Customer Reviews

IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I was not sure I'd like this book given the author expressed bias against all intelligence testing right in the subtitle. Even though this book is not balanced, it provides much valid information. The book is very well written and easy to read.

The author covers well the history of intelligence testing in the first chapters. Murdoch starts with Galton who in the 1880s comes up with the first set of intelligence tests that are related to measurements of physical reactions (reflex reaction time, sensory acuity). Galton is also a pioneer in mathematics with major contributions in regression analysis and correlation. His own mathematical tools reveal there is little correlation between his tests and intelligence. In the early 1900s, Binet comes up with a test relying on verbal and quantitative questions that better correlate with intelligence. Later, other pioneers come up with both verbal and nonverbal tests (diagrams, etc...) for intelligence testing. Finally, Wechsler combines verbal and nonverbal questions into a single multiple choice test. This becomes our modern IQ test.

Next, Murdoch turns to the dark side of intelligence testing by presenting the eugenics movement. The author introduces the concept of negative eugenics (limiting the reproduction of the mentally weak to improve the gene pool) and positive eugenics (focusing most educational resources on the gifted to improve the leadership of a nation while ignoring everyone else). Murdoch first covers negative eugenics in the U.S. By 1932, 27 states had passed eugenic sterilization laws. During this period, 60,000 individuals deemed to have very low IQ were sterilized. But, the most egregious development of the eugenic movement took place in Nazi Germany. They took the U.S. law and made it far more inclusive including many social groups not even deemed to be mentally handicapped. Also, their intelligence testing was far less scientifically rigorous than their American counterpart. As a result, by the end of WWII the Germans had sterilized 400,000 individuals and killed 200,000 under the guise that they impaired the Germanic gene pool. Many of them were simply anti-Nazis. The author moves on to the UK as a case of positive eugenics with the advent of their 11 Plus testing. This was a very tough intelligence test administered to 10 to 11 years old. Only a small fraction of the population would pass this selective exam. The ones who passed were on an educational track to go on to universities and become the leaders in the profession and politics. All others were essentially ignored. Boys were doomed to work in coal mines, and girls on factory floor. Finally, a government official put an end to the 11 Plus in the early sixties to open up educational and professional opportunities.

Murdoch then moves on to debunking the underpinning of intelligence testing. He uses the Flynn effect as his first major blow to intelligence testing. The Flynn effect denotes the rise in IQ over time. If you want to read more about this phenomenon get What is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect. But, that's where it gets ambiguous. Murdoch states that IQ tests don't test intelligence but instead knowledge and abstract problem solving ability. Well, knowledge is a proxy for crystalline intelligence (reflecting what you have learned) and abstract problem solving is a good proxy for fluid intelligence (your natural cognitive capability). I gather the attack is that IQ test captures knowledge which is a function of education and socio economic background. However, many IQ tests now do not rely on knowledge at all (Raven matrices) and capture solely fluid intelligence. Also, as our society has moved from an agrarian to an industrial and finally to an information based society I would find it inevitable that the IQ of the masses has gone up over time given that the daily challenges of our lives have become more complex.

Murdoch goes on mentioning what he views as better alternative models of intelligence such as Howard Gardner multiple intelligence theory as depicted in his seminal work Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences published in 1983. Similarly, he mentions Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence: 10th Anniversary Edition; Why It Can Matter More Than IQ published in 1995. Unfortunately, those intelligence frameworks are not scientifically testable. He later mentions that Naglieri came up with a much superior intelligence test. However, this test has not been accepted by the psychometric profession.

Murdoch moves on to debunking the old SAT I by indicating that the UC system deemed that high school GPA combined with three SAT IIs (subject tests) is a better predictor of college freshman grade performance. And, that adding the SAT I to this mix adds little explanatory power. However, what is not mentioned by the UC system is that a combination of high school GPA and SAT I was probably as good a predictor as the combination of high school GAP with 3 SAT IIs. This is because on a stand alone basis, the explanatory power of the SAT I is nearly equal to the one of the three SAT II combined per UC's own studies.

In his Afterword section, Murdoch explicitly admits he will never be satisfied with intelligence testing by stating "psychologists claim that what they do is science, but the use of statistics alone is not enough to support their claim." Statistics represent collective information of a scale (sample size) that allows you to separate what is random from what is not. If you don't accept statistics as a confirmation of scientific hypothesis, what do you have to work with? The author does not answer this issue.

To fully educate yourself on this issue, you have to also study the other side. For this purpose, I recommend Herrnstein and Murray Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book). If you want to know even more about the subject, I also suggest Arthur Jensen The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence). Even though this latter book is very hard to read, it is a valuable reference that confirms the Bell Curve findings.

...by buying Murdoch's potboiler.

First and foremost, this book was not very well researched, nor very deeply.

