Image from lifeboat.com

One of the things that irks me is really smart people who still deny that the concept of IQ, the fact that it can be quite accurately tested, or it’s usefulness as a predictor of success.

As this article lays out pretty nicely, the basic moving parts of IQ and the testing of it have been decently understood for some time now, and anyone wanting to know what real scientists agree on can take a look at the following, definitive paper on the topic:

[ Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography ]

The interesting thing about this paper was that the paper represents a consensus on what science knew at the time (1997) about intelligence, signed by 52 experts in the field. And as the article above points out, the points of agreement haven’t changed since then among scientists, yet people still dismiss this knowledge as “myth”.

So here’s the content of the paper, and just as a point of interest, I think the most important section is the one on practical importance.

–

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

• Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings — “catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.

• Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

• While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

• The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the BELL CURVE (in statistical jargon, the “normal CURVE”). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for “giftedness”), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for mental retardation).

• Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language. The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little understood. Current research looks, for example, at speed of neural transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the brain.

Group Differences

• Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The BELL CURVES of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The BELL CURVES for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

• The BELL CURVE for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the BELL CURVE for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the BELL CURVES for Jews and Asians are centered.

Practical Importance

• IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.

• A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

• The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing, unpredictable, or multi-faceted). For example, a high IQ is generally necessary to perform well in highly complex or fluid jobs (the professions, management); it is a considerable advantage in moderately complex jobs (crafts, clerical and police work); but it provides less advantage in settings that require only routine decision making or simple problem solving (unskilled work).

• Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs (no one claims they are), but intelligence is often the most important. When individuals have already been selected for high (or low) intelligence and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in graduate school (or special education), other influences on performance loom larger in comparison.

• Certain personality traits, special talents, aptitudes, physical capabilities, experience, and the like are important (sometimes essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or “transferability” across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence. Some scholars choose to refer to these other human traits as other “intelligences.”

Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences

• Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals. (Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype.) If all environments were to become equal for everyone, heritability would rise to 100% because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin.

• Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both genetic and environmental reasons. They differ genetically because biological brothers and sisters share exactly half their genes with each parent and, on the average, only half with each other. They also differ in IQ because they experience different environments within the same family.

• That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter.

• Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. Whether recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable scientific debate. Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable (consider diabetes, poor vision, and phenal ketonuria), nor are environmentally caused ones necessarily remediable (consider injuries, poisons, severe neglect, and some diseases). Both may be preventable to some extent.

Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences

• There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ BELL CURVES for different racial-ethnic groups are converging. Surveys in some years show that gaps in academic achievement have narrowed a bit for some races, ages, school subjects and skill levels, but this picture seems too mixed to reflect a general shift in IQ levels themselves.

• Racial-ethnic differences in IQ BELL CURVES are essentially the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade. However, because bright youngsters learn faster than slow learners, these same IQ differences lead to growing disparities in amount learnedas youngsters progress from grades one to 12. As large national surveyscontinue to show, black 17-year-olds perform, on the average, more likewhite 13-year-olds in reading, math, and science, with Hispanics inbetween.

• The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligenceappear to be basically the same as those for why whites (or Asians orHispanics) differ among themselves. Both environment and geneticheredity are involved.

• There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ acrossracial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences betweengroups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individualsdiffer among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks orAsians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason whysome individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too.

• Racial-ethnic differences are somewhat smaller but still substantial for individuals from the same socioeconomic backgrounds. To illustrate, black students from prosperous families tend to score higher in IQ than blacks from poor families, but they score no higher, on average, than whites from poor families.

• Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors — the white admixture is about 20%, on average — and many self-designated whites, Hispanics, and others likewise have mixed ancestry. Because research on intelligence relies on self-classification into distinct racial categories, as does most other social-science research, its findings likewise relate to some unclear mixture of social and biological distinctions among groups (no one claims otherwise).

Implications for Social Policy

• The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, because they can never determine our goals. They can, however, help us estimate the likely

The following professors — all experts in intelligence and allied fields – have signed this statement:

• Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota
• Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
• John B. Carroll, Un. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii
• David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin
• Rene V. Dawis, University of Minnesota
• Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve Un.
• Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota
• Hans Eysenck, University of London
• Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology
• Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University
• Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve University
• Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University
• Linda S. Gottfredson, University of Delaware
• Robert L. Greene, Case Western Reserve University
• Richard J.Haier, University of Callifornia at Irvine
• Garrett Hardin, University of California at Berkeley
• Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa
• Joseph M. Horn, University of Texas at Austin
• Lloyd G. Humphreys, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• John E. Hunter, Michigan State University
• Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College
• Douglas N. Jackson, Un. of Western Ontario
• James J. Jenkins, University of South Florida
• Arthur R. Jensen, University of California at Berkeley
• Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama
• Nadeen L. Kaufman, California School of Professional Psychology at San Diego
• Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University
• Nadine Lambert, University of California at Berkeley
• John C. Loehlin, University of Texas at Austin
• David Lubinski, Iowa State University
• David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota
• Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine
• Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota
• R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia
• Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburgh
• Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London
• Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A & M University
• David C. Rowe, University of Arizona
• J. Philippe Rushton, Un. of Western Ontario
• Vincent Sarich, University of California at Berkeley
• Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia
• Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa
• Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A & M University
• James C. Sharf, George Washington University
• Herman Spitz, former director E.R. Johnstone Training and Research Center, Bordentown, N.J.
• Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University
• Del Thiessen, University of Texas at Austin
• Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve University
• Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington Un.
• Philip Anthony Vernon, Un. of Western Ontario
• Lee Willerman, University of Texas at Austin

