I have the IQ of a goldfish and I am sure the goldfish is fins above me in the intelligence stakes. The truth is that I cannot take IQ tests seriously as they are deeply flawed and the history is riddled with right-wing agendas and supporters of eugenics.So I was interested in Tuesday’s edition of Horizon which attempted to broaden the definition of intelligence.
Seven people (physicist, dramatist, artist, pilot, musician and so on) from different backgrounds were given a standard IQ test and other tests which were pragmatic such as working out 100 things to do with a sock, getting a cork lodged inside out of a bottle, creating a piece of art in ten minutes and emotional intelligence (EI) was tested.
This idea of “multiple intelligence” comes from Howard Gardner, a psychologist, who takes a much broader definition and practical understanding of intelligence. He doesn’t subscribe to the theory that intelligence (g) is a fixed quantity which can be measured using a psychometric test (though the 7 guinea pigs are given an IQ test). Gardner sees creativity as important as intelligence. But what is meant by creativity? Being able to think of different things to do with a sock? I think Gardner is trying to move on from the hang-over of psychometrics and the idea of intelligence is fixed and unchangeable. But what exactly is being concluded here?
The programme at least sought to look at alternatives to the IQ test even though the 7 guinea pigs sat it (the physicist came top). There was still mention of intelligence being inherited which, for me, failed to adequately explain why this was the case (there have been arguments critical of heritable traits like intelligence and the equation of "heritable" with "inevitable" by Leon Kamin, Steven Rose and the late Stephen Jay Gould). Why is there still an obsession with psychometric testing especially knowing the rotten history of its proponents? Are we anywhere nearer to understanding intelligence? What indeed is intelligence?
Theories from 19th century craniologist, Paul Broca, who believed "high intelligence" lay in the anterior region of the brain to Cyril Burt who proposed that intelligence was innate, unchangable quantity fixed by inheritance and therefore testable and during the 1990s Hernstein and Murray published the controversial "The Bell Curve" which amounted to a racist tome. These hideous theories in no way liberate individuals instead they oppress as they lay the blame for "inferiority" at race, class and sex. Environmental aspects don't come into it or play any part.
The whole fabric of the educational system was based on a damn statistical lie. Galtonian Cyril Burt had his own political axe to grind and his “results” propped up his own reactionary ideology. The remnants are still seen today with the obsession of testing, selection and grading. And the continued worship of the bell curve with its "normal distribution" of intelligence.
Oddly enough IQ testing seems to carry a whole series of normative assumptions and value judgements. The development of these tests since the 1930’s reflects the social engineering that went on from that decade on. In the middle years of the last century there was a need to build up a middle class cadre of skilled workers who would be able to carry out the more complex tasks demanded of the workforce in an advanced industrial economy. This may explain the “industrial” flavour of early IQ tests.
There was no widespread need to identify the quantum physics professors or concert pianists of the future. There was and still is a need to identify the people who could, for instance organise the logistics of a company’s delivery fleet. The sort of things being tested (and coached for, there a strong directive element to IQ tests) are the sort of tasks that capitalism needed its managerial cadre to do. It also of course contributes to the ideology of middle class professionalism that you do not question the social order in your work.
As some of the tasks that corporate capital sets its managers change so the things being “measured” change. Thus the more touchy feely interpersonal aptitudes are brought to the fore as managers become more involved in psychological manipulation of workers, customers and other managers. The logistical tasks of the transport manager of yesteryear are now performed by someone’s laptop.
On the BBC website there is a test called What Sex is Your Brain. Couldn’t resist it and it turns out I think like a bloke. Interesting, not?
8 comments:
This is well informed and well argued, but I am not sure I agree. Here are some of my thoughts on it.
In our day to day lives we have no difficultly in recognizing that some people are more intelligent than others. What is more, we have no trouble in understanding that this is complex, and some people are better mathematicians, others gifted linguists, some are good at problem solving, while some other people cope better with novel situations.
But some individuals, like the late Richard Feynman for example, are just more intelligent and gifted in just about every way!
The problem comes when we try to categorize and quantify, because this is where social values intrude, and the scientist as human being brings her own ideological assumptions.
There are a number of problems though with simply dismissing inherited intelligence. And I think that an uncritical reading, for example of Stephen j Gould’s “Mismeasurement of man” can lead to error.
For example, Cyril Burt was a bad scientist who falsified results, and also let his ideological predispositions predetermine his conclusions. Also – as you correctly explain – the biological determinism of Burt fitted the plans of the time for educational selection – it gave scientific cover for what they wanted to do anyway.
But does that prove that intelligence is not inherited? No it doesn’t. Indeed, does the impact of environmental factors, nutrition, stable home life, cultural environment, education, etc, negate the idea that the potential for intelligence is inherited. No it doesn’t.
And given that we recognize that there are several characteristics related to intelligence, then they can be measured. Attempts to test the various characteristics of intelligence are moderated by the tests being carried out by a human being in a social context, but that does not mean that the concept of testing is utterly flawed? Though it may mean that the motives for testing and the use that the test results are put are completely wrong.
And given that there is variation of these characteristics through the population, then I would expect it to follow the normal distribution.
This is a complex area, because the Hernstein and Murray argument accepted a view of causality that low educational attainment and criminality were racially determined. The obvious problem with this thesis is that racism contributes to low social standing, which contributes to low educational attainment and criminality. So even intelligent people can have their intelligence thwarted. But the less obvious but more important issues are i) that our social categorizations of people by race and sexual orientation are utterly arbitrary in the first place; and ii) an individual’s value to society, and their self respect should not be determined by an arbitrary hierarchy of attributes. That is some people may be cleverer than others, but it doesn’t make them better people.