The use of IQ tests by the Nazis was a very central discussion in "IQ", and yet Murdoch failed to discuss the Nazis' very uncomfortable relationship with rigorous intelligence testing. Many of the best intelligence tests (in Germany, at that time) were authored by prominent Jewish academics, and so were suspected of infection with aberrant "Jewish forms of thinking". Also, then as now, Jews as an ethnic group outperformed all other ethnic groups in Germany on general cognitive tests (and not just tests written by Jewish professors). This was observed by prominent Gentile scientists in Germany (notably Lanz). As a consequence of these factors, IQ tests of any sort were absolutely useless as tools for one of the most important social progams of the Third Reich: the toppling of Jews from their prominent role in the professional and academic elites of Germany, and their ultimate genocide. Jewish intelligence and accomplishment could not be denied, so they were demonized. German industrialists and the military did use IQ tests for placement purposes, but this was never sanctioned by the political authorities.

Murdoch overlooked another very key point about cognitive testing, this time in the context of Nazi eugenics programs. The tests actually administered to potential inmates of sterilization and detention centers for the insane and feeble-minded would not have been considered valid intelligence tests, even by the less refined standards of the 1930s. Recall that the Third Reich suppressed rigorous intelligence tests, and fired, exiled, and ultimately executed their often Jewish authors. So the persons administering the "intelligence tests" for eugenics programs were not psychologists, but Nazi M.D. physicians tasked with liberally applying programmatic eugenics criteria. The tests themselves were simply lists of general knowledge questions (who was Bismarck? who discovered America? how many pfennigs are left when a mark is paid for a purchase of 80 pfennig? etc), administered verbally. The physicians had wide latitude in how (or if) answers were recorded. These instruments were of dubious value either in selecting or rejecting eugenics program internees. And again, they were thoroughly useless in dealing with the "Jewish Problem".

Had Murdoch really researched his book, he would have been forced to concede that the only true IQ testing done under the Third Reich -- and this was merely tolerated -- was done by the military and by large corporations like Krupps. This testing was at least as useful as similar testing carried out in the USA (which is to say, quite useful in predicting job performance and trainability).

Murdoch blamed IQ tests for the severest crimes of bureaucracies over the last century, but the aforementioned inconvenient facts kick the legs out from under the foundational theses of his book. For this and for reason of Murdoch's clear "unscientific" bias, I would judge this book to be low grade "pop science" which, unlike some examples of the genre, has virtually no educational value.

Stephen Murdoch begins his book "IQ: A smart history of a failed idea" reminding the reader that it is all about him - the author. We hear of his educational background as he laments that his is not a "rags to riches" story of someone who started out with an IQ of 69, etc. etc. Then we have to sit through clever interludes of describing what interviewees are wearing (as if it is relevant) while the author proceeds in a self-congratulatory manner to point out that an entire discipline is intellectually bankrupt (although he did not study the discipline so I wonder about some of his interpretations). What the author doesn't seem to get is that the very tests he did well on and is criticizing are likely related to the fact that he has succeeded in getting a book contract from Wiley for a popular book.

While he does give a good summary of the history of the evolution of Intelligence Quotient, he fails to mention that there are some very strong correlations between IQ scores and verbal/reading ability and that these abilities have strong generalization to succeeeding in settings as diverse as 4-year universities and technical training. The author bemoans the hideous eugenics practices and beliefs of the 20th century but then goes on to describe the very problems those misguided beliefs were supposedly addressing. The author does not seem to have any answers, mostly complaints relying on extreme stories rather than admitting that sometimes people are appropriately screened out of lower-stakes situations due to lack of mental ability.

The book ends with what appears as a liberal "rant" against some people being able to send their children to better schools and psychology in general. It is not that psychology doesn't need some heavy-duty criticism but the author seems to have no clue how to remedy the the problems psychology creates (although at times I feel his solution is what Charles Murray recently dubbed "educational romanticism").

A little less Murdoch and a little more fact-finding could have made this a winner.

The issue Murdoch raises really strikes a chord.

My wife is a teacher, and she constantly laments the intrusion of more and more standardized testing into the educational process. All of these tests, and the entire testing craze, derive from the same mentality, mind-set and techniques that originated with the first IQ tests.

Murdoch takes you through the history and evolution of the IQ Test, which is fascinating in and of itself, but the real payoff of the book is the realization you get as you read it that these tests are really very arbitrary in their design, and can be very misleading -- especially during a person's formative years.

The subject is presented logically and clearly, and examples from real life make it far more readable than you might expect for a subject like this. Murdoch bares his opinion of the subjet early on, but that's fine with me -- at least he puts his cards on the table. If this book had been written by an academic (Murdoch is a journalist) it would probably have the same pretense of objectivity that IQ tests have.

Overall I highly recommend this book, especially to psychologists, admissions officers, and parents of young children.

