Intelligence is one of the most misunderstood concepts imaginable. Contrary to popular belief, intelligence is not too complex to be summarised; researchers found a method of doing so over a century ago. It is not easily changeable after childhood and is largely inherited. Lastly, intelligence has important ramifications, ranging from life expectancy to criminality.
Although there are myriad types of intelligence tests, researchers in this field have observed that the level of correlation between intelligence tests that purport to measure different aspects of cognitive ability is high. This correlation was labelled g and is now what scientists are referring to when discussing intelligence. G was first proposed by English psychologist Charles Spearman, in his paper "General Intelligence" Objectively Determined and Measured. Spearman examined the results of various tests of both crystallised and fluid intelligences and noted a significant correlation between seemingly unrelated tests. Spearman found a correlation of 0.57 between ability in Music and ability in French, this suggests that the two variables are moderately correlated.
This alone, however, did not suffice as evidence that the correlation was caused by some general intelligence factor. The correlation could have been caused by some ability amongst certain children to take tests. Therefore, Spearman ensured that a wide variety of test types were administered; still, however, there was a negligible change in the results. Spearman demonstrated that intelligence was identifiable. Up until this day, many maintain that intelligence is far too broad to be measured. While motivated by a desire to respect all individuals' abilities, this sentiment ultimately misses the mark. If I were to go about in the aim of testing fitness, very few people would conclude that because there were different types of fitness, fitness could not be summarised into an understandable figure. In the same way that I would have to ensure to conduct various tests e.g. a timed run, a deadlift, vertical jump et cetera, Spearman conducted tests measuring abilities in mathematics, French, music and memory. Intelligence, although complex, can be summarised effectively. Intelligence is identifiable.
The second claim I will make is that intelligence is heritable. This statement, although unsurprising upon examination, is quite controversial. As a result of the West's historic Christian faith, combined with Lockean liberalism, the idea that we are all the same at heart is orthodoxy in society. Galatians 3:28 tells us that "we are all one in Christ Jesus" and Locke hypothesised that we were all born blank slates, and that all differences between humans were based on experiences. Despite the weight of research to contradict such notions, we still act as if Locke were correct. By distorting the biblical concept of equality before God , we have convinced ourselves, as a culture, that we are all equally capable of greatness. This is wrong.
A 2014 study from researchers R Plomin and IJ Deary found that, by late adulthood, up to 80% of the variation in intelligence could be explained by genetic factors. A 2002 study from the University of Minnesota examined twin-adoption cases in order to examine the heritability of various psychological traits, among which was intelligence. The researchers, Thomas J. Bouchard Jr and Matt McGue, concluded that "there is now strong evidence that virtually all individual psychological differences, when reliably measured, are moderately to substantially heritable." There is no worthy literature on this topic that indicates that most of the variation in intelligence among adults is environmental.
Now that we have established that intelligence is both measurable and heritable, we must assert that it as an important metric to consider. Given that we now know that intelligence is highly heritable, this is perhaps the most contentious part of the intelligence discussion. Instinctively, we would like to reject the suggestion that a characteristic that we have almost no control over could have such important ramifications. The idea that intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is reliable seems to be an affront to the idea of free will and self-determinism. Nevertheless, IQ is an important metric when predicting life outcomes.
The negative correlation between IQ and criminality is well-documented. Studies such as Prentice and Kelly 1963, West and Farrington 1973 and Wilson and Herrnstein 1985 all confirm such. A particularly interesting occurrence was that delinquents scored equally as well as non-delinquents on performance IQ tests (PIQ tests) but performed significantly more poorly on verbal IQ tests (VIQ tests), suggesting that VIQ was a better predictor of criminality than PIQ. With suggestions that the link between IQ and criminality was in fact caused by motivation to take the test or socioeconomic factors, researchers Lynam, Moffitt, and Stouthamer-Loeber accounted for such potentially confounding variables, and found that the relationship between IQ and delinquency remained, even after accounting for race, class and test motivation. This indicates that the relationship is causal.
Intelligence is also a great predictor of life expectancy. It was previously believed that this was purely coincidental, however research published in the International Journal of Epidemiology contradicts this. The study examined three separate samples of intelligence-mortality data: data from the United States; data from Sweden; and data from Denmark. The results of the data found that 95% of the covariance between the two variables could be attributed to genetic factors.
Finally, intelligence is a great predictor of income. A meta-analysis on studies that purported to find variables that predict income found that IQ was a greater predictor of one's income, than one's father's occupation, academic performance or even parental income. The study, Strenze 2006, found that there was a correlation of .22 between IQ and income, as compared to .16 between father's occupation and income.
Furthermore, Strenze 2006 found that intelligence was the greatest predictor of occupation; the two variables had a correlation of .41. I believe that this is the most interesting finding in Tarmo Strenze's study. While it is nearly impossible to consciously improve the intelligence of children in the education system, it is possible to train children for roles that might better suit them. There is little use in disallowing a child with an IQ of 85, a whole standard deviation below the mean, from gaining more vocational training at school before he turns 16. Not only would this save much in resources, it would also be far more beneficial for the child. He would be able to learn valuable skills, which would not only make him more likely to go on to get a well-paying job, he would be less likely to commit crime; those with job security are less likely to be delinquent. Conversely, we can ascertain which children are most likely to go into academic-focused professions. Since children more suited for vocational education would no longer be in traditional schooling, class sizes would be smaller and there would be a greater opportunity for children to explore their academic interests beyond the classroom.
This is just one of many potential policy proposals that could be considered, given the wealth of scientific literature on the importance of intelligence. It does a disservice to us all when we pretend that intelligence is far too complex for a number, when we suggest that it is easily malleable and unimportant. To stop crime and bring job prospects to left-behind children, we must take IQ seriously.
