What do IQ tests actually measure - intelligence quotient?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2024-01-16 18:34

Employees of recruiting agencies often meet with a request like: "Pick me not just a qualified specialist, but a smart and good person." With qualifications, everything is clear, but what about the mind? In such cases, they use an old proven tool - measuring the intelligence quotient, IQ …

For this, the candidate is offered to solve a certain number of problems in a strictly defined, relatively short time. For example, in Eysenck's test, forty problems need to be solved in thirty minutes; the short selection test (CT) consists of fifty problems, and only fifteen minutes are allotted for its solution, there are also options for an hour and a half.

The person conducting the testing has not only a list of correct answers, but also norms, that is, tables that show how many problems a person of a certain age needs to solve in order to get a particular grade. A score of 100 (or close to it) is considered normal.

It means that this person has solved exactly the same number of problems (100%) as the majority of people of his age (at least 75%)

Usually they prefer to hire people with IQ> 115 for highly qualified jobs or in "elite" schools, people with IQ150 are considered in some countries almost a national treasure, special schools are created for them (a few years ago such a school appeared in Russia), international scientific conferences are regularly held to research and solve the psychological problems of such people.

In many countries there are special clubs in which adults with IQ> 145 gather. However, most of the members of such clubs are quite ordinary in life, although they like to have smart conversations. Only a few make a successful scientific or business career.

So what is IQ, is it really that important, or is it just cheek puffing, a tool that psychologists use to fool customers and earn their livelihood?

To answer this question, we will have to first consider two others:

1. What is intelligence - the same as mind, or something else?

2. What is IQ for - what do we want to measure with it, what are we going to predict based on the result?

Intelligence can be defined like this:

· "Reason, the ability to think, insight, the totality of those mental functions (comparison, abstraction, concept formation, judgment, conclusion, etc.) that transform perceptions into knowledge or critically review and analyze existing knowledge";

· Or so: "a set of mechanisms that allow a person to solve various life (everyday, educational, professional) tasks";

· Or it can also be like this: "the manifestation of rationality consists in the ability to inhibit impulsive impulses, to suspend their implementation until the situation is fully comprehended and the best way of behavior is found."

Amthauer method

According to Amthauer's method, very popular intelligence tests have been created. Here are some tasks:

In the next group, you are given six words. Of these, you must choose two, which are united by one more general concept, for example: Knife, butter, newspaper, bread, cigar, bracelet.

"Bread" and "butter" is the right decision, since they are united under the common name food. Maybe you can find another option, but whoever stops at this point will most likely easily understand the standard textbooks and instructions.

Here are a couple more tasks - already without answers. Try it yourself.

1. You are offered three words. There is a definite connection between the first and second word. There is a similar relationship between the third and one of the five words below.

You should find this word.

"Trust" and "expert" are related in the same way as "uncertainty" and … experience, mistake, beginner, amateur, routine.

2. Below under numbers 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 there are figures broken into parts. You should mentally connect these parts and determine which of the figures - numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 - will work out.

The above definitions are taken from different dictionaries, and the list could be continued. In any case, intelligence is associated with solving certain problems. Naturally, there is a desire to measure this ability of a person and, on the basis of a person's solution of standard problems, predict how he will solve other problems later. Although this issue has long been of interest to scientists, a serious impetus to the development of research was given by a practical need that arose only at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.

In France, universal compulsory primary education was introduced - and it immediately became clear that children's learning abilities are different. Teachers, whose qualifications were far from always high, needed a simple and fast-working methodology that would make it possible to divide students into "strong", "weak" and not at all "unteachable."

French psychologist Alfred Binet and his followers created a number of problems, for the solution of which, in their opinion, children needed to show the same psychological qualities as for school education: the ability to judge, memory, imagination, the ability to combine and compose from the words of a sentence, to perform the simplest quantitative operations with objects, etc. These tasks were solved by many children of different ages, and it was statistically revealed which tasks are available to children of a particular age.

