IQ Testing

How valid are IQ tests, what do they really measure, and where do you fit in?

by Brian Dunning

Filed under General Science, Health

Skeptoid #235
December 7, 2010
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe
 

Don't you just love the idea that your level of intelligence can be boiled down to a single number, and ranked along with those of all the other dummies in the world? You may have taken an IQ test in the past, and may even know your score. It's an unfortunate fact of statistics that half the people walking around are below average intelligence — the way the tests are scored assures that 100 is both the median and the average — and sometimes we question the value of force-ranking ourselves, and assigning so much cultural significance and stigma to it, based on one narrow metric. IQ tests look like the ideal place to point Skeptoid's skeptical eye.

There are a number of obvious apparent criticisms of the idea of ranking everyone with a single number that purports to encompass how intelligent they are. Some people are "book smart" but with no "common sense", and some are the opposite. Some people have high or low creativity or humor, but may ace all their tests in school or fail them. Each of us is complex, with many strengths and weaknesses, aptitudes and preferences, and it seems that any one number purporting to quantify our intelligence must be grossly misleading in every case.

There are even obvious criticisms of the tests themselves. There are a number of different IQ tests in use, and it's well established that the same people will score differently on the various tests: I might get a higher score than you on one test, while you outscore me on another. Critics often point out that any IQ test is necessarily skewed toward a particular cultural frame of reference, making it unfair to measure someone from Africa using a test developed in Denmark (for example).

These basic criticisms are answered by a closer study of what IQ tests actually purport to measure. They've got nothing to do with "book smarts" and are intended to have no cultural relevance. The tests measure only your intelligence. There are as many different definitions of intelligence as there are psychologists, but we can extract some common themes from the definitions offered by those who have played the biggest roles in developing these tests. Generally speaking, your intelligence is your problem solving and reasoning ability. It encompasses learning, planning, and understanding.

IQ testing has an ominous history. It originally grew out of the eugenics movement in the United States around the turn of the twentieth century. The basic idea of eugenics was to identify desirable traits, such as intelligence, health, and even financial success, and to increase birth rates among such people. At the same time, birth rates among people with negative traits such as lower intelligence, criminal behavior, poverty, and illness, would be discouraged. When it was discovered that heredity played a large role in some mental illnesses, forced sterilization was imposed upon mental patients in some states in an effort to breed such traits out of the population. According to most counts, some 64,000 mentally ill Americans were sterilized until the practice was finally terminated in the 1960s. In the Nuremberg Trials, it was revealed that the Nazis considered the American program so effective that it was the inspiration for the Nazis' forced sterilization of some 450,000 people.

The father of eugenics was the Englishman Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Over the course of Galton's varied and productive career, he not only codified the science of eugenics but also pioneered psychometry as a tool for measuring people's intelligence and determining whether it would be best for them to breed or not. Galton coined the phrase nature versus nurture and identified the trend of regression towards the mean, though his original term for this was reversion towards mediocrity. So long as unintelligent people were allowed to reproduce freely, mankind could never rise above its native mediocrity.

A tool for quantitatively identifying mental retardation was needed by American eugenicists, and so they turned to two French researchers, Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon, who had developed the Binet-Simon test as a way of identifying French schoolchildren who needed special assistance. Binet-Simon did not ask questions about general knowledge, instead it imposed a diverse system of tasks, from simple physical tests to memory puzzles. The resulting score was expressed as the mental age.

Lewis Ternan, a psychologist from Stanford University, translated and improved the test in 1910, and it became known as the Stanford-Binet. The result was your Intelligence Quotient, a quotient of your mental age divided by your chronological age. If you were 10 years old but had the reasoning ability of a 15-year-old, your IQ was 150. For the first time, eugenicists had a tool that could spell out, in black and white, a person's value to society.

World War I saw widespread adoption of intelligence testing by the United States Army. The intent was that the most intelligent recruits would be sent to officer training, the least intelligent would be rejected from service, and those in the middle assigned to technical, combat, or other duties according to their scores. But the process didn't go as smoothly as its proponents hoped. Different testing methodologies were tried, there were inadequate resources for testing such large numbers of men, and many of the results were controversial.

