Cracking Open the IQ Box by Howard Gardner
Helpful Links:
What is Intelligence

Cracking Open the IQ Box by Howard Gardner

Interview with Sternberg

Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.

Some information on Dr. Gardner

Upstream IQ
Cracking Open the IQ Box by Howard Gardner
The book The Bell Curve has caused a lot of controversy. It argued that many ethnic minorities have lower IQ's because they are less intelligent. This stems from genetic inferences and further spells doom for the average American IQ. As low IQ people have more children, the average IQ of America will decrease. The book has been attacked, all 800 pages, on the grounds that its analysis was questionable, it presented an inadequate review of the literature, and because of the implications and almost-said's that the book offers but the authors take no responsibility for.

Gardner begins by noting the strong points of the book, for example, the mixed messages the government sends in its complex and contradictory social policies (e.g., like penalizing poor families that try to support themselves with less support). He notes that the book is well argued, but is in fact flawed on a number of points:

1) scholarly brinkmanship in which the authors "encourage the reader to draw the strongest conclusions, while allowing the authors to disavow this intention." They stop short of saying that ethnic minorities are inferior, but lay out the data and their arguments so that the reader only has to make a short jump to say it himself.

2) questionable links between genes and IQ, and IQ and social status

 
they note that their reported correlations between IQ and social status are around .44, explaining 20% of the variance, thus 20% of one's social niche is explained by genes if IQ is solely determined by genes. However, heritability estimates are that 60% of IQ is genetic. Thus, only 12% (.6 x .2) of the factors that determined your social niche are linked to genetics.

3) contradictory evidence

 
They ignore evidence that IQ scores have risen, that interventions to raise SAT and other scores have worked, and that children raised in certain areas of the country and in certain types of homes have higher IQ's regardless of race. They note that verbal interactions between white parents and children is excellent preparation for IQ tests, but fail to argue that engaging in such dialogue with black children could raise their IQ's as well.

4) IQ is a number that may not accurately represent intelligence. Gardner and others have been arguing this for years.

5) even if genes did determine IQ, we know that social and genetic factors intertwine, and thus the resulting IQ isn't a direct reading of the underlying genes. As it is, their own estimates are that genetics are 40-80% of IQ.

6) they ignore data and studies from other cultures indicating motivation and support are also important in achievement

7) they make faulty links between crime and IQ assuming that both are steady when data indicates this is not so

They close with an idea or set of ideas for a cure, but ignore data on social programs. They fail to offer instructions for how to realize their miracle state, where everyone contributes according to their means, but also knows their place, or even to prove its superiority.

Gardner explains how their analysis of the failure of enrichment programs are somewhat convoluted because:

 
in many cases there is good support for the efficacy of enrichment programs, in the infant, child, teen, and adult years. Data on SAT score improvement, and mathematics scores in college are but two examples of how environment and targeted efforts to raise scores can be effective.

in many cases the enrichment ceased at a young age, and so follow-through was halted. Actual achievement during teen and adult years could not be assessed in these cases.

if ending the enrichment program meant the children returned to an impoverished environment, this would explain the lack of stable results when follow-up was conducted.

while maybe IQ's of enriched children weren't higher than other children, there is no way of knowing what they might have been.

many of the studies used at-risk or MR children, and so it is difficult to generalize from them to "normal" children

there is also some indication that pre-school enrichment programs may keep children in school longer; if years in school is correlated with IQ, then dropping out early may be a confounding variable in studies of some enrichment program studies Other studies on infant and family intervention that did not include high drop out rates showed very promising results.

There have also been studies of the effects upon children of heroin-dependent parents. Research showed that it made no difference whether the mother or the father abused heroin. Thus, the issue was not the heroin crossing the placenta, but the early neglect in the home environment. Other studies of children born to drug-dependent homes indicate that there may be a window of opportunity to remove them from the neglectful home and provide for the stimulation they have missed. Thus, reparative efforts might be very effective, but they may have to be carefully timed.

Critics of Gardner and his camp make several points worth noting here:

 
the argument of racism of the authors of any study is irrelevant. "Even in those cases in the past in which racist assumptions can indeed be demonstrated, the proof of the pudding remains in the eating, not in the beliefs of the chef" (Chabris, Since the Bell Curve, Commentary Magazine, 1998).

Meta analysis of outcome research for types of therapy showed that researcher therapeutic orientation effected the likelihood of reporting positive results. This may mean that the proponent of a theory is more likely to get positive results, or is just more likely to publish them. Thus, in response, in either case the beliefs of the chef do count.

critics of The Bell Curve are attacking the basic assumption of g which is strongly supported. Chabris goes further to say that the issues over what the words intelligence and such "mean" is silly, and that measurement is the key to it all. First, g was not the only solution to the factor analysis Spearman began, and second, accurate measurement is great, but you have to eventually say what you measured to make any use of the measurements.

intelligence is a stable characteristic of a person, and though they allow that a person's performance may change from one situation to the next, intelligence remains stable. Sternberg would argue they are confusing intelligence with intelligent behavior, and inferring the first from the second is more complex that simple IQ scores.

Murry, in response to some of the challenges to the book, argues that those who attack his work on the grounds that IQ and SES were too convoluted should try coming up with some measure of SES that is not so convoluted. He has a point there I think. IQ and SES are convoluted. Smarter people should be able to make more money and be more successful with their greater resources, and less successful people often are less intelligent. The real convolution is the confusion of IQ and intelligence, and that with money. Is a plumber who makes $20 an hour and doesn't have $100,000 of student loans smart or not? What's his IQ score? Does that matter?

another point for the book is that Murry notes that maybe we should question the ability to change IQ and look to see if our remedial education, special classes, and scholastic improvement efforts work. Head Start programs that select children from disadvantaged homes and gives them some advantages for two years and then returns them to the same environment is silly.
What did you think of the readings from The Bell Curve Wars?