The concept of "mental age" was introduced - the age to which the tasks solved by the child corresponded. The very concept of "intelligence quotient" (IQ) was introduced by William [Wilhelm] Stern in 1912 as the ratio of "mental age" to the chronological age of a child, expressed as a percentage. If the mental and chronological ages coincide, they consider that IQ = 100. In other words, the equality of IQ = 100 meant that the number of tasks solved by the child exactly corresponded to the statistical norm for his age.

A similar problem, but already for adults, was faced in the United States at the beginning of the First World War. What was needed was a quick and easy way from the multitude of army recruits (recent immigrants who did not speak English) to weed out the mentally retarded. For this, tasks were created that require performing simple logical and arithmetic operations, but expressed not in verbal, but in a visual form.

To answer, there was no need to write anything - it was enough to mark the correct answer from several options. Any corporal could conduct the test - there would be blanks and a "key" with the correct answers. There were also norms, also statistical, - exactly how many tasks a recruit had to solve in order to be considered normal. If he decided less, he was considered mentally retarded.

Modern systems for measuring IQ are much more complex and diverse than the Binet tests, but their main task is the same as predicting the ability of a person (mainly young) to learn. Is it being successfully implemented? Not really. Extensive statistics gathered over the years of IQ practice show that the IQ to school performance ratio looks something like this (see graph below).

Thus, people with low IQs have low academic performance, but those with average or even high IQs can learn as they please. The relationship between IQ and creativity is roughly the same (although there is no consensus on this). Those with very low IQs are rarely creative people and are even less likely to be successful in a field where creativity is very important (although there are notable exceptions - for example, Thomas Edison had a mentally retarded IQ as a child).

People with an average or high IQ may or may not be creatively gifted. However, if they are creative, then with a high IQ, they are more likely to achieve success. And yet, why is IQ measurement, although not as popular as it used to be, is it quite widespread?

Let us recall what psychological characteristics are needed to successfully cope with the tasks of IQ tests: the ability to focus attention, highlight the main thing and distract from the secondary; memory, vocabulary and practical knowledge of the native language; imagination and the ability to mentally manipulate objects in space; mastery of logical operations with numbers and verbally expressed concepts, perseverance, finally.

If you compare this list with the definitions of intelligence that were given above, you will notice that they do not quite coincide. So what the intelligence tests measure is not really intelligence! They even coined a special term "psychometric intelligence" - what the intelligence tests measure.

But tests measure precisely those qualities that make the student comfortable for teachers. I suppose everyone can remember that the students who received excellent grades were not always the smartest. Conversely, those who were considered the smartest by those around them were often not the best students, and they studied very unevenly. And employers often prefer not the smartest (contrary to their own declarations), but the most diligent, attentive, assiduous and accurate. This is enough to maintain a strong interest in the practical application of IQ.

(You can draw an analogy with a thermometer, on the scale of which there would be not just numbers, but also explanations: "Normal for Mr. X", "Too hot for Mr. X", etc. Then the words "… for Mr. X" were erased. All that remains is "normal, hot, cold" … Such a thermometer will cause bewilderment and indignation among everyone, except for those who know what the matter is and who need to constantly deal with Mr. X. Such a thermometer is very convenient for them.)

Ravenna matrices

The Ravenna matrices are also a test for intelligence, but purely visual, without a single word and without any object associations. This allows it to be used by people of different cultures. The main part of the test consists of sixty pictures (matrices). In each of them, you need to determine which of the fragments of the lower part can complete the upper part.

To do this, you need to establish a pattern connecting the elements of the matrix, and in all directions: both by rows and by columns. Unlike other tests, you need to solve matrices in a given order. This creates an additional problem - it is often difficult to realize that the principle of linking elements has changed. In particular, the E12 problem itself is very simple, but it is the only one of its kind, and the experience of solving the previous 59 matrices prevents us from deviating from the established stereotype.

Let's take a closer look at the structure of modern IQ tests.

As already mentioned, each test consists of a fairly large number of different problems, and to get a score of 100–120 you do not need to solve all of them, usually about half is enough.

