Export thread

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836#.UBAZvmHOwrU

Now, the cops we have on this board I would say are above-average intelligence. So what's up with the non-hiring of cops with a high IQ? Wouldn't you want the smart people? And not to sound like an asshole, but is 125 really that high?

100 is about average, so 125 is a bit above average.

But really, this doesn't seem right. If someone is smarter, would that not put them in line for a possible promotion to detective or something? If they're smarter, they're likely good with attention to detail or something.

Then again, the idea of IQ is becoming dated. These days, there are about 8 different types of intelligence, including spatial, physical, etc.

Now, I will preface this by saying that there are several "smart" folks that I've worked with who have no business being police officers - they lack sufficient common sense, even while being very book smart.

That being said, I've been assessed with a similar "IQ" to this guy... there really should be no reason to exclude him... the only time IQ should be used as an exclusion in the hiring process, in my opinion, would be due to a lack of ability to understand the written instructions on the test, or to be able to answer in a sufficiently clear manner.

Not sure if this was the actual reason why they decided not to interview the guy, or if it was simply a convenient excuse. The only demographic they provided was his age... maybe they were looking for a younger group of cadets?

The case does sound weird. But I want to know what study they use to justify that smart people make bored cops.[DOUBLEPOST=1343234809][/DOUBLEPOST]

Officer_Charon said:

Now, I will preface this by saying that there are several "smart" folks that I've worked with who have no business being police officers - they lack sufficient common sense, even while being very book smart.

That being said, I've been assessed with a similar "IQ" to this guy... there really should be no reason to exclude him... the only time IQ should be used as an exclusion in the hiring process, in my opinion, would be due to a lack of ability to understand the written instructions on the test, or to be able to answer in a sufficiently clear manner.

Not sure if this was the actual reason why they decided not to interview the guy, or if it was simply a convenient excuse. The only demographic they provided was his age... maybe they were looking for a younger group of cadets?

Click to expand...

The guy is 49 now. The issue is nearly 20 years ago.

Unknown. But they admitted that the person was outside the preferred IQ zone, which is just stupid.

My guess is that it was his age and they didn't want to say that thanks to the possibility of an age discrimination lawsuit. For God sake the guy was 49!!! Who wants to become a beat cop at 49?!?

edit: I missed that it happened in 1996. Holy shit the lawsuit has taken almost 20 years![DOUBLEPOST=1343234959][/DOUBLEPOST]Fuck I'm an idiot. The STORY came out in 2000!!![DOUBLEPOST=1343234998][/DOUBLEPOST]That's what I get for not fully reading something sent to me. I'm a moron.

ThatNickGuy said:

Then again, the idea of IQ is becoming dated. These days, there are about 8 different types of intelligence, including spatial, physical, etc.

Click to expand...

Weeellll.....not exactly. Gardner proposed the theory of multiple intelligences a couple decades ago but it is far from widely accepted. There is no established test that has differentiated that there are 9 different intelligences and I would say that it is safe to say that the WISC and the WAIS are the tests most commonly used today, which result in a single IQ score (although contain sub-scales).

That aside, intelligence is very hard to define, and there is little agreement on what it actually is. We have this intuition that people we meet are smart or dumb but defining intelligence (or multiple intelligences) is difficult. IQ does correlate modestly with academic performance but it doesn't seem to correlate very strongly with occupational success. What are probably more important for most professions are specific skill competencies. Some competencies may correlate with IQ but many may not, depending on the skill and profession. All of that said, ruling out people based upon IQ seems discriminatory to me. It is a shame that he won't appeal any further.

All I know is that everyone on the road with me is a fucking moron. If they were smart they'd get out of my way.

It's as good a definition as any I've seen.

Dave said:

edit: I missed that it happened in 1996. Holy shit the lawsuit has taken almost 20 years![DOUBLEPOST=1343234959][/DOUBLEPOST]Fuck I'm an idiot. The STORY came out in 2000!!![DOUBLEPOST=1343234998][/DOUBLEPOST]That's what I get for not fully reading something sent to me. I'm a moron.

Click to expand...

Welp.... I shot MY credibility in the foot here, too...

I missed the 2k date too. Yeah 45 is a bit old for a rookie. Heck that is when a lot of cops retire and move to a slower precinct, so they can double dip.

Officer_Charon and Dave

Not at all. Your opinions aren't rendered invalid solely on the basis that the story is dated twenty years ago, the issue of what defines intelligence is still ongoing and I imagine it will be for some time.

sixpackshaker actually, 48-49 is when we get some folks signing on, after retiring from the military. The police paycheck supplements their retirement income. not a bad gig, if you can get it...

