A Critical Look At Intelligence Research

Cernovsky, Z. Z. (1997)
A critical look at intelligence research,
In Fox, D. & Prilleltensky, I. (Eds.) Critical Psychology, London: Sage, pages 121-133.
 
Psychology's support for an unjust status quo has taken many forms over the years. As noted in several chapters in this book, one important form is the use of psychological tests to explain - in effect, to justify - a lack of societalequality. Administering and interpreting intelligence tests are primary examples of how the routine work of mainstream psychologists can hinder progress toward social justice. Because psychological tests are research tools," the public often assumes that their results or interpretations are infallible. This assumption is a mistake, one with serious negative consequences for members of groups seen asgenetically inferior" as "proven" by "science."
 
Psychologists, educators, psychiatrists, and the lay public often misunderstand intelligence as consisting exclusively or primarily of the skills assessed by modem tests of intelligence. These IQ (intelligence quotient) tests have an excessively narrow focus on skills and tasks acquired and rehearsed in the process of formal or informalschooling. The narrow focus prevents these tests from detecting other crucial ingredients of intelligence such as creativity or social intelligence (the ability to understand, accurately perceive, and influence emotional states and social behavior of others).
 
These IQ test limitations have historical roots. The first generally accepted intelligence test was devised for school settings by Binet andSimon in France at the dawn of the twentieth century. This test assessed skills expected of school children of different ages. Its purpose was to serve as an objective criterion for sifting out children considered retarded (to be placed in special classes) and for placing other children at their appropriate grade level (see historical background in Fancher, 1985). Binet's test items were laterextended for use with adults.
 
Today, the items of adult IQ tests still remain pervasively based on school-related skills. The test taker and the test administrator usually follow roles analogous to those of a school teacher and a pupil at exams. These roles encompass various implicit requirements specific to Western culture, as noted below.
 
In this chapter, I discuss underlying conceptual andmethodological issues in contemporary research on human intelligence. A major obstacle in intelligence research is the use of inadequate measurement tools. Another obstacle is the frequently encountered static view of intelligence as biologically transmitted via genes and relatively immutable (unchangeable) during the lifetime. Many psychologists also treat intelligence as a unidimensionalphenomenon, reducible to a single IQ measure. This unidimensional approach fails to adequately explore creativity, one of the most vital aspects of intelligence. Contemporary fashionable "academic" trends such as J. Philippe Rushton's and Richard Lynn's reports on genetically based "racial differences" in intelligence are often based on an archaic or incompetent methodology. Those who follow these trendswill miss the opportunity to more fully use the human potential for economic and emotional benefit of all involved.
 
The intelligence test interpreter typically assumes that the test taker is motivated to make the best possible effort. However, this motivation to succeed and excel may be relatively weak or even absent in some segments of our society. In addition, test items traditionally areimbued rather exclusively with the mainstream culture of the country where the test was developed. In some cases, intelligence tests measure the extent to which the individual is familiar with that particular cultural tradition rather than the test taker's cognitive talents per se. For instance, questions such as "Who was the American president during the Second World War?" have limited validity for...