What IQ Tests Can't Tell You

The Naked Scientist ^ | April 2008 | Catherine Zentile

[Wardenclyffe]

I.Q. scores have been rising steadily, by about 3 points per decade, ever since they were first administered. This is known as the Flynn Effect and it means that if we take the average teenager of today with an I.Q. of 100 and project the trend back to the 1900s, the average I.Q. would have been somewhere between 50 and 70. An I.Q. of 70 or below usually marks a mental disability. So, if I.Q. gains are in any sense real, "we are driven to the absurd conclusion that a majority of our ancestors were mentally retarded."

[MikeHu]

Actually, emotional intelligence (EQ) is a better measure of intelligence than IQ, which presumes that one is operating in a social vacuum, because the real intelligence, is learning from the environment and people around them — which allows them to tap the total intelligence and not just regurgitate what was systematically put into their head.

The world of the unknown, is vastly larger than the world of the known (knowledge), and so one operating only from the known (memory), is at a disadvantage to any other individual processing real time information as it happens.

The old IQ test is basically a test of familiarity with the known — while intelligence is how successfully one discovers the present unknown, which is also what the old IQ hopes to measure by how successfully one has learned the old in the past — but that does not necessarily indicate how successfully one can learn in the present.

This is especially true with those who have largely learned everything they know when they were young and in school — and nothing since, and so their emotional growth was also stunted at that level of progress, which is often the case with so-called prodigies, who know a lot of useless information — but have no skills in communicating and reading others directly.

So while emotional quotient implies IQ, IQ does not indicate EQ, and those of high IQ can be some of the most destructive and antisocial personalities in society — as we read about in the the news daily. The individual of high EQ, poses no such problem — and are in fact, society’s problem solvers rather than creators.

It doesn’t take intelligence to create more problems, divisions, arguments, harassments and abuse. That is the disturbing thing of what is championed in popular culture in the mainstream media. That is not intelligence.

[domeika]

3 pts per decade?
Or, maybe the tests were skewed once twice and thrice so as to embrace diversity. If you haven't read it yet, pick up a copy of "The Bell Curve". Quote any part of it to a liberal if you desire the effect of poking them in the eye with a sharp stick.

[achilles2000]

You’re right that the Flynn Effect doesn’t invalid IQ testing, but there is no consensus on exactly what the Flynn Effect represents. Claiming that it reflects a rise in the absolute educational standard in America (to be fair, I assume you mean educational achievement in America and elsewhere) is a conjecture that I think would be very hard to support.

The larger point, however, is that the very idea that there might be something like g and that it is to a substantial degree heritable has always been hated by a substantial swath of the left. Consequently, there has been no end of politically driven articles over recent decades “debunking” the concept of g and its heritability, of which the posted piece appears to be a rather mild example.

The more candid and informed opponents of IQ testing don’t deny that the tests are reasonably valid, but rather argue that for the good of society there is some research that shouldn’t be done and that claiming all variations in intelligence are environmentally determined is a “noble lie” that serves a larger social purpose. Of course, the public policy resulting from such views can only be described as a form of social insanity.

Someone posted an article here before the election in which it was reported that genomics researchers were very anxious about their future because they believed that they were not far from identifying the genetic basis for variations in g (and other things that would offend the left) and that the new administration would quietly defund them.

One of the interesting things about threads on FR is the extent to which many posters don’t seem to understand that “science” not only is intensely political, but has been for a long time....I know this doesn’t have anything to do with your post - I’m just throwing it in.

[fr_freak]

If that's the case, then why can't the average teenager of today pass an 8th grade final exam from 1900? Just wondering.

My belief is that a certain percentage of people are stupid in any generation, and there is simply no changing that fact. However, back in 1900, the stupid ones weren't babysat through 12 years of public school. If they were stupid, they dropped out in the 2nd or 3rd grade, or maybe never went to school, and thus the remaining students by 8th grade were, across the board, more capable of learning advanced things. Nowadays, kids are kept in school no matter how stupid they are, and the curriculum is dumbed down to their level, even for the smart kids. The effect goes well into college, too, because college is now seen as an entitlement. My experience in college 12 years ago was that, at least for the general ed stuff, the material was dumbed down to what I would consider junior high level and full of leftist pablum.

