Smart people, dumb people

[He's not impressed.]

The Heritable View of General Intelligence

What makes us smart or dumb? How can we tell and why does it matter?

Notions of intelligence have historically revolved around privilege and social status. This is what I will refer to as the hereditary view of general intelligence. It goes like this:

Intelligence is a general quality that can be perceived in how well you do at tasks valued by the privileged and powerful, that which marks or sets them apart from others. Yet it is assumed to be applicable to practically any problem.  If you don't speak the right way, think the right way, or have the right views, it is a mark of not just ignorance but lack of intelligence. Of course, narrowly defining what intelligence is or is not and how it can be detected or measured is stacking the deck toward a favored result, but that is par for the course.

Intelligence is biologically heritable. This fits in with broader nationalist and racist views and narrower class/social superiority views. Those who are believed to be inherently smarter are also perceived to be more successful, and vice versa, both suggesting and reinforcing the idea that you are born smart or dumb. Smart people therefore deserve their privilege as a birthright. They are natural leaders. No need to look to social, ecological, political, or other factors in relative success within or between societies.

Intelligence is fixed throughout one's life. This source of pride and privilege is a life-long trait. Those who have it keep it, except perhaps owing to some illnesses, injuries, or advanced age. You ought to therefore be able to pick out future leaders by looking at the aptitude of children.

The heredity view of general intelligence (HVGI hereafter) was a focus of biometricians examining heredity at the turn of the twentieth century, as it coincided with a new concern for how human variation could be explained and controlled. It just so happens that HVGI resembles whatever influential white men and those who train under them think is cool and elite. Just a coincidence, surely?

Isaac Newton rocked the world of European science so hard that many academics began to think that any good scientific theory ought to resemble Newtonian physics. This helped launch what has come to be known as physics envy, wherein people in other disciplines want(ed) to have an elegant theory with a mathematical expression and precise predictions for testing and validation. Charles Darwin, for example, used the work of Malthus to show that natural selection could be connected to mathematics. Later, in the first quarter of the twentieth century, biologists worked at synthesizing Darwinism and Mendelism in the creation of the mathematical and statistical science of population genetics, which became the lingua franca of evolutionary biology.


Physics envy has made repeated in-roads into behavioral and social sciences as well, and intelligence is a frequent focus of such efforts. But how to quantify it and set up precise predictions? Narrow definitions of readily standardized tasks is a start, and this is where such attempts always begin. But which tasks? And what counts? How to measure degrees of success? What is the quantifiable object of statistical analysis?

Here enters IQ, the intelligence quotient. But no one can really say what it is, beyond a statistical analysis of performances for a list of cognitive tasks that are said to correlate to future performances by an individual in a particular societal model of education and work. A whole flood of literature argues what IQ, and the underlying the HVGI it is supposed to represent, actually reflects and therefore what uses it might have.

The trick is in the underlying assumptions: That analytical ability related to the kinds of conceptualization used in disciplines like formal logic, mathematics, and physics are the most valuable and relevant forms or expressions of intelligence. That this perception of value and relevance is objective and not historically and culturally shaped. That the ability to correlate aptitude on a test with future success in certain tasks or situations also requiring similar ways of thinking reflects generalized ability. That this generalized ability reflects some substantive and largely fixed component residing in the size or configuration of the brain and that is inherited biologically.

Which is apparently why poor people, people who are societally marginalized or ghettoized,  and those raised in non-Western cultures sometimes appear a little on the dull side. The idea that the co-creating and interactive factors of genetics/epigenetics, the social, chemical, and ecological environments, and so on lay different foundations upon which future development is based is given polite lip service as that mixture is puzzle that cross-cultural psychologists and cultural anthropologists are still on the surface of, even with collaboration among colleagues in numerous other fields.

The idea that seemingly stable and heritable traits work out because of several layers of development that tend to go the same route over and over yet which are dependent on such multifactorial construction is daunting. When do divergences begin? How quickly do they separate? How and why? That is, based on what influences? What other forms or expressions of intelligence should we recognize? How are they and their underlying developmental influences related?We could ask these same questions,by the way, of gender-identity and sexual orientation and other complex human traits.

But hey, we can just say that there are strong correlations between certain tests and certain future outcomes, so the HVGI and its underlying assumptions are more or less valid, right?

