Home page
IQ nonsense 1      IQ nonsense 2      IQ nonsense 3      IQ nonsense 4      IQ nonsense 5      
IQ nonsense 6      IQ nonsense 7      IQ nonsense 8      IQ nonsense 9

Intelligence Quotient:

It is always convenient as a politician to explain circumstances in terms of pre-destiny, natural evolution over which we can do little, as a species, to change. However, it is important to be careful to seek out good evidence for any such views because they can be used falsely to explain and justify economic policies. In the UK economic policies usually fail because such explanations are groundless and therefore result in socially destructive outcomes. A point in question is a peculiar notion about the connections between genetics and intelligence. Before getting to the evaluation of this particular point it is necessary to review a somewhat boring, but revealing, set of events.

A government special adviser is on the record as possessing ill-explained beliefs supporting this sort of drift and recently one of his team resigned over the fuss caused by revelations that he appears to have held similar views. Although much huffing and puffing led to some in government to insinuate such views were unacceptable, it is revealing that the person to spell this out more clearly in policy terms with social implications arising from these errant views, is Boris Johnson. He spelt these out in an odd speech he gave when Mayor of London in November, 2013. Whilst quoting data from a well known book published in the USA (The Bell Curve) without apparently having the interest to critically assess the facts in order to understand the full significance of this topic.

On Wednesday, 27th November 2013 Boris Johnson gave a short speech basically declaring that inequality is essential to fostering "the spirit of envy" and that greed was a "valuable spur to economic activity". He made the comment that 16% of "our species" had an IQ below 85% while he called for more to promote the interests of the 2% of the population who have an IQ above 130. At this point in his speech he asked whether anyone present had a low IQ and then said "Over 16% anyone? Put up your hands! As a City affair there appeared to be an assumption that most in attendance would have high IQs. He passed on to the notion of stress as a means of separating people into different categories by stating the that harder you shake the pack the easier it is for some cornflakes to get to the top. He then spelt out his thoughts on inequality. "I stress – I don't believe that economic equality is possible; indeed some measure of inequality is essential for the spirit of envy and keeping up with the Joneses that is, like greed, a valuable spur to economic activity." But he rounded that off by stating "I hope there is no return to the spirit of loadsamoney heartlessness – figuratively riffling banknotes under the noses of the homeless – and I hope that this time the Gordon Gekkos of London are conspicuous not just for their greed, valid motivator though greed may be for economic progress, as for what they give and do for the rest of the population, many of whom have experienced real falls in their incomes over the last five years."

That was seven years ago. Today, the real falls in incomes and continual rise in income disparity since, have become more pronounced and yet no one appears to have responded to his appeal that the "rich" give and do something to help. It would appear that policies to motivate greed have resulted in the greed component being triumphant with any concern for others having withered - clearly, Boris's expressed hopes are empty political rhetoric. In terms of helping the rich, this is exactly what quantitative easing has accomplished as a result of a decade long run while any help for the less fortunate has been at the mercy of "austerity" and cut backs on public services and local government budgets.

Johnson's only evidence to justify such an approach to economic policy is estimates of IQs. Tests to estimate a ratio called the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) do test a particular combination of capabilities and in assessing IQ tests one has to identify what these capabilities are, and then, to determine whether these have anything to do with intelligence. In addition, given the context, it is worth assessing how and to what degree test results can be related to the economy. It can be appreciated that just this initial statement opens the door to a labyrinth within which we will find multiple strands of different capabilities that can be linked together to fashion a profile of "intelligence". There is the notion that people who have high IQs are intelligent or clever, but what does that mean? There is also a widely held belief that our future depends on clever people who discover things, innovate and push the boundaries of our existence to achieve a general state of contentment and happiness. But as anyone who has experience with IQ tests knows, they possess no content that might test the ability to discover, innovate and improve the wellbeing of all. Indeed, there is considerable evidence (Sulloway) which points to the ability to apply knowledge, in the sense of uncovering complex relationships, being inversely related to scores in IQ tests. Thus Frank Sulloway, in his book, cites a passage from a letter from Charles Darwin (1809-1882) to his son in 1871 (E. Darwin, 1915, 2:207) in which he states:
"I have been speculating last night what makes a man discover of undiscovered things; and a most perplexing problem it is. Many men who are very clever - much cleverer than the discoverers - never originate anything."

