How To think about your IQ


Your intelligence is what it is. If you're reading this, it's probably well above average. But you don't deserve a lot of credit for that... IQ, Spearman's general factor "g", is considered to be essentially unchangeable in normal adults, and indeed, from relatively early childhood. Few interventions (none that I know of, except for infant adoption) have been demonstrated to make significant changes in "g."

You're smart or you're not.

Now, this is widely disputed. It flies in the face of some of the popular myths of our American society, in particular, and leads to unpleasant conclusions about the IQ disparities among different groups. But psychologist (at least, that's what I think he is) Dave Shearon suggests that it makes sense to think about intelligence -- or smarts -- as if it were not something that was fixed at an early age (whether by nature or nurture is a debate that remains open in science, although some percentage is definitely heritable; that it is immutable is settled science, to the extent that anything subject to the scientific method is ever conclusively resolved. For the mainstream scientific, although not political, view of intelligence, read The Bell Curve, by Murray and Herrnstein).

If you accept the fact, as I do, of innate or early-childhood-fixed human intelligence, can you do anything about it? Yes -- you can change how people conceptualize intelligence, and thereby encourage them to improve themselves. If you're not any smarter, but work harder, the results may even beat actually becoming smarter... and if your fixed intelligence has more knowledge to draw upon and more motivation to work with, you may be "smarter," even if we haven't budged your "g" (or SAT score, or ASVAB, any of the other measures that are stalking horses for "g") one iota.

Crediting Carol Dweck for the insight, Dave breaks down two possible ways of thinking about smarts (in the extended entry):

Entity/Fixed Theory

Smart people just ARE!

No need to work at it.

Effort is a sign of not-smart.

And pointless -- effort can never compensate for not-smartness.



Difficulties in school or with learning signal my not-smart point.

I must avoid becoming a not-smart, at all costs.

I must avoid difficulties

Tasks that are easy are good.

Tasks that are easy for me and hard for others are better.

Even one action can show the core traits of a person.

Once you know a person's core, no reason to expect change.

And no reason to look for contrary evidence. (Stereotypes)

Incremental Theory

Smart is the combination of knowledge, strategy, and effort.

Learning is good because it makes me smarter.

I can always work harder.

I can always find better strategies, or someone can help me!

Difficulties in school or with learning signal insufficient effort or improper strategies, or inadequate knowledge – all fixable!

I must seek out challenges in order to get smarter.

What others accomplish does not diminish my increasing smarts!

People have tendencies, but situations often shape their actions.

It takes a lot of observations to start to know someone.

Even then, they can change.


This is a very, very fascinating way of looking at intelligence. I intend to learn more about it (Dave provides links to Carol Dweck's books) and can see immediate applications in the teaching that's required in my life, both in SF (where you teach more classes in a career, and more consequential ones, than the average university prof) and in flight training. (This is also a reminder of how dated the 1980s-vintage educationist cant/theory is, that the FAA requires you to learn for an instructor rating. Most CFIs and B/AGIs just memorize the crap that's on the test, but it has very little value whether you're teaching ground school in a classroom or technique in an aircraft).

An interesting facet of this is that it very, very closely follows this favourite quote of mine, from the original flinty New England native and inscrutable President, "Silent Cal" Coolidge:

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan, 'Press on,' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

--Calvin Coolidge


(The following is an edited version of a post I left on Dave's blog).

I have ever been fascinated by intelligence (On another post of Dave's, I was alarmed to see that Ohio teachers with 1070 SATs were one SD above the median for teachers... but I agree that anything that makes for smarter teachers by any increment is a positive thing and to be encouraged).

I began to read his post on thinking about smarts, expecting that I was getting Gardnerian feel-good psychobabble or some other trendy theory that whizzes into the gale-force wind of 100 years of stable psychometry. To my surprise (and delight!), this post presents a positive approach to thinking about your own intelligence (at whatever level it is).

And it highlights how the traditional (and scientifically established) model of intellect engenders negative motivations (knowing this fact is good). But then it goes on to provide a road map for turning these motivations around and arming one's charges -- whether they are kids, employees, partners -- with a constructive way of thinking about intelligence which will make them much more productive with the intelligence they have.

After all, raw intelligence is only one factor in the productivity, happiness, etc. equations. Two others are knowledge and effort. All of us have been in grade or high school and known the kid who got all top grades without trying, and so never tried and/or became a class clown (that was me) and the other kid, blessed with an average intellect, who rose to the head of the class on discipline and effort.

Discipline and effort, of course, benefits anybody, whatever level of native intelligence they bring to the table. Indeed, psychosocial research suggests that higher intelligence and discipline are closely correlated -- however, discipline is something that anyone can develop or learn (it is best learned by example, which is why the Army and Marines select & lead their drill sergeants and tactical officers with great care).

My faith in Spearman's hypothesis of general intelligence has not been shaken, but this gives me a new, productive and enabling way of looking at it. Thanks, Dave. The rest of you, read the whole thing.

Posted: Thursday - October 26, 2006 at 11:34 AM          

©