Sunday, December 7, 2014
The next three articles in the bell curve wars address the issue of what IQ measures. They attack the Bell Curve’s assumption that IQ measures “G” general intelligence and the assumption that G exists at all. The first article cites mostly anecdotal evidence that different types of intelligence exist. These include spacial reasoning, memory capacity and mathematical facility. The second article looks at the correlation between scores on different parts of the IQ test. It shows that while there is a minimal correlation between most segments of the tests most scholars estimate that this is due more to environmental factors (wealthier parents help both math and reading scores) than to the existence of a “general intelligence” Interestingly, this article also notes that African-Americans consistently perform better on certain elements of the IQ test than whites. The final article in this section addresses Herrnstein and Murray’s assumption that criminality is correlated with low IQ. In argues that while crimes such as shoplifting and assault are indicative of an inability to succeed in society, more nuanced crimes such as fraud may be indicative of particularly high IQs. The article also observes that criminals with high IQ’s are less likely to be caught or observed, thereby skewing data on criminality.
I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as a general intelligence, in other words I do not agree that having a higher intellectual capacity for math correlates to reading faster. Nonetheless I tend to agree with the authors of the Bell Curve that IQ measures something concrete, even if it does not measure general intelligence. To me IQ measures the sum of the various “intelligences” as manifested in the sum of the test-takers scores on the various portions of the IQ test. As a result I do not believe that the existence of “G” is necessary for the conclusions of the Bell Curve to be valid (though they have other problems). I am also fascinated by that fact that different ethnicities scores better on different sections of the IQ test. I imagine that has genetic routes and I would be interested to discover why a certain ethnic group would genetically select for certain “intelligences” It would also be interesting to connect these IQ score variations to real-world tasks. For example, did the farming of one crop vs. another 10,000 years ago select for special intelligence vs. some other intelligence.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From my limited understanding of this, my sense is that while we used to think that "genetic" meant "fixed and unchangeable," we now understand that a variety of environmental factors cause genetic facts to be expressed or not expressed. That is, if you have the "high IQ" gene, this doesn't mean that you'll have a high IQ. You'll only have a high IQ if certain things happen that lead this gene to express itself. If the conditions are right (and I have no idea what these conditions might be, but living in a stable environment certainly doesn't hurt), this gene will, in fact, be able to express itself and the person with the high IQ gene will, in fact, have a high IQ. Is this how you understand it, too? If this is valid, then the IQ test would not be measuring a genetic "fact." Instead, it would be measuring whether a genetic pattern has been able to express itself. Thus, while all people who do well on IQ tests would (presumably) have the high IQ gene, not all people who have the high IQ gene would do well on the IQ test (because some people with this gene would not have been in circumstances that would lead to the expression of this gene.
ReplyDeleteYes?