The wider a state’s intelligence distribution is, the bluer that state tends to be. In addition to inequalities in educational attainment and wealth, inequalities in IQ are also good for the Democratic party. So the party putatively determined to reduce inequality benefits from doing just the opposite, while the party putatively more tolerant of cutthroat competition and the winners and losers it produces benefits not from economic wins and losses but from draws. — The Audacious Epigone

This is interesting stuff, and again, it syncs with my observations and expectations as well.

So, the data show us this, but data don’t say why. What is your explanation for why this is the case?

I wrote about this before, but that was from personal experience and analysis. I knew of this piece when I wrote this (I had read about it before) but I couldn’t locate it. Well, here it is. But first some background.

In 1994 “The Bell Curve” came out and made a number of extraordinary claims about intelligence. They basically said it was the end-all/be-all of attributes, and that it defined whether or not you would succeed in life or fail–statistically, anyway.

The hot topics were race and poverty. They said that certain races were smarter, on average, than others, and that this was the main reason for their respective achievements as groups.

So, the media jumped all over it. Tons of “experts” came out and refuted the book, saying it was 100% crap. As it turns out, however, much of it was quite accurate (yet some of the research methods were shown to be flawed). What follows is the official academic response to the book, i.e. a public-oriented statement from the foremost academics in the field of intelligence regarding what was accepted as true by science.

Here are the basic findings (my summary):

1. I.Q. is real, and I.Q. tests are good at testing it.
2. It reliably predicts “success” and “failure” across large numbers of people, i.e. not necessarily for individuals.
3. I.Q. tests are not generally culturally biased.
4. The main races do have significantly different I.Q.s. Whites are the “average”, with 100, Blacks average 85, and Hispanics score about halfway in between. Asians and Jews score a bit higher than Whites. The reason for this, according to the consensus, is: “The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligence appear to be basically the same as those for why whites (or Asians or Hispanics) differ among themselves. Both environment and genetic heredity are involved.”
5. Although science knows I.Q. and intelligence is real (as shown by the data on various life metrics), they don’t really know how or why. Understanding of the brain was still an admitted weakness, in other words.
6. Genetics is considered to be more important than environment for intelligence, but the degree to which this is true is still debated. Environment is still considered to be a major factor.
7. And most importantly: “The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, because they can never determine our goals. They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means.”

This is a critical paper. I believe people completely underestimate the importance of intelligence, and that their doing so causes great harm to society. Most do so because they feel the whole concept of intelligence is baseless or weak as a scientific truth.

It’s not.

Check out the list of people who signed that statement. It’s astounding. And that’s not a random list of people; it’s the result of the academic community responding as a group to the Bell Curve. It’s a formal statement of “truth”, as agreed upon by known science at the time. My guess is that this has not changed much at all in the intervening time, and even that it’s been solidified even more.

But we live in a different time now. There’s very little chance of this many academics putting their names on a document like this right now. Not with all this talk of race in it–and in an arguably negative light no less.

Anyway, the point here isn’t race. The only reason that was so heavy in the document is because it was a response to the Bell Curve book, which received most of its scrutiny due to that issue. My point here is that intelligence is real, and that it’s measurable, and that it is crucial to a modern, healthy and happy society.

I think far more emphasis should be placed on studying intelligence in order to engineer methods of increasing it. I think increasing intelligence, more than any other measurable human attribute, will help improve the quality of decisions made throughout the world, and that this should be a major focus of modern educational systems.:

[ Edit: By the way, if any of you know of any modern version of this type of consensus, whether it agrees or disagrees with this one, I'd very much like to see it. ]

Links

[ Mainstream Science on Intelligence | psychpage.com ]

A stellar introduction to the real science of intelligence. I read the whole thing today. Highly recommended for those who are having trouble figuring out what’s real and what’s not about the concept of mental ability, and our ability to measure it.

Links

[ INTELLIGENCE: A Very Short Introduction | amazon.com ]

http://iqcomparisonsite.com/

It frustrates me that our major institutions, e.g. public education, the common business environment, etc. do not embrace proven methods of improving performance.

I wonder, for example, how much overall efficiency could be gained by experimenting with two simple programs:

1. Allowing workers to take a 20-30 minute nap in the afternoon
2. Doing a program to increase to improve fluid memory (and therefore I.Q.)

Does it seem extremely odd to anyone else that these things — especially the I.Q. raise — require very little time and the ability to improve worker performance in almost every area, yet nobody is even taking notice?

I.Q. points are platinum. Intelligent people (assuming they have good methodologies) are better problem solvers. Having one or two smart guys on an engineering team is possibly better than having ten average ones — even if they’re experienced.