One hopes the two-edged humor of the title isn't lost on IQ's average reader, for the author undermines the very notion of objective smartness, and IQ is hardly "failed" in the real world. To the contrary, though some uses of intelligence quotient have met a well-deserved demise, e.g., as a measuring rod for U.S. involuntary sterilizations, and Nazi euthanasia programs, IQ tests (and their proliferating SAT, GRE, LSAT, et al., cousins), continue to be much in vogue. Indeed with the advent of No Child Left Behind (and its likely extension), standardized tests promise to be a staple of American education for decades to come.

The old aphorism seems to apply: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." How did we get from the commonsensical observation that infants emerge from the womb with different personalities to reliance in a multitude of settings upon the measurable existence of "general intelligence" (or "g" as it is known among the specialists)? Murdoch tells the story well, and it's not exactly edifying. He also pinpoints a fatal flaw: the absence of theoretical underpinning for the existence of "g." Without a working idea of how "g" is supposed to function, the vacuum too often has been filled by racist and plutocratic ideologs.

This highlights what is the strongest side of the book, its political insights. Murdoch's conversational writing is a journalistic strength, but a lawyer's research skills and analysis of power interests make the book worth buying. For instance, the potential meritocratic values of testing are not eschewed. Some societies evidently operate with relative success on the basis of nepotism, cronyism, and high amounts of elitism. At least rhetorically, mental testing in its varied forms pays heed to the contrasting value of the "level playing field." If, in practice, the tests replicate societal biases, then perhaps it is test reform that is needed, not abandonment of testing itself.

The chapter devoted to the British "eleven-plus" test is a case in point - one not well known to Americans. Success or failure on the "eleven-plus" for English school children was life-altering, to put it mildly; it determined career paths inflexibly and frustrated the whole notion of social mobility. If No Child Left Behind is supposed to connote an inclusive ideal, "eleven-plus" might have deserved the moniker "some children to the rear, plenty!" Happily, popular dissent won out and the "eleven-plus" exam no longer sows annual terror in English households.

What is shared, however, by both the U.S. and England is the notion that the nation, writ large, has a huge stake in the outcome of education, and testing is a big part of the solution. This is why the current U.S. Secretary of Education responds to queries about the virtue of extending "No Child" by saying rather tautologically, "What do you want to do go back to a time when we were denied this information?", meaning a time when no national tests were given.

Murdoch makes the point that, for example, testing in the military context may make greater sense, since it is a facet of national defense. But to what degree should it function in the extension and restriction of overall opportunity? This is ultimately a political question. IQ provides an excellent roadmap to understanding the choices faced.

Howard J. De Nike lectures on Cultural Anthropology at San Francisco State University and the University of New Mexico.

This is a well-written overview of the history of IQ testing. Murdoch relates the (somewhat) shameful history and abuses of IQ tests- however, as the author readily admits, this isn't a balanced portrait (many psychologists today would argue that current IQ testing is now reformed).

I think Murdoch successfully demonstates that IQ= innate g(eneral intelligence) isn't correct. The "Flynn effect" (rising raw IQ scores world-wide), which he describes, is occurring mostly on abstract questions (the ones that supposedly best reflect innate intelligence).

Let's give the psychologists the benefit of the doubt and admit that g(eneral intelligence) exists and is correlated to IQ testing (fine). But let's also admit that an equally important component of intelligence ("non-g") also exists and is NOT tested well or at all by current IQ tests (just like you would never judge a singer with a paper and pencil test). For ex., Richard Feynmann, arguably smarter than Einstein, had an IQ of "only" 125.

Let's also admit that personality and motivation are equally important towards success and performance. For ex., it's routinely noted that men tend to score higher than women on the math section of the SAT exam. This could reflect differences in terms of innate ability- it could also be explained by the fact that males are more likely to be fascinated by abstractions (per the latest thinking on autism) and hence are more likely to re-wire their brains that way.

The construct of IQ has a fascinating, and rather unfortunate, history. Much like the idea to which it is closely attached - Darwinian evolution - the idea of IQ has been used by ideologues for purposes ranging from sinister to to beneficient. But look at this book's subtitle: according to its author, IQ is a 'failed idea.' He attempts to demonstrate this position via the historical demonstration that makes up this book. Does he succeed?

Giving this book three stars, the best I can answer is with a reserved, "only somewhat." An idea's truth or falsity is best not measured by how it has been used. Socialism, Darwinian evolution, Christianity - all of these are ideas whose truth or falsity stands apart from arguments as to how people have used them. And IQ, I think, is another we can and should add to that list.