The arguments over the HVGI are extensive and perpetual, but it cannot be denied that it originated to explain and justify societal, class, and racial differences, that it's validity and the limits of its usefulness have legitimate challenges within relevant academic and professional communities, and that it has strongly influenced popular perceptions of what being smart or dumb means, including what it looks and sounds like. 

Smart is white, dumb is non-white.

Smart is male, dumb is female.

Smart is a financially successful and socially lauded career, dumb is a socially maligned/poor paying job or unemployment.

Smart is (globally) north, dumb is (globally) south.

Smart is modernized and industrialized, dumb is traditional and agrarian.

Smart is urban, dumb is rural.

Smart is irreligious, dumb is religious.

Smart is college-educated, dumb is non college-educated.

Smart is science (especially physical sciences, i.e. physics and chemistry) and engineering, dumb is arts and humanities.

Smart is formal logic and mathematics, dumb is informally descriptive and poetic.

Smart is analytical, dumb is intuitive.

Smart is rational, dumb is emotional.

Smart is empirical, dumb is metaphysical.

Smart is quantitative, dumb is qualitative.

Smart is advanced technology and fast paced lifestyle, dumb is simple tools and leisure.

Smart is a coat and tie, dumb is jeans and a T-shirt.

Smart is an office/indoor job working with ideas, dumb is working outdoors with your hands.

Smart is quiet and subdued, dumb is loud and boisterous.

Smart is stationary and isolated, dumb is frenetic and gregarious.

Smart is detached and dispassionate, dumb is embracing and spiritual.

Can you see the cultural and historical biases a little clearer now? These aren't absolutes, but the more some person, group, idea, or activity tends one way the more they are seen in places like Europe and North America is smarter, and when they list the other way they are perceived as dumber.

This is the millieu in which the HVGI was developed and refined. Regardless of whether you think a measurement like IQ is valid or useful, it was born and developed in this kind of atmosphere and in turn it continues to subtly and not so subtly reinforce such thoughts and feelings about who and what is smart or dumb. The idea of IQ becomes contorted and used in popular presentations and entertainment as either a kind of intellectual second-sight (extremely high IQs) or as a form of frail innocence/odious ignorance (low IQs). This spills over into popular understanding and attitudes.

So how else might we think of intelligence? More specifically, of smart and dumb?

A Different View of Smart and Dumb

My thoughts are just that, so take them or leave them. As implied, I think there are strong cultural biases shaping conventional notions of what intelligence is and therefore how it should be recognized and measured. I have nothing against the form of intelligence used in formal logical and mathematics, and consequently in disciplines like physics, but its social ascendancy as the exemplar or prime indicator of a great and powerful mind is a historical phenomenon. Thinking in a mechanical way has allowed for the development of many physical, social, and economic devices which have brought increased prosperity and technical marvels, albeit in large measure to the powerful and wealthy societies and their more powerful and wealthy members. The outcomes also include many of our present ills.

There are many other forms of intelligence that are proposed or recognized, from modular adaptive intelligence to emotional intelligence to social intelligence and so on. I will not list and critique them here. Some variations focus on conscious thinking, some also include unconscious processing of information in the form of intuition. But all definitions of intelligence revolve around the idea of using cognitive capacities to explore new possibilities (from geographic exploration to storytelling) and adapt to novel challenges (i.e. problem-solving).

If we dispense with the current Western fixation with a limited notion of primary intelligence as described and open it up to the full range of human experience, such cognitively enabled exploration and adaptation makes things such as IQ inadequate to represent the true scope of human intelligence and confines it to a historically and socially circumscribed role. But dealing with the IQ debate isn't the point. Such an expansion of the view of intelligence, which is hardly unique to me, takes us back to asking how do we recognize it and measure it?

Or in simpler but more honest terms, how do we use labels like smart and dumb?

More studied professionals can offer a comprehensive answer to such questions, but I offer a few observations and suggestions here.

We can recognize that intelligence is shaped and stimulated by that to which we are exposed and how we respond. Someone who might seem unintelligent and disinterested in one context might suddenly light up and display unexpected competence in another.

If you have little exposure to particular types of environments and experiences, they will not have shaped your ability to recognize and respond to situations in those environments. Your perception, comprehension, and problem-solving abilities will be limited when operating in those environments. Neuroplasticity, or the ability of the brain to wire and rewire itself, may alter which circumstances we are best able to cope with as well as how we cope with them, beyond any biases from very early periods of development (pre- and peri-natal).

