There were a lot of questions about numbers such as guessing the next number in a sequence. There were some logic puzzles, the kind where you have to figure out that it’s the baker who rides a bicycle and the mechanic who lives in the house with a red door. There were some strange questions where she was given a sketch of a three dimensional figure such as a cube with some missing pieces, and she had to guess which shaped piece would fill the missing space, or guess which of several other pieces was the same thing rotated or reflected.
This is essentially an IQ test, and what they discovered is that Gwen was highly intelligent. They then did the smart thing and judged her based on her demonstrated aptitude rather than on the prevailing prejudices of the day. Indeed, there was an obvious financial incentive to do so, which serves to remind us that unfounded prejudice is unstable in a competitive market for labor.
Nowadays, it is effectively illegal in the U.S. to give IQ tests to job applicants, and in the state of California it is illegal to give a black child an IQ test even when administered by a school psychologist as part of a professional assessment. To their proponents, such laws are mere "progress", but stories like Gwen's show how misguided these rules can be. When there is a clear incentive to discover the truth, objective assessments undermine prejudice rather than promoting it. It's a lesson we would do well to remember.
This is essentially an IQ test, and what they discovered was that Gwen was highly intelligent. They then did the smart thing and judged her based on her demonstrated aptitude rather than on the prevailing prejudices of the day
Actually, if you read the whole thing, they didn't believe her "demonstrated aptitude" because of their "prevailing prejedices". She had to fight to get them to see her demonstrated aptitude. Many people would be tired of fighting and would have given up then (or earlier in the process). If the applicant was in the privileged position, they would not have had to fight.
it is illegal in the U.S. to give IQ tests to job applicants
That's because in the past, the IQ tests were not fair, objective and colour-blind, but were set up in such a way as to bias against poorer people (which will be mostly black in the USA). This is easy to do with IQ tests, just ask lots of questions that require good schooling and education (e.g. word questions).
Companies used to use IQ tests, and hence claim not be racist, and then be racist. The ban on IQ tests in job interviews stems from this US Supreme Court case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Company and has hence probably improved equality.
> Nowadays, it is illegal in the U.S. to give IQ tests to job applicants
Citation needed.
It is legal (at least based on the guidelines provided by the US Department of Labor: http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf) to give people all kinds of tests as long as (a) they do not select against certain protected traditionally disadvantaged classes more than it does for the average applicant or (b) if it does, there is a demonstrable link between the test and ability to perform job functions (so, for instance, a test of strength in a job that involves lots of lifting may select against women, but if strength is highly correlated with job performance, that is OK).
IQ tests are actually a fairly poor test for many jobs, and they can test many things besides just intelligence (for instance, knowledge of the English language or cultural trivia). For a blue-collar job, an IQ test may disadvantage people from a different cultural background or who don't speak English as a native language, without actually being particularly relevant to job performance. One of the cases that has come up many times is in fire departments, in which written tests are given and used to screen out applicants who score below a certain level, when much of the knowledge tested is not actually all that important to the job.
These days, for a programming job, you would give a more specific test of programming ability. At the time, given that there probably weren't a lot of people with training or experience programming who could be hired, an IQ test was probably a reasonably good generic stand in for the aptitude to learn and think critically.
>unfounded prejudice is unstable in a competitive market for labor.
Only with perfect information. In the absence of straightforward tests to evaluate job applicant quality, discrimination can unfortunately be a stable and rational strategy (albeit morally wrong and illegal). Because of information asymmetries, the employer can use race as a signal to infer lower quality. By rejecting minority candidates, the average quality of their applicant pool increases.
in the state of California it is illegal to give a black child an IQ test even when administered by a school psychologist as part of a professional assessment
The issue is that IQ tests were found to be culturally biased against black students and therefore responsibly for placing those students on special-ed tracks that were not appropriate. See: http://www.rcselpa.org/docs/policies/Section%20III%20Evaluat...
The interesting thing is that it was probably not designed as a general IQ test, but as a test specifically developed at great expense to test for aptitude at computer programming at a time where absolutely nobody could be expected to have prior interest (let alone experience) in that occupation.
This kind of thing was the normal way of hiring programmers for a while before computer science departments became common at universities.
I learned this from "The Psychology of Computer Programming", originally published 1971. A fascinating read, both as a glimpse at a professional environment completely unimaginable to people accustomed to have their own dev machine, and more so for realizing that a lot of what the author wrote about the problems occurring in that environment are still relevant today.
