“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
— Albert Einstein
|
Is Intelligence a Real Thing?
The history of intelligence is odd. Intelligence is variously defined and plays different roles. Even within one culture, different standards are applied to different genders, ages, and people of different inclinations.
Historically, intelligence was assumed as something you did or did not have. In the past, people did not have much education. More accurately, the lucky ones did and the unlucky ones didn’t. It was assumed that intelligence preceded your ability to learn and it could be measured by what you knew.
Despite now having tests to measure intelligence, it’s still rated based on what you have learned. Our IQ tests are supposed to measure a person’s fundamental aptitude, but this is a fiction. It’s convenient because it ends up justifying the original premise that your intelligence is what you can learn. What you can learn is measured by what a particular group, inevitably the group in power, thinks is valuable.
We’re told these IQ tests are justified because people don’t change their scores over time. This is a “low IQ” argument which is a good reflection of how notions of IQ justify themselves. People don’t change their scores on IQ tests over time not because they can’t, but because they choose not to learn how to.
I admit that most people would have difficulty changing, growing, or learning under any situation, but that’s not to say that they can’t. Learning is hard, creativity is lonely, and changing oneself is painful. Most people simply won’t do it, and this is what intelligence tests measure: not your ability but your inclination.
I do not doubt that IQ tests measure something—there are differences between people—but two fallacies are clear. First, that intelligence tests measure a fundamental aptitude. And second, that they measure a fixed aspect of your nature. That is, that you cannot learn to be more “intelligent.” I believe you can, it’s just that 99% of people never will. For these people, their IQ score does reflect their aptitude and their future.
It’s Largely Propaganda
The history of IQ tests mirrors the history of psychology as a tool for marketing and propaganda. A landmark was Edward Bernays 1928 book “Propaganda” which coincided with the ascendance of psychotherapy (Bernay’s was Freud’s nephew), behaviorism, social psychology, mass information, and the academic field of mental health. But the term “propaganda” was coined by the Catholic Church in the 1600s to describe its efforts to discredit Protestant teachings. And it’s been with us since well before that.
The most famous Greek philosopher, Plato, was essentially a propagandist. His fame rests not on what he taught but what he learned from Socrates. Socrates was the smart one, and he was so averse to propaganda that he refused to write anything down.
You’ll recall Martin Luther’s famous Protestant proclamation nailed to the church door, and the essential use of propaganda by German Fascists in WWII. The blooming of propaganda was driven by information, not education. And we’re in a new information revolution now.
You’ve probably heard that the Soviet state used to commit dissidents to psychiatric institutions because dissidence was equated with deviance and maladjustment. We equate dissidence with deviance in our culture too, we just handle it differently.
In more democratic societies, we use the media to channel information and guide social attitudes to marginalize or deprecate dissident opinions. The news media are not our major tool for social engineering, they are just presented as authorities, which they transparently are not.
The major tool for social engineering is the entertainment industry, and that’s because it’s emotions that drive all attitudes. The media, and its intellectual pretensions, just provide justifications.
First, It’s What You Believe
My point is that intelligence is first what you believe in, not what you’re innately capable of. Whether or not you’re smart, if you make religion the center of your life, then you’ll develop mental abilities consonant with your belief. If you’re rebellious, then you’ll act the part. You won’t want to develop conventional skills because you won’t want to hold conventional thoughts. If you look at histories great oligarchs and tyrants, smart is not the first word that comes to mind!
Whether your beliefs limit or liberate you depends less on your intelligence and more on your emotional needs. If you need social approval because you have low self esteem, then you’ll endorse conformity. You might eschew conformity if you’re independent minded and creative, but you can also be creative and conformist by working in the entertainment industry. Actors epitomize the personality of a person with skill who has nothing to say.
There are opportunities to be creative everywhere, but rarely are these opportunities disruptive. Here is where the real definition of intelligence lies. Intelligence is the insight to know what to destroy, or risk destroying, in order to create something new and untested. It’s what’s new and untested that will help us in the future.
One part of intelligence is foreseeing the future. That’s called intuition. Another part is having the skill to test new ideas. That’s called discipline. Neither of these are assessed by today’s IQ tests because our social structure—or any social structure—is only as stable as it’s able to eliminate disruptive ideas. Society discourages intelligence!
If you’d like to intelligently improve your life, schedule a free call.
