Thursday, March 18, A.D. 2010

Absurd Intelligence

On View from the Right, Auster and pals have been discussing Bill O’Reilly, and there is widespread disbelief that the Fox News personality earned a 1585 on his S.A.T. In the thread, someone suggested a web site that estimates I.Q. based on S.A.T. and G.R.E. scores, IQComparisonSite.  The estimator would give Mr. O’Reilly an intelligence quotient between 150 and 155.

I think that general intelligence is difficult to measure precisely with tests, and I don’t buy the given estimates. Personally speaking, the spread between my S.A.T. based I.Q. estimate and my G.R.E. based I.Q. estimate is thirty points. The clinical score that I received as a child falls in the middle of the two, though close to the higher G.R.E. estimate. I took each test once, but I took the first after three years of disappointing public high school education and the second after four years at a Jesuit university. Wouldn’t education matter to how someone performs on a test? It seems obvious.

To use a sports analogy, let us assume two fellows with bodies suitable for Olympic gymnastics who are identical in every way except that one benefits from a professionally run gymnastics training program while the other one simply keeps fit with a standard exercise regimen. Of course, the first guy will perform better at a gymnastics competition. However, given time in training, the two would come close in their performance abilities.

I think that this holds true for mental gymnastics, too. Standardized tests may give a ball park estimate of who is smart and of who is stupid, but educational preparation must determine a significant fraction of the scoring. A more accurate system would involve a series of tests over a period of time that would measure mental talents by weighing academic performance. Wasn’t this once called school? Before the dark times, before grade inflation, before teachers’ unions?

Anyway, IQComparisonSite is bunkum. The site’s author provides the intelligence estimates of modern historical figures by a woman named Cox. Cox compiled the list in the 1920’s, when people were still interested in I.Q. differences. I have no idea how Cox tallied the I.Q. points of the men who shaped the modern West, but I don’t believe them. In today’s measurements, who can believe that Jonathan Swift had an I.Q. of 133? Or that Molière only had one of 138?  Or Bach, Beethoven, and Hobbes at 143?  I can believe Luther at 148, but Kant at 153? There is no way—especially with Condorcet at 158. Newton is at 168, Descartes is at 158, and Pascal is at 173. The top scorers are Leibniz at 183 and Goethe at 188. Most figures’ estimates seem so low. The site’s author notes, “I realize that these calculations shrink the pedestal that we keep the Eminent Geniuses on, but at least it should give more of you hope that you might be able to accomplish important things (as long as you are also gifted with creativity or perseverance or whatever other factors contribute to grand achievements).” Balderdash! I know some rather intelligent people, and I have a decent score myself, but I am not smarter than Mozart. The current top students at M.I.T., CalTech, Harvard, and Yale are frankly not at the level of the best of our civilization’s best. This is generational narcissism seldom seen!

Besides, this site would have Bill O’Reilly rank with Lincoln, Rousseau, Huygens, Kepler, Kant, Balzac, Cervantes, Calvin, Spinoza, Palestrina, Rembrandt, and Swift. So, the mind behind the “no spin zone” ranks up there with the master of the Critiques? Absurdly, outrageously idiotic nonsense!

Posted by Joseph on Thursday, March 18, A.D. 2010
Philosophy | Anthropology • (0) Comments