This Explains So Much...

Post Reply New Topic

OK, this case and the policy isn't exactly news to me, but it's still pretty mind-blowing as a policy.

Hi Dox47,

I've cited this case many times here at WrongPlanet, (search here for "too smart to be a cop" gives a page of results, such as: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf165835-0-60.html

The court case is at: http://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html

Many non-governmental employers also use abridged IQ tests to make decisions to avoid over-qualified employees, and since being intelligent isn't being "regarded as having an impairment", it is still proper for private and public employers to act such.

Details for smaller businesses making "the best" of such practices is at:
http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resour ... 635-1.html

I sued public employers inclusive of these issues, but many judges told me my being with any intelligence disproved sufficient disability under the old ADA, though I was already disabled under SSI, and disqualified for State Rehab due to excessive impairments.

Tadzio

Well, at least they are above board about making sure that their cops aren't too smart.

Oh DaMemories

I joined the service and completed 13 weeks of basic with a Congressional letter (platoon guide)

then completed a 24 week AIT, and was offered an automatic candidacy approval to OCS

I declined - long story short - Honorable Discharge / RE Code = Failure to adapt.

Also, if he's so damn smart, why doesn't he understand the legal definition of discrimination?

That does ring a vague bell now that you mention it, but it brings me to some seemingly unavoidable unpleasantness. To be honest with you Tadzio, I tend to either skim or skip your posts when I see them, I find your posting style to be roundabout and difficult to follow, and there often seems to be an underlying contempt or derisiveness that I find distasteful. I could be wrong about that last part, it could simply be an artifact of whatever translation your posts are going through, I'm just relaying how it comes across to me.

I for one have made it very clear that I post here for my own enjoyment, and I simply refuse to jump through hoops that other members might throw up for me. Want to demand I "disprove" something or I "lose" the thread? I'll pass. Claim that if I can't understand you it's because of a problem on my end? Not interested in that either. Needless to say, I'm not inclined towards cryptic, vaguely insulting posts, it's just not my bag.

Now as this is an AS board, I'm not judging you for this or anything, I'm sure you've got a perfectly valid reason for how you communicate, but as I'm not under any sort of obligation here I choose to post around you for the most part. Nothing personal, I've just got better things to do (usually ) than try to figure out what you meant by something, usually a long and meticulously sourced something, and craft an appropriate response.

Take that however you want, I just don't like it when people dismiss my long and meticulous posts with a flip comment, so I figured I owed you the explanation, if nothing else.

noted

Well I suppose I could have left it at tl;dr, but that seemed like something an as*hole would do.

Oh - but I did read
So, my title does not apply this time

Wait, now I'm confused. I was referring to my longer reply to Tadzio, that I could have left that at tl;dr and called it good, but failing to explain myself leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Redacted

Last edited by nat4200 on 19 Apr 2012, 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

That's a very good question, though I imagine most people would never have thought that they could score too highly on an IQ test and be disqualified for it. I'd certainly never have thought that dumbing down my test score would be the best way to get a job. Sort of reinforces the ridiculousness of the situation.

To address the state's position in this case, I would argue that the potential upside, having smarter, more capable police officers outweighs the potential downside of greater expense if they grow bored and move on. I would further argue that while some people move on when bored, others find ways to innovate within their profession, something that the police of America could sorely use.

Hi Dox47,

As per your own enjoyment in making your postings, I'm simply trying to illustrate the practical consequences if anyone takes your posting as something more than statements made for your own enjoyment. I don't wish you "to jump through hoops" (besides, a limit inherent in the foundations of Acceptance and Commitment Theraphy (ACT) includes those aspects of my impairments with neurological autism that simply must be tolerated and/or accepted by me (and often protected by law), as illustrated in behaviourism by similaritie of concepts explaining effectiveness in trying techniques that work with horses, but tend to lead to failures when tried with zebras), but my absence of any such wish does not bind me to using faddish "Plain English" in addressing complex issues that could easily have devastating consequences from being "simplified" (everything from gun safety/control to tax evasion to illegal discrimination to OSHA to grammar). That's why I often cite Richard Mitchell's "Darkling Plain English" stance.

I have often been told that I should use an 8th-grade level of English to "reach" the widest range of internet audience, but any challenging subject that requires a vocabulary beyond the 8th-grade level, would be precluded, or so "assembly level language lengthy" to halt practical continuity of thought. Per subject, a relevant aspect of the legal case in the article you cited includes the level of vocabulary of the applicant, and in a related case, the word "recalcitrant" was involved as a point determinitive required word in the written exam, and as an excluding word in the oral exam (strangely, the word is in many college entrance exams too). I am certainly sorry that you find these aspects of intellectual and psychological assessments and usages as "pretty mind-blowing as a policy", but unfornutately, you have "rode off in all directions" previously, and as to your scorn or approval of plaintiff and/or defendant here, you are presently rather "in the clouds".

Tadzio

P.S.: As your OP original here is about 20 words long, what is your definition of "long & meticulous"? Especially with around a 120 word response being a "flip comment", or do you only want sources that agree with your outlook, "in the clouds", irregardless of "length"?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95836 ... wAo_zXOxQ0

Many exams have the equivalent of the "Fake Bad Scale" built in to identify individuals who may try to fake lesser intelligence (i.e., google "MMPI-2 & FBS").

Tadzio

Given that language is a medium of communication first and foremost, I have to wonder about the motivation of someone who makes theirs so deliberately ostentatious that it becomes difficult to understand. Clearly communication is not the priority in that case, so what could it be?

Pretentiousness. Being concise is so beneath him so he has to resort to using bigger words and obscure references for their own sake. Ooohhh plain English is so faddish, look at me I'm unique! Hey buddy, maybe you should save big words for when it's actually necessary to go into more detail rather than using them as pathetic try-hard substitutions for smaller words.

Anyways, back to topic. I'm not surprised at all, but I would think they would make up some BS reason rather than just being straight up about it and ruining their own reputation. Well, people have already been suspecting this type of thing but now they've confirmed it.