Gentlemen, thank you for another fantastic episode! I’m so grateful you covered this topic!
I wanted to echo your points about the need to use IQ tests to identify students with disabilities (or to rule them out). I was a high school special education teacher for 23 years (I’m old, too, Tom) and administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT) and the (good ol’) Woodcock-Johnson Test (always fun to say in a parent meeting) as part of a larger neuropsychological assessment during my time in public ed. The neuropsych also included a cognitive exam (WISC/WAIS, depending on age), a speech & language battery, and a social/emotional & transition inventory. It’s an astounding amount of information that reveals exactly where kids are struggling and the type of programming they need in order to make progress. It drives me batty when people argue IQ tests are antiquated or irrelevant. For students who are struggling, these assessments are absolutely critical to their future success.
It’s also not uncommon for students with disabilities to have a large (2+) standard deviation discrepancy between 2 or more indices. So if a student scores 125 in Verbal Comprehension and 85 in Visual-Spatial, that child likely has a Nonverbal Learning Disorder and needs intervention. In these cases, the WISC/WAIS will state the student’s full scale IQ cannot be determined because a single score isn’t an accurate depiction of their abilities. So in a Socratic seminar, this particular kid will look like an honors student. But when asked to label countries on a map, they’ll scribble all over it like a 5-year-old (not out of spite, but because they can’t interpret it). I don’t explain this to be pedantic, rather to say those claiming a singular IQ score reveals everything are overlooking the brain’s complexity and nuance. I personally think that’s what makes the field of intelligence so fascinating.
That’s my screed, gentlemen. Thanks for letting me go on. 🙏 And thank you for all you do! You make me smarter (and make me laugh) every week.
I worked in emergency psych and neuropsych my whole career, and you are spot on. Proxy IQ scores like ACT/SAT are good enough for everyday, but if there is a problem, one needs a more diverse test to pinpoint where help might be needed. Richard Feynman claimed to have an only moderately- high IQ, and I guessed immediately which subtests he likely exceeded the ceiling on and which he score only average. This happens often with people on the autism spectrum.
Thank you! I appreciate your thoughts and feedback. I imagine you’ve seen quite a bit in your career!
Fascinating info about Feynman! I didn’t know that about him. Being a physicist, I’d wager he has remarkable visual-spatial abilities, but that’s only a guess. I think Dr. Todd Rose refers to the discrepancy in abilities as a “jagged” profile, which I kind of like.
Enjoying as always, but can you turn the volume up a bit? Listening walking through Bristol and had to switch to a different podcast until I got somewhere quieter!
In my mind this episode doesn't at all refute the point of the people who say, "IQ tests only tell you how good you are at taking IQ tests".
Yes, there is a true correlation between IQ and school results, life achievement and longevity. Yes, there are obvious causal mechanisms, and there are also obvious ways in which high IQ is a flag for general good health and a well-resourced, relatively trauma free life history. However, you could say the same about the link between height and basketball ability, or socio-economic status and school achievement.
The people who would say "The only thing the tape-measure-test tells you is how tall you are" are still making a very reasonable point. What they mean is that height information adds little to no value when you have actual basketball scores to assess someone’s ability. If you happen to be both very tall and mediocre at basketball, you are probably not some thwarted basketball prodigy- it's more likely you are just mediocre at basketball. It would also be reasonable to challenge the use of height as a selection criterion for sports teams and sports scholarships when there are better, more proximate measures available.
With regards to the correlation between socio-economic status and school achievement (I have no information on this and have read no studies), no matter what correlation we found it would not be appropriate for selection committees to decide that higher socio-economic status should make you more eligible for admission to university or advanced/gifted classes in high school. We should be using this data to try to combat structural disadvantage, not perpetuate it.
The sorts of questions I wish you podcast have covered would be
-In what contexts does the use of IQ as a selection criterion add value?
-Should it be used at all in contexts where we have more proximate measures?
-Is it likely to reduce structural disadvantage or perpetuate it?
You are sadly correct about the IQ societies. I was never in Mensa, but in the 1980s I thought of myself as quite intelligent, but life was not going well for me in some ways. Specifically, a low-status job. So I took a high-powered test and did very well, and joined a few of the Ultra-High groups. I was even president of one of them for a year. But it was about the ego boost and I only stayed in a few years. As for needing things in addition to IQ to succeed, I mention to you Chris Harding, Chris Langan, Grady Towers, and William James Sidis.
As for JD Vance, I think his statement could still stand. I know nothing about Rory, but I think the claim was that he thought he was smarter than he actually was, with IQ numbers attached in a general way. He went on to note that there are too many of such folks hanging around trying to run things. Nothing cited in the Dunning Kruger pro&con contradicts either claim being possible. Vance was saying there are such people, they are a nuisance, and Rory was one of them. As for the vice president offering an actual IQ estimate on an individual, no one is great at that, but some people are pretty good. The two testing psychologists on one unit I worked on had a game in which they would each guess what results on the WAIS and PAI the other would get on a patient the both had met. While they each had some spectacular failures, they both were quite accurate from five minutes with the patient and five minutes with the chart.
Lastly, I will offer that many of the people who dislike IQ and other standardised tests did not do as well on them as they expected (or their children didn't). It biases the viewpoint. In contrast, the people I knew in the High-Q societies were often well aware that g-factor was only one thing and not a measure of worth. In fact, many had aa heightened awareness of this, having known many smart jerks.
Gentlemen, thank you for another fantastic episode! I’m so grateful you covered this topic!
