IQ = Ideally Qualified

Doc Searls "started the ball rolling" on an ongoing conversation on IQ with several posts in the past week or so.  Of course, that got me thinking again about this issue I've been thinking about for over 30 years.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if IQ meant "ideally qualified" instead of "intelligence quotient?"  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we actually had instruments that could determine precisely the combination of knowledge, skills, abilities and experience necessary to be successful in a particular situation?  Wouldn't it be wonderful if every assessment of a candidate for a job described that candidate in contextually relevant terms rather than providing a laundry list of adjectives ("he is a problem solver," "she is cool under pressure," "she is highly intelligent") that don't answer the crucial questions: "when?" and "when not?"

I'm a psychologist.  I was trained as a clinician in the 60s and 70s, when intelligence testing was the closest thing psychologists had to an irrefutable measurement tool.  Think about it.  We had a package of funny inkblots, a bunch of pictures to inspire storytelling, and a 567-question true/false instrument that included items like, "Things are turning out just like the Bible said they would."

But the Wechsler series of intelligence tests (for adults, children and, later, pre-schoolers) was a different story.  This instrument followed in the footsteps of Binet's ground-breaking work, and was widely used in educational and vocational settings.  It's validity (how well it measures what it's supposed to measure) and reliability (the consistency of its results) were highly touted.  As a profession (and a science; remember, psychology is a science and a profession) psychology was pleased.

Ah, but skeptics started coming forward.  People who were clearly, "smart" were being labeled as less than "smart" by the tests.  "Well, that's because the test measures 'intelligence' not 'smart'."  Which is true.  The test defines intelligence as that which it measures and then measures it.  And what it measures is not inconsequential.  The ability to manipulate abstract concepts, for example, is an important one.  But the thing the test can't tell you is, "under what circumstances?"  It turns out, some people are excellent at manipulating abstract concepts in a testing situation, but not so good in a competitive one.  Others are great at doing so when they have little time, and less good when they have time to think things over.

In other words, the test lacked contextual information.  Well, all tests do, right?  Precisely.  And that's why any test can only tell you so much about how an individual will perform in any given set of circumstances.  And, by the way, that's what we always want to know: "how will this individual perform these tasks under those conditions?"

I went on to become a consultant to businesses wanting help in choosing candidates for management and leadership conditions.  Some clients insisted on the use of "objective" measures, like IQ tests as part of the screening process.  Others left the decision up to me.  And, while an IQ test was always an intertesting part of the assessment process (often because of the personality data a clinician can gather while administering the test), it never was the determining factor in hiring or rejecting a candidate.  Especially when evaluating a candidate for an executive position, so many other relevant factors emerge when conducting a thorough assessment, that performance on an IQ test alone could never tip the decision one way or the other.

So, while it would be wonderful if we did have ways to assess when candidates are ideally qualified for educational or occupational positions, we simply don't. What we have is human judgment, aided by lots of practices and tools.  IQ testing is one of those tools, but it remains a fairly blunt instrument for making many of the decisions it's used to make.  For me, it's far better to use Howard Gardner's "multiple intelligences" model, which at least broadens the concept way beyond the testing situation.

But, as long as we're enamored with using simplistic, quantitative, categorical indicators, people will use IQ, (as "intelligence quotient," rather than "ideally  qualified") to make decisions that should be made in other ways.

Comments

[Kevin]

I found your comments about intelligence testing interesting. If you are interested in keeping abreast of some contemporary developments, particulary with regard to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of Cognitive Abilities, check out my infant blog.

Kevin McGrew

www.intelligencetesting.blogspot.com

www.iapsych.com

[the head lemur]

the whole IQ thing is partly my fault.
http://theheadlemur.typepad.com/ravinglunacy/2005/05/iq_testing_doc_.html

[Tom Guarriello]

Yes, Lemur, I read your excellent IQ story while following the Doc thread.

Thanks for stopping by.

[wuff]

I also think that IQ tests test not necessarily what they advertise (i.e., "intelligence"). They may be fun to do - but should not be used for judgement.

http://tinyurl.com/897a7

[wuff]

I also think that IQ tests test not necessarily what they advertise (i.e., "intelligence"). They may be fun to do - but should not be used for judgement.

http://tinyurl.com/897a7

[http://www.improve-iq.com/IQintelligencetestingIQtests.html]

IQ tests are akin to beauty contests, if a girl wins a beauty contest she is called pretty, if you do well in a IQ test , people say "it doesnt' matter IQ tests test nothing"...Lol.

[http://www.improve-iq.com/multiple-intelligence.html]

I created a little page dedicated to Multiple intelligences. It's a interesting field of psychology.