Just our comments were rendered invalid.

Sounds more like the agency did not want a rookie that could be retired if he came to the force out of college.[DOUBLEPOST=1343236586][/DOUBLEPOST]

Officer_Charon said:

sixpackshaker actually, 48-49 is when we get some folks signing on, after retiring from the military. The police paycheck supplements their retirement income. not a bad gig, if you can get it...

Click to expand...

Police agencies bend over backwards to hire military types. They are pretty used to the lifestyle.

I found another article from the time of the decision. He was 45, an insurance salesman, that worked for the state on the weekends in the summer as park police.

an get a job

Dave said:

Unknown. But they admitted that the person was outside the preferred IQ zone, which is just stupid.

My guess is that it was his age and they didn't want to say that thanks to the possibility of an age discrimination lawsuit. For God sake the guy was 49!!! Who wants to become a beat cop at 49?!?

edit: I missed that it happened in 1996. Holy shit the lawsuit has taken almost 20 years![DOUBLEPOST=1343234959][/DOUBLEPOST]Fuck I'm an idiot. The STORY came out in 2000!!![DOUBLEPOST=1343234998][/DOUBLEPOST]That's what I get for not fully reading something sent to me. I'm a moron.

Click to expand...

But at least now we know you can get a job as a policeman...

If the cops are too smart, they might report the corruption instead of looking the other way or question orders or challenge the status quo

There it is.

Hi Charlie.

Officer_Charon said:

Hi Charlie.

Click to expand...

Really, you are corrupt and don't know it. You know that 9 out of 10 cops on your force shoot suspects for sport and sell black tar heroin.[DOUBLEPOST=1343246295][/DOUBLEPOST]But Charlie will trust those same cops to take away our guns.

I know, right... and here I was, thinking that not everybody on a department might even KNOW about any corruption, let alone be able to cover up for it.

Shame on me for assuming I have scruples, I guess...

Wikipedia isn't the greatest source but I'm at work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence

You know... because I'll cover for someone that makes ME look bad by proxy, and by hiding them, I enable their illegal behavior.

I'ma stop feeding the troll now...

The blue wall doesn't mean that they are corrupt or bad people, it just means that they understand the risks and dangers of the job and protect their fellows from outside interference. Does this mean that sometimes they are a little (or even a lot) overzealous when it comes to masking things? Yes. But that doesn't mean that's what happens all the time.

These guys deal all the time with people who lie, cheat, & steal their way through life and can do all of them without a conscience and with absolutely no remorse. Add in people LIKE YOU who read bad into everything they say & do and you have a culture of us vs. them. Here's a news bulletin, Charlie, their actions are not the only ones who started this culture. WE are just as much to blame for that culture as they are.

I'm usually loath to use forum memes but

Dave said:

The blue wall doesn't mean that they are corrupt or bad people,

Click to expand...

This is where we disagree.

These guys deal all the time with people who lie, cheat, & steal their way through life and can do all of them without a conscience and with absolutely no remorse. Add in people LIKE YOU who read bad into everything they say & do and you have a culture of us vs. them. Here's a news bulletin, Charlie, their actions are not the only ones who started this culture. WE are just as much to blame for that culture as they are.

Click to expand...

This is where you sound like Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men.

And this is where you sound like LeQuack.

So to sum up, cops are bad and everyone else is good. Charlie, I hope someday you get a chance to be a cop, or a military person, or a paramedic. Just so you can see how terrible humanity can be and how good these terrible cops can be.

But you never will be any of these things. That takes commitment and sacrifice. I don't see you having any of this when it comes to making the world a better place. You'd rather stand on the sidelines and bitch than do anything real.

I looked into being a cop when I was unemployed and in Austin, but I put my eggs in the IRS basket instead.

I never said all cops are bad people. The institution is terrible. Officer Charon has said some things that give me pause, but I don't think he's a bad person.

But you stated pretty clearly that anyone using the Blue Wall was a bad person. YOU use the Blue Wall, although it's not called that. It's used in families, workplaces, clubs, ...even here. It's a group dynamic thing that is not isolated to the police force. It's exactly the same thing as when a brother protects a brother from something external even as these brothers fight among themselves.

To say that those who use it are bad people are exactly the black/white outlook on things that make you look like a troll or raving lunatic.

