So what does this mean to us? Obviously it means that intelligence tests aren't designed to divine who has "marked abnormalities of social behavior," but in a more broad sense, this hole in the concept of "intelligence" has some implications on us.
As a society, we love tests. The IQ test tells us how smart we are, we take standardized tests such as the TAAS or TAKS to show our abilities and progress as children, we take examinations like the SAT to get into higher education, we grill ourselves with exam after exam in University to show our mastery of the subjects and get a final letter grade. We love to play the numbers game. Here is your result: Good job! You got 90%! You have an IQ of 110! These answers are concrete, we can put them in perspective and feel good about ourselves. It's fast, solid feedback. And it even takes part in our social interactions. He has a high IQ, he is so smart! He scored high on test, he's really good at this (or conversely, he's a nerd, let's stay away from him).
http://inksnow.blogspot.com/
Of course, there's a bit of a problem with this. Standardized testing has always been a fickle creature, and it's easy to understand why. The original IQ test originated in 1905 with Alfred Binet and has been in use in some form or other ever since. The test has proven invaluable in identifying children of special needs and practical military testing, so don't think that I am simply hating it for the sake of hating it, and many other standardized tests fall to the same problems. These problem lie in that Intelligence tests such as Binet's IQ test examine very specific cognitive skills and are incredibly dependent on proper administration. Often what is really being tested is the environment in which the one being examined was raised or the ways of thinking that have been imparted to them. I'm going to steal an example here.
How are a pair of scissors and a copper pan alike?-Dr. C. George Boeree
One point answer: They are both household utensils.Why is the second worth more than the first? Which doesn't belong: clam, pig, oven, rose.
Two point answer: They are both made of metal.
The correct answer is the oven, because the rest are living things.
But a child may say rose, since the others relate to making dinner.
Or the clam, since clams live in the water, and the rest live on land.
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/intelligence.html
Examples of this type of subjective view of Intelligence can often be traced back to last 19th Century, early 20th Century New Imperialist thought patterns. In seeking a justification for taking "stewardship" over less developed regions of the world, and acknowledging the now rapidly expanding concepts of Darwinian conflict theory (or in many cases, Social Darwinism) and the concept of Genetics, many Imperialist nations put great effort into satisfying themselves that they had the right to rule and "guide" these areas because they were simply of superior genetic stock. Scientific testing of this was widespread and generally came back with what we could consider comical results but were often taken very seriously. For example, Craniometry used the shape of the head to establish details such as intelligence and character. Coincidentally, the cranial shape coinciding with the highest intelligence and best character was found among Europeans.
I agree that standardized testing is a poor indicator of ability or success. Further, it serves to hinder equality, because the narrowly-defined cognitive skills that most IQ, SAT, etc test look for are cultivated more in boys than in girls: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199607/gender.cfm
ReplyDeleteBecause society stresses the importance of these skills to men, more than it does to women, men tend to have a lot more "practice" before the big game. Further, it's been argued, rather convincingly, that stereotypes play a huge role in testing. For example, girls perceive themselves as being bad at math, and consequently they *trick* themselves into underperforming. The effect of this can be either minimal or very pronounced depending on the way the test is administered (borrowing Sean's words). If you present girls with a very difficult task, or make them think about their inadequacies, right before administering the "standardized" test, they're likely to perform a lot worse. If they start the test with an easy task, or words of encouragement, their performance is remarkably similar to boys. Hence, our cultural expectations (be they founded in genuine differences or not) affect our performance in ways that are of far greater significance than an actual difference in skill. Thus, the standardized test might be seen as an instrument to maintain the status quo, and arbitrarily defeat the capable and aspiring, but stereotypically-disadvantaged young student.
The tests that Elliot passed were telling. A barrage of examinations, pre-existing and contrived, failed to reveal a huge abnormality - the inability to function socially, make plans, choose a course of action and stick with it, etc.
If 20 or so tests didn't find the frontal cortex damage in Elliot, imagine what potential one SAT or IQ exam fails to elicit out of most people!
"So what does this mean to us? Obviously it means that intelligence tests aren't designed to divine who has "marked abnormalities of social behavior," but in a more broad sense, this hole in the concept of "intelligence" has some implications on us."
ReplyDeleteI agree that is shows a whole in A concept of intelligence, but perhaps not in THE concept of intelligence. Which, in the end, is what I feel you essentially got to.
There are many different types of intelligence, many of which are currently assessed through established psychological measures. Sternberg, an information-processing theorist, discusses the way traditional tests ignore HOW people produce intelligent answers. He believes a full picture of intelligence would include the number of answers people get right (like the SATs do), the processes used to arrive at those answers (are they just a good guesser? Did they find an efficient process, or did it take them an hour to answer a simple question?) and the efficiency with which people use those processes (which is what was NOT being efficiently assessed in Elliot).
He calls his three-part theory The Theory of Successful Intelligence, because he believes that people are intelligent to the extent that their intelligence assists them in real life.
Not a bad start, in my opinion. :)
I would have gotten the wrong answer on both of Boeree examples. Guess my IQ isn't what it ought to be.
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely one of those who places far too high of value on tests/evaluations/etc. for myself. (Although being slightly antisocial, I'd love for more people to think, "She's a nerd; stay away.") But many tests are an indicator of someone's test-taking skills more than anything else. I worry a lot about standardized testing in schools, because I think they do more harm than good to a lot of children, either by artificially boosting their self-esteem (and, at the same time, their standards for themselves) or by tearing down a bright kid who has trouble filling in dots.