So how can any manager dismiss the possibility of instantly upgrading their team in a way that no training class, degree, or certification could ever hope to do?

It seems the business world would rather just keep grinding along at their own mediocre pace than take a risk of losing valuable “grind time” doing some crazy progressive crap. Hell, I might as well be talking about taking time off to meditate, or to sacrifice a flower to the God of photosynthesis (It doesn’t work, by the way).

So, I for one am going to actually evaluate this memory/I.Q.-improvement program. And if I like it, i.e. it seems to actually work, I’m going to propose to my manager that we give it a shot. It supposedly only takes like 20-30 minutes a day to do, and results in a major study showed that it significantly boosted the I.Q.s of those who used it.

Am I loopy here, or does this not make sense?

As for the napping, I’m just doing that on my own as part of my lunch break. That’s an even harder sell.:

An interesting study has come out of the National Science Foundation (NSF) that found that fluid memory (a type of short-term memory) is key to I.Q., and that training this type of memory can significantly improve I.Q. scores.

Chalk one up for nurture.

Links

[ Fluid Memory Training Improves I.Q. | nsf.gov ]

I try and preface entries with this as little as possible, but this link I’m about to share is a “must see.” It’s a talk given by Malcolm Gladwell for New Yorker Magazine about how people are vetted to determine how they will perform in various roles such as professional sports, teachers, lawyers, etc.

Malcolm Gladwell is one of my favorite thinkers. If he’s not already one of yours he may very well be after this. Set aside 20 minutes and watch this as soon as possible; you will love me for making you.

[ The Combine Doesn't Work | Malcolm Gladwell ]

One final thing: Gladwell is an economist, but with him you have to stop thinking about this term as purely financial. Between Gladwell and Scott Adams I’ve come to a new appreciation and understanding for the discipline. My new understanding of the word is, “The study of causes and effects.”

This new type of economist attempts to figure out, quite simply, the inputs that go into an outcome. And quite often they end up shattering the ideas we’ve long held about why things happen the way they do. Case in point: Roe vs. Wade lowered the crime rate in the 90′s.

Which one are you? The article and the little cartoons are excellent, but the table at the bottom is gold. A must.

[ High Achiever, Gifted Learner, Creative Thinker ]

People raised as geniuses and people raised as religious conservatives have something in common. A significant portion of their identity rests upon a faulty belief system.

For those raised as super-geniuses, i.e. those who are told that they’re so smart they don’t really have to try, the faulty belief is that they will succeed without having to put forth any effort. For many raised as religious conservatives, i.e. those who believe they are automatically moral because of their religion, the problem is that they don’t feel compelled to behave morally during their day to day lives.

In both cases the problem is the same: the parent imbued a sense of accomplishment (and the associated pride) into the child at an early age. The religious parents made their child moral, and the genius’s parents made their child successful — all without any work on the child’s part.

In short, these children are raised to believe their worth comes from what they are rather than what they do.

What’s the expected outcome? Geniuses who aren’t successful and religious conservatives who aren’t moral, along with negative personalities forged in cognitive dissonance.:

It seems things are getting more intense on the genetics front, specifically with the implications of being able to clearly identify precisely which groups we fall into. They’ve just found the genes that make white people white, for example, and that keep Asians from sweating as much as other groups. According to this New York Times article many scientists are getting worried about how their work will be interpreted.

I’m worried about this as well. On one hand I think it’d be beneficial to understand our respective talents and limitations. In general I think the more information we have the better. But at the same time I see some very negative reactions to this entire line of exploration.

For one, I see bumper stickers with genetic information on them.

99JC6.2A and proud of it.

I can’t help it if you’re 5621.k.

I have one basic response to the concept of showing off one’s superior genes. What have you done? It’s like a Mensa meeting — a room full of unfulfilled people who’s only peacock feather is being part of that particular group. Great, you’re smart, now take a shower and get a job.

Still, I find it repulsive to actively deny what seems to be right in front of us, i.e. the fact that there obviously are differences between us. I think any time we deny uncomfortable truths we do ourselves a disservice and impede progress. But the question remains, is there ever a time when we shouldn’t talk about something?

From the New York Times article:

Regardless of any such genetic variation, it is our moral duty to treat all as equal before God and before the law,” Perry Clark, 44, wrote on a New York Times blog. It is not necessary, argued Dr. Clark, a retired neonatologist in Leawood, Kan., who is white, to maintain the pretense that inborn racial differences do not exist.

“When was the last time a nonblack sprinter won the Olympic 100 meters?” he asked.

To say that such differences aren’t real,” Dr. Clark later said in an interview, “is to stick your head in the sand and go blah blah blah blah blah until the band marches by.

Indeed. But I don’t think this is going to be an issue for long. I think almost as soon as we figure out exactly what our differences are we’re going to be able to build ourselves as desired.

Take this from here, that from there, add this new enhanced functionality, include a Google interface for the brain and some nanobots for a super-immune system and…bam! Superhuman.

I’ve got a demeaning future-name for people who are born naturally, i.e. non-augmented: defaulters.: