Exactly. This is a criticism of the article where it says that HR has a good reason for assuming employee performance would be Gaussian, since IQ is Gaussian.

IQ is defined a being Gaussian

▲

ip26 2 years ago | parent [-]

If IQ is a good predictor of employee performance, then it does follow that employee performance would be Gaussian. It doesn’t matter that IQ was “made” to be Gaussian.

	▲	Majromax 2 years ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not necessarily. A "good predictor" could still result in non-Gaussian performance for at least two reasons: 1. The prediction could be on a relative rather than quantitative basis. If IQ(A) > IQ(B) always implies Perf(A) > Perf(B), then the absolute distributions for each could still be arbitrary. 2. A "good predictor" in the social sciences doesn't always mean that it explains a large part of the variance. If IQ quantitative correlates with observed performance on some scale, but it explains only 25% of the variance, then the distributions could still be quite different. Furthermore, if you're making this kind of quantitative comparison you must also have quantitative performance measurement, whereupon its probability density function should be much easier to directly estimate.
	▲	lokar 2 years ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Are you assuming that employee performance is Gaussian?