Stephen Murdoch's history, of course, is as informative as it is gripping. We start with the original progenitor of intelligence rankings by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, watch various theoriests, the most famous of which being Alfred Binet, and watch the idea of IQ 'blow up' into Eugenics, tests for screening everyone from army recruits to immigrants, and watch the Nazi's kill based on performance on the tests. Murdoch relays with astute detail all of the dark history of attempts at social ranking from Britian's "eleven plus," to America's own Supreme Court case, Buck v. Bell, which not only gave constitutional muster to laws mandating sterilization of the feeble minded, but showed that 7 of 9 justices supported the policy morally as well as legally.

What this book does not really do, however, is to refute the concept of IQ. Refuting the social uses of an idea is a far cry from refuting the idea. And one cannot expect the type of exacting statistical arguments against IQ that one could get in Steven Jay Gould's bestselling "Mismeasure of Man." (The author confesses early on that he is statistically challenged. To my relief, that made two of us!)

So why does Stephen Murdoch call IQ a 'failed idea?'

I think that his very subtly made point throughout the book is that for all the overreliance on, and overselling of, IQ at various points in history, including the present day, there has never really been a theoretical basis for IQ. It is, the author notes, a test created by historical exigency rather than any real idea of what the supposed 'intelligence' trait is. Thus, what we have is a test that is measuring something, the shape and look of which no one is quite sure. It would be much like someone developing a test for beauty, or concocting a Potter Stewart Test for Pornography ("I know it when I see it.") We know that beauty and pornography are legitimate categories, but we are not really sure what the necessary or sufficient conditions for them are. And this very fact should give us pause to reconsider whether one can measure something when one is not quite sure exactly WHAT one is measuring.

So, I think Steven Murdoch's case - a convincing one is less about exposing IQ as a 'failed' idea, but about exposing society's eagerness towards IQ as hasty, often misplaced, and oftentimes morally questionable.

While the first two thirds of the book traces the often dark history of IQ, the last few chapters afford the author a little time for rumination. In the chapters entitled "What does IQ really measure," and "Alternatives to IQ," the author scrates the surface of an interesting debate about what IQ and intelligence actually are, and whether there is only one intelligence. (The author very much likes Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences and Sternberg's "Successful Intelligence.")

The last chapter, "Black and White IQ" is, in equal parts, about the perils of hereditarian arguments about race disparity and intelligence, a warning against scientists making policy reccomendations, and an excoriation of our tendency to demonize those who do "politically incorrect" research. These three chapters were my favorites.

In the end, though, I cannot say that Murdoch proved IQ to be a "failed idea." (I would almost guess that the subtitle was not his own, but inserted by the publisher, as he doesn't seem intent on debunking IQ's merits.) I can say that after reading this book, the subtitle should perhaps have been, "what happens when people unintelligently measure intelligence." That, he proves in spades.

Murdoch's highly readable story is the result of a short term project peaking someone's curiosity enough to research and write an entire book. We've probably heard other stories of how unfair and misused intelligence tests are, but Murdoch digs down to the roots, unearthing and retelling the story of tests first developed in a military building in New Jersey as a quick fix for the necessary classification of GIs in the days when graduating from high school was a rare accomplishment. Their uncritical acceptance snowballs into life-altering (and sometimes life-ending)applications by ruthless dictators and well-meaning bureaucrats with some less devastating misadventures along the way. The question remains, is there anyone both powerful enough and smart enough to admit to the implications of this research and reform the multi-million dollar testing industry. Or maybe we should send it to the back of the line behind health care.

Given the centrality of intelligence testing to contemporary American culture, I am always amazed by how little most people know about it. Even among my graduate students in psychology, few know the word "eugenics," the ideology at the core of the creation and spread of the tests that are now so influential in education, industry, the military, and even the courts.

Stephen Murdoch does a great job demystifying the topic. Chapters address the World War I "Alpha" and "Beta" testing, the Nazis' use of IQ testing, the SAT (a very informative chapter), the black-white test score gap, and the increasingly important role of intelligence testing in capital punishment decision-making in the wake of the recent Atkins v. Virginia decision (which banned execution of mentally retarded defendants).

As Murdoch explains, "Most psychologists believe they can test intelligence and the measured entity is extremely important." He easily punctures that overinflated belief.

For those who are unfamiliar with this topic, the book is a great place to start. As a journalist, Murdoch communicates the history and ideology underpinning intelligence testing in plain English. His writing flows smoothly and easily, making what could be a strenuous topic a pleasure to read.

If you already know the basics, you'll still learn something. The sections on early history are more comprehensive than his discussions of the current controversies. For example, as a forensic psychologist I would have liked to see more depth and practicality to the discussion of alternatives to IQ testing. I would also have liked better annotation of sources. But these are fairly minor quibbles with what is overall a solid piece of reporting.

This was definitely a good read and the author has accumulated a long list of reasons why the concept of intelligence and testing for it have a very problematic history. The only criticism I have is that it comes across a bit like an over-extended college essay or thesis. Yes, sophisticated vocabulary was used, but it just seemed like the book was something short of professional.