IQ's Rising Because Of....

Through an interesting book review in the New Yorker, I was introduced to "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter" - a book which suggests that we get smarter (or, at least, get higher IQ's) by watching more television and playing more video games. Now, I will admit that I have not read the book, but I question some of its arguments as set forth in the review.

First, the review alludes to James Flynn, who reviewed historic IQ data and determined that, within the industrialized world, IQ has risen over time.

Flynn found, I.Q. scores showed a steady upward trajectory, rising by about three points per decade, which means that a person whose I.Q. placed him in the top ten per cent of the American population in 1920 would today fall in the bottom third.

An important aspect of Flynn's findings was not mentioned - the increase was not in the learning-based aspects of IQ testing, such as vocabulary, math skills, or general knowledge, but was instead in the abstract problem solving or "lateral thinking" portion of the test. This is important in the context of the book review, as it helps explain why the author is proposing that various aspects of "pop culture" which test our problem-solving skills may be responsible for the IQ boost - what the author describes as cognitively demanding leisure. Granted, the review later states, "If Johnson’s book has a flaw, it is that he sometimes speaks of our culture being “smarter” when he’s really referring just to that fluid problem-solving facility." I just believe that the true nature of Flynn's findings should have been discussed explicitly, even if not up-front.

My trouble starts with the examples provided in the review. For example,

A typical episode of “Starsky and Hutch,” in the nineteen-seventies, followed an essentially linear path: two characters, engaged in a single story line, moving toward a decisive conclusion. To watch an episode of “Dallas” today is to be stunned by its glacial pace—by the arduous attempts to establish social relationships, by the excruciating simplicity of the plotline, by how obvious it was. A single episode of “The Sopranos,” by contrast, might follow five narrative threads, involving a dozen characters who weave in and out of the plot.

The review continues by noting how many modern television shows require more "filling in" by the viewer to get a full understanding of the story. But, while I grant that TV shows of the 1970's were often tedious, for the "TV is getting harder" argument to work shouldn't it be the case that the TV programming of that era, or of the decades that preceded it, should have been "harder" than radio drama? In my opinion, producers of television used the visual aspects of the medium to shortcut the type of plot and character developments that were often found in radio drama, and a lot more "filling in" is required when you are listening to a drama and have to create the dramatized world in your head instead of watching it on a screen.

The "TV is hard" argument is the opposite to that advanced in an editorial I read a week or two ago, the source unfortunately forgotten, where the author proposed that today's "smart" television is an illusion - that we feel good about ourselves for getting the jokes on a show like Frasier, but that all the hard work was done by the show's authors and we are simply passive recipients. I tend to think the truth lies somewhere between the two positions - I do think that there are television shows which, by virtue of their plots and scripts, challenge the mind. However, for the most part, those same show can be watched passively, and not just by the intellectually incurious, but also by smart people who aren't challenged by the humor (even if they believe they appreciate it more than other viewers). In my opinion, there can be a lot more challenge in a single panel of "The Far Side" than in an entire episode of Seinfeld. It's not always the case, but it can be the case.

Also, as the author suggests that more complex television and more complex and involved video games may be responsible for the rise in IQ, it should be noted that the rise commenced prior to the modern generation of video games and TV shows. Which is not to say that I don't believe that there are video games which can help kids develop their minds - even back in the 1970's, there were simple computer games which required application of problem-solving skills and, despite a simplicity or paucity of graphics, by the 1980's many such games were available, and some were quite sophisticated. The catch is perhaps revealed with the statement, "Twenty years ago, games like Tetris or Pac-Man were simple exercises in motor coördination and pattern recognition." - well, no. But perhaps a majority of video game players of that era chose games like Tetris or Pac-Man over Infocom's text-based adventure games, NetHack, or Wizardry. And there is no guarantee that today's video game players are consistently choosing the more intellectually challenging games over "point and shoot" - while the sophistication of "point and shoot" games has increased, they still rely heavily on motor coordination and pattern recognition. Go figure. Meanwhile, a computer game-addicted friend of mine insists that most current strategy games are less challenging than some that he used to play on his Intellivision.

The book review quotes a few paragraphs where the author jokes, "but only in part", on the subject of books, which are described as understimulating, isolating, and linear, inspiring passivity - "books force the child to sequester him or herself in a quiet space, shut off from interaction with other children"; "You can’t control their narratives in any fashion - you simply sit back and have the story dictated to you." Well, it is certainly true that your senses are stimulated across a broader spectrum by watching a TV show or playing a modern video game, than from reading a book. But a book is no more passive than your first viewing of that TV show or first playing of the video game, when you passively experience what happens.

Even within the context of a sophisticated video game where you ultimately learn to control your environment and experience multiple "story lines", there's a lot more pattern and predictability than the author prefers to suggest. Players get comfortable with their "favorite character", master that character's special skills, and confront the puzzles and problems in a methodological fashion. (The author suggests that a video game which creates a simulated world represents "delayed gratification" - in fact, each time you do better than during your previous attempt, you get gratification.)