[U]nfounded prejudice is unstable in a competitive market for labor.
Ah, if only this were true. This assumes the market is ultimately a meritocracy, and I don't think the evidence supports that assumption. And even if it were, inefficiencies in a market can persist for a very long time. While conscious, ideological racism is less common today, unconscious racism is a virtually universal feature of human behavior, affecting all corners of the job market. Adam Smith's invisible hand isn't going to fix job discrimination.
"unfounded prejudice is unstable in a competitive market for labor."
Did you ever see that study in France where they submitted the same exact resumes with Christian names and Arab names? I'll let you guess as to the results.
At risk of sounding like a sore loser, IQ tests, whether or not they are bias, are not a good indicator of success (in fact, I'd question it's ability to measure "intelligence" or "potential"). Scoring well on an IQ test does not mean you will be successful at your job.
It does not measure your willingness to learn.
It does not measure your ability to retain information.
It does not measure your reception to criticism.
It does not measure your ability to play nice with others.
It does not measure your interest in the job.
It does not measure your ability to work hard.
Among others.
As such, I think giving someone an IQ test at a job interview is a fairly bad idea.
What we should have picked up from Gwen's job interview is that she is willing to learn and work hard given a fair chance.
I think that your assertion that "unfounded prejudice is unstable in a competitive market for labor" has a tacit assumption that Gwen faced a competitive market for labor. For example, suppose other businesses will not work with you if you hire someone who is not "acceptable"? Suppose there are legal penalties (supported by members of the powerful group)? Suppose there is a union? My point is that that there are non-market forces which can strongly effect job selection.
I was (somewhat) recently given the Wonderlic test as part of the standard interview procedure for a fairly large US company that does a lot of recruiting on college campuses.
Note also that the methods of 60 years ago (a) discovered Gwen's ability, (b) promoted her to a commensurate position, (c) gave a productive citizen a genuine sense of achievement and accomplishment. All in a period which was universally racist and sexist by today's progressive standards.
Now? Gwen's intelligence would probably also be detected, if by less straightforward and reliable methods. Because her African X chromosomes confer not one but two Diversity Points (tm), every institution she came in contact with would have a strong bureaucratic incentive to promote her not only to her actual abilities - but beyond them.
As a result, she'd be very likely to end up placed in a position where rather than leading enterprise IT projects, she was competing with (say) top-notch particle physicists. Lacking (like almost all of us) the mental horsepower to perform at this level, she would constantly feel like a fraud, and her colleagues would constantly suspect her of being a fraud. A suspicion which would be correct, though you couldn't really say it was her fault.
Lesson: be careful about hating on the past. Often the past looks pretty retarded by the standards of the present. Often the converse is the case as well.
The biggest lesson I see here is how much family solidarity and positive expectations makes in a childs education and life. Without her male tribe, and presumably the female tribe who sent the male tribe along, Reg's mum would have taken a different path.
As a father of a young family with a spotty family past I wanted to focus on things I knew for my children. Perhaps I need to focus more on building that kind of supportive family or pseudo family.
Inspiring stories have a tendancy to inspire things not first thought of.
If you want to raise your child to be successful look at the mars-mellow experiment. Unlike IQ they could come up with a really strong correlation to school performance and later success and it seems (at least partially) to be something the family has some influence over.
I love this story because it shows how important it is to be persistent and stand up to authority. Lois had to challenge the principal not once but TWICE, and she was smart enough to get her male relatives involved. Gwen had to fight for her job application TWICE - once to receive the test paper and again to be credited for her answers. This persistence is even more impressive because in each case it involved personal confrontation with someone in authority.
This cultural element of success is underrated. People understand the importance of intelligence, hard word and luck, but don't realise that 'culture' is also vital. Without a family culture of standing up to authority going back three generations, Gwen would not have got that great job. (Malcolm Gladwell devotes much of his book, 'Outliers' to this theme).
I immediately knew it was about your mother after the first few paragraphs. Just a bit sad that the debate here quickly degenerated into the political correctness of IQ tests and the very loaded debate of IQ and race.
When you omit skin color and gender from the story, it's an inspiring story of family values triumphing over environment. It would also be reasonable to say that this family probably has a higher level of native intelligence than the average but they also have instilled the value of hard work and perseverance to make the most of their potential so even if they were average, they would get better results given the same potential.
I'm always puzzled at how quickly intelligent debate breaks down among Americans the second gender or race become part of the discussion.