What arose from this was a thorough revision of the scoring, developed by David Wechsler, the chief psychologist at Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital. As a young man he'd worked with the Army during its troubled attempt at implementing intelligence testing. His innovation was to grade the tests on a curve, with your score representing your placement within the distribution of all the aggregated scores. This is now the universal standard. The scoring is designed in such a way that graphing all the scores of a given population will result in a perfect bell curve. The intent is for the peak of the curve to hit exactly at a score of 100 (which should represent about 2.7% of the population), with the long tails of the curve petering out at about 50 and 150. For those of a statistical mindset, the distribution is intended to have a standard deviation of 15. Whenever the tests are revised (we're now using Stanford-Binet 5), the scoring system is reset so that the average is again 100 and the standard deviation is again 15. We still call it the IQ, even though it's no longer a quotient.

Well, we're not practicing institutionalized eugenics anymore, and IQ scores no longer restrict where we can go and what job we can have, so is all the controversy gone from IQ testing? Not hardly. It was gone, for the most part, until the 1994 publication of The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, a book by Harvard experimental psychologist Richard Herrnstein and conservative political scientist Charles Murray. The controversy came raging back with a vengeance. The Bell Curve's central thesis pointed out many inconvenient and politically incorrect sociopolitical implications of IQ scores.

The nice way of summarizing it is that intelligence is the strongest predictor of factors such as professional success, criminal activity, and divorce rates, and thus correlates strongly with various sociopolitical and ethnic groups across the country. The harsh way of summarizing its most controversial chapters is that blacks are less intelligent than whites. This finding triggered a tsunami of academic and popular criticism that publisher Free Press rode all the way to the bank, and that kept The Bell Curve squarely on the best-seller list.

The most troubling finding by the authors was that intelligence appeared to be the result of a combination of both nature and nurture. In simplified terms, this means that race plays at least some role in determining intelligence. The criticism of this claim came from many different directions: That Herrnstein and Murray had used flawed weighting in their statistical measurements; that their studies were improperly controlled; that they'd ignored contradictory research; and that they'd based their research on unproven assumptions. Unfortunately it's nearly hopeless for a layperson to try and evaluate either the claims or the criticism; one quickly discovers that the statistics involved are extremely complex.

About a year after The Bell Curve was published and the charges of racism had been thoroughly aired, the American Psychological Association decided to write its own report to specifically address the book's findings. A diverse task force of American psychology professors was assembled to "identify, examine and summarize relevant research on intelligence." Of the difference between blacks and whites, the APA confirmed that there has long been about a 15-point difference, which is one standard deviation; but it also found that there is no clear reason for this, and there is certainly not sufficient evidence to point to a genetic cause. Society is very complicated, and many factors appear to affect intelligence. Some of these suspected factors, most of which are unproven, include nutrition, education, English skills, experience with testing, and heritability.

The APA's final conclusion was critical not just of The Bell Curve, but of the debate in general:

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

In a field where so many issues are unresolved and so many questions unanswered, the confident tone that has characterized most of the debate on these topics is clearly out of place. The study of intelligence does not need politicized assertions and recriminations; it needs self-restraint, reflection, and a great deal more research. The questions that remain are socially as well as scientifically important. There is no reason to think them unanswerable, but finding the answers will require a shared and sustained effort as well as the commitment of substantial scientific resources. Just such a commitment is what we strongly recommend.

Two of these unanswered questions stand out as particularly intriguing: The racial differences, and something called the Flynn effect, and it may turn out that they're related. New Zealand political scientist Jim Flynn first noted that every time intelligence tests have been revised, average scores worldwide have gone way up, by about a standard deviation; and it's been necessary to reset 100 to a higher and higher point. People have been getting more intelligent ever since testing began, and some believe this improvement is accelerating. The reasons for the Flynn effect are unknown, but hypotheses usually center around the nurture factors for intelligence such as an increasingly intensive academic environment and healthcare. The Flynn effect is proven to change scores by at least as much as the racial differences that have been found, and it's possible (though far from evidenced) that unequal distribution of the same intelligence nurturing resources responsible for the Flynn effect may be responsible for the racial differences.