The book review also notes that, whatever progress we have been making in our entertainment culture, all is not equal:

When it comes to the other kind of intelligence [beyond fluid problem-solving facility], it is not clear at all what kind of progress we are making, as anyone who has read, say, the Gettysburg Address alongside any Presidential speech from the past twenty years can attest. The real question is what the right balance of these two forms of intelligence might look like.

And this is where I think it is important to note that, while many of my highly intelligent peers loved a challenging video game, sophisticated live role playing games, good television, theater, and film, there is also some truth to that stereotype of "the nerd with his nose stuck in a book". Most of the really smart people I know devoured books when they were kids. And whatever I am to make of an overall growth in problem-solving skills, or the increase in the challenge of certain aspects of our society, there are some very important areas of our culture which have been dumbed down to the point where you would think people would feel offended by the dripping condescension. (Perhaps particularly in the manner in which we are treated by our elected officials, or by the media.)

The book review closes with a subject I have previously discussed - mandatory homework policies - and the reviewer seems to share my low opinion of such policies. There, I think the review is completely correct - assigning pointless homework to be completed during time children would otherwise spend doing something else (or even "goofing off") may well be counter-productive to their development.

Of Presidents and IQ

Why the obsession with GW's IQ? For the past five years, there has been one feeble "analysis" after another intended to assure us that he's actually pretty bright. Whether it is the analysis of his SAT scores or, more recently, his Air Force Officer Qualifying Test score.

A friend of mine once commented that what he found surprising is that it is quite easy to tell when somebody is not as smart as you are, but it is a lot harder to tell when somebody is smarter than you are. That's not to say that you cannot identify a situational brilliance - most will concede that Stephen Hawking can outdo them in the field of theoretical physics. But there's another side to this - even with his physical limitations removed from the equation, few would thereby conclude that Stephen Hawking was highly qualified to be President.

That's not to say we don't want a smart president - we obviously do. And obviously a great number of Bush supporters are sufficiently obsessed with "proving" that their candidate is sufficiently smart that they pore over dusty academic records and apply mathematical formulae they, well, seemingly make up, to prognosticate that when Bush was at one young age or another his IQ was somewhere in the mid-120's. A respectable IQ, although probably not particularly remarkable for Capitol Hill, which (whether or not you like the way they apply their intelligence) has more than its fair share of bright people.

We can easily get past the "IQ is meaningless" argument - it is apparent that IQ is quite meaningful within a broad range of common contexts. Bush's IQ is extrapolated from his SAT score - what, then, should we make of Paul Allen's combined 160, or Bill Gates' combined 1590 SAT scores? Is it a mere coincidence that two men whose SAT scores were "perfect" and "near-perfect" are co-founders of Microsoft (even if we wouldn't necessarily want either as President)?

But IQ isn't everything. A person can have a very high IQ but lack the social skills or even the thinking skills which make the IQ relevant. A high IQ score, of itself, doesn't make you conscientious or motivated. Of itself, it doesn't make you honest or trustworthy. Of itself, it doesn't make you a good or creative thinker. Of itself, it doesn't make you realize what every truly "smart" person knows - that learning is a lifelong experience, and that you will never have all of the answers. That is, life answers more questions than answers - and that the more you learn, the more you realize you do not yet know. And, of course, the measure of few IQ points one way or another is more likely to tell you something about the test and its margin of error, or how tired or bored the subject was when tested, than it is to tell you about any given individual.

President Bush may well have an IQ in the mid-120's. But if he does, he doesn't apply it well. He gave up on the journey of learning a very long time ago, apparently before he even got to college, and in many ways his campaign is effectively centered on his concrete operational thinking patterns - those which make him so certain that he is right and so unwilling to reconsider his mistakes. His more intelligent supporters who recognize these patterns - and recognize that they are indicative of a lower intelligence - obsess over proving he is "smart". And they keep going back to the same tired issue, over and over, because they know that Bush's public statements suggest that by Capitol Hill standards, whatever his IQ, Bush is at best a middling intellect.

Those supporters should remember two things. The reason that candidates like Clinton, Gore and Kerry aren't defensive about their intelligence is that they are confident of their intelligence - and their supporters share that comfort. And they should also remember that bragging that your friend is a few IQ points, or a few percentage points, higher than somebody else is a playground taunt, without any real world significance.

IQ Tests For College?

Britain has a long history of administering standardized tests to its grammar school students (what we would call "public school"). Testing is administered at 7, 11 and 14 in maths, science and English. At age 16, students take the "O-Level" test, now officially called the "General Certificate of Seconary Education Examination" (GCSE). Over the next two years, students who are on an academic track study toward their "A Level" examinations, which play a significant role in determining which college they may attend.

In what is likely to be a controvercial suggestion, researchers suggest that it would be more accurate, and more fair, to base university admissions on IQ test results instead of A-levels. The researchers argue that IQ tests will be more fair for working class students "whose A-level results may have suffered because of poor schooling - an even chance of entering university", and that a 90-minute IQ-style test administered to a set of students two years ago "were a better predictor of success than A-levels or interviews".