In the usual measurement of "general" intelligence, it does not matter which problems and in what order are solved. Therefore, it is important for the person being tested to immediately, upon the first reading, determine which problem to solve and which one to skip. You can return to the missed tasks if there is time. Anyone who is able to choose "their" tasks, gets a great advantage over those who try to scrupulously solve problems in a row.

Hans Eysenck's IQ test belongs to such tests, the tasks of which are analyzed in his article by Viktor Vasiliev. Note that this is a fairly old test, and is loved mostly by publishers of popular books (probably because there are no copyright issues; professionals prefer other tests).

Vasiliev found gross, though not obvious errors in a number of problems and wonders why no one wrote about this before. But it is possible that no one has ever solved these problems to the end (except for the author of the tests, but more on that below). After all, Viktor Vasiliev notes that you can get 106 points without these tasks.

It is possible, however, that the situation is somewhat more complicated: the author of the test is much less sophisticated in logic than Viktor Vasiliev, however, the overwhelming majority of the tested, as well as the customers, are also not mathematicians. Vasiliev writes with obvious irony: “What counts in this assessment is not the correct decision, but the one that coincides with the author's …

It is impossible to guess this with the help of ordinary common sense, probably, it is with such a guess that the special qualities of psychological insight that distinguish "administrative and managerial workers" "(who must have high IQ values) should appear. He is absolutely right - the test does not measure "common sense", but psychometric intelligence.

The difference between the measurement of psychometric intelligence and the study of thinking is especially clearly visible on the example of the tasks "Excluding unnecessary", in which out of four or five words you need to indicate one that differs in some way from three or four others. The test assumes only one correct answer without any explanation.

When studying the thinking of the person being tested, they are always asked to explain their choice, and it is this explanation that interests the psychologist, since it reveals the way of thinking. For example, given: "Saw, hammer, pliers, log". In the test, the correct answer is "log". This is the answer to the person who uses the general concept of "tools". This is the standard approach taken in school education. A person who relies on a strong visual imagination can choose a "saw", since only it is flat. You can find arguments for other selection criteria. But the person who gives the "correct" answer will exhibit higher psychometric intelligence.

It will probably be easier for him to fit into the education system and communicate with people, most of whom think like him.

Vasiliev writes: "Especially unpleasant are the tasks of continuing a series of numbers or letters … as well as highlighting one word, for some reason falling out of the listed series … The smarter you are, the more likely it is that your solution does not coincide with the author's." The contradiction between psychometric intelligence and the mind is clear.

But what does it mean to be smart? At the end of the article, Academician Vasiliev gives advice: "If you really want to develop … the ability to solve problems correctly and distinguish correct reasoning from wrong, then learn mathematics and physics, the internal logic and verifiability of which will themselves show you the right path and will not allow you to get very lost." I am afraid that everything is not so simple and that the "right path" is far from being the only one. Is there really not a single smart person among those who do not know physics and mathematics?

Who can be considered smarter: a serious mathematician who has difficulty communicating with anyone other than colleagues, or a dexterous manager who can organize anyone and anything? How to evaluate the mind of a brilliant teacher, whose own scientific achievements are not too great? But what about a craftsman, whose education is limited to vocational school, but "golden hands" know how to do wonderful things?

To somehow sort out all this, psychologists have identified several types of intelligence: theoretical, practical, social and others. None of these are psychometric. Methods for their research and measurement exist, but they differ from IQ and are not widely popular with the public.

However, in addition to the scientific approach, there is also the everyday concept of "smart person". It is his discrepancy with psychometric intelligence that causes bewilderment and indignation of many people, including Viktor Vasiliev. But the view from the standpoint of common sense is not so simple and unambiguous. First of all, it depends on the culture in which the person is brought up.

Already twenty years ago, a large international study was carried out, in which, using a specially organized survey, they found out what qualities are considered inherent in smart people in different countries. It turned out that despite all the differences, everyday ideas about intelligence include two parts: "technological" and "social", and the ratio of these parts depends on the characteristics of national culture and gender.

