Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses IT

Chinese Company Seeks US Workers With 125 IQ 553

Posted by samzenpus
from the look-at-the-big-brain-on-the-yankee dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chinese Company Seeks US Workers With 125 IQ

Comments Filter:
  • World is changing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SquarePixel (1851068) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @07:57AM (#32837766)

    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.

    • Re:World is changing (Score:5, Informative)

      by EmagGeek (574360) <gterich @ a o l.com> on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:04AM (#32837818) Journal

      Percentage of people with an IQ higher than 140: 0.31349%

      Percentage of people with an IQ higher than 125: 4.15182%

      (Based on Wechsler)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        That leaves China with over 4 million with an IQ greater than 140. The US then has just under one million.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by hedwards (940851)
          Not necessarily. Environmental contamination, particularly with heavy metals has an IQ lowering effect on the populace. Additionally since IQ is set relatively early, and brain damage later on will take off the total score. But more than that having a high IQ really isn't all it's cracked up to be. When you hit a point around 120 or so you more or less maximize it, there isn't really any particular reason to require more than that, and realistically you then have to deal with other problems. It's really har
          • by ortholattice (175065) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @09:08AM (#32838524)

            It's really hard at times for those of us up in the 140s to conceive of why a lot of this stuff isn't common sense. And hence end up spending a lot of time being misunderstood or explaining what ought to be perfectly obvious.

            Perhaps your IQ isn't quite high enough then, since it is hard for you to conceive that. Some of the most accomplished scientists are often also the best teachers, since they are intelligent enough not only to understand the material but also to understand their audience.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425)
              Maybe but the funny thing is 2 of the worst professors I had in university were amongst the most intelligent people I've ever met. Admittedly one knew he was kind of bad, largely because his english was pretty bad and gave everybody a break. They other guy was obviously super smart and wrote "the" book in his field but couldn't teach at all. (Unfortunately other professors at the school only knew him by his reputation and would say stupid things like "he's really good isn't he?" This guy was so bad he could
              • by SpongeBob Hitler (1848328) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @09:36AM (#32838900)

                Maybe but the funny thing is 2 of the worst professors I had in university were amongst the most intelligent people I've ever met. Admittedly one knew he was kind of bad, largely because his english was pretty bad and gave everybody a break. They other guy was obviously super smart and wrote "the" book in his field but couldn't teach at all. (Unfortunately other professors at the school only knew him by his reputation and would say stupid things like "he's really good isn't he?" This guy was so bad he couldn't tell you how he determined your grade. The reason he couldn't tell you is because he didn't even know how he was going to do it. Yes, that's literally true.)

                Sounds like my circuits professor. He wrote the book. The students had to buy the book. He also taught the Circuits I class, and he taught straight from the book. It all sucked massively. My Circuits II professor said the book was "good" but politely suggested that we all go out and find a "supplemental" textbook to help us in the course.

                I doubt the professors who said "he's really good, isn't he?" didn't know that your professor sucked. They just didn't want to openly bad-mouth one of their colleagues. In fact, "he's really good, isn't he?" sounds more to me like "yeah, we know he sucks, but we can't do anything about it."

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward

                Professors aren't teachers. They're lecturers. You know who the teacher is in a university? I mean, a proper one, not a hand-holding University of Huge State, Main Campus.

                It's the student.

                If the student wants to succeed, he or she has to teach him- or herself. To do this, the university provides a number of resources the student can use: lectures, teaching assistants, textbooks, libraries, etc.

                Ultimately, though, it's the student's job. And that's the main difference between high school and college.

                So

                • That's true (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425)
                  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.)
            • by oldspewey (1303305) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @09:29AM (#32838792)

              intelligent enough not only to understand the material but also to understand their audience

              It takes a whole lot more than raw intelligence to understand people. I have met plenty of folks who are wickedly smart but couldn't read body language or a facial expression if their life depended on it.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Securityemo (1407943)
                When your GPU hardware is lacking, emulation only goes so far, no matter what your processor speed is. You can concieve that someome can be born without an arm or a leg, but not with a crippled/rearranged brain such that intellect is preserved, but a lot of other things is missing or subtly warped?
              • Re:World is changing (Score:5, Interesting)

                by Grishnakh (216268) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @04:17PM (#32844088)

                This is the whole problem with the idea of "intelligence", or someone being "smart". Smart at what?

                Different people are smart at different things. Some people are musical geniuses, but they wouldn't have the first clue about partial differential equations no matter how hard they tried. Some people are brilliant at understanding other people and relating to them, but have a hard time working with a computer. Some people are brilliant theoretical physicists, but are basically retards when it comes to social mores and dealing with other people.

