How clever is it to dismiss IQ tests?
by Stuart Rttchie
'IQ tests just measure how good you are at doing IQ tests.' This is
the argument that is almost always made when intelligence-testing is
mentioned. It's often promoted by people who are, otherwise, highly
scientifically literate. You wouldn't catch them arguing that climate
change is a myth or that vaccines might cause autism.
But saying that IQ tests are useless is just as wrong as these
notions: in fact, decades of well-replicated research point to IQ tests
as some of the most reliable and valid instruments in all of
psychological science.
Check
So what does an IQ test - which might consist of, for example,
shape-based puzzles, timings of how quickly you can check through lists
of meaningless symbols, memory tests, and vocabulary measures - actually
tell you? The strongest correlation is perhaps unsurprising: an IQ score
is highly predictive of how people will do in school. One large study
found that IQ scores at age 11 correlated 0.8 (on a scale of -1 to 1)
with school grades at age 16. Surely this gives us some basis for
calling these measures 'intelligence tests'.

- aeon.co |
But that's just the beginning: higher IQ scores are predictive of
more occupational success, higher income, and better physical and mental
health. Perhaps the most arresting finding is that IQ scores taken in
childhood are predictive of mortality.
Smarter people live longer, and this association is still there after
controlling for social class.
Neuroscientists and geneticists have also made good progress in
understanding human intelligence. Meta-analyses of hundreds of studies
confirm that people with larger brains tend to get higher scores on IQ
tests, and research on more specific brain regions and features
continues apace.
We know from studies of twins, and from studies done directly on DNA,
that intelligence test scores are heritable: a substantial portion of
the intelligence differences between people are due to genetics. We've
already begun to find some of the specific genes that might be
responsible for these differences, and further findings are on the way.
Intelligence
People make the mistake of assuming that intelligence is immutable
because it has been linked to genetic and neural features, and because
it seems highly stable across the lifespan. One's IQ score, they think,
is set in stone, condemning you to a poorer life if it's below-average.
This is a mistake. There's nothing in principle to suggest that we
can't raise people's IQ scores, at least to a degree (though many recent
attempts to do so have been non-starters). Indeed, IQ scores have been
rising inexorably across the years, in a process called the Flynn
Effect, for (non-genetic) reasons that aren't yet clear. Another mistake
is to think that anyone has ever claimed that an IQ score 'sums up' a
person. This is another falsehood, since all IQ researchers would
readily accept that personality, motivation, and a host of other factors
- including luck - are all crucial for success in life.
Situations
It would be foolish to deny that there are any skeletons in IQ-testing's
closet. Many, though by no means all, of the originators of the tests
were involved with the eugenics movement in the early 20th century, and
it's reasonable to be appalled at some of the uses to which IQ tests
were originally put.
But these concerns are irrelevant to the main question of whether an
IQ score, taken today, can tell you anything about a person. Facts are
facts, and the validity of intelligence test scores is amply backed by
voluminous evidence.
As all the studies linked above show, IQ tests are useful in a wide
variety of situations, from education to medicine to the world of work.
We need IQ tests to help us understand how the brain ages, and how we
can help it age more healthily. We need IQ tests to help us work out how
to boost people's intelligence, and thus to boost their productivity.
Perhaps, above all, IQ tests are one of the tools with which
psychologists can dissect and examine human intelligence: we'd be
extremely unwise to continue to ignore their insights.
(The writer is a postdoctoral fellow in cognitive
ageing at the University of Edinburgh. His research interests include
human intelligence differences, genetics, and education. He is the
author of Intelligence: All That Matters (2015). |