I'll admit it. I'm the youngest in my family, so when this study about IQ and birth order (apparently I'm somewhat lacking) came out, I was a bit peeved. However, Stephen Murdoch's new history of the IQ measurement made me feel a bit better. He'll be on today to take your questions, and to give you the scoop behind this test... but what really interests me in why we're so fascinated with precise measurements of intelligence, and all this darn categorization. Why do you think humans want to quantify so badly? If you want to take a test yourself, go here, here, or here.
Blog Of The Nation
Growing up my older sister was considered very smart. I had a learning disability and never did as well in school. Some time in high school I found out that our IQs were only two points apart. Finding that out gave me a lot more confidence in my abilities. My sister and I have gone on to get masters degrees and are equally successful as the other in our respective fields.
It was clear as a kid in school that I was smarter than average, but in the poor rural environment I was in, being smart or an "egghead" was always a negative thing.
As an adult I've taken IQ tests a few times, just out of curiosity, but I rarely share the number because pretty much all it serves to do is intimidate or make me seem like a braggart.
In addition, it definitely only measures one kind of intelligence. I'm firmly convinced that the theories of multiple intelligences hold true.
As an employer of technical workers (programmers), I've never wondered what a potential employee's IQ is: hands-on programming tests are much more meaningful.
I think IQ tests, as well as "personality profiles" and other such tests are used all to often as a substitute for making a judgment.
Instead of making an judgment about who is the best candidate for the job or who will do the best in college. You cannot really predict how well someone will do in college or on the job so instead of just making the best decision you can most managers want some "objective" standard or some algorithem to make the decision for them.
Some people are really smart but just do not do test well. Or maybe there were other factors in their life that made it tough to concentrate during a test. There are many variables. One test to determine something as complex as intelligence or abilty to succeed might make some peoples job easier but it is not a valid indicator for predicting the future.
My highly extraverted son was identified as gifted while in kindergarten, while my quiet, introverted daughter was not identified until 4th grade. She is equally as bright; and exhibits more common sense. My question to the group is this: Do you think there is an inherent bias that makes it easier and more likely that an outgoing child will be identifed than a quiet reserved child? Is there a way to compensate so that this bias is reduced?
I took an IQ test in 5th grade and was placed in a "gifted" program. The program in rural TN was not very challenging and only had two other students. My parents wouldn't let me know my IQ score. I liked taking the test, it made me feel clever, but to this day, I remember with shame one question I got wrong about why oil floats on water.
I have had my IQ tested this year, at the age of 32. I scored 135. I am the first born of two children. My little brother went to college at 14, has two undergrad degrees, one in Math and one in Physics, and a Masters in Math. He has a high-paying tech job. I hated school until I went back to college in my mid-twenties, finishing just before I turned 30, graduating magna cum laude with a BS in Arts and Letters. I have been unemployed for over six months. I can't seem to get a job that doesn't require me to operate an espresso machine, and I have never made more than $10 an hour. I often feel depressed because I am not "living up to my full potential." I am learning the bitter lesson that being bright and educated doesn't mean much if you don't have specific skills and/or know people in positions that can help you. People say, "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" My experience in high-end customer service proved to me that rich does not equal smart (nor does it equal good manners.)
Mr. Murdoch's comment (on the air) about the strong bias of IQ tests towards verbal abilities resonated with my own thoughts. In particular, I think schools (often non intentionally) discriminate against non-native English speaking kids, whose IQ is used as a selection criteria for placement in "gifted" programs. Young, bilingual children (K1-3) are simply not as articulate, or have as rich a vocabulary as their peers.
I am frustrated about the way this guest was interviewed. I would have hoped the interviewer would have been more informed about the subject. Then perhaps the questioning would have exposed the fact that this author does not have the depth of understanding required to write a comprehensive piece on intelligence. (Intelligence...NOT talent-which is the model recreated by Gardiner. I cannot for the life of me understand how NPR can host this author while ignoring the authors of books such as Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnosis of Gifted Children and websites such as www.hoagiesgifted.com. This subject involves many facets that take quite a lot study to truly understand. It is worth the time. Then folks can understand "why we're so fascinated with precise measurements of intelligence, and all this darn categorization."
When I was in high school, my parents would not let me take an IQ test. They believed that knowing my IQ could have adverse effects on my performance in school. They were also afraid it could potentially affect my self-esteem. Now that I am in college, I understand their concerns and entirely agree. I cannot honestly say what affect knowing my IQ would have on me, because I have never taken one to this day. I am proud to say that I never plan to.
There are so many things that Mr Murdoch is wrong about in this interview. His discussion very much sounds as if he is self-eductated on the topic, and was unable to devote much time to the research process. He mixes anecdotes of unpleasant testing experiences, with misapplication of test results, with no understanding that the Wechsler scales are in fact cognitive assessments.
He appears to favor the Das & Naglieri PASS model and perhaps the CAS as a preferred measure. He describes this as revolutionary. This particular theory has attention and was discussed about 10-15 years ago, but is not well-supported, and the current best model is CHC theory.
The CAS, WJ-III, DAS and others are more perhaps more theory-driven than the Wechsler scales, but all ARE IQ tests. Check the index scores and concurrent validity studies for evidence, if you need some. Mr Murdoch doesn't seem to understand this. He also describes some un-named "revolutionary" tests as assessing what part of the brain is functioning well, how stimuli is processed, and how attention is measured, all via pen and paper measures. He has little-to-no basis to make most of these statements, and these statements are sophomoric.
In addition, the Wechsler scales were based on the idea of "g" or general intelligence, and this construct, while having been criticized many times by writers more qualified and well-reasoned than Mr Murdoch, remains very difficult to dismiss based upon empirical evidence.
Mr Murdoch does not appear to understand that the principle use of IQ tests is to identify the mentally retarded for program placement. In the 3 states in which I have worked, cognitive ability (IQ test results) are combined with adaptive function assessment to classify identified "at risk" people people as MR and consequently in need of additional services, schooling et cetera.
Galton was not the originator of IQ tests, although he did measure human abilities. Binet is the proper "originator" of IQ tesing, in attempts at correctly placing school children.
Gardener's theory identifies talents, and is not useful to any of the purposes for which test would be employed. It does not stand well to empirical investigation.
Thank you Ben. I ama practicing psychologist and Mr. Murdoch's complaints about IQ are based on the misapplication of the tests. Psychologists do not attempt to look at your "core" (his words). They are looking at performance and then seeing if it generalizes to functioning and perhaps gives a clue toward ability. One of the comments above said that managers give tests so that they do not have to make judgments (intelligence, personality). Well, human judgment is replete with error (biases abound and influence decision making). Psy tests, as part of a package of assessment, help people decide (skilled and proper use of tests is about people making decisions with data, not the data making the decisions). I heard many factual errors on this program and wonder about Mr. Murdoch. A better critique of IQ testing is "The Mismeasure of Man' by Stephen J. Gould.
My son has a speech delay. Recently, we asked that his speech therapist retest him to evaluate how the past 2 years of therapy have helped. (understanding that a lot of maturation has occurred on it's own) when she reviewed the test with us, the parents, she explained that because my son used the "wrong" word or didn't know the "correct" word even when he could explain a picture, she had to mark these items as failed. my son has never seen a trophy, but recognized one as a statue. Previously, someone had tried to make my husband and I feel inferior and like uncaring parents, because we, following his interests, had not played "tea party" games with him and his toys. Ridiculous! Things like this test only what a parent has exposed a child to, not what a child knows, can learn, or understands. Thank Goodness that my husband and I realize that these tests are subjective and biased. I also think most are outdated.
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.