I've officially stopped listening to anything Charlie has to say. I hate to say it, but the STFU Charlie thing wasn't without reason.

Even when he's making a good point, he sticks it in with his all or none bullcrap which makes no one want to listen to him.

Maybe the police department is worried about Malign Hypercognition Disorder.

I'd say there are good cops and bad cops. Just like every strata of people. Cops just can do more bad than most.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Wikipedia isn't the greatest source but I'm at work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence

Click to expand...

I'm kind of busy too, so I'll just refer to Wikipedia as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutup

Bowielee said:

Even when he's making a good point, he sticks it in with his all or none bullcrap which makes no one want to listen to him.

Click to expand...

This is CDS's number one problem. I sympathize with Charlie on a lot of issues (though I'm a big fan of the police, honest! Don't taze me Charon! Please! ), but no matter what discussion he always goes for such an extreme point that any good message gets lost in the noise. "Ban all guns" is stupid, and anyone knows it - it just makes it easy for gun nuts to attack you as being unrealistic. "Abolish all taxes" is ridiculous.
"All cops are bad" as well, though to be fair, that's not what he said originally. "If cops are too smart, they might report corruption" isn't implying all cops are corrupt, at all.
At most, it's implying all cops are either corrupt, or stupid. I can see how you'd take that message out of it. Also false, of course, for clarity. Also, not logically ound to follow from what he says. Only thing he is saying (besides the fact that I'd have assumed his statement was a throwaway joke, taken far too serious by all of you), is that the ones who denied the application might've wanted to hide something or might have had ulterior motives for not allowing these men to join.


Can someone explain why I'm white knighting for Charlie again? Dammit

mr_thehun said:

Fuck I forgot Charlie was an IRS agent. I thought they had a reputation for being corrupt as well.

Click to expand...

Nah, the IRS are personally selected by Our Lord Jesus Christ and all sanctified before signing their contract. Fraud is physically impossible; it'd burn their flesh off.

Bubble181 said:

Nah, the IRS are personally selected by Our Lord Jesus Christ and all sanctified before signing their contract. Fraud is physically impossible; it'd burn their flesh off.

Click to expand...

He doesn't work there any longer.

I wish I was a Treasury Agent. I was a data entry monkey, not high up enough to make any conscious decisions.

also most of the bad rep with the IRS is in the convoluted tax code that probably needs Congress to fix / overhaul / etc, isn't it?

Bubble181 said:

"All cops are bad" as well, though to be fair, that's not what he said originally. "If cops are too smart, they might report corruption" isn't implying all cops are corrupt, at all.
At most, it's implying all cops are either corrupt, or stupid.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you follow the actual logic, it's all cops ARE stupid, and POSSIBLY corrupt.

Well, that's obviously true.

Just to continue the derailing, you have to remember why Charlie and Kissinger (whatever happened to him, anyway?) wound up here in the first place. And whose fault that is.

I thought Dave grew them out of a clone vat labeled "We Need New People On This Board, DAMMIT!"

Bubble181 said:

Can someone explain why I'm white knighting for Charlie again? Dammit

Click to expand...

Because you hold similar opinions, but desperately want yours to stay valid despite the crazy to your left ranting and raving making you look like just another fool like him. So instead of posting just your stance you include a partial explanation of Charlie's STFU worthy statement, followed by a position that is actually debate worthy.

Honestly, I enjoy a dissenting opinion - it keeps one on one's toes, forcing one to do the research to back up their statements. If Charlie could ever come up with sufficiently statistical evidence to make his blanket statements carry ANY kind of weight, it might be enough to make me consider what he says with more thought.

As it stands, though, he comes off as the sort of screaming liberal SCADlings and thuggish jackboys (and their families) that are just one of the many perks of doing this job.

what is a thuggish jackboy

also I came to this board since I thought it was funny the Kurtz Forumopolis thing repeated EXACTLY the same way as it did before, then I trolled your dumb image macros, then I stayed since I'm bored, and now I'm still here. I moved to a different city but Kissinger and I are still close, he just got tired of this place. I still link him threads /posts from here to raise his blood pressure sometimes

Thuggish jackboy: Self-entitled individual who commits crimes, then claims that police are harrassing him due to his race, orientation, location, clothing, or whatever else he decides to pull out - despite the fact that he got caught with stolen merchandise in hand.

That is not an isolated incident - this happens at least once a week down here. And their families take up for them, despite knowing that they're guilty of whatever it is they got arrested for. "That's not his weed, the man gave him that car, you're just doing it because he's [insert difference here]."

