Thinking Beyond IQ

Reimagining how we measure ability

As a psychologist who specializes in diagnosing and treating learning and attention disorders, I spend a lot of time with kids who are struggling in school. Many of them want reassurance that, despite what’s going on academically, they are smart. Parents, similarly, seem to want confirmation that their kids are smart, and many describe their own experiences as feeling smart but failing to live up to their intellectual potential due to inadequate support in school. I believe wholeheartedly that all students should be adequately supported. But this notion that intelligence should naturally lead to academic and vocational success is highly misguided. 

Sure, IQ does predict academic success. But the research on IQ is inherently flawed because of the circular reasoning involved. We identify “smart” students based on estimates of their IQ, and then we provide them with enhanced opportunities. Naturally, those students perform better, not necessarily because of their higher IQs, but because of the academic support they receive. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that reinforces the erroneous idea that IQ drives success.

Also, IQ tests are imperfect and incomplete predictors of achievement. IQ tests measure a combination of academic knowledge (which we call crystallized intelligence), novel problem solving ability (which we call fluid reasoning), and cognitive efficiency (i.e. working memory and processing speed, which I’ve described in earlier posts). These skills are undoubtedly important in academic and professional settings, but they hardly encompass all cognitive factors that contribute to success. 

Specifically, there is an impressive body of literature that suggests that other cognitive skills–separate and distinct from IQ–are important predictors of success. For instance, Angela Duckworth’s research suggests that self-control and perseverance are actually more important predictors of achievement than IQ. And there are lots of non-cognitive, social, and emotional factors that are important predictors, too.

But, truthfully, none of these issues gets at the problematic nature of estimating kids’ potential in the first place. If you wanted to identify the kids who are most likely to be successful in school, you’d have to judge their parents, since socioeconomic status is actually the single most important predictor of academic achievement: kids from highly educated and wealthy families have access to more resources and environments that foster learning, so they are the most likely to do well in school. But clearly you’d never allocate resources based on that predictor, no matter how reliable or valid, since doing so would only perpetuate existing inequalities.

Instead, we need to just move our focus away from what’s inherent to the individual. We need to stop trying to guess what a person might achieve and just judge what they do achieve. I recently read a wonderful piece by psychologist Robert Sternberg that argues that giftedness should not be defined by factors innate to the child (whether those factors be intellectual, cognitive, or socioeconomic) but instead by the contributions that one makes to the world. According to Sternberg, giftedness should be demonstrated through creativity, practical problem solving, and wisdom-- qualities that enable individuals to make meaningful impacts. And he says that we need to shift the focus from static measures to dynamic expressions of achievement. 

I totally agree. I think it’s time we start taking a more holistic approach to understanding kids and what they can accomplish. And we need to spend less time trying to measure their talent and more time trying to harness it.

***

Speaking of harnessing potential, I love how the orchestrations in the 2019 revival of Oklahoma beautifully reimagined the source material!