Your piece suggests that allowing selection instead of credentialism will have very large social effects which are very good for society; you suggest benefits for innovation, fertility, service quality, and many other things.

Yes, that’s correct.

Your view of selection rests primarily on some kind of testing system, rather than colleges or universities

Yes, that’s correct.

in general, you envision the replacement of a huge range of certificating institutions and bodies as well as non-test based hiring standards

Not really. I imagine their influence being tempered and their centrality in many areas being reduced, but I never committed to an all-or-nothing view on what happens to the institutions underwriting the rise and maintenance of credentialism. My view is that they mostly change, adapt, etc.

for example you say affirmative action will go away

I did not say this. Re-read that section. It’s very clear in that it does not say anywhere that affirmative action or similar initiatives will simply go away.

So your view seems to be that selection via testing will replace a huge range of other current human resource management strategies.

It will definitely force them to change and likely replace a lot of existing HR culture, methods, goals, and so on.

This in turn suggests you think that it really is the case that the socializing process of higher education, for example, or professional associations, or whatever, is not very important

I didn’t say that and this does not follow from anything I said. I don’t actually see how you connect these ideas since one doesn’t logically lead to the other.

How can you go from ‘X will replace Y’ to ‘therefore, Y is not important’? This is all the more baffling because the piece clearly acknowledges that Y is important and much of what I’ve written does the same.

that, yes, smart people with few other pleasant traits should on the basis of selective testing be advanced rapidly and reliably upwards

I didn’t say or imply this and it doesn’t follow from anything I said. To make this abundantly clear: That testing will help the uncredentialed who are qualified (and qualification is broad!) doesn’t mean that unpleasant people “should” be advanced by selective testing. What you’ve said doesn’t make any sense as a comment on what I wrote.

that organizations function best by maximizing the specific selective criteria measured by tests, etc.

What works best for organizations is not just one thing universally and I never implied otherwise.

Where did I misinterpret you?

All over the place! A lot of your misinterpretation seems to have been making bizarre logical leaps that can’t be supported, but in your other comments, you also implied I said things that are not contained anywhere in my article and are, indeed, even sometimes contradicted by what I wrote if you read it carefully.

For example, in an earlier comment you wrote “You said… women would have lower wages.” Anyone who reads my article cannot have read that unless they’re making wildly uncalled for assumptions.