Before delving into how one might detect "discoverers" who possess a quite distinct, valuable and socially significant capability, it is worth reviewing what the standard IQ tests, in fact, evaluate.

Today, IQ tests are just another basis for testing people on their ability to handle specific types of questions made up of patterns, mathematical series, word association and many others. However, in all cases the required skills can be honed through practice and tutoring. The early days of IQ tests the separation of children or adults into categories based on scored achieved in IQ tests were considered to demonstrate just how "effective" the tests were in distinguishing between intelligent and less intelligent individuals based on the equation:

(mental age/chronological age) X 100

Unfortunately many of these IQ score assignments were incorrect from the standpoint of assessing intelligence, however defined, especially in countries where there were distinct ethnic, religious and even income levels. American work established that IQ tests are not so much intelligence tests but are in fact "culture pattern tests". At the extreme, and based on actual US experiments conducted over 60 years ago, the notion of culture pattern tests was established. For example, by way of example, experiments carried out compared the results of Hopi Indian children, who lived in the sparse arid zones, and urban mainstream American children. In a word association test, the word "crowds" had the following possible associations:

"fun", "dust", "togetherness", "danger"

The urban mainstream children associated crowds with "fun" and "togetherness" and the Hopi Indian children associated crowds with "dust" and "danger". Both, of course, are right from the standpoint of their experience and culture but the mainstream examiner, unaware of the cultural patterns of the Hopi Indian children, would have marked them down and maybe even have suggested a visit to the psychiatrist.

Analysis of Variance

The dataset analytical proportions divided into "explained" and "unexplained" variance are used in what is known as Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) devised by R. Fisher (1890-1962) a leading Cambridge statistician. Fischer's analysis is often expressed in terms of the "normal curves" which generate the statistics used by Johnson in his speech.

Pioneering work related to the development of locational-state theory has established the significance of Fisher's own cautions concerning such simplistic analyses.

He stated this opinion thus:

"No aphorism is more frequently repeated in connection with field trials, than that we must ask Nature few questions, or, ideally one question at a time. The writer is convinced that this view is wholly mistaken.”

“Nature will best respond to a logical and carefully thought out questionnaire, indeed, if we ask her a single question, she will often refuse to answer until some other topic has been discussed”

(R. A. Fisher, 1926)

We will cover how this relates to IQ tests in more detail in a subsequent article
In the United Kingdom, R. A. Butler introduced th 1944 Education Act that introduced the so-called eleven plus examination as a basis for selecting a small proportion of children to go to grammar schools with others being assigned to technical schools or modern schools, if the local authority had such schools. Johnson's statements echo somewhat this structure. However, the evolution in children's capabilities to perform in those exams was not related to chronological age but to their stage of development.

Time-Binding &
Locational-State Theory

An important detail concerning any facts is that they are time-bound; they relate to the state of affairs at the time they were measured and recorded. This concept was advanced by Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) who pioneered the development of General Semantics.

