What if the origins of I.Q. testing is far more mundane, little to do with the measure of ‘gift of intelligence’ it’s made out to be for the masses. Indeed, despite the awe and great interest intelligence drew from the masses and the elites from long back into the human history, it was only in the early 20th century that we were audacious enough to attempt to measure it on a mass scale.
Expectedly, this audacity was fuelled by an excutive order of a government – the French government – to a psychologist Alfred Binet, and not any directed scientific discovery/insight or reserach outcome.
More pertinently, the way the measure of intelligence was focussed upon, it wasn’t audacious at all – it was developed to identify students who needed additional educational remediation in schools. Don’t be shocked that the first I.Q. assessment was build to find the weaker chidren rather than the brighter ones; the measure was named ‘Intelligence Quotient’.
Once the French government mandated all French children to attend school, it become an imperative (for what now appears to be an enlightened goverment in those times in France) to develop means and measures of ensuring that no children are left behind – indeed, I.Q. testing had noble thoughts. I.Q. testing was a way to list out children who would need special assistance in doing well at schools; it was focused on identifying “slow learners” .
Worse, by implication the testing enabled segregation of the “normal” and “weaker” children in schools. In the name of offering more personalised attention to the weaker students, it also aimed at creating more conducive pace and content for the normal children (and better education for them).
Most pertinently, Alfred developed the I.Q. testing questions that were based on things not taught at school but seemingly determined success in school education – the goal of testing was furthering scholastic achievements; he identified attention, long term as well as working memory, and problem solving as critical success factors for success in school education.
It must be added that the current most widely used I.Q. testing methodology has wider and better focus but it clearly acknowledges the difficulty in measuring multi-dimensional attribute such as intelligence with any single score. Titled, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), it started with design to measure intelligence in adults and older adolescents but it has versions for children as young as 6 years.
Yet, even the administration and scoring of WAIS has a bias towards scholastic achievements. It has two sets of tests –
- Verbal
- Performance
The verbal scales measure general knowledge, language, reasoning, and memory skills, while the performance scales measure spatial, sequencing, and problem-solving skills.
And the test stipulates speed – ninety minutes; the tests are more about reflxes rather than ‘thinking skills’. WAIS scores for children still have the identity of ‘learning disability’ measuring tool.
The measurement of I.Q. has certainly evolved but it has not moved away from close connections to school education system and what’s valued at schools and the standardised tests that the school depend on and promote.
It’s not far-fetched to assert that I.Q. test achievements have a limited meaning in the fast emerging knowledge society, economy, careers, academic achievement etc. I.Q. scores must be taken with a few spoons of salt. I.Q. tests have to cut their umbilical cords with school-centered skills and orientations.
However, to the consolation of all, Alfred emphasised that the test scores are neither permamnent nor true representative of extensive human intelligences.