                I'm not sure if it's true, but I've read that Thomas Edison couldn't even do long division, and had to hire a mathematician to do math for him. He could invent brilliant mechanical contraptions, but couldn't understand higher math. This would explain why his rival Tesla was able to invent so many things involving AC power (transformers, generators, motors, etc.), since that relied on understanding Maxwell's equations well.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by billcopc (196330)

            Imagine how hard it is for us crazies above 150 to conceive of why the sub-150s are even allowed to leave the testing room alive.

            The interesting (scary for norms) thing about this Chinese hiring practice is I think it is self-defeating. People will find ways to cheat on the test, and then what ? "You can't fire me, I have over 9000 IQ". A more far-fetched idea is that IQ discrimination could soften the public up to the idea of eugenics. Just like 9/11 opened the door for Americans to get repeatedly assf

      • by tophermeyer (1573841) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @10:14AM (#32839520)
        True, but the WAIS tests are typically considered very reliable IQ tests. This company is using their own test, claiming it is an IQ test. If this test was developed within the company, it is very probably biased toward the industry and company culture. People on the "inside" probably score quiet highly on that test, they know all the right lingo and are more familiar with the problems that company faces. Personally, I would be surprised if this test produced anything close to a normal distribution.
    • by lorenlal (164133) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:16AM (#32837942)

      Maybe, the the high poverty rate, a government that pretty much decides what the truth is, and a bunch of human rights violations will certainly not help them get there.

      Yes, China does have a large population/workforce resource... But they got where they are today because that resource was really cheap. China's getting more expensive, and with the issues that the rest of the world has with their government, I don't think it's such a guarantee.

      • by Jedi Alec (258881) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:32AM (#32838102)

        Transparent government and democracy do not make a superpower, no matter what we enlightened westerners may think.

        A dictatorship that controls the flow of information, doesn't skim too much off the top and cracks down on corruption in the lower ranks is a quite efficient way of governing a nation. We may not like it, and it goes against everything we in the west believe in, but that doesn't mean it can't work. No electoral circuses or free press that get in your hair.

        As to what extent china will be able to maintain an iron fist when economic prosperity grows is another question, but then he has the guns makes the rules. Heck, a pretty big chunk of the planet isn't quite enamored with the US either and we're still doing business with them.

        As for getting where they are because resources are cheap...isn't that pretty much how all current and past superpowers came to be? They either had resources on their own turf to exploit or went elsewhere to do so.

        • by jamesh (87723)

          A dictatorship that controls the flow of information, doesn't skim too much off the top and cracks down on corruption in the lower ranks is a quite efficient way of governing a nation. We may not like it, and it goes against everything we in the west believe in, but that doesn't mean it can't work. No electoral circuses or free press that get in your hair.

          So basically, as long as the people at the top have the interests of the nation in mind rather than their own, things will probably go okay?

        • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @11:07AM (#32840248)

          Haha! I guess you buy the crap the Chinese government feeds you. You don't know what corruption is until you've gone to China. That's one of the biggest problems, hands down, with doing business in China. And if you're friends with government officials then you've got it made in the shade.

          In principle a dictatorship should be able to keep these problems under control, but it reality it almost never works out that way. Usually it's the government and anyone tied to them raping the nation for their own gain. The big difference between a dictatorship and democracy or republic is that a dictatorship is far more effective in controlling the flow of information and thus hiding how bad things actually are.

        • Re:World is changing (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Skreems (598317) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @11:29AM (#32840544) Homepage

          A dictatorship that controls the flow of information, doesn't skim too much off the top and cracks down on corruption in the lower ranks is a quite efficient way of governing a nation.

          I know a couple Chinese expats who would disagree with you. They left China for the US because corruption at the local level of government has become institutionalized to a ridiculous extent in the current Chinese culture. If you want to play within the system and become one of the people who benefit from corruption, sure, it's a pretty sweet gig. If you want to live somewhere that acts as something close to a true meritocracy, where corruption in business and government is actually seen as a problem and occasionally fixed, you're going to have to look somewhere else (for example, the US).