[fr_freak]

All Kpelle tribesmen are rice farmers.

Mr Smith is not a rice farmer.

Is he a Kpelle man?

This may seem like perfectly logical question to which it would be equally valid to answer "no". But to the tribesman it was completely unreasonable to ask this. He replied "If you do not know a person, and a question comes up, it’s hard for you to answer. Because I don’t know 'Mr Smith' I can't answer the question." This answer is equally valid but incorrect for the purpose of an IQ test.

I'd say that this is incorrect and muddled thinking. The answer the tribesman gave is incorrect regardless of his cultural background. He was given the logical rules in the question, yet failed to apply them to reach a conclusion. This is done quite often in modern society as well, but we don't excuse it with some PC multi-cultural nonsense. Chances are, the researcher was merely talking to a stupid Kpelle tribesman. If that researcher had gone through every tribesman there was and they all gave that answer, there might be cause to look for a cultural bias, but one guy proves nothing. A better method would have been to use non-real world test items. For example: "All widgets are pink. This thing is yellow. Is it a widget?" Let's see the Kpelle fellow BS his way out of that one.

[Wardenclyffe]

You are correct, sir! How about this logic: All U.S. presidents are natural born citizens, Barack Obama is a U.S. president, therefore Barack Obama is a natural born citizen.

The Kpelle fellow's head would explode because he knows that BO was born in Kenya!

[r9etb]

Instead of outcome-based educational goals, teachers should be taught how to increase critical thinking skills of their students by various means. Totally agree. An ounce of thinking skills would do more than a pound of $100 bills.

Well.... I strongly suspect that what's really missing among both the kids and even their parents, is any real contact between their education and the real world.

We live in a society that has in many important respects separated us from the consequences of our actions.

The idea of "critical thinking skills" is all well and good ... until you get to the point of trying to figure out what to think about, and why critical thinking matters in the first place. Lack of consequences means that there's no incentive to learn to think critically.

I think even the term "critical thinking skills" is a serious misnomer; isn't the point really to teach the kids not just to "think," but rather how to use information to arrive at rational, reasonable conclusions -- whether it's about math, science, economics, or politics?

Ideally, "critical thinking skills" would deal in that direct connection between ideas and reality, in such a way that the kids are actually being prepared for their entry into the real world.

As it stands now, we have a culture that can be happy about electing somebody like Obama; that doesn't understand economics or foreign policy beyond the shallow expositions passed on by the MSM, and which is often insulated from the consequences of even very poor decisions. Our impending mess is a direct result of our retreat from consequences.

And in conjunction, I think it's important to teach the kids how to assemble trustworthy information in the first place, and how to spot information that is not trustworthy. "Critical thinking" about sources, if you will, and a sense of what kinds of data are needed prior to any "critical thinking" exercise.

One of my daughter's teachers drove this point home by giving them an article to "review" and comment upon. It was from The Onion and was, predictably, outrageous and she was duly outraged ... until I suggested she check out the source of the article. She learned a lot of good stuff from that teacher ... and one of the very biggest lessons was that one.

[r9etb]

was given the logical rules in the question, yet failed to apply them to reach a conclusion.

It's a poorly-worded question, actually, especially if your supposedly stupid Kpelle tribesman attempts to treat the question as if it applied to the real world.

In the real world, there are a variety of ways in which Mr. Smith could be both Kpelle and a non-rice farmer. Perhaps, for example, he was a rice farmer who for some reason can no longer farm rice -- he got hurt, say, or is too old. In this example, the researcher's expected answer would require the tribesman to ignore the distinction between "is" and "was."

In fact, the Kpelle tribesman's answer is fully as logical as the one you want him to give, and is perhaps even a better one because he realizes that the vagueness can only be resolved by direct evidence.