However, the significance of such dynamic variables as stages of development, whose properties evolve, is explained more easily by Locational-State Theory (LST). LST was originated and developed by Hector McNeill and it assigns space-time coordinates to all objects (e.g. people) and their properties (e.g. test scores) linked to the object age (e.g. age of child at time of taking the test). This provides the basic proof from the standpoint of logic as well as statistical significance, that it is not possible to assign an absolute time-independent property, such as "intelligence", based on results obtained at one point in time. These results have no practical value or application because they are arbitrary.
The stage of development is a variable that results in children who are equally intelligent being able to pass the examination at different ages. In fact evidence shows that between early and later developers there is a lag of something like three years at the average age of eleven. The reasons for early and late development are yet another fascinating topic which we will return to in another article in this series. IQ results are time-bound by the distribution of capabilities to respond to the test at the time of the test. Because of its nature, this test, statistically, therefore mixes up the variation between those taking the test with the variation within the group or the "unexplained variance" is embedded within the "explained variance" leading to statistically meaningless results (see box on right). This means that the IQ test is a snapshot of stages of development and not intelligence. By repeating the exercise perhaps 12 months later, those passing will include many who did not pass the year before. In many cases, because of the challenge of establishing grades of "difficulty" it is often the case that those who score well in the first test fall behind those who score well in the second test but who "failed" the first test. This is why none of these estimates should be confused with any notion of absolute intelligence. But what is important is a lot of the statistics on the result of eleven plus examinations generated the false assignment of intelligence to the "normal" statistical curve, giving the figures Johnson referred to.

In a particular case study an individual, who at 11 scored 95 on his first IQ test, scored 129 after having been tutored for a reasonably short time to explain what IQ tests were. This was not based on rote learning but simply explaining to the child what the examiner expected of him. Rote learning or exposure to multiple IQ tests can help but what is more important is understanding the norms by which the person who designed the test operated. It might be assumed that such a concept would be beyond a child of 11 years of age; it isn't. This same individual while working on a programme concerning pattern recognition in later life, scored 149 on IQ tests that happened to contain several questions concerning shapes and unconventional symbols. This demonstrates that the IQ tests have little to do with any absolute measurement of intelligence but are more to do with mad individual's overall development related to acquisition of knowledge and experience.

One of the negative aspects of the eleven plus was the pressure placed in children to do well without reference their stage of development and the stigma associated with those who did not pass because of the judgement that they were "less intelligent" than those who had passed. The basic injustice here was that many children who eventually would have scored with better results than those who were able to pass at a lower age, were marginalized as a result of their subsequent deficient educational environment leading to a lower probability of a sound professional formation leading to reduced prospects and opportunities for work. We can see here that there is a relationship between this measure of "intelligence" and the economy and, indeed, people's wellbeing. However, the impact of relying on this bogus measurement of "intelligence" was a mis-assignment of a considerable number of intelligent children to deficient educational trajectories leading to prejudice for those concerned and, by extension, the economy.

In realizing this particular problem with the eleven plus, Thomas McNeill (1910-2002), the headmaster of the Portsmouth Technical High School, proposed a real time monitoring and evaluation system through the local education authority and in collaboration with the heads of the Southern, Northern Grammar Schools, to monitor the progress of children who were borderline cases having "failed" the eleven plus. The objective was to identify "late developers" who could be transferred from the modern schools to their school of choice, which in the case of Portsmouth was the Technical High School or any of the grammar schools. This scheme ran between 1956 to 1965 transferring over 200 children, over that period, to schools which offered these children a better future through more effective teaching environments. Many of these children went on to good universities and employment in a wide range of sectors. This system became more difficult to implement when Anthony Crosssland introduced comprehensive schools in 1965.

This has been a very incomplete review of this topic and there is much to add. Perhaps the important take aways are that means of selection and especially IQ tests assign an absolute measure when what is measured is evolving so the results should not be used to tag individuals as being "intelligent". Note that so far we have not yet defined what intelligence is in regard to the underlying topic of the relationship between people's capabilities, the economy and the wellbeing of all. We also have not yet covered the genetics and ethnicity angles. The reasons are that this is a complex topic which possess enormous sensitivities because it intrudes upon the predetermined fixations of some who prefer to affront the facts with facile or convenient interpretations. However, we will attempt to cover all relevant territory concerning this important topic in the following articles in this series ;-).