Cops are idiots

Well, not that having an IQ of 104 necessarily makes someone an idiot, but it's interesting that smart individuals are barred from joining the police.

But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.

At least if you ever suspect that the cop who pulled you over one time wasn't the smartest tool in the shed - odds are that you are right. I'd argue that the average IQ simply isn't a high enough standard for someone in a position of authority. I personally know people who are in the police now (or have been in the past), and simply put these people I know aren't the people that should have any authority over anyone based on the intelligence factor alone. Someone enforcing policy should be smart enough to at least comprehend what they're enforcing, as well as the moral justification for policy's existence in the first place (so policy isn't misapplied to complicated/irregular situations). What's even more concerning is that instead of finding and hiring potentially the most effective people for the job, they're rather hire people because they're easier to control and predict. If you were in trouble and were relying on the police for assistance, would you rather have help from people less intelligent than yourself or more intelligent than yourself? I'd personally prefer the latter much more than the former. It's a little disconcerting.

What say you OT?

Seem to have missed out this part.

on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

If this is proven that ultimately it is burning money then yea, seems fair enough.

I'm not going to begrudge people who are not "smart" either. To me that's just a pompous as **** attitude. Plenty of smart people **** up or do bad things and much of that has to do with a sense of entitlement. I'd rather deal with the average Joe.

Tripping balls there. But it's great example of how police corruption can creep up.

Smarter people **** up less than average person - that's the idea of being smarter..lol. You sound intimidated intimidated by people with high IQ's or something - IQ has nothing to do with entitlement. In fact, your belief is the inverse of reality.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias manifesting in two principal ways: unskilled individuals tend to suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate, while highly skilled individuals tend to rate their ability lower than is accurate. In unskilled individuals, this bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.^[1]

-Wiki

Dumber people just so happen to be the folks who think they're better than everyone else (thus the sense of entitlement). I personally would prefer elite individuals protecting society's interests. It'd certainly be less conducive to Ferguson-type scenario's...don't you think?

I could see why they do it from a budget point of view. In the military we solve that problem by making people who get technical jobs that require a lot of training sign longer contracts so we can get our money's worth but with police officers having the option to quit shortly after finishing the academy if they get a better offer can become costly if it happens too often.

But at the same time, this story gives the anti-police crowd more ammo to hate and insult police officers who may not fall into corruption like the minority that does. Maybe we need to find more people who are willing to stay officers for the long haul so a police department doesn't have to resort to something like this.

I understand the point of it from a budget point of view. Statistically they save money, which is great - but I can't help but think of the costs.

First off - is it fair to categorize someone's ability to do something based around the idea that they're too smart? I mean - what if they statistically tested that black people dropped out of the police force more often than white people, so they barred black people too? Would that be justified? No different than race - someone doesn't choose the intelligence that they are born with. I'd say it's unfair to these individuals all things considering.

Second - even if it's true that the turnover was higher for higher IQ'd individuals, what if the higher IQ'd individuals could potentially become more effective at doing the job? I believe that someone who is smarter than someone else has a higher potential at performing skills associated with logic and reasoning (which the law deals in heavily) at a higher level, so I don't think this is far fetched at all. I think despite whatever the budgetary costs might be in turn over, I don't see why they couldn't utilize someone with a higher IQ and take advantage of their intelligence.

I think there are perfectly good arguments against this measure without resorting to saying that the cops are corrupt because they are dumb, or that they refuse to hire smart people because average IQ people are more likely to follow orders without question - but I'm not going to ignore the implications either.

regardless of intelligence, I get the feeling the job attracts a lot of people who want the power trip and fraternity that comes with the job detail

This has to be the most hilarious thing I've read in a while. I can't believe its actually an official policy that is upheld nationwide in a first-world nation lol. What it basically says is that only average to below-average people can join the police force. I'm not buying the high turnover "rational basis". There are several legal measures that can be taken to curb that, the simplest of which is to legally bind them to serve a certain period of time after leaving the academy before they can have the option to quit and take employment elsewhere. Or maybe impose a fine of some sort in case they quit too early. That's not really rocket science and many institutions, public and private alike, employ it to make sure they're not squandering money on uncommitted people.