"But does that prove that intelligence is not inherited? No it doesn’t. Indeed, does the impact of environmental factors, nutrition, stable home life, cultural environment, education, etc, negate the idea that the potential for intelligence is inherited. No it doesn’t."
But that is precisely the fact that environment is left out of the equation. What troubles me about the intelligence debate is that it is seen as a fixed entity and never changing. In the Horizon programme, they gave an IQ test to people roughly in their seventies who were given an IQ test when they were children. Nealy all of them had a different IQ then when they were kids and surely this contradicts Cyril Burt's belief that IQ (g) is fixed.
The other issue is that you may be right that it could be inherited but with all the disingenous studies and the political motivations of the individuals carrying out the research, how can we be sure?
"And given that we recognize that there are several characteristics related to intelligence, then they can be measured."
Like what?
(i) that our social categorizations of people by race and sexual orientation are utterly arbitrary in the first place; and ii) an individual’s value to society, and their self respect should not be determined by an arbitrary hierarchy of attributes.
I agree
And yes, the impact of racism, sexism and class will affect the development of someones potential but these are social constructs. Surely then there has to be a dialectical understanding of the social and the biological?
But it seems to me that you are making the symettrically opposite assertion to Cryil Burt and co. It would be remarkable if there was no hereditary component to intelligence wouldn't it? Even at the most comon sense level that we all know that how clever, inquistive and quick to learn a child is becomes apparent at a very young age.
And while the arguments from Stephen j Gould et al show the limitations of the IQ testing, and twins studies, etc. there has been no research that I am aware of that establishes that intelligence is entirely environental (An absolutly literally Lysenkoist position)
There is an inherent flaw in IQ testing in that people can practice and improve their ability to take the tests, and therefore if we define intelligence only by the ability to perform well on IQ tests then obviously it is not invariable. But the ability to learn to do IQ tests is itself a characteristic of intelliegcne, so all that shows is that the testing concept requires refinement.
I take that back about the symetrical error thing, becasue Cyril Burt was a right wing scum bag and acting in bad faith,
So it is a very poor comparison, as you are motivated by compassion and wanting to help people.
What i mean is that we all need to be careful not to prejudge a scientific topic, but of course we all do to some extent.
I think you misunderstand me as I am not saying that I believe there is no case for hereditary component and I am not some "environment is everything" person as that is precisely deterministic in itself.
I just think Steven Rose et al are right when they say there has to be a dialetical understanding of the biological and the social. No?
"and therefore if we define intelligence only by the ability to perform well on IQ tests then obviously it is not invariable."
Yes, and remember that kids seen as bright were coached in passing their 11+.
"What i mean is that we all need to be careful not to prejudge a scientific topic, but of course we all do to some extent".
Yes, but I don't think I am prejudging just being highly critical and cynical of the studies around intelligence as they don't liberate people generally they just consign people to the old scrap heap. That's my fundamental problem.
For example, Alfred Binet used tests in good faith and as a tool to help kids who weren't performing well in school. He believed that intelligence wasn't fixed etc. and called for intervention and support not hinderance and the scrap heap. He accused Burt of "pessimism" when he saw what he had done to his tests.
Some elements of intelligence are inherited. It's just incredible (in the literal sense of the word) for say Richard Feynman, Andy's example, or Einstein, Chomsky, Marx, Russell, etc, not to be intrinsically more intelligent than nearly everyone who's walked the planet.
There is something different about these people. They're not just better read or better educated. There is something - I can't, and maybe no one can, categorise in detail what it is - that makes them different. In everyday language we call them geniuses. I guess that one day neuroscientists will be able to pinpoint in detail something about their biological-cognitive capacities.
Now, no matter how hard I try there is no way I can match these individuals. No matter what schooling I could have been subjected to there is no getting away that these guys would come out on top.
There is no shame in admitting to the fact that some people are born with a talent for, say, music or mathematics or whatever it is. Actually, it's just facing up to an incontrovertible fact. I do not believe that had I had a wonderful education that I could write novels like a Saul Bellow, write music like a Chopin, think like a Marx or Einstein. That's just fantasy.
Indeed, supposing that tomorrow it was proved that intelligence is inherited. What difference would it make? None.
"So it is a very poor comparison, as you are motivated by compassion and wanting to help people".
I just think that in this society that an individual's potential is undervalued and diminished. Instead we are valued in marketability terms. People are regularly chucked on the scrap heap.
Btw AN: I know you took it back, but I am certainly not some environment determinist, polar opposite to Burt et al and have never argued that intelligence is all about anvironment though I do think we should take a dialectical approach instead.
But the fundamental problem with the issue of heritability is who is pushing this? What is their political ideology? I just am very cynical about the researchers pushing the research.
In fact I have time for Howard Gardner as at least he tests in good faith and believes in helping people achieve their potential. He wants to move away from the psychometry of the past and create a more broader definition of intelligence.
There are so many definitions of intelligence and therefore I wonder if we actually know what we are testing. Is it subjective? You might define someone as "clever" but what does that mean.
All the social aspects you refer to - people being thrown on the scrap heap - is true. That is an incontrovertible fact.
All the stuff about the political agendas of those pushing this stuff is also true.
What is also true is that people *are* born with different intellectual abilities.
As Orwell once said, things are no less true because the Telegraph say it's true.
A lot of psychology makes a lot of sense; and some is nonsense. IQ tests probably lie closer to a completely different part of the ggod-bad spectrum: it's just irrelevant; it's socially and culturally conditioned and all the rest of it.
I think when we refer to someone as clever we know in some general sense what we mean. Einstein was clever; Jade is stupid (as well as completely ignorant of most things).
As I say, even if we could determine precisely intelligence and prove it's inherited, it would change absolutely nothing.
Post a Comment