In Africa, among representatives of traditional cultures, intelligence is a purely social concept. Smart is someone who takes good care of the family, does not conflict with neighbors, etc. It is clear that it is practically pointless to subject such people to IQ testing.

Ravenna matrices

In Western European and North American cultures, when assessing a person's mind, an important role is played by the "technological" component of intelligence: attentiveness, observation, speed of learning, school performance and other cognitive abilities that allow us to assess reality, control the environment, and make the right decision in a difficult situation. However, there is also a social component, although it is less important: honesty, responsibility, communication skills, sincerity, etc.

In Northern Europe, especially among men, the idea of mind was practically reduced to education and the ability to solve problems, that is, it was very close to psychometric intelligence. Not surprisingly, IQ test scores are generally high in these countries.

In the Japanese, in the ordinary sense of intelligence, the social component predominates, especially social competence; the concept of "smart person" primarily includes the following characteristics: "a good speaker", "speaks with humor", "writes well", "often writes letters home", "reads a lot."

In addition, the factors of efficiency and originality of activity were highlighted: "works skillfully", "does not waste time", "thinks quickly", "plans in advance"; "original", "exact". IQ tests, like Eysenck's test, are not suitable for such people, but there are other intelligence tests on which the results of the Japanese and Europeans are close.

In Russia, the results of the survey made it possible to single out five factors of intelligence:

1. Socio-ethical (modest, decent, benevolent, kind, honest, helps others). This factor is characteristic only for Russia, only here, in order to be considered smart, you have to be kind, evil means stupid!

2. Culture of thinking (erudite, well educated, reads a lot, flexible mind, creative).

3. Self-organization (not dependent on emotions, practical, does not repeat his own mistakes, acts well in a difficult situation, strives for the set goal, logical).

4. Social competence (knows how to please, speaks well, active, sociable, with a sense of humor, interesting interlocutor).

5. Experience (knows a lot, courageous, hard-working, wise, critical).

In Russia, social factors occupy a relatively larger place, which brings the results closer to those of Japan, that is, the Russian stereotype of an intellectual personality is closer to the East than to the West. However, in Russia the concept of "mind" is much broader than the standard concept of intelligence and is inextricably linked with the individual as a whole. (Let me remind you that we are talking about the average results of a survey of more than 1,500 people; the opinion of an individual person may be completely different.)

In all cases, when attention was paid to sex differences in intelligence, it was found that men were assigned relatively more cognitive, technological components, and women - social ones. An intelligent woman is kinder, recognizes the value of others more, is wiser and more critical than an intelligent man. An intelligent man is more successful than an intelligent woman in a difficult situation. (In Russia, these differences were less emphasized than in other countries.)

The prototype of an intelligent person is generally masculine. Women, to be smart, adjust to it. Therefore, it is quite natural that women, on average, perform worse on IQ tests created on the basis of a male, technological concept of intelligence. This means that the mind of women (not psychometric intelligence!) Is not lower, but more complex than that of men.

But polls have shown that in order to be considered very smart, it is not enough for a man to be able to solve problems and act effectively; he also needs to have discernment and be able to communicate. That is, in everyday consciousness, a particularly intelligent person is associated with a man who has the features of both a masculine technological mind and a female social mind.

So, the attempt to understand what is "mind", "intelligence" and what the IQ tests measure, turned out to be a difficult matter and very far from mathematical logic. We had to turn to history, pedagogy, social psychology. And this is far from all - after all, we have not even touched on the most important issue of the biological nature of intelligence.

Hopefully, the readers will understand that measuring intelligence is an ambiguous task. Let's leave it to the professionals for special occasions. In order to get an idea of the human mind, it is safer to use common sense, and not popular brochures, in which Professor Vasiliev and I are quite in solidarity.

P. S. Answers to the Ravenna matrices: A12-6, C2-8, D12-5, E9-6, E12-2