Does IQ matter? In 1974, the answer was a resounding ‘No!’

Fifty years later, I still remember first-year psychology lecturers discussing this topic.

At the time, IQ tests were perceived as being unfair, even discriminatory, because their content was culture-bound. In the American context, where most of the IQ research was happening, minority ethnic groups were assumed to be at a disadvantage. This belief has held sway through to today.

I had not paid this much thought until recently. Friends of mine were talking about Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart. I soon learned about his first controversial co-authored book The Bell Curve. Acting on the premise that when people publish, they refer back to their earlier works, I bought and read Facing Realities: Two Truths about America.

At this point, I had to start my re-education about intelligence research.

Apparently, the last fifty years has been a productive time in the field. Things have changed from what I first heard in those lectures fifty years ago. This revelation was reinforced by reading the companion book to Facing Realities, a 350-page research report by Russell T Warne, In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Intelligence.

Both authors were asking for more realistic compassion based on the research. They did not wish to negatively stereotype any individual’s opportunity for achievement their education or work, but they did want to call out irrational policies that hurt American citizens, particularly identity-based policies.

Murray describes this tension at the start of Facing Realities when he pleads with us not to ignore reality. He argues in favour of what he calls the American creed where everyone is equal before the law and carries the same inherent worth and dignity. His fear is that:

Identity politics turns the American creed on its head. Treating people as individuals is considered immoral because it ignores our history of racism and sexism.

This pattern of thinking is growing in Australia.

An Israelite can be immediately condemned, regardless of their supportive actions towards Australia, simply for being from Israel. A woman can be sent to court for wanting a safe space for women. A pastor can likewise find himself in trouble for opening a Christian conference with a Psalm rather than a Welcome to Country. A man can be demonised simply for his gender, regardless of the content of his character.

Murray sums up what happens with policy when this identity polemic takes over:

[We] have been unwilling to say races have significant group differences … we have been [therefore] defenceless against claims that racism is to blame for unequal outcomes. … It has allowed us to evade our moral obligation to treat others as individuals even though mean differences between groups are a reality and will be with us indefinitely.

The two ‘realities’ in his latest book are with reference to intelligence and crime.

Note that ‘intelligence’ in these discussions does not refer to all cognitive abilities nor moral maturity. Warne defines general intelligence ‘g’ in his book as the very general mental capability we have to reason, in terms of making sense of information and experience. He added, it is about ‘catching on’, ‘making sense’ of things, or ‘figuring out’ what to do. Again, he also notes there are other cognitive abilities and personal characteristics that define who we are and how we live, but because the brain is essentially a muscle, albeit a very special one, some appear to be born with more able brains with reference to core reasoning ability.

His analogy is this: ‘IQ is a measure of general intelligence … just as kilograms are a measure of weight.’

Warne looks at all the common objections to this reality – all 35 of them – and responds with careful research findings. Questions of cultural contextualisation, item relevance, test construction, equalization strategies, brain training, multiple intelligences, false meritocracies, and many more, are dealt with in detail with reference to the research. The bottom line? We are the same, but different, and we should treat each person on their merits. Also, we should not try to invoke policies that force people into roles based on false understandings of the source of our differences. This, of course, is the curse of so many equity programs.

One of my fields of interest is education. Not understanding the realities of differences is a blight in that system. Billions of dollars have been wasted pretending that thirteen years or more of education done by professionals in classrooms is the best for everyone. It is a lie. But that lie is why so many bureaucrats do not want homeschooling to grow, or for parents to spend more time at home with their children rather than feeding the increasingly less productive economic machine. Denying differences under the glaze of equity is why so many boys are not being taught well, even though girls are now ahead on attainment metrics.

Murray notes that average scores on IQ are the same for males and females, but there are differences in broad non-g abilities. But we expect boys to be as verbal as girls, and girls to be as mathematical as boys. Individually this will happen, but not on average. Every ‘problem class’ that I have had to help has had a majority of boys in it, but that reality was unspoken. Why? Because the assumption of less physical and more verbal explanations are best for everyone. Not so in terms of general biological male–female differences. But silly me, a piece of paper declaring what your gender is gives us permission (or obligation?) to ignore that biology. It really is hard to keep up…

Likewise, our educational leaders are under the impression that with the right technique, all students can attain the same outcomes. That is not realistic. It is equally unrealistic that university degree is best for all. By definition, with reference to gintelligence, half of our students are ‘below average’. Do we treat them with dignity in the light of this difference? Do we teach teachers to teach and to assess according to ability, or do they teach to the same middle-level (particularly in un-streamed classes)?

Neither Murray nor Warne are reporting that achievement in school is only based on genetics. For example, agreeableness, self-discipline, and persistence, which can be summarised as conscientiousness, are all really important. Exposure to any element that effects brain development is really important. Sleep is really important. But what they are saying is that heritability for IQ is a significant factor that should not be ignored. This means that there will always be some differences in student achievement.

Does this mean that we should give up on any child? Never! All children can improve at their level. But not all children can reach the same level. As I saw in the classroom, hope could be restored to the most struggling student when they realised that they could learn something new. In my un-streamed classes, it did not matter to them (or their parents) that their friends were achieving a bit or a lot more if they were also learning. Within a culture of respect, that is what counts.

This research is why Senator Price’s calls for treating all Australians on their merit is so refreshing. As Murray notes:

Once the state is granted the power to engineer equal outcomes by dispensing opportunities preferentially and freedoms selectively, it will be one group versus another, “us” against “them.” The garden will give way to jungle.

Yes, let’s be real about group norms, but let’s treat each person as an individual while not forcing them into fantasies that ignores reality.