Intelligence Assessment - A New Basis

Psychologists are by no means certain even currently what intelligence is but they do know that it’s complex and seems to be measured by IQ tests. The fact that on a standardised IQ test, scores follow a bell curve and that this indicates that intelligence has been measured is not an iron-clad argument that intellectual power and capacity has indeed been assessed accurately. Certainly, many forms of puzzle-solving ability based on sequences, patterns, vocabulary, analogy, logical reasoning, visuo-spatial ability, problem solving ability and ingenuity are tested and converted into a number that usually lies between 50 and 150 (sd.15) – which accounts for over 99.9% of the population on this outdated scale even if some would say it’s the best we have and is evidence-based.



The first point to note is that outside this range it is hard to say anything meaningful about a score apart from its statistical rarity. Also it’s not clear what this statistically generated number really means or how useful it is or how it’s popular perception reflects the truth about someone. A person may have a very high IQ, say 180, but not be a genius. And someone with an IQ of ‘only’ 125 may be a lot more creative and original in his or her output than someone with an IQ of 145 who just enjoys doing crosswords, Sudoku and puzzles.



A few other things are worth saying though. Surprisingly some with high IQ’s are not that happy and many classed as ‘dull’ are quite content. Also, many people who excel in varied technical and academic disciplines are not members of a high IQ society like Mensa and conversely many in these societies do not make a mark in their respective fields while others undoubtedly do. Those in Mensa, for example, probably do excel in their jobs and professions and no doubt are quite happy and enjoy the stimulating company of like-minded people – as do I – but they probably also realise that wisdom, originality, creativity and certainly genius are not well correlated with IQ at all, at least not as it is currently defined (on a mensal test for example). On the other hand, it must be said, one American study has shown that those with higher IQ’s ( as currently defined i.e. ‘g’ - based) have less chance of negative social outcomes such as unemployment, divorce, jail, drug abuse, children out of wedlock, etc. but there are always exceptions to this rule too – both ways.



IQ scores reflect your ability at IQ Tests - that's all that can be said definitively. But there is a problem. These tests essentially measure your ability to solve a number of difficult puzzles quickly and some don’t perform well on tests like this because of nerves, poor strategy, etc. Beyond test performance and scores it is hard to directly and consistently extrapolate to genuine intellectual ability or simple ‘brainpower’ as I would put it. Most, but not all geniuses, would have IQ's of 160 or more according to one study but only a small number of those with IQ's in this range are geniuses – a fact worth noting.



Some feel that variations in IQ above 150 aren't that meaningful because the sample is so small i.e. less than one in a thousand people. One would wonder what makes the Mega (one in a million) and Giga (one in a billion!) societies (for example, see psiq.org for a comprehensive list of ‘elite’ societies) so special except their uncanny ability at IQ tests. What have they produced that reflects their one-in-a-billion-status? I haven’t read about them in the newspapers and their rocket high scores are not that remarkable really when you look at the whole range of life skills that are needed by many to function in a sophisticated western society or even more to the point those required to survive in the third world.



It is also thought now that it is more accurate to say that geniuses are more  ‘made’  instead of born. Hard work in a good environment with a good mentor for about a decade causes them to excel, it seems. Many notable artists, scientists, musicians, chess players, etc have IQ's typically between 115 and 130 so they're above average, say top 10%, but most of their success is down to effort and practice based on talent it’s true but for success longterm the former two are key. That's the current thinking. IQ is a strong indicator of success but it is possible to perform beyond your IQ level because of other factors mentioned here. It’s also true though that one can perform well below what your IQ as an important factor might suggest. It’s really a more complex matter than a simple number below 200 on today’s scales, I think.



Performing well on an IQ test is not the same as having a powerful intellect which may involve other things like creativity, wisdom, imagination, persistence, knowledge and the ability to fathom profundities given time. You can't score 140 and assume you have these things to a high degree and I'm sure most wouldn't. Some may not have very much of these things at all so their score is solely based on quick puzzle-solving ability.



After Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize for Physics he went back to his old high school and consulted the academic records. His IQ as a student was estimated at 125 - high - but well below what you would expect for a Nobel Laureate. How did his IQ test as a teenager totally miss his potential later as a great physicist? Also, in 1953 Ann Roe measured the IQ's of sixty-four prominent scientists and while some did achieve high scores with others "none of the test material would give the slightest clue that the subject was a scientist of renown." In this case it's hopeful that you needn't have an exceptionally high IQ to achieve great things in your field - perhaps 125 is enough! That would be the bright people at school not Da Vinci’s.



The kind of problem-solving abilities that are tested in IQ tests are just not the kind that are relevant to most human activities - unless you want to be an academic in some field. Most people do fine with or without them except in extreme cases. Paper or surface intelligence, as I would call it, is one's IQ measured on a standard test but what I would call productive intelligence is one's capacity to produce something important or beautiful or useful and at the high end of this type of real intelligence you get a great piece of art or music, an original scientific theory, a great book, an efficient engine, the perfect golf shot, Maradona’s perfect goal in the 1986 World Cup, a useful invention, a revolutionary drug, ...the list goes on. Another thing to notice about some of these is that some are collaborative, not always individual. These people are the real intelligent ones more so than those who merely solve puzzles. They make a greater contribution to society and can do more than the Times crossword and Sudoku or play chess well ( all fine but not the whole story – far from it. ) This traditional type might score 145 say and just sit back and feel superior – or not. The other person converts his or her brainpower into something remarkable. Anybody who has a high score like that ( on any scale ) almost has a duty to contribute, I would argue, and I know that many do and work hard too.



If you incorporate the relatively recent work of Gardner and Coleman on multiple intelligences and emotional/social intelligence respectively you get a wider spectrum of abilities classed as intelligent and it is more inclusive and less elitist. It gives children more ways to excel and be validated by the system. As well as the child who is good at maths the girl who can play the violin well and the boy who is good at soccer can say they are equals just in different ways. The old way old way of assessing numerical, verbal, spatial and logical; i.e. ‘g’ is not good enough anymore. The new cognitive factor that you might call ‘G’ combines Gardner’s and Coleman’s view so that you get intelligences: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and e, emotional intelligence.( Google ‘Gardner’s multiple intelligences’ and ‘emotional intelligence’ for descriptions )



People have criticised these and say the evidence is scant. Give it time, I say, and give it a chance, it could do a lot of good especially for those who are negatively labelled early on and their gifts lost. The old system is hierarchical like a pyramid with high IQ organisations based on standard deviations from the normal that is the most common IQ and is the average i.e. 100. So you have 2sd (Mensa), 3sd (Triple Nine), 4sd (Prometheus) 5sd (Mega society), 6sd (Giga society) where sd is the standard deviation and equals 15 points (Wechsler Scale). Mensa for example requires 130 IQ. Beyond the Triple Nine it is hard to see what is going on that is worthwhile in these organisations except fellowship among a certain type in each case ie the type that can pass their high admission standard and these are not necessarily intellectuals, historically defined. Most of those wouldn’t pass the admission tests to Mega or Giga in my opinion because most were broadly intelligent. Some like Einstein probably would because they were ‘universals’ and their work shows a particularly great intellect.



The old pyramid might or will eventually crack and fall because it is divorced from the base or foundation, it becomes too exclusive and hierarchical and the entire edifice is based on ‘g’ the general intelligence factor which I hope I have shown is a grievous misnomer. That’s my two cents on intelligence – I hope it was interesting.