High Cognitive Minds

“…the theory of critical differences, …a distinction which arises not because we are dealing with a new species of ability, but from the fact that when human capacities surpass certain levels of performance, the achievements to which they give rise may take on altered characteristics. ( David Wechsler, The Range of Human Capacities)

Jerome Kagan, David Henry Feldman, and John Gardner have all commented on the near-universal preference for viewing intelligence as part of a continuum. It’s much easier to believe that individuals merely have less or more of what everybody else has than to consider the possibility of “critical differences.”  The emphasis on IQ scores is a symptom of this desire for continuity, and is also a way to sweep other views under the rug.

Wechsler is partly correct and partly incorrect. It depends what capacities you’re looking at. A virtuoso pianist is using the same skills as a moderately talented amateur, but is so far superior that it amounts to a critical difference. This is just as true in many fields of endeavor. But when we turn to cognition, it may be more realistic to say that there is, indeed, a new species of ability.

Click to read more ...

"I have no great quickness of apprehension or wit which is so remarkable in some clever men... I am therefore a poor critic: a paper or a book, when first read, generally excites my admiration, and it is only after considerable reflection that I perceive the weak points. My power to follow a long and purely abstract train of thought is very limited... My memory is extensive, yet hazy: it suffices to make me cautious by vaguely telling me that I have observed or read something opposed to the conclusion which I am drawing, or on the other hand in favour of it; and after a time I can generally recollect where to search fro my authority. So poor in one sense is my memory, that I have never been able to remember for more than a few days a single date or a line of poetry."    

IQ tests, and many of the other tests which we take throughout our schooling, emphasize speed and memory. Both are considered so important in determining intelligence, that we would have to judge the above quotation as the statement of a real loser. He would be a terrible bore at a party, unable to appreciate the witty back and forth banter or join in games which depend on the fast identification of bits of cultural trivia. And he'd certainly never qualify as a quiz show contestant. Who would want such a plodder as either a friend or a colleague?

We're taught that the race goes to the swift, and are constantly pressured to do more and do it faster. But what is it that we're doing, and who will even remember it once it's done? How much of our lives do we spend running races that go nowhere? Maybe we need to stop and take some time to think about the author of the quote. Charles Darwin took more than twenty years to accomplish something that changed the world: the publication of On The Origin of Species.

For many people, IQ is not only their measure of how smart they are, but of who they are.  I wouldn't deliberately pull out the props to anyone's ego, but when it comes right down to it, I've come to think that IQ is little more than a cultural construct. Years of reading the arguments pro and con intelligence testing, whether "g" does or does not really exist, etc.,  have forced me to the conclusion that the whole debate has little relevance to understanding intelligence. Even if we assume that IQ tests can be refined and tweaked until we are satisfied with their accuracy, the scores they provide are essentially meaningless, a kind of fantasy on which an entire industry and whole careers, are based. IQ scores serve as a rough guide to learning capacity, but that's about it.

After I learned about IQ and giftedness I was able to look back and recognize that I had taken an IQ test, probably in late elementary school. If anything came of it, I certainly wasn't told. Factoid 1. I eventually took a couple of IQ tests online, and one that I found in a bookstore, and consistently scored around 140. By that time, I knew that a weakness in any one area could bring down your overall score, and I had no illusions about my math abilities. How much should I have added to my scores to compensate for that weakness? Factoid 2. According to Leta Hollingworth, and supported by many researchers since, children with an IQ of about 160 or greater have trouble relating to and communicating with other children. By this measure, my IQ should be at least 160. Factoid 3. According to my husband, whose official score was 170, I was just as intelligent as he was. Not exactly an objective judgement, but it's worth throwing into the mix.

Click to read more ...