As TC already stated, to adequately fill a position of authority requires a great deal of sound judgement and overall intelligence. Its not very hard to associate power abuse with poor judgement and lower intelligence. And again borrowing from TC, you'd want those who are supposed to serve and protect to have the faculties of understanding whatever they're enforcing. No wonder you hear shitload of bizarre occurrences of power abuse and brutality that have laughable legal excuse, if they have one to begin with.

But really its not all that surprising. I have noticed that almost all across the globe, those who join the police and the army forces are usually individuals who either don't know what to do with their lives or don't have the capacity or the opportunity to follow some other career, or both naturally.

Glass house?

I'd agree that power attracts individuals to the job.

Don't worry you'd qualify.....

Cops are bullies.

well my wife is a 911 dispatcher and has told me plenty of times they are not very bright but they do things pertaining to their jobs better than i ever could.

those guys are amazing at recognizing faces and names and street smart shit like that.

they are just not very clever in book smart ways.

yeah, that's what i want roaming my town.

a pissed off frustrated armed indentured servant.

Generalizations everywhere. Some want to make a difference and some do it because the family gravitated toward the profession.

That's strictly between me and the cop

So you agree with the premise that those trusted with maintaining the public safety and carrying firearms shouldn't be of above-average intelligence because of the theory that they might get bored with their duties? Seems reasonable </sarcasm>

It's one thing to say that the average joe can perform the duties of a police officer but to actively deny candidates because they show higher aptitude is asinine.

That excerpt doesn't say anything about intelligence.

I would focus more on the qualities of being even tempered and having integrity. Either way I agree the hiring process needs to be much more selective.

I've never heard of a Police department in my area doing anything of the sort.

You're really not in any position to talk. GazaAli logic = Somebody doesn't agree with me, they're an idiot! Derp.

And wow, you come off as extremely butthurt. This ceased being a thing between me and you when you decided to air your feelings in a public forum.

Depending on the scenario That's actually not true and doesn't necessarily have anything at all do with with intelligence. The comment about being intimidated relates directly to that point.

For most of people, this is intimidating.

Richard Kuklinski is not intelligent. It's specifically due to his lack of comprehension (empathy/lack of fear) that makes him such a dangerous person.

In circumstances of pressure and danger, people who do not fully comprehend are more reliable than people who fully comprehend aspects such as fear and empathy. Andy Mcnab for example does not register fear or shock as me and you probably would. He is specifically diagnosed with psychopathic traits, as are many people considered brave, in dangerous fields of work. This is proven to make them more proficient, not less.

That's because skill has little to do with intelligence, but he doesn't want that to be apparent. As for the primary skills required for policing, none of them require above average intelligence.

so wait.. the court upheld that prejudice is ok as long as you have a rationale for it?

Outside of specific special classes, that's pretty much always been the case (except for the part about needing to have a rationale for it).

That was meant to be a saucy joke relax. I thought the randomness and bluntness of it would make it obvious, apparently not though.

You never joke with me. So don't tell me to relax when I take things as an insult when you haven't done anything to make it appear to be joking.

That's the idea behind sass, its not supposed to be plainly obvious. I thought you're an old enough of a member to get it.

No, that's the idea behind being an asshole. Sass is something that is really only usable in person. Not on the internet. Words aren't the proper medium for it.

If you say so

The fact of the matter is you failed to convey any sense of joking, or friendliness. So don't get pissy with me when I take it at face value.

Makes me question some questions about

Eh. From personal experience, most of the police I have encountered have been rather intelligent individuals.

Maybe that says more about you than the police?

I'm kidding, don't hit me

just because it doesn't specifically say "overall intelligence" doesn't mean it does't apply here. Math skills, memory skills, reading skills, interpretation skills, intelligence - you're really chomping at the bit trying to discern a difference between these things. They are the same.

Intelligence and skill are related. Since IQ is largely believed to correlate with intelligence, what would you call someone's skill at taking an IQ test?... Just because it's not using the exact same wording doesn't mean it isn't addressing what he's talking about. The Dunning-Kruger effect is referenced in any case where someone thinks they're smarter at something than they really are, just because it doesn't specifically say "overall intelligence" doesn't mean it does't apply here. Intelligence is only typically quantified by IQ and the Dunning-Kruger effect addresses more than just IQ. Either way, the point is very much the same, having more intelligence has nothing to do with entitlement.