A better method would have been to use non-real world test items. For example: "All widgets are pink. This thing is yellow. Is it a widget?" Let's see the Kpelle fellow BS his way out of that one.

Did somebody paint the widget?

[Wardenclyffe]

...what's really missing among both the kids and even their parents, is any real contact between their education and the real world.

Exactly right. The point I was trying to make regarding critical thinking is to teach students logic, or how to think logically about any subject, rather than rote memorization of "facts." The latter will do them limited good, while the former will give them a super-processor to analyze information coming at them every day. Especially the paradigms coming from the MSM and liberal intelligentsia.

[aft_lizard]

Poor grammar does not make my argument nil nor does it make your argument valid.

[r9etb]

The point I was trying to make regarding critical thinking is to teach students logic, or how to think logically about any subject, rather than rote memorization of "facts." The latter will do them limited good, while the former will give them a super-processor to analyze information coming at them every day.

The problem is that you can't think critically unless and until you have reliable facts to think about. You need them both.

One of the things I've learned over the years, especially at FR, is the danger of operating in the absence of facts.

Perhaps more importantly, I've learned how to recognize situations where there are insufficient facts to justify any firm conclusions. Here, in fact, is the most important connection between "critical thinking" and facts.

And, of course, I've learned to separate real facts from spin, and to be skeptical of anything presented as fact, especially by parties who have a personal interest in the situation.

A library of basic facts is essential, and a large body of such information has been compiled and accepted over time. Something as simple as the multiplication tables, for instance. That is the sort of information that one really should memorize in rote form, just so it's available for general recall later. "Rote" has a lot of negative connotations, but I don't

It's the same reason why I do "rote training" prior to participating in a run for which I've paid money to enter -- I can't just rely on "critical thinking" about how I'll run on race day.

[r9etb]

Oops, hit post too soon. “Rote” has a lot of negative connotations, but I don’t think they’re all justified.

[fr_freak]

Did somebody paint the widget?

Sorry, but only someone being deliberately stupid could play those kinds of games. If you present a reasonably intelligent Kpelle tribesman with such a question, he can answer it correctly. The important thing to realize here is that, in any test, the test taker has to be smart enough to understand what is being asked.

For example, if I ask you whether a square ball or a round ball will arrive at the bottom of a hill first when let go at the same time, you could come up with an infinite number of silly questions to ask, such as "Does the square ball hit a bump or a tree on the way down?" and that may seem to be a valid, real-world question, but it shows that the test taker is completely oblivious to the real point of the question, which is how the shape of the ball affects its speed. The failure to recognize that, absent any cultural references that the test taker is unfamiliar with (e.g. "Which has more wheels, a quadrunner or a motocross") is, in itself, a demonstration of lower intelligence. When I ask the Kpelle tribesman whether the thing is a widget, only stupid Kpelle tribesman would fail to see the real question being asked. If he wants to hedge his bet, he can answer "It is not a widget, assuming it hasn't been painted".

In fact, I would go a step further and say that your example is evidence of the tendency of academics to overthink things to the point where they can believe things that no normal person would believe. In my widget example, I would say that the failure to answer that question correctly is direct evidence of a lower IQ. We could argue all day about what caused the man's IQ to be low, whether it is bad nutrition, lack of education to stimulate the mind, etc. etc. but his IQ IS low. Only a misguided academic would think it is possible for a genius Kpelle tribesman not to be able to answer that question correctly.

[Richard Kimball]

They must have corrected the people in the survey or thrown out Asia because it was not a correct answer. I guarantee you Asia should have been one of the answers if they had just taken the initial survey results(yes, I know Asia is not a country.) They survey 100 people, and there HAD to be at least two people in that bunch that think Asia is a country.

[Billthedrill]

Linear extrapolation kills, especially on a topic where the standards of measurement have been inconsistent ever since they were invented.

What has changed these days is that people don't have as long an attention sp - hey, did you catch the game last night?

[aruanan]

Or are you using that already debinked multiple times 8th grader exam from Salina as your evidence?