However, she had to go above and beyond to prove she was that capable and talented - she and her family had to fight to get her placed in a non-trade school and she had to take additional tests to show that her scores were legitimate. If she had been a white male, she would have been placed in the appropriate secondary school immediately and she would have been hired on the spot without further issue.
It's a story about someone who, despite proving themselves to be capable and talented as their peers, would have been passed over if they hadn't fought to be recognized. Ultimately her race/gender didn't make a difference, but it certainly made getting where she wanted an ordeal.
Fascinating article. I am reminded of things my grandmother said about breaking into the field of physics (and later really helping greatly expand the field of astrophysics). I am also reminded of women complaining about the problems with trying to raise a family and get tenure as science professors today, and conclude that in many ways my grandmother had it easy.
So it sounds like Gwen's experience wasn't unique. It may be that we are actually becoming more rather than less hostile towards women breaking into male-dominated industries.
I think we are more hostile to women now than in the past if only because we say we aren't hostile at all and in the past women and minorities knew they needed to fight their way in. If you know you're up for a fight vs just thinking you're evaluating possibilities you're approach is going to be different.
Basically, since the younger generation has bought into the idea that sexism/racism is on its way out they are more likely to believe someone when they say - you can't be any good. And why be persistent if maybe you aren't actually any good?
There are a lot of stories lately of women not taken for intelligent or made fun of, but I don't see that happen here at all.
Recalling from a previous news item, a women said that men always told her to "lighten up" (assuming that means something along the lines "don't whine, I didn't mean it that seriously", it doesn't translate). Well either I'm one of the bastards, or the culture is different here. It appears here we, men and women, have a lot of... liberties I guess you could say.
Looking at the list of countries allowing gay marriage lately, I was surprised to see the Netherlands listed as one of just a few. I once read a quote, "Mom, why do those two women hold hands? - Because they love each other.". I didn't get why it was upvoted at all (site similar to bash.org, don't remember which though). It seems rather obvious to me, like a girl asks her mother why a man and a woman hold hands. Now that I've learned that gay marriage is not actually that common, I get the point.
Is this true for (black) women in America too? I don't get the impression the USA is 'behind', but reading these stories you'd almost think it is. Of course, this particular one is a story from many years ago and either way a good read. But still, it is one of many last days which make it to the front page, covering pretty much the same subject.
I'm not saying people should stop posting or upvoting them, nor do I intend to offend anyone or any country. I'm just wondering aloud what the motivation is behind posting and upvoting these stories.
Does anyone else think it's weird that the principal seemed to have authority over where she could go to secondary school? Was that standard? Is it still true today?
It sounds like this woman was lucky to both be incredibly intelligent in her own right, and to have an excellent family who believed in her and were persuasive to overcome some societal obstacles. And to live in a place with excellent schools and jobs.
I wonder if she would have gone to work for a big company today, or if she would have tried to do a startup.
The most sencere respect for what Gwen did and achieved. I can't tell more and only draw my hat (bad translation of a german saying, please don't hold it against me!).
OT, but it sounds like you're trying to say "I've got nothing more to say, I just tip my hat [to her]." As in, no more words required, just a show of respect.
IQ is very biased depending on the environment you grew up.if u grew up in zimbabwe or a country with high literacy levels the iq tests will be just too easy.
[+] [-] mhartl|14 years ago|reply
This is essentially an IQ test, and what they discovered is that Gwen was highly intelligent. They then did the smart thing and judged her based on her demonstrated aptitude rather than on the prevailing prejudices of the day. Indeed, there was an obvious financial incentive to do so, which serves to remind us that unfounded prejudice is unstable in a competitive market for labor.
Nowadays, it is effectively illegal in the U.S. to give IQ tests to job applicants, and in the state of California it is illegal to give a black child an IQ test even when administered by a school psychologist as part of a professional assessment. To their proponents, such laws are mere "progress", but stories like Gwen's show how misguided these rules can be. When there is a clear incentive to discover the truth, objective assessments undermine prejudice rather than promoting it. It's a lesson we would do well to remember.
[+] [-] rmc|14 years ago|reply
Actually, if you read the whole thing, they didn't believe her "demonstrated aptitude" because of their "prevailing prejedices". She had to fight to get them to see her demonstrated aptitude. Many people would be tired of fighting and would have given up then (or earlier in the process). If the applicant was in the privileged position, they would not have had to fight.
it is illegal in the U.S. to give IQ tests to job applicants
That's because in the past, the IQ tests were not fair, objective and colour-blind, but were set up in such a way as to bias against poorer people (which will be mostly black in the USA). This is easy to do with IQ tests, just ask lots of questions that require good schooling and education (e.g. word questions).
