You haven't presented a single "countervailing evidence", or even a claim of one. You can't sue a police department if there is precedent that ruled they have the right to do that thing, so what are you expecting other than lawsuits? I mentioned already that they don't document these things. Lawsuits settled the matter, and I won't repeat for the 3rd time all the other corroborating evidence I mentioned.

I agree that evidence in general is significant, countervailing or not. I already changed my mind and conceded based on evidence that a lot of this is speculative, and exaggerations might exist. I'm more than open and receptive to evidence to support that high-iq or doing well on cognitive tests does not affect hiring in a negative way at all. but if empirical evidence to that effect existed, it would have settled our debate much sooner.

Let me use an analogy. Let's say the courts ruled 20 years ago that tech companies can refuse to hire employees that score really well on IQ tests for some reason. Over that time, the quality of work in the tech industry by developers declines rapidly. however, companies have no need to formally use that as a reason for not hiring due to PR reasons, and candidates can't sue them due to precedent. The most reasonable deduction is that a significant number of tech companies have followed suit and using high-cognition to reject candidates. outliers are to be expected. This is further corroborated by the fact that like police departments corporations copy-cat trends a lot (e.g.: RTO, layoffs,etc.. with companies. with PD's: militarization, treating the public as subjects, using "I feared for my life" to excuse behavior that would have had them hung not too long ago). Trends, behaviors, precedent and witness testimony. People are tried for murder for far less.

> In fact, the opposite thing is more likely to be the truth.

If you can't prove the former, you can't prove that either. It is speculation, but not unfounded speculation. a small number of cases were taken to court, and since those cases were found in favor of police departments, no further cases we taken to court. Police departments don't record shady practices like this either.

There is no definitive public data on which departments administer IQ tests, your supposition that it is a small number is unfounded. Nearly all administer cognitive tests, psychological and/or psychometric tests under various names are almost always administered, and from what I was able to look up on the subject, they usually contain IQ tests. In a corporate setting, I've taken a pre-hire psychometric test myself, it was in every way the same as an IQ test but they didn't use that term.

We are left with no choice but to speculate, the historical cases you mentioned laid the ground work. reason dictates that ground work is followed by others. as i mentioned, if inference is all that is left, we're left with public documentations of police conduct and hear-say, and all of that supports the original claim that this is a widespread practice.

I think we can all agree that police departments are allowed to reject applicants based on IQ. Cognitive tests are common from what googling I've done, although only about 10 states have IQ tests specifically. It's also hard to prove that candidates get rejected based on their IQ, it's not like this would be a department policy. Whether they exercise their right to do so, or how many exercise that right, there is no hard data that I could find, and you might be right that this is a bit exaggerated.

However, from direct experience, and the endless videos of police interacting with citizens out there, it's hard to not to draw conclusions.

I would imagine applicants would be told they're not a culture fit or something, similar to any other workplace that uses informal reasons to reject applicants. I would even agree that if you pass the right vibe-check, having high-IQ might not be an issue (e.g.: white supremacist tendency, or gang membership).

Google AI overview regarding cognitive testing (sorry, too lazy to dig up specific sources, i assume you can google the same things I did and find out):

While specific, standardized, state-wide cognitive test mandates for police hiring are not uniform across the U.S.,
approximately 37 states mandate or conditionally require psychological screening, which often includes cognitive assessment components. These evaluations are typically part of a broader, mandatory, and highly competitive selection process that often includes reading, writing, and, in some cases, critical thinking, or scenario-based assessments like the FrontLine Testing System.

are you disputing the "many" part because the lawsuits are limited in number? that aside, everything in that search results supports my statement which you quoted. they won't tell applications "you're too smart", the ones that do get sued, and those are the ones you hear about. police hiring is much more insidious than that, it's more akin to gang member recruitment. But, I will say that regional variations exist. Smaller towns or well reformed major cities might not have these issues. But for example the LA sheriffs department is not only a plain-and-simple gang, you literally have to have gang associations and participate in race-driven hostility against specific groups to be accepted.

