Discussion about this post

User's avatar
DC Reade's avatar

I don’t hold with the concept of “Intelligence Quotient”—it’s a measure that I find simultaneously vague, rigid, reductive, and extravagantly ambitious in its conclusion. All the hallmarks of bogosity. Few people realize that even Spearman added caveats to his claim that his tests provided a measure of “g” aka General Intelligence (defined as the common substrate for all abilities related to intellectual functioning…I know, arguably a tautology.)

I score very high on IQ tests. Or at least I did until my first encounter with the Raven’s Progressive Matrices test around 10 years ago, with my performance likely hampered by sleeping poorly the previous night. I also scored high on my SAT tests. I think that IQ tests that include a lot of verbal material, like the Weschler, measure something similar to the SAT: the level of competency with the skill sets related to scholastic achievement. And I think it’s accurate, as far as that goes. RPM is a very different test: people with mild-to-moderate verbally capable ASD have been known to score as much as 35 points higher on RPM, compared to tests like the Weschler “inventories”. Whereas my reaction to having the RPM test sprung on me was dubious, skeptical, and unmotivated. What’s weird is that both tests are alleged to measure the same capability—that mystical quintessence, “Spearman’s ‘g’”. Does that strike anyone else as kind of funny?

RPM is said to be a superior test of “IQ”, because of an emphasis on abstract visual diagrams rather than verbal questions that supposedly makes it free of culture bias. The possibility of other induced biases has since emerged. RPM views “abstract reasoning” as the baseline of intelligence. But—paradox, again—only for those who follow the rules! “Thinking outside the box”, so to speak, is discouraged.

My other big problem with the IQ concept is that it presumes to measure the ability limit of each individual tested. But it’s practically impossible to measure un-activated potential with one written test. I get that some people are smarter than others, but getting an idea of how intelligent someone actually might be requires a lot more personal interaction. (I mean, doesn’t it? Isn’t that basic?) IQ tests basically measure the ability to do schoolwork—or, in the case of RPM, the ability to use logical reasoning to follow patterns*, and that’s about it. It heelps to be well-rested before the test. Critiques of IQ and educational testing are also increasingly noting the influence of factors like hunger, lack of sleep, and lack of motivation on variability of test performance.

[* ability to follow the logic of RPM may provide a reliable measure of competence with computer “languages”. But anyone who tries to apply the logical prompts of the RPM to learning how to write and spell the English language is destined to run into multiple trainwrecks, often within the first paragraph. English is an Exceptional language, get it. You don’t get good by understanding the logic of it. You just have to get used to it. ]

I know, I went off. IQ is one of several hobbyhorse topics of mine. others include my talking up ranked choice voting; the practical, facts-based argument for a higher marginal tax rate for the top 10% of households, and especially the top 1% and 0.1%; my skepticism of claims for AI and unpiloted motor vehicles; and the urgent need for an overhaul of the substance criminalization laws. All of which you can read about on my Iconoclasms home page (still free!) Including more detailed articles on the topic of IQ, with link support included. https://substack.com/@adwjeditor/p-148984101

Expand full comment
DC Reade's avatar

I appreciate the praise. One more idea related to your essay to think on: I just read it the other day, probably elsewhere in Substack Notes. Someone quoted this epigram:

""Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see."

*Arthur Schopenhauer. I just looked it up.

Expand full comment
30 more comments...

No posts