Hmm... taking up for a family member despite knowledge of guilt... It seems as though I've heard that somewhere before...

mr_thehun said:

Fuck I forgot Charlie was an IRS agent. I thought they had a reputation for being corrupt as well.

Click to expand...

Luckily Charlie isn't smart enough to report corruption...

Officer_Charon said:

Thuggish jackboy: Self-entitled individual who commits crimes, then claims that police are harrassing him due to his race, orientation, location, clothing, or whatever else he decides to pull out - despite the fact that he got caught with stolen merchandise in hand.

That is not an isolated incident - this happens at least once a week down here. And their families take up for them, despite knowing that they're guilty of whatever it is they got arrested for. "That's not his weed, the man gave him that car, you're just doing it because he's [insert difference here]."

Hmm... taking up for a family member despite knowledge of guilt... It seems as though I've heard that somewhere before...

Click to expand...

A girl who got bounced from housekeeping after about a week tried that same crap here. "You're firing me just because I'm black!" Um, no. You're fired because a) you couldn't show up within an hour of your scheduled shift, b) sometimes wouldn't even bother to show up at all, c) did a quarter-ass job on your assigned rooms, and d) more often didn't do your assigned rooms anyway.

DarkAudit said:

A girl who got bounced from housekeeping after about a week tried that same crap here. "You're firing me just because I'm black!" Um, no. You're fired because a) you couldn't show up within an hour of your scheduled shift, b) sometimes wouldn't even bother to show up at all, c) did a quarter-ass job on your assigned rooms, and d) more often didn't do your assigned rooms anyway.

Click to expand...

racist

as for the on-topic topic, the reason to not hire someone that is too smart is stated in he first link as well: people that are too smart for the job get bored and move on. It may seem like a stupid decision (who doesn't want smarter people working for them?) and of course it doesn't apply to everyone, this situation happens more than you think. If you need more blue on the street and hire over-qualified people, who then after two years move on to do detective work from behind their desk, not only have you invested much in something you don't reap the (long-term) benefits from, you're also facing the same problem yet again.

But the way to get to be a detective is to serve your years on the street. Even if he does his time in "blue" then moves on to plain clothes, the department is still getting their money's worth from sending him to the academy.

The problem comes from cops that get bored and leave the field completely.

Yeah, it's not an issue of not wanting someone to move onto detective work later in their career. That's actually ideal because you can't hire detectives fresh from the academy, you need those years of experience. Hell, they'll hire back cops that are "retired" at minimum wage, if only to keep the experience of all their years on the force.

Yeah, that's why I'm surprised. For some jobs I think it's perfectly acceptable to not want to hire overqualified people, they'll leave too fast and you want some sort of consistency. But cop? The police needs all the higher educated people it can get, especially if they're willing to start at the bottom. At least that way you end up with higher-ups who actually know what it's like to walk the streets.

Bubble181 said:

Yeah, that's why I'm surprised. For some jobs I think it's perfectly acceptable to not want to hire overqualified people, they'll leave too fast and you want some sort of consistency. But cop? The police needs all the higher educated people it can get, especially if they're willing to start at the bottom. At least that way you end up with higher-ups who actually know what it's like to walk the streets.

Click to expand...

>Implying that anyone with intelligence ends up getting promoted to senior staff.

Oh Bubble, you're so delightfully naive...

Dave said:

But you stated pretty clearly that anyone using the Blue Wall was a bad person. YOU use the Blue Wall, although it's not called that. It's used in families, workplaces, clubs, ...even here. It's a group dynamic thing that is not isolated to the police force. It's exactly the same thing as when a brother protects a brother from something external even as these brothers fight among themselves.

To say that those who use it are bad people are exactly the black/white outlook on things that make you look like a troll or raving lunatic.

Click to expand...

Wow, it's like you take my mind and mash the words I was going to use right on the board.

I see this all the time with athletes we treat, especially those that belong to teams. Hell, I've been on organized sports teams before, and I've been part of it. Call me weird, but that's the mentality I've grown up with all my life - never snitch on your friends/teammates when they screw up. It's up to them to do the right thing. You can help guide them, but never screw them over.

Officer_Charon said:

>Implying that anyone with intelligence ends up getting promoted to senior staff.

Oh Bubble, you're so delightfully naive...

Click to expand...

Heavens no, I'm well aware the ones that get promoted are the ones who play political games best, not the ones who are smartest or best at their job or whatever. I've been working long enough to know that. The theory's nice, anyway