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dpilot (134227)

        I heard a report on NPR last week about China and their One Child policy, a generation later. They started it, "Imagine no sister or brother... not only that, but no cousins, no aunts, no uncles... just you, your parents, and maybe your grandparents." Then they went on to talk about life for the children, since each family has only one. Those kids are PUSHED. Their cited example was a girl, taking her Saturday off of regular school to go to tutoring school - she was going to wind up eating supper there,

    • by DAldredge (2353)
      Take your rose colored glassed off and do your own research about their banking system, the results will surprise you. Just don't drink any of their milk while doing that research. Just watch out for the Chinese security services while doing that research, don't want you to go to jail for 8+ years for reveling state secrets.
    • by sirwired (27582) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:28AM (#32838058)

      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

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Sycraft-fu (314770)

        They also manipulate their currency, direct spending and production at a high level, completely ignoring environmental concerns (to the point pollution is effecting industry) and generally function as a command economy in many ways. Well ok, but I will point out that history shows those don't work in the end. The problems catch up and fuck you over. Will China be different? Maybe, they do have different conditions and their system is an interesting hybrid. However I don't know that I'd bet on it. As I said,

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mjwalshe (1680392)
      Persons who score more that 140 on a IQ test you meaan not people who are actulay at that point on the bell urve. The trouble using a IQ test is that IQ tests are gameable and are culture dependant.

      >> "realistic economy"

      Soory you need to know a lot more about economics to stop making an fool of your self, the chinease economy has an artificialy manipulated curency and a corupt stockmarket all the major funds investing in china prefer the HK exchange as its less risky.
    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      Don't worry, they also have the same proportion (therefore higher absolute number) of cheaters, Madoff-wanabees, frauds... They also had financial crisis and bubble bursts in Asia. They will have them again.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dlt074 (548126)

      their economy is based on making said non-important things. so with out our unrealistic economy they'd be in a different boat.

      also, the banks where only doing what Congress told them to. then, when that went horribly wrong, as most of the "good ideas" Congress has tend to do, they took the money Congress "offered". don't get pissed at the banks. get pissed at the people causing the problem. CONGRESS.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MaWeiTao (908546)

      You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Chinese banks can get away with being quite a bit more abusive than American banks. Get into debt and collectors will start calling your family, friends and employer in order to intimidate you into paying. Debtors have been known to have their homes defaced. That's when they don't hire a thug to physically rough you up. It's like dealing with gangsters.

      There have long been concerns about various economic bubbles there. Either the Chinese government has done

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by russotto (537200)

      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.

      Preferring the Chinese factory worker lifestyle (work 12-16 hours, return to small dormitory,

  • Feynman (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    with barely 120 points wouldn't have a chance in that company.

    • I am saying that the only reason Feynman scored that low is that he brought his smart-alec attitude into the test. Kinda like the guy who fails the eye test because the letters he is reading are from the fine-print company address below the last line on the chart.
      • Or on the other hand, one of the most intelligent people of his day only scored 120 because the test does not reflect intelligence [wikimedia.org], 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.
      • by Moraelin (679338)

        As someone who took more than a fair share of IQ tests back in the day, I'd say that any test where it's even possible to bring any attitude into it, is a broken test anyway.

        A count-the-blocks problem -- useless as it is to predict performance for anything other than counting blocks in isometric 2d -- only gets a number as a result, for example. You get the right number, you pass, you don't, you don't. If it's possible to interpret the picture or the question to truthfully answer any other number, then the

      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:57AM (#32838376)

        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.

  • Ok, this is stupid (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JamesP (688957) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:04AM (#32837826)

    IQ is highly overrated

    In practice, it's almost useless...

    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.

    IQ is not concerned with
    - the candidate knows about the job
    - the candidate has good (enough) people skills
    - the candidate showers, shaves, etc

    Guess they shouldn't bother and go straight here then http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous-people.html [kids-iq-tests.com]

    • by Dan667 (564390)
      and most important, IQ does not consider if they get stuff done.
      • by Firethorn (177587)

        It's a chinese company; they're still trying to figure some of this stuff out. Besides, with the number of applicants they have they can afford to be picky even beyound the 140 requirement.

        I mean, here in the USA you'll get bad sorting processes as well.

        Remember google's experience? Good performance in a job interview != good performance in the job.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      IQ is not concerned with
      - the candidate knows about the job
      - the candidate has good (enough) people skills
      - the candidate showers, shaves, etc

      To understand computers, being able to think in abstract logic is far more important than your EQ so for an IT outsourcing company it's almost "knowing" your job. Now we'd all like perfect employees, but it's much, much easier to find someone to look good in a suit and talk nice to your customers than to find someone competent to do the work. It does not matter how good your "people skills" are, if you take a week to do what should have taken a day.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Yvanhoe (564877)

      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.

    • by at_slashdot (674436) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:46AM (#32838190)

      "Google found out: the best performers are the ones who have the lowest scores on their interviews." [citation needed]

    • by Eivind Eklund (5161) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:47AM (#32838206) Journal

      IQ is highly overrated

      In practice, it's almost useless...

      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.