I wanted to echo your points about the need to use IQ tests to identify students with disabilities (or to rule them out). I was a high school special education teacher for 23 years (I’m old, too, Tom) and administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT) and the (good ol’) Woodcock-Johnson Test (always fun to say in a parent meeting) as part of a larger neuropsychological assessment during my time in public ed. The neuropsych also included a cognitive exam (WISC/WAIS, depending on age), a speech & language battery, and a social/emotional & transition inventory. It’s an astounding amount of information that reveals exactly where kids are struggling and the type of programming they need in order to make progress. It drives me batty when people argue IQ tests are antiquated or irrelevant. For students who are struggling, these assessments are absolutely critical to their future success.
It’s also not uncommon for students with disabilities to have a large (2+) standard deviation discrepancy between 2 or more indices. So if a student scores 125 in Verbal Comprehension and 85 in Visual-Spatial, that child likely has a Nonverbal Learning Disorder and needs intervention. In these cases, the WISC/WAIS will state the student’s full scale IQ cannot be determined because a single score isn’t an accurate depiction of their abilities. So in a Socratic seminar, this particular kid will look like an honors student. But when asked to label countries on a map, they’ll scribble all over it like a 5-year-old (not out of spite, but because they can’t interpret it). I don’t explain this to be pedantic, rather to say those claiming a singular IQ score reveals everything are overlooking the brain’s complexity and nuance. I personally think that’s what makes the field of intelligence so fascinating.
That’s my screed, gentlemen. Thanks for letting me go on. 🙏 And thank you for all you do! You make me smarter (and make me laugh) every week.
I worked in emergency psych and neuropsych my whole career, and you are spot on. Proxy IQ scores like ACT/SAT are good enough for everyday, but if there is a problem, one needs a more diverse test to pinpoint where help might be needed. Richard Feynman claimed to have an only moderately- high IQ, and I guessed immediately which subtests he likely exceeded the ceiling on and which he score only average. This happens often with people on the autism spectrum.
Thank you! I appreciate your thoughts and feedback. I imagine you’ve seen quite a bit in your career!
Fascinating info about Feynman! I didn’t know that about him. Being a physicist, I’d wager he has remarkable visual-spatial abilities, but that’s only a guess. I think Dr. Todd Rose refers to the discrepancy in abilities as a “jagged” profile, which I kind of like.
Enjoying as always, but can you turn the volume up a bit? Listening walking through Bristol and had to switch to a different podcast until I got somewhere quieter!
You are not the first person to say this. I'll flag it with our editor. Thanks Brian!
Whenever you guys got to this topic, I always thought it would be one you hide behind a paywall 😂
In my mind this episode doesn't at all refute the point of the people who say, "IQ tests only tell you how good you are at taking IQ tests".
Yes, there is a true correlation between IQ and school results, life achievement and longevity. Yes, there are obvious causal mechanisms, and there are also obvious ways in which high IQ is a flag for general good health and a well-resourced, relatively trauma free life history. However, you could say the same about the link between height and basketball ability, or socio-economic status and school achievement.
The people who would say "The only thing the tape-measure-test tells you is how tall you are" are still making a very reasonable point. What they mean is that height information adds little to no value when you have actual basketball scores to assess someone’s ability. If you happen to be both very tall and mediocre at basketball, you are probably not some thwarted basketball prodigy- it's more likely you are just mediocre at basketball. It would also be reasonable to challenge the use of height as a selection criterion for sports teams and sports scholarships when there are better, more proximate measures available.
With regards to the correlation between socio-economic status and school achievement (I have no information on this and have read no studies), no matter what correlation we found it would not be appropriate for selection committees to decide that higher socio-economic status should make you more eligible for admission to university or advanced/gifted classes in high school. We should be using this data to try to combat structural disadvantage, not perpetuate it.
The sorts of questions I wish you podcast have covered would be
-In what contexts does the use of IQ as a selection criterion add value?
-Should it be used at all in contexts where we have more proximate measures?
-Is it likely to reduce structural disadvantage or perpetuate it?
You are sadly correct about the IQ societies. I was never in Mensa, but in the 1980s I thought of myself as quite intelligent, but life was not going well for me in some ways. Specifically, a low-status job. So I took a high-powered test and did very well, and joined a few of the Ultra-High groups. I was even president of one of them for a year. But it was about the ego boost and I only stayed in a few years. As for needing things in addition to IQ to succeed, I mention to you Chris Harding, Chris Langan, Grady Towers, and William James Sidis.
As for JD Vance, I think his statement could still stand. I know nothing about Rory, but I think the claim was that he thought he was smarter than he actually was, with IQ numbers attached in a general way. He went on to note that there are too many of such folks hanging around trying to run things. Nothing cited in the Dunning Kruger pro&con contradicts either claim being possible. Vance was saying there are such people, they are a nuisance, and Rory was one of them. As for the vice president offering an actual IQ estimate on an individual, no one is great at that, but some people are pretty good. The two testing psychologists on one unit I worked on had a game in which they would each guess what results on the WAIS and PAI the other would get on a patient the both had met. While they each had some spectacular failures, they both were quite accurate from five minutes with the patient and five minutes with the chart.
Lastly, I will offer that many of the people who dislike IQ and other standardised tests did not do as well on them as they expected (or their children didn't). It biases the viewpoint. In contrast, the people I knew in the High-Q societies were often well aware that g-factor was only one thing and not a measure of worth. In fact, many had aa heightened awareness of this, having known many smart jerks.
Mensa- so exhausting. Nearly everyone I’ve met who is a Mensa member is insufferable and not nearly as smart as they claim.