In the essence of intelligence quotient (IQ) tests, they make it possible to create a numerical indicator of personal mental abilities. In addition, after finishing the examination, the provided number enables evaluating the results of a specific person among the other people. In other words, IQ testing is a tool that helps an individual understand how higher and/or lower is his/her intelligence comparing to the people around and define his/her place in terms of intelligence among the people living all over the world. Though the idea sounds rather promising, the practical application of the test measurements is rather contradictory and debated. To support this statement, he presented paper analyzes the exact factors intelligence tests measure, defines the discussion between nature and nurture, and presents the cultural controversy of IQ tests.
To start with, as it turns from the definition, the main factor that is in the center of the measurement of IQ testing is human intelligence. At the same time, the exact conceptualization of this term is ambiguous. In this context, Flynn (2010) explains that the tests measuring intelligence estimate, among all, the ability to solve problems of cognitive complexity. Simply put, the result of IQ testing does not provide the full understanding of what intelligence is but estimates how fast and accurate is a person able to address situations requiring cognitive complexity. Besides, the very appearance of categorization provided by numerical data of the test significantly underestimates certain groups of people (Cooper, 2005). In other words, the measurement itself, though effective, makes the wrong basis when it turns to the interpretation of its results. On this matter, Cooper (2005) provides the argument that “quantity in the relation of traits like IQ remains completely obscure” (p. 72), which means that it is questionable whether the very idea of providing numeric indicator fits the task to evaluate such a complex structure as the human brain. Finally, Flynn (2010) justifies the impact of a so-called “skill gap” (p. 364) that significantly influences the performance of IQ testing participants. Specifically, it means that IQ test does not take into the consideration the fact that some people practice solving offered by the examination tasks more often in their routine working process than the others do.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Furthermore, the problem with conceptualizing intelligence has deeper roots, meaning the dilemma of “nature versus nurture” concerning its appearance. In simpler terms, there is a debate either intelligence is an inherited genetic trait or it is trained throughout the lifetime by a person. Specifically, molecular genetics appears as the basis of IQ testing, assuming that intelligence is the part of a human architecture and is prescribed by nature (Cooper, 2005). The analysts even introduced the term “genes of intelligence” (Cooper, 2005, p. 71) to illustrate the genetic nature of this human trait. In this context, there exist several studies concentrated on investigating and justifying the biological nature of the cognitive abilities examined by IQ testing. At the same time, the reliability of this scope of research is under question. Specifically, Cooper (2005) writes that molecular genetics is still unable to define from where the connection between genotype and phenotype takes its place in the case of intelligence. This means that the argumentation of natural background behind the intelligence is too weak to be reliable, and it is not supported by any valid scientific evidence. In the given circumstances, the higher importance gains the opposite approach to understanding intelligence, which puts the emphasis on nurture as the driver of human cognitive activity. On this matter, Flynn (2010) reports the ability of a worse performing group to achieve better results if the tasks become more complicated than average. In other words, the influence of skills and the ability to perform much better than the test assumes reveals the complexity of intelligence, which was previously oversimplified by the genetic understanding of this concept.
Finally, the problems with understanding the factors IQ test measures and the debate on nurture-or-nature roots finds its representation in labeling within a society. In this situation, the introduced by Jensen racial determinant of IQ testing results (heavily supported by his hereditarian position) significantly affected the subject of the scientific debate on intelligence. Though seemingly reliable, the connection between race and intelligence raises high doubt in the contemporary science. On this matter, Cooper (2005) provides the explanation that the circumstances of hierarchical society significantly empower the categorization provided by IQ test through the internal stratification within a society – for example, if it is based on a skin color (p. 72). In the given circumstances, the emergence of the discussion between race and the level of IQ appears relevant and working. At the same time, Flynn (2010) reports that IQ tests offered to the representatives of different races for research purposes does not reveal sharp inequality; specifically, the GQ and IQ gaps differ by no more than one point. In this situation, it is relevant to assume that the current trends of globalization and democratization diversify the society and make the very argumentation of race specifics irrelevant. Moreover, Flynn (2010) raises the importance of including non-presented in the contemporary IQ test environmental causes that lead to the lower score of blacks in its current appearance.
In sum, it is evident that in the debate on IQ test, there exist two opposing standpoints. On the one hand, the hereditarian approach supported by Jensen and followed by Cooper suggests that genetics stipulated the intelligence capabilities, which means that factors like skin color determine the results of the testing significantly. On another hand, the proponents of nurturing approach (like Flynn) raise the importance of skill gap and an inaccurate understanding of intelligence under IQ testing. Because of this, they reject the very opportunity that biological features can become a verdict to cognitive abilities. In any case, it is evident that the factors IQ tests measure do not include all the intelligence activity but concentrate on its ability to solve complex cognitive tasks only. This situation raises the issues of inability to measure skill gap, non-reliable categorization based on a numerical understanding of the human brain, and lack of environmental factors considered while testing. Finally, the contemporary development of the society significantly questions the idea of the causal link between race and IQ, which makes nature approach less popular in the current studies.
References
Cooper, R. S. (200 5 ). Molecular genetics as deus ex machina. Race and IQ , 60(1), pp. 71-76.
Flynn, J. R. (2010). The spectacles through which I see race and IQ debate. Intelligence , 38(1), pp. 363-366.