EDIT: Also...

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias manifesting in two principal ways: unskilled individuals tend to suffer from illusory superiority,

...

Illusory superiority refers to the cognitive bias with which individuals overestimate their own qualities and abilities, relative to others. This is evident in a variety of areas including intelligence,

Once again, trying to pick apart details won't get you anywhere :p If you read more, you'll find I'm always right ;)

I don't know, I find individuals who require the explicit statement that something has been meant as a joke to lack that kind of humor which isn't really a crime seeing how it isn't for everyone obviously. The explicit stating of sass being what its intended to be defeats the purpose of it I don't know how else to explain it to you. Even if you interpreted my original post as an unequivocal insult you're usually expected to reciprocate in the same fashion.

At any rate, I guess if I were an American citizen and you happened to stop me somewhere I'd need to be extremely careful or else I may find myself battered in the back of your vehicle.

No. That's when someone thinks they're more competent than they are. That can include intelligence, but it can also be in reference to learned skills (things that people can't do without first learning them, regardless of how smart they are), and physical tasks. You could be exactly as smart as you think you are, but if you're in the legal department then you probably don't have any business making creative decisions for the design department. You seem to be reaching pretty hard to imply that increased intelligence means greater skill, but that's far from any kind of guarantee. You could be a brilliant mathematician, but that doesn't necessarily give you an advantage in a job that relies primarily on charisma and interpersonal skills. If you assume "average people do that job just fine, and I'm smarter than them so I should be great at it", then that's an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Whether or not intelligence actually makes someone more competent at a given job simply depends on the requirements of the job. And even then, the benefits of increased intelligence may or may not be inconsequential compared to other factors (such as physical strength, manual dexterity, job experience).

Now, how that applies to police officers, I don't know. However, I was under the impression that most police officers do their jobs just fine. And when police officers do screw up, I suspect that can often be blamed on laziness, or boredom, or abuse of power. Just out of curiosity, how many police errors are specifically caused by the police officers not being smart enough?

Also, keep in mind that this is not a defense of the policy to EXCLUDE people with high IQs. I'm simply taking issue with the general idea that "smarter" actually translates into "better at the job". You invited that discussion when you misinterpreted the Dunning-Kruger effect to imply that it's a dumb people problem.

Eh, the policy seems a little stupid, but at the same time I can understand why they do it. It costs a lot of money to train a police officer, and if they leave after only 6 months that is a huge loss for the budget of the police force who will then have to explain where all this money is going to the tax payers or politicians. Also, TC is clearly exaggerating the situation by calling the officers "idiots". According to the article, the guy got a score of 33, which is equivalent to an IQ of 125. The article also states that they only take people with scores between 20 and 27, and the average is about 21-22 which works out to an IQ of 104. So it would appear that their minimum score (20) would work out to an IQ of approximately 100, the average intelligence of a person. Thus, most cops are in fact above average in intelligence. Also, the article only talks about New London police force, and says nothing about other police force policies.

I can't speak for cops, but I know that in the military, or at least the Air Force, there are some pretty technical career fields that, when you get out, you can use in the civilian world and make a great deal of money.

I always wondered why cops were so fucking dumb. Thats why they shoot unarmed people so often, they are just dumb, high school jocks who weren't good enough to play in college become cops.

You're not sassy, though. You come off as belligerent and offensive

And this just further proves my statement. You are just not a pleasant human being.

Hmmm, pot meet kettle?

So basically this is an employer (police department) not hiring individuals whom it believes are overqualified. Why is this surprising? This is standard practice. Based on thread title sounds like this thread is just shitty trolling.

Well of course that's the case with a branch of the military like the air force, a branch that is inherently highly technical and stringently selective. I was referring more to regular infantry units and other "light" branches of the military which naturally form the great bulk in any organized army. It generally speaking doesn't take a genius to drive a Humvee around or operate a stationed machine gun as a gunner.

Its unfortunate that this is the perception you have of me, especially that I don't necessarily reciprocate that sentiment of yours. I think your heart is in the right place as a human being. Its just that you're just not very bright and that's hardly your fault.

Again, you're not in any position to talk. Considering you thought this article was referring to the police nationwide and all.

It takes balls of steel. Something you lack.