We would all agree that humans are intelligent, but what is
it, and how is it defined? One description says that intelligence is what is
measured by intelligence tests — which is not really very helpful.
Intelligence is more usefully defined as the ability to
respond adaptively to novel situations, but the standard IQ test is designed to
measure the likelihood of success in learning and examinations, which has only
a small overlap with responding adaptively. The IQ measure is useful in
counselling and placement, but only when used in skilled hands. IQ is of little
use in assessing true worth.
Most tests are based on an assumption that the mean
score will be set at 100, with people’s scores distributed on a bell-shaped
curve, allowing psychologists to assert that 2/3 of all people have a score
between 84 and 116, and 95% of people will have scores between 68 and 132.
The original IQ tests were designed mainly to identify
students who were of below average intelligence, to select students for
placement in remedial education. While teachers could be asked to perform this
selection, their judgements might be shaded by conscious and unconscious
biases, so objective tests seemed like a good idea.
By giving these tests to large numbers of students at
various ages, averages for each age group (“norms”) could be determined. The
tests, even when the questions were simplistic, served (and still serve) a
useful function. If a child is having difficulties in class, but at the same
time, the tests indicate an above-average IQ, this normally indicates a problem
which needs to be dealt with, mainly by counselling.
At their best, the various IQ tests have never shown
themselves to be really effective predictors. A correlation of 0.5 between
scholastic success and IQ is the normal expectation, indicating an overlap
between what the two measures cover of no more than 25%.
The scores on alternative forms of the test (“parallel
forms”) are controlled as tightly as possible, but the tests will always be
unreliable to some extent. In particular, high and low scorers, when retested
will, on average, score closer to the mean on the second attempt at the test,
due to an effect called “regression to the mean”.
IQ test scores have been more abused than used wisely, and
now their use is restricted. The tests have not failed, in their original
purpose: rather, too many of the users of the test scores, especially untrained
teachers, have failed to use the scores properly.
Much of the opposition to using IQ tests has come from
teachers who have seen only the damage that the misuse of test scores can lead
to. To this criticism, they add the valid complaint that there is more to
intelligence than the ability to score well on IQ tests, that intelligence also
includes creative thinking and divergent thinking. How, they ask, can an
objective (multiple-choice) test allow for the child who suggests that the
plural of “leaf” is “tree”?
Multiple intelligences
Teachers today are far more at home with a notion, first
proposed by Howard Gardner, which breaks away from the usual narrow definition
of intelligence, either as IQ, or as Spearman’s g (look it up!). At best, the old tests cover verbal and non-verbal
IQs, but the school of thought founded by Gardner, and widely accepted by
teachers around the world, expands into a wide range of other evidences of
intelligence.
Gardner’s intelligences are not well-suited to
measurement, but they are eminently useful as a way of planning instruction
which allows all students to shine in their strong areas, and to develop their
weak areas.
Musical
intelligence is shown best in child musical prodigies. Gardner also cites
examples such as autistic children who can play an instrument beautifully, but
who cannot speak. (This also raises an interesting way of looking at one
solution offered to people who stammer, who are often advised to sing the
statement they wish to make.)
Bodily-kinesthetic
intelligence is found in the natural sports player, or the talented dancer.
Logical-mathematical
intelligence is largely the attribute measured by traditional IQ tests of
non-verbal IQs, a skill which is clearly distinguished from verbal
intelligence. The “idiot savant” who calculates brilliantly is an extreme case,
a person who seems to have only this intelligence, and no other, although there
are also remarkably “ordinary” people who have similar powers of calculation
and reasoning.
Others, like Sir Isaac Newton, who are able to consider
a falling apple, wonder why the Moon did not fall in the same way, and leap
intuitively to the idea that gravity obeys an inverse square law.
Linguistic
intelligence even has its own area of the brain, Broca’s area, which is
responsible for assembling grammatical sentences. But while we all have the
gift of language, some have it in much greater degree than others. Gardner
points out that, at the age of ten, T. S. Eliot created eight issues of a
magazine called ‘Fireside’ in three days, each featuring a wide variety of
linguistic styles.
Spatial
intelligence is important to the navigators of Polynesia and Micronesia,
who have a feel for the oceans they travel. It can also be seen in the work of
visual artists, and is probably important in sports such as tennis and squash.
It may well be just as important to the better chess player, who “chunks” the
relationships on a chess board at a glance, instantly perceiving the spatial
relationships between the different pieces.
Interpersonal
intelligence is all about being able to work with other people. As we will
see later, Sir Isaac Newton clearly had a number of intelligences in vast
supply, but he seems to have been limited when it came to interacting
successfully with other people. A good politician, sales representative or
teacher needs to have a good supply of this intelligence.
Intrapersonal
intelligence involves the skill of knowing oneself. This is the most hidden
intelligence, since it can only be demonstrated by the use of the language,
music, or other more expressive forms of intelligence.
My own definition? I think intelligence is a
construct, most useful as a weapon which can be used to skewer and damn those
on the other political wing.
No comments:
Post a Comment