Leading Immigration Think Tank Study: "Some Races Are Just Dumb You Guys"

[Loppan Torkel]

If it means anything, I am not particularly interested in the science because race-IQ test links. Threads on that subject usually devolve into ugliness. The implications of this (given the Think Tank's prominence in America and in this particular debate, and given how this idea would be pretty roundly criticized), or the notion of intelligence testing for immigration are more interesting to me.

Would the republicans change their stance to an increased, but more controlled immigration, other than the strictly work-related, if they predicted a larger, future payback by allowing in immigrants with high IQ? Maybe more people would be helped in the end...

I think it's a somewhat immoral idea, but I'm sure you guys are cherry picking in a large scale already, so it's probably not that controversial compared to how it is now. Other than how it's portrayed, that is.

 

[Oruc]

No. I was referring to "I could point you to a recent example on this forum." It's got me baffled.

Do you mean someone has got a degree on this forum recently?!!! What would this mean?

Or you know someone on this forum with a degree who has recently immigrated? What would this indicate?

No I meant someone had said that another poster was stupid and didn't understand an argument because they hadn't been to Uni/College and they themselves understood the argument because they had been to Uni/College.

 

[Cutlass]

Would the republicans change their stance to an increased, but more controlled immigration, other than the strictly work-related, if they predicted a larger, future payback by allowing in immigrants with high IQ? Maybe more people would be helped in the end...

I think it's a somewhat immoral idea, but I'm sure you guys are cherry picking in a large scale already, so it's probably not that controversial compared to how it is now. Other than how it's portrayed, that is.

The official policy since the 1986 immigration reform was to focus primarily on family reunification. That is that the best way to get into the country was to have a close family member who was already a legal resident. Other considerations, such as education and career prospects, were of much lesser importance. Unofficially, anyone taking a job was tacitly accepted whether legal or not. Switching to a focus on the most educated or most highly skilled employable would be a major shift in policy.

 

[Perfection]

Intelligence tests wouldn't work well here. If we had an established high-stakes intelligence test, then it would be studied for and would cease to accurately measure intelligence (not that it would do so to begin with)

 

[downtown]

Well don't countries already do something like this? It's easier for someone with a good degree to immigrate.

There is a big difference between "skills based" decisions, and grading somebody on "potential". A professional skill or certification is not the same thing as the result of an intelligence test.

 

[Oruc]

There is a big difference between "skills based" decisions, and grading somebody on "potential". A professional skill or certification is not the same thing as the result of an intelligence test.

Very little difference really, they've both been tested.

 

[Borachio]

No I meant someone had said that another poster was stupid and didn't understand an argument because they hadn't been to Uni/College and they themselves understood the argument because they had been to Uni/College.

Oh well. In that case there's a nice proof for you (by counterexample) that going to College doesn't guarantee that a person is intelligent.

 

[downtown]

Very little difference really, they've both been tested.

There are lots of differences. A skills-based immigration quota might not necessarily require a test (if the skill in question is say, a trade), and the testing for a university education is hardly standardized. Besides, anybody can get some sort of post-secondary certification. You can't really change your IQ. These kinds of tests could potentially weed out children who could still become highly capable members of society.

 

[Oruc]

There are lots of differences. A skills-based immigration quota might not necessarily require a test (if the skill in question is say, a trade), and the testing for a university education is hardly standardized. Besides, anybody can get some sort of post-secondary certification. You can't really change your IQ. These kinds of tests could potentially weed out children who could still become highly capable members of society.

But If anyone can get some sort of post-secondary certification doesn't your post become an argument to have both IQ tests and some sort of degree?

 

[downtown]

But If anyone can get some sort of post-secondary certification doesn't your post become an argument to have both IQ tests and some sort of degree?

No. I don't think using an IQ test has any merit whatsoever. If you think that only immigrants who become employed should be allowed in (an argument that I do not agree with, but I know some conservatives may believe), then the only thing that ought to matter is whether they have the skills for that job, regardless of their "IQ".

 

[Borachio]

How do you feel about using IQ tests for employment screening? If an applicant hasn't any formal qualifications and yet you require some minimum level of competence wouldn't an IQ test be better than nothing?

And isn't immigration screening similar to employment screening in some ways?

The UK is talking about selecting immigrants on the basis of their ability to contribute to UK society - in the news today. Is this a fair thing to do or not?

 

[Tahuti]

But If anyone can get some sort of post-secondary certification doesn't your post become an argument to have both IQ tests and some sort of degree?

Employers are not interested in your IQ score. You can have an IQ of 150, but that still can make you unemployable if you do not have a degree. Economic immigration regulations focus on the employability of the prospective immigrant, and IQ plays a non-existent role compared to degrees. A degree doesn't prove that you're smart, but it somewhat proves are not a moron either (unless you have good connections, in which case it doesn't matter anyway).

Still, immigration restrictions are just unnecessary bureaucracy. Better to get rid of it wholesale.

 

[Cutlass]

But If anyone can get some sort of post-secondary certification doesn't your post become an argument to have both IQ tests and some sort of degree?

How well a person does on an "IQ" test has at least as much to do with their education and language proficiency as it does with intelligence. There are people who are smarter than any of us here who have never had an opportunity to learn to read.

 

[Flying Pig]

How do you feel about using IQ tests for employment screening? If an applicant hasn't any formal qualifications and yet you require some minimum level of competence wouldn't an IQ test be better than nothing?

Perhaps, but why would you not just find an applicant with the relevant qualifications? If the job required no qualifications at all, would you not just check that they had basic human competence?

 

[Gucumatz]

I can't believe this isn't a joke? This sounds straight out of the 40s/50s. What the hell Heritage Foundation, one of the most backwards racist "studies" I have heard in a long time

The US government has used IQ and race studies before to restrict people [See the BIA] using nonsense to try and validate racism. I don't see how this is any different and why these people should be given the light of day or an inkling of legitimate coverage

 

[Borachio]

Perhaps, but why would you not just find an applicant with the relevant qualifications? If the job required no qualifications at all, would you not just check that they had basic human competence?

Well, yes. I've applied for many jobs without any formal qualifications (not that I don't have formal qualifications - but you can disqualify yourself quite quickly for certain jobs by declaring them) and taken tests which have been very similar to IQ tests - in fact I don't know what else you'd call them.

I don't know quite what you mean by basic human competence.

 

[Oruc]

No. I don't think using an IQ test has any merit whatsoever. If you think that only immigrants who become employed should be allowed in (an argument that I do not agree with, but I know some conservatives may believe), then the only thing that ought to matter is whether they have the skills for that job, regardless of their "IQ".

Well it would be a very good way of screening for candidates, If there is alot of them adding extra hurdles is always a good thing from your side of things.

My cousin had a job going through candidates, he and those he worked with used to throw those who said either "I work well in a team" or "I work well on my own". In fact they had a game where if someone said both they would shout it out over the office.

 

[Flying Pig]

Bluntly put, if it's a job that requires very few skills and very little intelligence - and hence the employer believes that somebody unable to get anything out of school could do it - a short interview and a probation period should suffice.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. I agree. A lot depends on the size of the company, though. Somewhere employing more than 200 will probably go in for some testing, in my experience.

Sometimes it seems to be just something to keep the HR department busy.

 

[Flying Pig]

Perhaps - you're probably right that a simple intelligence/general knowledge/education test would be suitable in some situations, but I think using it generally would be a poor idea.