Obviously, Britain has advantages for implementing such a system, including the fact that its universities enjoy enormous public funding, the history of national exams for college entry, and its relative ethnic homogeneity as compared to the United States, where a "one size fits all" national IQ test would be challenged on the basis of geographic and ethnic biases. Arguably, the United States already uses the IQ test scheme, given that portions of college aptitude tests often closely resemble portions of IQ tests - not full-spectrum IQ tests, but those portions believed most relevant to the course of study.

It is worth noting that you study for intelligence and aptitude tests, just as you can study for the "A-levels". The difference, perhaps, is that it is easier to study for the aptitude test. As companies in the U.S. have demonstrated, a focused course of study can significantly improve an applicant's scores on tests like the SAT, ACT, GMAT, GRE, and other such tests. And there remains an economic advantage - the "working class" students who would be the intended beneficiaries of a change in the British system would be less likely to be able to afford such test preparation.

But perhaps the more interesting questions are more philosophical. For most, "success" in college means first the successful completion of a degree program, and second the achievement of good grades. Presumably the children of the wealthy, who ostensibly have an advantage on the A-levels, are completing their degree programs, so it seems reasonable to assume that the IQ test is better associated with good grades than with degree completion.

I recently spoke with a college professor about issues of intelligence and college. His experience suggested to him that college can change the way you think, and can provide you with a much greater base of information upon which to make your decisions, but it doesn't make you smarter. (That is in no way a suggestion that the "less smart" can't derive significant benefits from a college education.) He also suggested that the researchers were missing the mark - that perhaps the question they should be asking is not "how well do the students do in college", but "how well do the students do after college, and how does their performance in college correlate to real-world success?" Many of the most successful people, it seems, didn't fare all that well in college (and, in many cases, probably would score in the "average" range on IQ tests.) Many people with high IQ's and great college grades perform in a manner that some would say is "below their potential", or which others might say is more in accord with their interests than with maximizing financial or career success.

Also, while those advocating reform of the British system could benefit from looking at what works (and doesn't work) in our university system, we could benefit from examining what the British have done. Our high schools underserve a great many students - both granting diplomas to students whose skill sets are considerably below what should justify a high school diploma, and in some cases failing to offer an environment conducive to learning. The typical "reform" is to institute standardized test after standardized test in a seemingly futile quest to "raise school quality". While music and art programs are slashed, expensive sports programs are justified on the claim that they entice certain kids to stay in school (when they would otherwise drop out). In our culture of "everybody passes", it appears to be virtually impossible for a high school student who attends class on a reasonably consistent basis and takes the required examinations to fail a class.

When we hear politicians complaining that high school students are being issued "meaningless" diplomas, perhaps the problem is less with the diploma and more with our fear of being "elitist". Perhaps the kids who supposedly can only be enticed to sit through classes for the reward of being on the football team would be better served by an education which focuses on practical, vocational skills. Is it more "elitist" to pretend that everybody is college material and that everybody should go to a university - or to recognize that not everybody is university material, that not everybody wants to go to a university, and that by incorporating a significant vocational element into the last two years of high school for those who want it, we can do a great deal both to improve their preparedness for the job market upon graduation, and provide a better learning environment for the kids who anticipate pursuing higher education.

The unfortunate trend in this nation seems to be to transform the senior year of high school into a joke - something you attend because you have to, but which has no real academic significance. Perhaps tracking college-bound kids into a more academic track could reverse that unfortunate trend. It is painful to learn that the "it's cool to be dumb" culture of many high schools is now affecting colleges. Is that really the direction we want our nation's public education system to head?

Comments

Adoptions & IQ Tests

A couple of stories to highlight the law of unintended consequences, and its effect on our nation's children.

In Cash Incentives for Adoptions Seen as Risk to Some Children, the New York Times details how reforms in child dependency laws have, in some cases, turned "adoption" into a form of extended foster care, and how pressure to find permanency for children has sometimes resulted in a lack of due care when approving these state-subsidized adoptions. Once the adoption is complete, the state's obligation to monitor a child's progress and wellbeing ends.

In an APA press release, we learn that renorming of IQ tests to compensate for the "Flynn Effect" (the steady rise of IQ scores over time) can have a significant effect on educational placements for children with borderline or mild mental handicaps. Some tested with an earlier version of an IQ test are excluded from services that a renormed test would allow. Some tested with a "renormed" version are excluded from services that their more capable peers, who happened to be tested on a prior version, receive. Also mentioned are the impact of the "Flynn Effect" on low-IQ death row inmates, and members of the military.

Granted, social engineering is never without risk. In the former example, there is good cause to desire permanency for children in foster care, and many adoptive placements are in the best interest of children whose relationships with their parents have been severed by the courts. In the latter case, it is necessary to have some criteria by which schools can assess the needs of children, and allocate resources to assist those with learning disabilities.

At the same time, perhaps the problems in both situations result from looking for a fast or easy solution to a complicated set of issues, and attempting to apply a "one size fits all" model to situations which call for greater case-by-case analysis. While looking at individual circumstances is more time-consuming and expensive than applying standard rules which apply to all cases, when it comes to organizations which are involved in critical decisions relating to human beings, bureaucratic efficiency and actuarial tables are rarely the best measures of success.

Comments