Those exposed to a broader array of circumstances and possibilities would have a greater chance to cultivate their various aspects of intelligence. Limiting oneself would give a chance for deeper cultivation in a narrower band of circumstances and possibilities yet cut off chances to make broader connections between similar patterns and processes in other areas of life. Let me unpack that and show where I am going with this.

Circumstances refers to any particular set of elements for a conscious experience, whether it be mood, health, physical location, social context, and so on. Given that we each live in a subjective model of the world recreated in our minds, circumstances refers to a broad set of possibilities. You could have two otherwise identical people living in what appear to be the same circumstances yet vary it by having one be self-doubting and depressed, while the other is confident and outgoing. While they seem outwardly to live in identical circumstances, what each actually perceives of the world around and how they react to it is very different.

Possibilities as used is intended to give a sense of the degree of awareness a person possesses. In our previous example, it is likely that the confident, outgoing person sees different and brighter possibilities than the depressed counterpart, who would see fewer and darker alternatives. The former would have a greater chance to encounter and learn from new experiences or to gain new insights into already familiar experiences. This would lead to a more expansive view of the world and greater opportunities for further exploration. The latter might become stuck reliving the same challenges over and over again, thwarting opportunities to move onto something greater. This isn't to suggest that depressed people are less intelligent than non-depressed individuals, but rather to illustrate limitations to cultivating and expanding ones intelligence. Such limitations are akin to tunnel vision.

As for making broader connections between patterns and processes in multiple areas of life, recognizing (or creating) such connections is a quintessential aspect of human intelligence. You perceive that what is happening at the social level is similar to something at the physical level, or perhaps to something at the organic level. Perhaps a recurring pattern, or perhaps an interrelated series of processes. You then see if what you know about the pattern or process in one area helps you make sense of the pattern of process in another area. If it does, epiphany! Revelation! You've gained insight. You may have increased your perceptiveness in one or more circumstances and your capacity to solve problems in related situations.

So backing up a bit, this is the point of suggesting that being exposed to a broader array of circumstances and possibilities would offer a greater chance to cultivate various aspects of intelligence by increasing the opportunities to make broader connections between similar patterns and processes in different areas of life. Which in turn fits with the notion of intelligence as the use of cognitive capacities to explore new possibilities and adapt to novel challenges. Tunnel vision, whether from obsession or depression, or from limited social or economic opportunities, fear, or some other source, would be associated not with being dumb but with lack of opportunity for cultivation of certain forms or expressions of intelligence. That does not mean the mind itself would simply idle and become dull from disuse (1). It would find different outlets for exploration or expression, retreating into itself and its own imagination if other opportunities were not present.

The perception of intelligence has to do with appearing competent, creative, and knowledgeable. These attributes can be associated the aforementioned cultivation of the mind in different circumstances -- with different cognitive capacities associated with various expressions of intelligence. This highlights the difference between ones potential expression of intelligence in a particular circumstance, whether it be on a chemistry exam or attempting to get a date, and the manifested expression. In other words, intelligence isn't just some general capacity you can tap, it is about a collection of resources that need to be developed and managed.

But we still have a question asked and left unanswered.

So what?

So why does this matter?

There are different ways people with different minds will approach a specific type of problem. Some will rapidly figure out a solution. Others will struggle for a while then have a breakthrough and find an ingenious answer. Others will struggle long and hard to eventually come up with a way to address the issue, while some will struggle and never quite find an adequate response.

What do we assume about each of them? About why they reacted as they did? About whether or not they can be helped and how to do so? Our view of what intelligence is, and of what we should or shouldn't expect of an individual, will give us our answer.  If we ignore the issue of context and experience, we might assume that the first two types of people are generally just "smarter" than the latter two types. Being labeled smart or dumb can have a profound impact on how people continue to grow and develop. Those labeled as smart people might think everything should come easily, and those labeled dumb may expect everything to come hard. One group will have more doors opened and the other will see more doors closed.

Yet if intelligence is about resource cultivation and adaptability, we would expect and respect failure in learning rather than fearing it. Successful people tend to learn this lesson and see practice and gaining experience as essential. If someone continues to practice but still isn't succeeding, do we assume they are dumb? Or is it their background? Or perhaps it is our question/problem. Are we sure there isn't another way to frame it? To approach it? Or are we simply trying to impose conformity and a convenient standard of measurement of potential?