And so, while the roots of IQ testing came from the inherently negative process of identifying and culling out the worst of humanity, its future may prove to be crucial in helping everyone develop to a higher potential. Eugenics is one of those shameful follies that can't be uninvented, but its lessons may not have been entirely without fruit. When Binet and Simon first set out to learn how to find the schoolchildren who needed special help, they may have been onto something with far broader application. Theirs was not the spirit of culling, but the spirit of helping; and intelligence testing will always be linked to both.

Brian Dunning

© 2010 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Flynn, J. "Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure." Psychological Bulletin. 1 Mar. 1987, Volume 101, Number 2: 171-191.

Gottfredson, L. Scientific American Book of the Brain. New York: Lyons Press, 1999. 57-68.

Gould, S. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton, 1981.

Herrnstein, R., Murray, C. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press, 1994.

Kühl, S. The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Neisser, U. "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns." American Psychologist. 1 Feb. 1996, Volume 51, Number 2: 77-101.

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "IQ Testing." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 7 Dec 2010. Web. 28 Nov 2014. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4235>

Discuss!

10 most recent comments | Show all 71 comments

The White settlers were a mixed bunch and by the very nature of the 'project' they would have been conditioned to hardships and have skills relevant to building a colony. The gene pool of the settlers was more general - with the exception of the White slaves of course.

The African slaves were selected for manual work, just surviving the arduous journey over was part of the 'selection' process - I would suggest. You certainly were not going to import the old, the weak and the ill given the expense of the investment.

As for intelligence. In the US Asian folks usual outdo White folks in IQ tests, and most Whites - including me - have no issue with that.

I have no problem with Asians or human females being more intelligent than I, heck I would have no issue IF it was shown that African Americans were more intelligent than I. We are what we are.

Sure some Asian female somewhere will out-perform my feeble White male brain, I have no delusions as to my 'mental superiority'.

My point was that African Americans were selected for physical attributes and NOT intelligence, and we should not be surprised by them being great athletes but poor intellects.

The real African, in general, is an entirely different question.

As for eugenics, I can't can't see how mankind can continue to infest the planet as we now do, something has got to give or we do genuinely face the prospect of the entire human supporting Eco-system collapsing.

I believe population control is coming

Will Anderson, Ngong-Muir
August 19, 2012 7:56am

The problem with eugenics is that it can be used to discriminate and even execute people who are deemed "inferior" members of society by whatever criteria they chose.

Perfect example was the Nazi's. They loved eugenics because it gave them yet another excuse to declare Jews to be "inferior" to non-Jews and to justify the concentration death camps.

Joffbaum, New York, NY
October 22, 2012 5:47am

Joffbaum, for sure, but I believe that part of the reason for the Nazi anti-Jew thing was to

a) remove Jewish influence;
b) to steal Jewish wealth.
c) divert the German people away from their situation and blame someone else.

True eugenics and preservation of a master-race was used as an excuse too, though. I often find it amusing that a short dark haired Austrian got away with telling the Germans what a real German should be like!!

Of course the Nazis shot themselves in the foot really, their program had many Jewish intellectuals and scientists leave the country, like Einstein, if I recollect correctly 9 Nobel Prize winners and hundreds of science doctors fled Germany, and that in part put back much of their weapon program, their reactor never got realized. I can remember one top scientist, can't think who, who spoke to Hitler and tried to change his mind about the Jewish brain drain, but Hitler knew best, and the scientist knew they were on to a hiding from then on.

Interestingly, until the Nazi era many top scientists looked upon America as a backwater for science, but instability in Europe and fear of invasion again, led most of these scientists to go across the ocean, where, fortunately, eventually, their skills were used and things like the A bomb developed on the none Nazi side of the Atlantic.

Really, for me, WWII and the Jewish contribution to science led to the US being the world leader today.

Pete Edwards, very Welsh Wales
November 11, 2012 11:24am

@Will--The problem with your argument is that you have no way of being able to decide who is worthy to contribute their genetics to the future and who is not. Besides the moral issues involved, there is a logical issue in that eugenics is practiced by people who aren't looking at the whole situation.