This hiring practice is informal, similar to how last names influence hiring. the claim is also that they get rid of or reject applicants that are too smart. that doesn't mean they require applicants to be stupid, that's why as your search shows, the average IQ for cops is close to the general public's median.

Compare that with lawyers. One can argue that he people that are licensed to use violence to enforce the law should have the same level of cognitive capacity and store of legal knowledge as those who litigate the law in court. I hope you agree with that.

I know this is a good thing, but I've struggled a lot on systems that don't have good/reliable NTP time updates.

Also, at some point in the lifetime graph, you start getting diminishing returns. There aren't many scenarios where you get your private keys stolen, but the bad guys couldn't maintain access for more than a couple of weeks.

In my humble opinion, if this is the direction the CA/B and other self-appointed leaders want to go, it is time to rethink the way PKI works. We should maybe stop thinking of LetsEncrypt as a CA but it (and similar services) can function as more of a real-time trust facilitators? If all they're checking for is server control, then maybe a near-real-time protocol to validate that, issue a cert, and have the webserver use that immediately is ideal? Lots of things need to change for this to work of course, but it is practical.

Not so long ago, very short DNS TTL's were met with similar apprehension. Perhaps the "cert expiry" should be tied to the DNS TTL. With the server renewing much more frequently (e.g.: If the TTL is 1 hour, the server will renew every 15 minutes).

Point being, the current system of doing things might not be the best place to experiment with low expiry lifetimes, but new ways of doing things that can make this work could be engineered.

IQ tests are very deceptive and often misused.

I don't dispute the differences in intellectual capacity between people but IQ tests are like weight lifting contests between people who didn't train to lift weights.

I don't understand why the scientific community keeps using methods that are so flawed. Perhaps it's due to my own lack of information.

The only way I could see IQ tests being a valid measurement of intellectual capacity is if participants were brought to the same level of knowledge and skills, and then were made to train for the IQ test using the exact same means, and even then cultural and language barriers must be accounted for.

Even if these twins have an identical intellctual capacity and they both had the same exact education, and same exact grades, that still doesn't mean they applied and exercised their brains in the same way for the questions of the IQ tests.

IQ tests to measuring intellectual capacity (instead of knowledge level) are like polygraphs to mesasuring truthfulness in terms of accuracy.

For measuring strength, i stand by my earlier correlation with weight lifting. If two people can dead-lift 500lbs, I only know that both participants are have reached that level of strength. What I don't know is how much effort each participant put into getting to that level of strength, which would tell me their natural muscular capacity per effort. IQ tests deceptively seem like they tell you what someone's capacity for intellect is, but they only tell you where that person is right now. Maybe that person worked hard and the score is their max, maybe the person rarely applies their brain to demanding tasks and this is their mid-level capacity.

My point is,it isn't just education or just genetics, it is also personality, effort, motivation. For all I know,someone with double-digit IQ score can work out their brain for a year and hit genius level. Choice. Can a person choose to be a literal idiot and succeed? Certainly, people choose to be incurious and ignorant all the time. Women can body-build and be as strong as many regular men for example. But simply because of a hormone difference, they have to work out a lot more than men to reach the same level of muscular strength. And men who never work out can be as weak as women who never work out.

There is also the question of brain development. Maybe the effort you put has different effect depending on age. small efforts at a young age at applying your brain might have huge impacts, where as if you're a teenager or an adult, applying the same effort might yield less results.

I mean, personally, if I tired, if I ate too much, or too little,if didn't get enough sleep, if I am distracted by something, if I'm unprepared and thus second-guessing myself, these are some of the things that throw me off wildly when taking exams. I've seen huge differences by simply getting enough sleep and calories.

There is no way that asking the same set of questions to to large population (even with control populations in place) can account for all the presumptions of the test.