A Few Buddhist Ideas

One of the things that irks me is really smart people who still deny that
the concept of IQ, the fact that it can be quite accurately tested, or it’s
usefulness as a predictor of success.

As
this
article lays out pretty nicely, the basic moving parts of IQ and the testing
of it have been decently understood for some time now, and anyone wanting to
know what real scientists agree on can take a look at the following,
definitive paper on the topic:

[
Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories,
History, and Bibliography
]

The interesting thing about this paper was that the paper represents a
consensus on what science knew at the time (1997) about intelligence, signed
by 52 experts in the field. And as the article above points out, the points
of agreement haven’t changed since then among scientists, yet people still
dismiss this knowledge as “myth”.

So here’s the content of the paper, and just as a point of interest, I think
the most important section is the one on practical importance.

—

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

• Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other
  things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think
  abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from
  experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or
  test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability
  for comprehending our surroundings — “catching on,” “making sense” of
  things, or “figuring out” what to do.

• Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests
  measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms,
  reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do
  not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important
  differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

• While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure
  the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific
  cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use
  shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal
  concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

• The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be
  represented well by the BELL CURVE (in statistical jargon, the “normal
  CURVE”). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either
  very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130
  (often considered the threshold for “giftedness”), with about the same
  percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold
  for mental retardation).

• Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or
  other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ
  scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of
  race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well
  can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.The
  brain processes underlying intelligence are still little understood.
  Current research looks, for example, at speed of neural transmission,
  glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the
  brain.

Group Differences

• Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. Knowing where a group is tells you nothing about where an individual is! The
  bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often
  differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curves
  for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat
  higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics)
  are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

Practical Importance

• IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single
  measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational,
  economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and
  performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life
  (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social
  competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness).
  Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social
  importance.

• A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities
  require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is
  often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of
  course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees
  failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in
  our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

• The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life settings
  become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing, unpredictable, or
  multi-faceted). For example, a high IQ is generally necessary to perform
  well in highly complex or fluid jobs (the professions, management); it
  is a considerable advantage in moderately complex jobs (crafts, clerical
  and police work); but it provides less advantage in settings that
  require only routine decision making or simple problem solving
  (unskilled work).

• Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting
  performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs (no one
  claims they are), but intelligence is often the most important. When
  individuals have already been selected for high (or low) intelligence
  and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in graduate school (or special
  education), other influences on performance loom larger in comparison.

• Certain personality traits, special talents, aptitudes, physical
  capabilities, experience, and the like are important (sometimes
  essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they have
  narrower (or unknown) applicability or “transferability” across tasks
  and settings compared with general intelligence. Some scholars choose to
  refer to these other human traits as other “intelligences.”

Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences

• Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their
  environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4
  to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that genetics
  plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences
  among individuals. (Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype
  with genotype.) If all environments were to become equal for everyone,
  heritability would rise to 100% because all remaining differences in IQ
  would necessarily be genetic in origin.

• Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in
  intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both genetic and
  environmental reasons. They differ genetically because biological
  brothers and sisters share exactly half their genes with each parent
  and, on the average, only half with each other. They also differ in IQ
  because they experience different environments within the same family.

• That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by
  the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable
  levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do gradually
  stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little
  thereafter.

• Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do
  not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. Whether
  recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable
  scientific debate. Genetically caused differences are not necessarily
  irremediable (consider diabetes, poor vision, and phenal ketonuria), nor
  are environmentally caused ones necessarily remediable (consider
  injuries, poisons, severe neglect, and some diseases). Both may be
  preventable to some extent.

The following professors — all experts in intelligence and allied fields —
have signed this statement:

• Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota

• Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota

• John B. Carroll, Un. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

• Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii

• David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin

• Rene V. Dawis, University of Minnesota

• Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve Un.

• Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota

• Hans Eysenck, University of London

• Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology

• Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University

• Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve University

• Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University

• Linda S. Gottfredson, University of Delaware

• Robert L. Greene, Case Western Reserve University

• Richard J.Haier, University of Callifornia at Irvine

• Garrett Hardin, University of California at Berkeley

• Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa

• Joseph M. Horn, University of Texas at Austin

• Lloyd G. Humphreys, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

• John E. Hunter, Michigan State University

• Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College

• Douglas N. Jackson, Un. of Western Ontario

• James J. Jenkins, University of South Florida

• Arthur R. Jensen, University of California at Berkeley

• Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama

• Nadeen L. Kaufman, California School of Professional Psychology atSan
  Diego

• Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University

• Nadine Lambert, University of California at Berkeley

• John C. Loehlin, University of Texas at Austin

• David Lubinski, Iowa State University

• David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota

• Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine

• Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota

• R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia

• Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburgh

• Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London

• Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A & M University

• David C. Rowe, University of Arizona

• J. Philippe Rushton, Un. of Western Ontario

• Vincent Sarich, University of California at Berkeley

• Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia

• Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa

• Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A & M University

• James C. Sharf, George Washington University

• Herman Spitz, former director E.R. Johnstone Training and
  ResearchCenter, Bordentown, N.J.

• Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University

• Del Thiessen, University of Texas at Austin

• Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve University

• Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington Un.

• Philip Anthony Vernon, Un. of Western Ontario

• Lee Willerman, University of Texas at Austin