As an overall predictor of success, IQ is known to be quite good. Here's a nice summary. Note that the correlation between IQ and professional success is even stronger than the correlation in height between parents and children.
If China uses this policy widely, over a long period of time, it will be interesting to watch the media try to spin it. Such a test must somehow be evil, because there will undoubtedly be disparities in the gender and/or race and/or background of the people who pass the test. Yet everyone will know - whether or not they dare say it - that the test is purely economic: get the best people for the money.
The elephant in the room: what everyone knows but no one will admit. Shades of The Bell Curve.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Of course I wish I knew before I went to university. Of course it made me appreciate what my uncle said about colleges. Since you're doing the teaching yourself anyway the differences between universities isn't the education, it's the name. (For what it's worth the only university who he though had a good enough name to be worth the money over a state school was Harvard.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Citation needed on Google tests being way better than just an IQ test
Maybe because one has to do with skills related to the job and the other doesn't. Do you even know what kind of questions google asks? Well, I do.
IQ tests can sometimes outperform subject-specific tests even for determining future performance in that specific subject. This occurs especially when everyone tested is known to already posses the basic knowledge of a field.
It's surprising until you think about it for a bit. People can increase their knowledge if they have a high IQ, but people cannot increase their IQ no matter how much they know of their subject.
and yet IQ tests still predict performance very well in many jobs. It's both fantastic
Depends on the job. Get out of the lab and onto the real world.
Yes, it is generally the case that each job has a certain level of IQ beyond which further IQ doesn't help you very much. There is a limit to how much sweeping the street can be improved with brainpower. I don't have a number for programming, but it is a complicated technical field where productivity differs wildly among individuals. That's exactly the kind of thing that lends itself to IQ mattering into very high levels. It's true that high IQ doesn't help if the guy then doesn't show up for work at all or spends all his time at work playing World of Warcraft, but that is true of anyone so it isn't something specific to people with a high IQ.
Telling me to get onto the real world does nothing for your argument. I could tell you that knowledge of IQ would probably increase your ability to talk about it, but that would equally do nothing for my argument.
Google had every reason to use IQ for hiring and still it doesn't. It's about 70% 'knowing stuff'.
You seem to think that a question about "knowing stuff" cannot have an IQ loading. It doesn't work that way and the more so the harder the questions are. The way to know if the Google hiring process is highly IQ loaded is to measure people's IQ and compare that to their interview score. If you think IQ isn't relevant I think you'd be surprised.
Then who would work to create all the stuff everyone needs?
If everyone got paid the minimum needed to live on, no one would want to work for minimum wage. Which means that wages would have to be raised even for the simplest jobs. But that would make it more expensive to live on, so everybody would need to be paid more. And wages would have to be raised again...
A socially benevolent government works for rich countries because they import low cost raw materials and export high priced products and services. It wouldn't work worldwide, at least not until artificial intelligence has advanced enough to let machines do all the jobs that people find uninteresting.
Who cares? Unless you want to criticize the government or practice Falun Gong, they're probably not going to restrict any of the freedoms you actually care about. You're free to dress the way you want and go about your normal business there.
This is different from, say, Saudi Arabia, where if you're a female you'll be restricted from many freedoms you take for granted in the West: dressing in a Western manner, driving a car, reading a paper, being without a male escort, etc. Even if you're male, you have to watch your behavior in the Islamic countries, and even then you'll probably get all kinds of nasty comments and rude treatment there from people who hate Westerners. In China, you don't have these problems.
Criticizing the lack of freedoms in China is laughable coming from what I assume to be an American. In America, you can't even photograph an Amtrak train without being attacked by police.
If I ever took a job in China, I'm sure I could keep my mouth shut about the government for the time I'm there (which wouldn't be permanent, obviously, just enough to save some money for a while). I'm also sure I'd have more complaints about the pollution there than the lack of freedoms.