What if, by preventing somebody from procreating, you prevent the birth of the person who could cure cancer. Or, create a solution for over-population that wouldn't involve eugenics?

Population control, however, can start with you. I don't think that you're going to be able to persuade the people who are producing most of the children in the world to stop. And by that, I don't mean white Americans or Europeans. If you want to start population control, you're going to have to start a world war.

Another issue with eugenics and population control is that when you start to control the number of children, you're always going to get more male children than female ones. There is a strong social desire for male children in the societies that you would have to practice eugenics on. In a couple of generations, you end up with a problem. Even as little of a difference of 105 boys to 100 girls can cause a real issue down the road. Ask China.

And, Will, I'm sorry, but I don't trust you to decide who gets to have kids and who doesn't. Frankly, eugenics tends towards interbreeding. And that's just nasty.

Sara, Salt Lake City
January 21, 2013 5:54pm

Interbreeding? My goodness!

I am almost afraid to ask what was meant by that.

What did Sara mean by "interbreeding"?

Mud, At virtually missing point, NSW, OZ,
January 23, 2013 10:35pm

Mud, I think Sara meant "inbreeding", as in limiting the genetic pool. Of course, that's only my guess, but if eugenics as she used it is meant to "purify" the genetic code, that seems to be the logical conclusion, as opposed to 'cross-breeding', or expanding the genetic pool.

macsnafu, Tulsa, Oklahoma
January 25, 2013 11:32am

"Two of these unanswered questions stand out as particularly intriguing: The racial differences, and something called the Flynn effect, and it may turn out that they're related"

Skeptoid.com is promoting ignorant pseudoscience. The Flynn Effect is not related to the black-white IQ gap in the U.S., they have two completely different causes. One is caused by genes, the other caused by environment. It's like saying environment has been making men and women taller over the 20th century, thus the height gap between men and women must be environmental. It's this kind of politically correct sophistry by so called skeptics that is dumbing down the culture.

Empirical, Western hemisphere
March 8, 2013 9:33am

"Lewis Ternan" is spelled wrong

it's "Lewis Terman"

anthony, sandusky
May 27, 2013 12:39pm

Inbreeding? Gah!

I'll tell you right now that if I have to breed with my brothers, it ain't gonna happen.

::grin::

Thanks,

David

QuantumDavid, Denver, CO
October 7, 2014 3:12pm

In ancient and prehistoric times deformed and retarded babies were killed or exposed to the elements. In nature such individuals do not survive. In modern society physical and mental deficiencies do not necessarily result in death but civil libertarian values even insist that all individuals should have the right to breed. In the extreme cases of very low intelligence there is both the issue of the safety of resultant children and the genetic health of the species. Abortion, genetic engineering and eugenics might be more humane correctives.

On a minor point, Hitler was approximately 5' 8'', which is an average height. His hair colour, whilst not blonde, was not as dark as commonly supposed.

James O\'Connell, Sale
October 7, 2014 3:30pm

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply

 

What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid
 

Newest
Griffins
Skeptoid #442, Nov 25 2014
Read | Listen (10:34)
 
The Skookum Cast
Skeptoid #441, Nov 18 2014
Read | Listen (12:30)
 
That Elusive Fibromyalgia
Skeptoid #440, Nov 11 2014
Read | Listen (12:17)
 
A Skeptical Look at the News
Skeptoid #439, Nov 4 2014
Read | Listen (12:07)
 
The War of the Worlds Panic Broadcast
Skeptoid #438, Oct 28 2014
Read | Listen (11:56)
 
Newest
#1 -
Read | Listen
#2 -
Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island
Read | Listen
#3 -
The Baldoon Mystery
Read | Listen
#4 -
Listeners Have Another Say
Read | Listen
#5 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#6 -
Hemp, Hearst, and Prohibition
Read | Listen
#7 -
Aromatherapy: Sniffing Essential Oils
Read | Listen
#8 -
Solving the Lead Masks of Vintem Hill
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal

 
 


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

Name/Nickname:  
City/Location:
Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
Comment:
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.