Companies used to use IQ tests, and hence claim not be racist, and then be racist. The ban on IQ tests in job interviews stems from this US Supreme Court case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Company and has hence probably improved equality.
[+] [-] lambda|14 years ago|reply
Citation needed.
It is legal (at least based on the guidelines provided by the US Department of Labor: http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf) to give people all kinds of tests as long as (a) they do not select against certain protected traditionally disadvantaged classes more than it does for the average applicant or (b) if it does, there is a demonstrable link between the test and ability to perform job functions (so, for instance, a test of strength in a job that involves lots of lifting may select against women, but if strength is highly correlated with job performance, that is OK).
IQ tests are actually a fairly poor test for many jobs, and they can test many things besides just intelligence (for instance, knowledge of the English language or cultural trivia). For a blue-collar job, an IQ test may disadvantage people from a different cultural background or who don't speak English as a native language, without actually being particularly relevant to job performance. One of the cases that has come up many times is in fire departments, in which written tests are given and used to screen out applicants who score below a certain level, when much of the knowledge tested is not actually all that important to the job.
These days, for a programming job, you would give a more specific test of programming ability. At the time, given that there probably weren't a lot of people with training or experience programming who could be hired, an IQ test was probably a reasonably good generic stand in for the aptitude to learn and think critically.
[+] [-] d2vid|14 years ago|reply
Only with perfect information. In the absence of straightforward tests to evaluate job applicant quality, discrimination can unfortunately be a stable and rational strategy (albeit morally wrong and illegal). Because of information asymmetries, the employer can use race as a signal to infer lower quality. By rejecting minority candidates, the average quality of their applicant pool increases.
See page 494 of this paper for which George Akerlof won the Nobel Prize: http://web.usal.es/~emmam/Docencia/Modelizacion/papers/The%2...
Agreed that banning IQ tests may be misguided, as you point out the solution is to add more information to the market.
[+] [-] Anechoic|14 years ago|reply
The issue is that IQ tests were found to be culturally biased against black students and therefore responsibly for placing those students on special-ed tracks that were not appropriate. See: http://www.rcselpa.org/docs/policies/Section%20III%20Evaluat...
This abstract indicates that black students seeking placement into gifted classes are exempted from the ban: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/93/1/31.abstra...
[+] [-] raganwald|14 years ago|reply
http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/IBM-ProgApti-120-6762-2.html
[+] [-] brazzy|14 years ago|reply
This kind of thing was the normal way of hiring programmers for a while before computer science departments became common at universities.
I learned this from "The Psychology of Computer Programming", originally published 1971. A fascinating read, both as a glimpse at a professional environment completely unimaginable to people accustomed to have their own dev machine, and more so for realizing that a lot of what the author wrote about the problems occurring in that environment are still relevant today.
[+] [-] starwed|14 years ago|reply
I think you'd be surprised just how biased some of them are, and how reliant on cultural knowledge.
[+] [-] vannevar|14 years ago|reply
Ah, if only this were true. This assumes the market is ultimately a meritocracy, and I don't think the evidence supports that assumption. And even if it were, inefficiencies in a market can persist for a very long time. While conscious, ideological racism is less common today, unconscious racism is a virtually universal feature of human behavior, affecting all corners of the job market. Adam Smith's invisible hand isn't going to fix job discrimination.
[+] [-] jbooth|14 years ago|reply
Did you ever see that study in France where they submitted the same exact resumes with Christian names and Arab names? I'll let you guess as to the results.
[+] [-] lolilives|14 years ago|reply
It does not measure your willingness to learn. It does not measure your ability to retain information. It does not measure your reception to criticism. It does not measure your ability to play nice with others. It does not measure your interest in the job. It does not measure your ability to work hard. Among others.
As such, I think giving someone an IQ test at a job interview is a fairly bad idea.
What we should have picked up from Gwen's job interview is that she is willing to learn and work hard given a fair chance.
[+] [-] nerfhammer|14 years ago|reply
IQ correlates highly with SAT score and GPA, so you could probably get 85% of the way there with just those two variables.
[+] [-] ylem|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] albertsun|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kaeluka|14 years ago|reply
IQ is what IQ tests measure. It's all made up.
