Where IQ Fits.

The IQ normal distribution is not everything but it does represent a lot particularly in western society. It is a relative measure as it compares to other people not an absolute measure. It does not measure everything. I have mentioned the different intelligences that Howard Gardener uses and feel they have practical merit. A simple idea is that if you want something from a height you can ask a tall person to do it. It will be easier for them, although it can be funny to watch a shorter person try unless it’s yourself of course! Some people are better at different things. Another example may be musical or empathy where some people with little practice are much better than others with years of experience. They seam to grasp the basics quicker and easier which allows the more advanced to be built on top. Those with ‘lesser talent’ are slower to pick up the basics and need to work harder to progress and sometimes just cannot develop in these specific ways.

So IQ is not a test of everything and it has had a history where it has improved is validity and reliability. Some of the original ideas of test were cultural rather than intelligence. So what does a higher IQ suggest? It suggests the person will generally be better with vocabulary and language, they will use words better and more accurately and be able to use more of them to explain anything. They tend to have the same advantage mathematically leading to logical aspects. As they have an advantage in the basics as things seem obvious to them, they can then combine these elements to more abstract levels. This is where they lose others who cannot follow at all or at least as quick. Some cannot follow even with time and explanation. I would like to say that this is the same pattern with other intelligences some people can physically or musically just do and do really quickly and then with some practice go beyond others understanding and abilities very quickly. The first example from maths is algebra where the first step into abstraction loses many, here the use of letters representing numbers rather than numbers confuses. Of course here teachers need to develop themselves to teach this well to help the less able to progress. Later these basics of language, maths and rational thinking are applied to other subjects especially in academic centered learning (in schools). Science is best tackled when the strong skills in the IQ strengths have been squired.

The teachers position is of a person that does know and understand (hopefully) trying to teach someone who does not, where the job is harder and different where the learner has less ability let alone less motivation. Getting to the GCSE equivalent is very useful for lots of tasks in the rest of life but some will never get close to this let alone excelling.

Another way of looking at IQ as it is normally distributed is to use another example the first is height. How many men do you know who are over 6’6” that group are the tallest 1% (1 in a hundred) of men. At the other end of the distribution; how many men do you know who are less than 4’6” they are the shortest 1%. Such is the distribution that 68% are close to the average (5’9”). So now play basketball against the 6’6” man, who wins? I have chosen the height example because it is easy to see the rarity of the 1% and how the difference could be practically different. The taller person will find some things easier than the average (and 99% of the population) and the shortest will find other things easier. When you relate this to IQ the highest 1% have IQs over 130. The difference is not as easy to understand and recognise it is not obvious but it is still there. How this relates to the real world may be measured in time where one person takes 2 weeks to solve a problem and the higher ability person does it in 10 minutes. So who is going to be the best at something is the prepared person who had the initial talent or attribute. The person without the talent or attribute will probably never be able to do the same things. All men may be equal but are not the same. There is of course potential and realising that potential. Many have shown hard work can get over many obstacles but more potential means fewer and lesser obstacles.

IQ can also be looked at as positioning if you are in a good position things are easier higher IQ puts you in a better position than lower IQ for some situations or problems. Still not a certainty, but better. Experience is similar once you have learnt some (real) lessons (beware of bias and fallacies) you are in a better position to understand, decide and act. There are many obstacles and frictions that provide resistance. Being in a better position is one major way of improving your chances. IQ is one way nature helps some in to some better positions. This highlights is uncomfortable point that some will find being in a good position very difficult while others find it easier. Working out that some things are very unlikely may mean a different route or approach. Being realistic is hard when some are just not likely to succeed at a specific task as the resistance is too great. Sometimes seeing the normal distribution (bell shaped) as a physical hill that cannot be realistically got over or even seen over (both directions) preventing understanding let alone change.

Realism and pragmatic considerations need to be allowed for. Gaining an understanding of ones own abilities and disabilities and how that impacts options is important. When it comes to reach then the taller and longer armed have an advantage, but have other advantages and disadvantages. IQ is the same some people are going to be better at mathematical and language tasks and applying them at more advanced (e.g. complex) levels. Society has evolved from primate hierarchies and has social and power dynamics that affect people’s roles including who makes decisions. Encouraging the more talented and experienced into these positions produces better results even if the others cannot understand that. These are valuable positions in society desired for many reasons. Other roles are less valued and key influences select people for roles. Giving opportunities for people to understand themselves and develop their strengths and societies using their strengths to best affect is not a new idea but not over common. Sometimes laws are made to improve selection of people for roles but it cannot be as effectively implemented if it is acted on by people without the strengths to recognise these differing strengths. This meritocracy of talents approach would be more productive, but the value placed on some roles by less able people distorts any process, motivating them to gain these roles when others would perform to higher standards. These forces need to be lessened by improving self awareness and understanding of others in the individual and appreciating and valuing other equally valuable roles in society. Elections cannot select the most able person for the job as the electorate do not have the expertise to select the best person, on top of many other distortions effecting selection. Many employment appointments are made in ineffective ways leading to the next appointment being made by a less able selector.

Above are some ideas of how to explain perspectives around IQ, where many misunderstandings abound. The costs of these misunderstandings can be large, and invisible to many.