Not so debunked. Look at the McGuffey Readers and see the reading level of mid-19th century 8th graders. I've owned a facsimile set. I know that most of today's 8th graders would have an extremely difficult time reading any of the selections.

[Wardenclyffe]

Your point on rote memorization is well taken; there certainly is a place for it such as multiplication tables, names of places, etc. The point I was making regarding rote vs. critical thinking is that outcome-based education, which is the standard operating procedure of many public school systems in the U.S., relies to a larger degree on memorization than it does on problem solving or analysis. Teachers and administrators, knowing this, teach to the test.

In the long run this process shortchanges students.

[r9etb]

Sorry, but only someone being deliberately stupid could play those kinds of games. If you present a reasonably intelligent Kpelle tribesman with such a question, he can answer it correctly.

No, not at all. The Kpelle tribesman in that case would be asking a valid question: is it really necessary for the widget to be pink? Would it still be a widget if somebody painted it yellow? Those are very useful questions in the real world, as opposed to the artificial one in which your pink widgets reside.

The important thing to realize here is that, in any test, the test taker has to be smart enough to understand what is being asked.

Ah, there's the rub. Since you're the one asking the questions, you're the one who's responsible for ensuring that the context and boundaries of the problem are clearly understood. You can't simply assume that the Kpelle tribesman operates in the same context that you do, and you can't call him stupid just because he doesn't conform to the context you're demanding but not defining.

Whether it's rice farmers or widgets, you're assuming that he knows you want him to voluntarily limit his point of view to only those aspects of the problem that you wish him to consider. The onus is on you to properly explain that context.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong or stupid about applying a broader perspective to a question like that. It's up to you to make it clear that he cannot question the dwell on the nature of the widgets themselves -- which you didn't.

What you're demanding is that the Kpelle tribesman accept the conditions as you've defined them, and to apply no knowledge beyond what you will allow. And if he fails to follow the approach you demand, his divergence from that approach is assessed (by you) as "stupid."

For example, if I ask you whether a square ball or a round ball will arrive at the bottom of a hill first when let go at the same time, you could come up with an infinite number of silly questions to ask... but it shows that the test taker is completely oblivious to the real point of the question, which is how the shape of the ball affects its speed.

All that particular example shows is that you don't even realize that you asked a very complicated question which demands clarification. That you go on to apparently deride all clarifying questions as "silly," suggests that you, the questioner, don't even understand your own question. At the very least, you have failed in your primary duty, which is to properly formulate your question in the first place.

Perhaps my view is skewed by the fact that I am not a mere academic who "overthink[s] things to the point where they can believe things that no normal person would believe;" but rather a fellow whose day-to-day work depends on getting real clarity on the questions being asked.

Only a misguided academic would think it is possible for a genius Kpelle tribesman not to be able to answer that question correctly.

LOL! You're an arrogant sort, but you're not very convincing.

[Wardenclyffe]

Being taught them and being able to learn them are two completely seperate things. Or did you not learn that? The simple fact is the only way you woulod be able to quantify your statement is to take a group of students from today and teach them as they were taught in 1900 and compare results. Something you can not do. So as I said you statement stands with out merit.

I'm really not sure what argument you are trying to have with me or why. If you're saying that I can't prove that students today couldn't pass a general final exam from 1900, you are correct; I can't prove that. It is an opinion I have formed through years of teaching.

I will maintain that opinion until other evidence comes to light.

It seems as though you are trying to provoke an argument with someone who expressed an opinion by saying "Prove it!"

Finally, poor grammar does not make an argument true or false, as you so aptly stated, but it doesn't help your cause either. If someone doesn't understand what you are saying due to poor communication on your part, please don't rail against them for pointing out an incoherent sentence. I really don't know what "Being taught them and being able to learn them... means. Again, I'm sorry if my inability to understanding what you are saying has offended you. Maybe if I used my own critical thinking skills I would be able to determine what you meant.

[grey_whiskers]

Well, you just revealed something about *your* IQ.

When were you born again? ;-)

Cheers!