Although there are myriad types of intelligence tests, researchers in this field have observed that the level of correlation between intelligence tests that purport to measure different aspects of cognitive ability is high. This correlation was labelled g and is now what scientists are referring to when discussing intelligence. G was first proposed by English psychologist Charles Spearman, in his paper "General Intelligence" Objectively Determined and Measured. Spearman examined the results of various tests of both crystallised and fluid intelligences and noted a significant correlation between seemingly unrelated tests. Spearman found a correlation of 0.57 between ability in Music and ability in French, this suggests that the two variables are moderately correlated.
This alone, however, did not suffice as evidence that the correlation was caused by some general intelligence factor. The correlation could have been caused by some ability amongst certain children to take tests. Therefore, Spearman ensured that a wide variety of test types were administered; still, however, there was a negligible change in the results. Spearman demonstrated that intelligence was identifiable. Up until this day, many maintain that intelligence is far too broad to be measured. While motivated by a desire to respect all individuals' abilities, this sentiment ultimately misses the mark. If I were to go about in the aim of testing fitness, very few people would conclude that because there were different types of fitness, fitness could not be summarised into an understandable figure. In the same way that I would have to ensure to conduct various tests e.g. a timed run, a deadlift, vertical jump et cetera, Spearman conducted tests measuring abilities in mathematics, French, music and memory. Intelligence, although complex, can be summarised effectively. Intelligence is identifiable.
The second claim I will make is that intelligence is heritable. This statement, although unsurprising upon examination, is quite controversial. As a result of the West's historic Christian faith, combined with Lockean liberalism, the idea that we are all the same at heart is orthodoxy in society. Galatians 3:28 tells us that "we are all one in Christ Jesus" and Locke hypothesised that we were all born blank slates, and that all differences between humans were based on experiences. Despite the weight of research to contradict such notions, we still act as if Locke were correct. By distorting the biblical concept of equality before God , we have convinced ourselves, as a culture, that we are all equally capable of greatness. This is wrong.
A 2014 study from researchers R Plomin and IJ Deary found that, by late adulthood, up to 80% of the variation in intelligence could be explained by genetic factors. A 2002 study from the University of Minnesota examined twin-adoption cases in order to examine the heritability of various psychological traits, among which was intelligence. The researchers, Thomas J. Bouchard Jr and Matt McGue, concluded that "there is now strong evidence that virtually all individual psychological differences, when reliably measured, are moderately to substantially heritable." There is no worthy literature on this topic that indicates that most of the variation in intelligence among adults is environmental.
Now that we have established that intelligence is both measurable and heritable, we must assert that it as an important metric to consider. Given that we now know that intelligence is highly heritable, this is perhaps the most contentious part of the intelligence discussion. Instinctively, we would like to reject the suggestion that a characteristic that we have almost no control over could have such important ramifications. The idea that intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is reliable seems to be an affront to the idea of free will and self-determinism. Nevertheless, IQ is an important metric when predicting life outcomes.
The negative correlation between IQ and criminality is well-documented. Studies such as Prentice and Kelly 1963, West and Farrington 1973 and Wilson and Herrnstein 1985 all confirm such. A particularly interesting occurrence was that delinquents scored equally as well as non-delinquents on performance IQ tests (PIQ tests) but performed significantly more poorly on verbal IQ tests (VIQ tests), suggesting that VIQ was a better predictor of criminality than PIQ. With suggestions that the link between IQ and criminality was in fact caused by motivation to take the test or socioeconomic factors, researchers Lynam, Moffitt, and Stouthamer-Loeber accounted for such potentially confounding variables, and found that the relationship between IQ and delinquency remained, even after accounting for race, class and test motivation. This indicates that the relationship is causal.
Intelligence is also a great predictor of life expectancy. It was previously believed that this was purely coincidental, however research published in the International Journal of Epidemiology contradicts this. The study examined three separate samples of intelligence-mortality data: data from the United States; data from Sweden; and data from Denmark. The results of the data found that 95% of the covariance between the two variables could be attributed to genetic factors.
Finally, intelligence is a great predictor of income. A meta-analysis on studies that purported to find variables that predict income found that IQ was a greater predictor of one's income, than one's father's occupation, academic performance or even parental income. The study, Strenze 2006, found that there was a correlation of .22 between IQ and income, as compared to .16 between father's occupation and income.
Furthermore, Strenze 2006 found that intelligence was the greatest predictor of occupation; the two variables had a correlation of .41. I believe that this is the most interesting finding in Tarmo Strenze's study. While it is nearly impossible to consciously improve the intelligence of children in the education system, it is possible to train children for roles that might better suit them. There is little use in disallowing a child with an IQ of 85, a whole standard deviation below the mean, from gaining more vocational training at school before he turns 16. Not only would this save much in resources, it would also be far more beneficial for the child. He would be able to learn valuable skills, which would not only make him more likely to go on to get a well-paying job, he would be less likely to commit crime; those with job security are less likely to be delinquent. Conversely, we can ascertain which children are most likely to go into academic-focused professions. Since children more suited for vocational education would no longer be in traditional schooling, class sizes would be smaller and there would be a greater opportunity for children to explore their academic interests beyond the classroom.
This is just one of many potential policy proposals that could be considered, given the wealth of scientific literature on the importance of intelligence. It does a disservice to us all when we pretend that intelligence is far too complex for a number, when we suggest that it is easily malleable and unimportant. To stop crime and bring job prospects to left-behind children, we must take IQ seriously.
After a long time, I read a very beautiful and very important article that I enjoyed reading. I have found that this article has many important points. Thanks .pls visit our website Rehab center in Castaic, CA
ReplyDelete