If you
Google “I.Q. Immigration” you get 4,580,000 hits. I don’t know how much of that is the
responsibility of the Heritage Foundation, but everything on the first two
screens has Heritage in the title line.
I started wondering about I.Q. testing, so I took three different tests
on the internet. The results were
nothing to brag about, but nothing to be ashamed of either. The last time I took an I.Q. test was in the
spring of 1948 as part of the entrance exam for Regis High School in
Denver. I remember that day well. I had the flu and I can still see the numbers
and diagrams sort of swimming around the page.
My score was so bad that even 30 years later I couldn’t get my mother to
tell me just how bad. I must have gotten
into Regis solely on the basis of my record in grammar school; they did put me
in the “B” class – there were three sections, A,B and C. I assume that was sort of a compromise
between my terrible exam results and my academic record, which was “all A’s.” I did well in the three years that I was
there before we moved to New York and never had to take a final exam in
anything. Nothing went that well after
that.
Recently
I wrote a short review in this blog of Steven Pinker’s The
Better Angels of Our Nature. The
book is about declining levels of violence in modern Western society, but he
has a lot to say about I.Q The bell
curve of measured intelligence comes up in his discussion of the “Flynn
Effect.” It seems the keepers of I.Q.
tests have to add about 3.5 points every decade to keep the average at
100. An I.Q. of 100 in 1910 would
measure about 70 today and an I.Q. of 100 today would be equivalent to 130 in
1910. Are we actually smarter than our
grandparents and great grandparents?
Maybe so, but I.Q. is supposedly stable over a lifetime. Despite my lousy performance in 1948, I’m quite
sure I was actually well above average, i.e., above 100, at that time, or I couldn’t
have had the academic record that I had.
If I add 3.5 points for each of the six decades since 1948, that’s 21
points which would put me up there close to the genius category. So I have my doubts about the Flynn
Effect. I’ve always suspected that even
the most primitive people are as intelligent as we are, but that they just know
different things. After reading Pinker,
I will have to rethink that.
According
to Pinker and the myriad of studies he consulted the change in handling of
answers on I.Q. tests from decade to decade doesn’t happen in questions that
test math and language. It’s all in the
questions that test abstract reasoning.
Our apparent gains in intelligence have not raised scores on tests like
the SATs. I didn’t notice whether Pinker
described results for tests of abstract reasoning other than those within
standard I.Q. tests, but I Googled results for the GRE (Graduate Record Exam)
and compared verbal, quantitative and analytical reasoning scores. I remember it well. The third section tested reasoning and
problem solving and would seem to be testing the kind of development that has
caused the Flynn Effect. Unfortunately
the series only runs from 1982 through 2002, when it seems to have been
replaced by an analytical writing section. Verbal scores dropped steadily from 530 in
1965 to 462 in 2007; quantitative scores dropped from 533 in 1965 to a low of
510 in 1976 and then rose to 584 in 2007; analytical reasoning scores started
at 498 in 1982 and rose to 571 in 2002, hooking up sharply the last couple of
years. I don’t see anything conclusive in these numbers.
Pinker
distinguishes between 1910 and the present by suggesting it is the difference
between pre-scientific and post scientific reasoning and points out a major
difference between then and now. We
routinely use terms like percentage, rates of change, correlation, causation,
post hoc, representative sample, statistical control group, placebo, empirical,
median, circular argument, cost benefit analysis, false positive, trade off and
so on. If you tried these in 1910 your
listener might think you were speaking a foreign language. If you have enough Spanish, try cost benefit
analysis on the guy who mows your lawn.
This
brings us to all of the guys who mow our lawns.
If you Google “bell Curve,” you will find charts that show people on the
Asian rim including all of China are smarter than the rest of us, and there are
a plethora of charts showing I.Q. by race, region, income level, years of
education and perhaps other characteristics.
Perhaps we should only allow immigration from Asia. To me it seems only natural that there would
be differences among cultures, and I don’t see how it would be possible to
develop I.Q. tests that would predict success rates for people with different
cultural experiences.
If
Hispanics and African Americans measure lower as groups than white Americans
and do so over several generations, it seems to me that our educational system
is failing to bring these groups into the intellectual climate that has been
developing in Europe and the United States since the Enlightenment, i.e., into
the era of post scientific reasoning. We
are smarter than our forebears about the things that are important in modern
society, but very likely so are the potential immigrants because even in third
world societies, most people have had more exposure to the modern world than
our forebears. This takes me back to
Pinker again. His book wasn’t about I.Q.
but rather about how the development of a reasoning society has led
to the decrease of violence in all aspects of our lives, but along the way he makes a strong case for doing what is necessary to bring everyone into our post scientific society that is based on reason.
How would the Knights of the Roundtable or
any other pre-Enlightenment European group do on a modern intelligence
test? They had the same genes as us
white folks, but they would be unlikely to survive in our modern society unless we imparted to them the knowledge required to be successful in a post scientific society -- exactly the same thing we should be doing with minority groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment