The politics of IQ? Smart bombs and the nature versus nurture 'wars'...
Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 5:14PM I came across this incredibly thought provoking, and detail filled, post on the relationship between IQ and power, a discussion of the debate between those who advocate nature as more powerful than nurture, and of course those who propose the contrary view.
In the light of what I have been reading recently (Malcom Gladwell's Outliers and Zachary Shore's Blunder) this has brought an entirely fresh perspective on the complexity of the relationship between individual identity and ability, and the complexity of social forces (particularly as they relate to success and power). For example, persons with a high IQ don't necessarily become successful - some are extremely intelligent in a linear sense, but lack the basic social graces and abilities to establish meaningful relationships. Of course the reality is that very little in life happens without being able to do it with others, or because of their favour, help and grace. Conversely, there are some persons who do not have a very high IQ, but understand that applying certain types of force and social pressure can lead to certain results (like many criminal minds who use force and domination to achieve their objectives). I have worked with a few persons like this in the past! I am astounded that they manage to achieve as much as they do their sheer force and power! Yet, they understand where the pressure points are in society and act upon them. Fear is a very powerful motivator, sometimes even more powerful than insight or knowledge! Am I right?
Anyway, for those who are interested here's a great post on this subject (and others). Please do let me know what you think! I would love to hear your insights on the relationship between IQ and EQ (and of course SQ for those who are aware of it)...
Another great story from BoingBoing.
In February, 2009, I approached Steven Pinker, a deep thinker about linguistics and cognitive science who fishes where the two streams flow together, with a request for an interview. I was on assignment for the cultural studies journal Cabinet, writing a personal essay that would intertwine my own fraught relationship to the notion of intelligence with a historically informed critique of the cultural politics of the IQ test, specifically the Stanford-Binet and its successor the Wechsler.
A professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University (until 2003, he taught in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT), Pinker has popularized his theories of language and cognition through articles in the popular press and via critically acclaimed books such as The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, and The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. The furthest thing from a vulgar Darwinian---he rejects the term "genetic determinism"as a social-constructionist slur---Pinker is nonetheless a vigorous opponent of what he contends is the ideologically inspired insistence (often from the academic left, he maintains, and typically from those in the humanities rather than the hard sciences) that we are exclusively products of cultural influences, rather than, as he puts it, "an evolutionarily shaped human nature."In his popular critique of this assumption, The Blank Slate, he takes up the sword for evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics, and cognitive science against social constructionism.
Exhaustively knowledgeable about the science of cognition, and a foeman who gives as good as he gets (if not better) in the nature-versus-nurture culture wars, Pinker seemed the perfect foil for some of my ideas about the IQ test. Thus, I was delighted when he agreed to an informal e-mail exchange that lasted through much of February and into early March. I was equally chagrined when I had to inform him that his thoughtfully considered, sharply argued quotes didn't make it into my published essay. Happily, my guestblogger stint offered the perfect solution: publish our spirited exchange as a Boing Boing exclusive. I owe Professor Pinker a debt of gratitude for allowing me to publish our interview on Boing Boing. I'm very much the beneficiary of his deeply insightful, eloquently argued ideas; the privilege of sharpening my ideas on the whetstone of his intellect is a rare one, and I'm delighted to share that opportunity with Boing Boing's readers...
Reader Comments (2)
One of my blog readers, who is a member of MENSA, wrote me a very thoughtful email on the dangers of an over reliance on IQ as a measure of intelligence. Here is a portion of my reply to this person.
Since I received the comment via email I did not want to repost it here without permission.
My reply:
Your comments on IQ are very much in line with my own thinking! I have spent quite a lot of my life around people with a very high IQ and have come to recognise the weaknesses of pure linear processing. In some empirical research I did some years ago, I showed that IQ, EQ and SQ in equilibrium are necessary (with different levels of balance) for different tasks. For example IQ is great to win at a game of chess, but EQ is necessary when you're playing chess with your teenage child (perhaps you don't want to win the game, but deepen the relationship), whereas SQ is necessary when one chooses to play chess in a retirement village with lonely older persons... The aim in that instance is to participate in a meaningful engagement that transcends winning, loosing, and even the game of chess. If you're interested you can do a search for a paper on SQ and wellness that I did for the sports science institute conference way back in 2005 (I think). It is on my website.
I have read most of Goleman's work (both books and articles) and have found some of the secondary literature very useful and informative as well! Most recently I have enjoyed Malcolm Gladwell's 'Outliers' and Zachary Shore's book 'Blunder: Why smart people make bad decisions'.
I subscribe to Ken Wilber's All Quadrant All Level theory of consciousness and intelligence (which simply postulates that true intelligence is not only objective (the IQ of the individual), it is also social and relational (subjective and intersubjective), and of course spiritual. I did a podcast on Wilber's theory here http://www.spirituality.org.za/scast4.mp3" rel="nofollow">http://www.spirituality.org.za/scast4.mp3 It is not very professionally done - it was in the early days when I was learning how to use my equipment.
Forgive me for a second post on my own blog... The podcast that refers to Wilber's four quadrants is to be found here (with a diagram) http://www.spirituality.org.za/2005/07/spirituality-podcast-5-23-july-2005.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.spirituality.org.za/2005/07/spirituality-podcast-5-23-july-2005.html
The one I refer to above is a general introduction to Wilber's thought.