      I'll quote [friendfeed.com] the original source of that claim, Peter Norvig, and his refuting of that interpretation:

      What do you know? Valleywag got everything wrong. Google is hiring, not laying off. Also, our interview scores actually correlate very well with on-the-job performance. Peter Seibel asked me if there was anything counterintuitive about the process and I said that people who got one low score but were hired anyway did well on-the-job. To me, that means the interview process is doing very well, not that it is broken. It means that we don't let one bad interview blackball a candidate. We'll keep interviewing, keep hiring, and keep analyzing the results to improve the process. And I guess Valleywag will keep doing what they do...

      (emphasis mine)

      Eivind.

    • by Krahar (1655029) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:49AM (#32838256)

      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 [ed.gov]

      • 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. [iq-tests.eu] 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 inte

  • by TwiztidK (1723954)
    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.
  • by Darth Sdlavrot (1614139) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:08AM (#32837866)

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/06/29/china.rent.white.people/index.html [cnn.com]

    What's next -- tall, smart, white people?

    blond, slender, blue eyes, and so on.

  • URL (Score:2, Funny)

    Wait, they didn't give the link to the test for instant IQ verification...
  • by MRe_nl (306212) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:10AM (#32837886)

    Maybe the CIA and SETI should merge.
    S.I.A.

    CYA

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:10AM (#32837890)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Just because there are more English-speaking Chinese does not mean there are more highly fluent English-speaking Chinese with specialization in CS.
    • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:40AM (#32838146)
      Teachers in the UK are being hired in China to teach Chinese students English. It doesn't matter what they teach over here; Science, Religion, History, Maths... If they can speak English and have a PGCE, they can go to China and earn a Western wage teaching English in a Chinese school.

      To give you an idea of why the "Western" part of that sentence is important, a teacher in the UK will be on £25,000 per year on average. The Chinese average wage is roughly £5200 per year. You'll be earning 5 x a regular person, while paying Chinese prices for consumer goods and services.
  • the iq test tests very narrow ranges of iq, such as topological intelligence, the ability to manipulate 3D shapes in your head

    but it has zero ability to measure something like social intelligence, the ability to manipulate people

    i don't know that the ability to play 12 games of chess at the same time in your head is as valuable as the bedrock ability to communicate well, especially in the realm of business. the iq test certainly has its uses, but i think people ascribe way too much significance to it when determining someone's worth. someone with a very high traditional iq score can be quite useless in a business sense. the idea of something being useful is a relative term of course: you can be quite useful to an asocial pursuit that could very well be important to mankind in abstract ways with a traditional high iq

    however, in your average business environment, the ability to simply and effectively communicate is a basic need, and pretty much trumps every other area of intelligence, since a business is nothing more than an efficient social organization. the more efficient a business is socially, the more efficient a business is economically, all else being equal. someone who gets well below 100 on a traditional iq test can be quite charismatic, persuasive, and capable of leading people. while someone who scores well above 100 on a traditional iq test can be unresponsive, aloof, distant, and confusing. so for the specific case of a business environment, a high traditional iq would seem not very useful at all

    the ability to lead people is perhaps the most important iq of all possible areas of human intelligence, especially in business, but there is no test for it

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by at_slashdot (674436)

      "but it has zero ability to measure something like social intelligence, the ability to manipulate people" -- that's what low IQ people say, they are full of social intelligence and are good at manipulating people, they usually end up working in HR.

  • Country A has a population of x.

    Country B has a population of x*4.

    Which country will have a larger pool of job applicants with an IQ above 140?

  • by Bayoudegradeable (1003768) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:48AM (#32838230)
    Is your IQ over 125? Good! You have shown sufficient intelligence that can help you pilfer company secrets, embezzle funds, lie to us about why you missed work, lie to us about what you did with your expense account and in general cause us trouble because you are so darned smart! IQ will never measure - character, honesty, motivation, drive, creativity and countless other attributes.
  • Finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by mdarksbane (587589) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @08:50AM (#32838262)

    Affirmative action for white dudes! Where can I sign up?

  • I suspect that the number of US applicants is smaller because: a much smaller percentage of US citizens want to work in Shanghai than Chinese nationals. Given that they lowered the qualifying score for Americans means they want Americans. Sorta says something positive about Americans in general.

  • by Qbertino (265505) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @09:50AM (#32839128)

    There is no such thing as intelligence, only interest. - Richard Feynman (IIRC)

  • by Fujisawa Sensei (207127) on Thursday July 08, 2010 @09:50AM (#32839134) Journal

    The biggest idiots I know are in Mensa. Just a bunch of incompetent morons who like taking IQ tests.

Overdrawn? But I still have checks left!

Working...