Again, why does a consideration of how we understand and work with intelligence matter?

Consider the different forms of human experience. Consider the many forms our expressions of intelligence can take. Now take that brilliant diversity and cram it all into some pre-packaged formats where those who best fit in are rewarded and those who don't are punished or left out.

As mentioned, conventional Western notions of intelligence tend to revolve around thinking that fits certain cultural and historical patterns and which are related to success and prosperity in a technologically oriented and industrialized form of society. Yet not everyone has the same odds for success in that system, given different backgrounds of development and the effects of racism, poverty, and other social ills. So are we to say that the poor and minorities are just dumber than the rest of us? Some do. Even if we eliminated poverty and structural discrimination against different segments of society, would we fault or penalize those not best suited for or interested in a STEM (science, technology, and math) career? We have problems generated by the kind of society and economic infrastructure that has arisen over the past century and a half, problems that require new ways of perceiving and adapting. Do we truly believe that the humanities and the arts are just fluff rather than the core of what our species is? Do we really think that people who are closer to the natural world and the wild have nothing useful to share without an advanced biology degree?

To give another example, consider the religious fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is the epitome of closing oneself off to all but a limited set of experiences. The biggest danger in fundamentalism is exposure to new circumstances and possibilities, at least without sufficient inoculation against the seductive temptations of evil, like reading Harry Potter books or becoming close friends with an out and proud gay person. Those who leave fundamentalism bemoan how dumbed down everything is, and those who see religion as pointless and harmful ignorance applaud that someone has been liberated from the clutches of sacred inanity. But is it only the "dumb" people who stay? As suggested, such isolation leads to lack of cultivation of particular expressions of intelligence, not to the absence of the capacity to think or reason. And thinking and reasoning are not the only forms of intelligence! The reason fundamentalism may seem dumb to those who leave is precisely the result of the liberty they have asserted to explore their lives and their world, to see it in so many new ways. One can always claim that a position with which they disagree is dumb, especially one that is non-conventional or disparaged, but just ask an ex-fundamentalist how much mental work it took to be one. They could give degrees for the complex mental hoops one has to continually jump through. There is a difference between being "dumb" as in "lacking intelligence" and "dumb" as in "lacking opportunities to more fully use and express ones intelligence".

On the other hand, many people following a sacred tradition, whether or not their spiritual path follows a traditional form of religion, are exposed to possibilities and circumstances that they otherwise would never have encountered. If we look at American citizens by conventional standards of intelligence, it isn't just irreligious people as smart and religious people as dumb. Some groups with the highest marks by conventional measures are religious. But that still assumes that conventional measures of intelligence are the only ones that matter. Are we really going to say that there is no fruitful insight that a devoted life of faith, especially one outside of religious fundamentalism, can offer? That people who lives such lives have nothing to offer than what their conventional form of intelligence suggests? Are we so ready to impoverish ourselves by simply saying that we can ignore such a deep vein of human experience? This is not to suggest everyone must explore that vein, it is to ask whether it has anything of relevance to offer. Are we just going to label it and those who labor to mine it as dumb (and by extension useless or irrelevant)?

I realize I have wandered over a good-sized stretch of territory, but I am very tired of how we think and talk about intelligence at the societal level. Of how we use labels such as dumb and unintelligent as well as smart and bright in nonconstructive and even destructive ways. Surely we can appreciate the fuller nature of the human experience and how our received, conventional notions are often social constructions shaped by historical forces often limit our imagination and our potential. Yes, I think there are dumb people, but not in the hateful pejorative sense. I would rather use terms like ignorant ("to not know") and limited. Yes, I think there are smart people, but not all of them have degrees or know how to use smartphones.  More importantly, though, I think we need to look at how to more broadly appreciate the diversity of human intelligence and its myriad forms of expression. Our species faces too many challenges concerning how and why we will continue to exist (or not!) to waste such precious resources. We can either consciously change how we organize our communities and societies, or that change can be forced upon us by the consequences of our action and indifference. We will need our full potential to deal with either eventuality.


Notes

1. This may not be true for cases of extreme isolation and deprivation during early childhood development, in which damage to the still forming mind might become severe.