How is the situation in the U.S. regarding assessment centers? That kind of stuff is allowed?
[+] [-] chrismealy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] html5iscancer|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lhnn|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moldbug|14 years ago|reply
Now? Gwen's intelligence would probably also be detected, if by less straightforward and reliable methods. Because her African X chromosomes confer not one but two Diversity Points (tm), every institution she came in contact with would have a strong bureaucratic incentive to promote her not only to her actual abilities - but beyond them.
As a result, she'd be very likely to end up placed in a position where rather than leading enterprise IT projects, she was competing with (say) top-notch particle physicists. Lacking (like almost all of us) the mental horsepower to perform at this level, she would constantly feel like a fraud, and her colleagues would constantly suspect her of being a fraud. A suspicion which would be correct, though you couldn't really say it was her fault.
Lesson: be careful about hating on the past. Often the past looks pretty retarded by the standards of the present. Often the converse is the case as well.
[+] [-] VigUi7vv8G2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|14 years ago|reply
As a father of a young family with a spotty family past I wanted to focus on things I knew for my children. Perhaps I need to focus more on building that kind of supportive family or pseudo family.
Inspiring stories have a tendancy to inspire things not first thought of.
Thank you
[+] [-] tomjen3|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MarkMc|14 years ago|reply
This cultural element of success is underrated. People understand the importance of intelligence, hard word and luck, but don't realise that 'culture' is also vital. Without a family culture of standing up to authority going back three generations, Gwen would not have got that great job. (Malcolm Gladwell devotes much of his book, 'Outliers' to this theme).
[+] [-] jerrya|14 years ago|reply
If you don't mind, it reminds me of an Asimov story I've always loved, "Profession". http://www.inf.ufpr.br/renato/profession.html
[+] [-] sycr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flocial|14 years ago|reply
When you omit skin color and gender from the story, it's an inspiring story of family values triumphing over environment. It would also be reasonable to say that this family probably has a higher level of native intelligence than the average but they also have instilled the value of hard work and perseverance to make the most of their potential so even if they were average, they would get better results given the same potential.
I'm always puzzled at how quickly intelligent debate breaks down among Americans the second gender or race become part of the discussion.
[+] [-] alexholehouse|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eugenejen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xibernetik|14 years ago|reply
It's a story about someone who, despite proving themselves to be capable and talented as their peers, would have been passed over if they hadn't fought to be recognized. Ultimately her race/gender didn't make a difference, but it certainly made getting where she wanted an ordeal.
[+] [-] exit|14 years ago|reply
so sticking it out is a credit to her.
it's likely though that the industry missed out on others who were qualified, but too put off to get that far.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ugh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] einhverfr|14 years ago|reply
So it sounds like Gwen's experience wasn't unique. It may be that we are actually becoming more rather than less hostile towards women breaking into male-dominated industries.
[+] [-] k00kykelly|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucb1e|14 years ago|reply
Recalling from a previous news item, a women said that men always told her to "lighten up" (assuming that means something along the lines "don't whine, I didn't mean it that seriously", it doesn't translate). Well either I'm one of the bastards, or the culture is different here. It appears here we, men and women, have a lot of... liberties I guess you could say.
Looking at the list of countries allowing gay marriage lately, I was surprised to see the Netherlands listed as one of just a few. I once read a quote, "Mom, why do those two women hold hands? - Because they love each other.". I didn't get why it was upvoted at all (site similar to bash.org, don't remember which though). It seems rather obvious to me, like a girl asks her mother why a man and a woman hold hands. Now that I've learned that gay marriage is not actually that common, I get the point.
Is this true for (black) women in America too? I don't get the impression the USA is 'behind', but reading these stories you'd almost think it is. Of course, this particular one is a story from many years ago and either way a good read. But still, it is one of many last days which make it to the front page, covering pretty much the same subject.
I'm not saying people should stop posting or upvoting them, nor do I intend to offend anyone or any country. I'm just wondering aloud what the motivation is behind posting and upvoting these stories.
[+] [-] andrewflnr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gadders|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] victorhn|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|14 years ago|reply
I wonder if she would have gone to work for a big company today, or if she would have tried to do a startup.
[+] [-] rickmb|14 years ago|reply
A bit off-topic, but I'm somewhat shocked by this (and my own ignorance). I know about the US, but this was an issue in Canada?
[+] [-] hef19898|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickyeon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donaq|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] munyukim|14 years ago|reply