Intelligence in Therapy
I work with people who are both creative and closed minded. To some degree, the dichotomy between creativity and open mindedness is central to mental health as most of my psychotherapy clients are either uncreative or close minded in regard to their issues of concern.
I also work with some people who are uncreative and closed minded. These are difficult clients who tend to be oppositional. They’re not happy with where they are, and they’re not happy with new ideas. They might think they’re entertaining new ideas, but they’re really just repeating the same old ones.
This is a good definition of mental illness: the inability to change. In this regard, most people qualify as mentally ill, at least in regard to mental immobility. Of course, if they’re happy, stable, and well supported we would not say they’re mentally ill, but take away that support and their lack of flexibility becomes apparent. This is why, in spite of its insanity, people support wars.
I am not avoiding the topic of intelligence, but I have been deferring it. We must recognize that intelligence combines your interests and your aptitudes, and both can change. I used to believe that anyone could make intelligence decisions if their priorities were clear. Perhaps this is true, but I no longer believe it. Few people are in control of their priorities. I have a higher opinion of psychotherapy now that I see it as a process of changing priorities.
I’ve known more people, visited more cultures, and been involved with more social and professional circles than most people. Even this was not obvious to me since I figured any curious person would keep expanding their exposure if they were unsatisfied. I was mistaken. Most people do not leave the box they are born in.
Past Lives and Inherited Ability
I still have a vague faith in people’s ability to learn, but I now believe it happens very slowly. So slowly that individuals show limited change in their lifetimes. Instead, learning occurs through one’s lineage and culture. I like the reincarnation metaphor of “past lives,” which is adequately explained by epigenetics.
Epigenetics relates to the changes in your abilities that result from encouraging or discouraging your genetic aptitudes. This, in turn, affects your genetics and is passed on. Not everything you learn is passed on, obviously, and it’s unclear exactly what is, but some things are. It’s been found that chromosomes themselves engage in a kind of evolutionary “selection of the fittest” that does not occur over your lifetime, but over many lifetimes.
There is nothing mystical about this. Your X chromosomes are passed on through many generations with limited change. Your chromosomes were created by your grandmother. That’s where your mother got hers. And your grandmother’s were passed down to her from her grandmother. Your chromosomes “live” with little change for hundreds of years. They are “learning” over the course of centuries.
Some things are learned in the form of aptitudes. If you have good balance, then it’s likely your ancestors did too. Mathematical, analytical, and visual abilities are also passed down. You don’t really need the “past life” memories because you’ll find your own or you’ll make them up, and they’ll be far more appropriate than some outdated story. Where does this leave us in terms of intelligence?
Your Intelligence Is Your Future
Intelligence is not what you can do, it’s what you will do. It may be that many of my low IQ acquaintances will succeed in furthering their evolution. They may be less likely to find opportunities, but many opportunities are created. One doesn’t so much find them as recognize them.
What you see is related to what you’re looking for. No matter how “smart” you are, you’re more likely to find what you’re looking for. If you’re looking for health, balance, and harmony, then you’ll find these things sooner using your heart rather than your mind. But emotions aren’t everything, you need some innate skills.
For example, I have good balance. At least, I used to. This enabled me to excel at some physical pursuits. I think it carried over into emotional balance. This contributed to my determination, patience, and ability to listen.
I encourage clients who struggle with emotional balance to train their physical balance. As you can imagine, the emotionally unbalanced people ascribe little importance to their physical balance. In this way, their preference undermines the development of their aptitudes.
Attention versus Reactivity
Another example is one’s reactivity. This can be measured using what’s called a continuous performance test, otherwise known as T.O.V.A, which stands for Test of Variables of Attention. These easy and common tests are administered by a computer that flashes a brief image on screen and asks you to press a button when the image meets one criteria, and refrain from pressing the button when the image does not meet the criteria.
The image shown on the computer screen is often an arrow pointing in one direction or another. You’re told to quickly press the button when the arrow points up. The images flash by quickly. If you’re slow, you’ll miss them. But if you’re too quick, you’ll likely give the wrong response.
These tests are clever as they play with the relationship between your attention and reflexes. These tests have been used for decades but it’s rarely clear what they’re being used for.
I recently took one as part of a neurological assessment. I was told that I was accurate, not impulsive, but very slow. That is, I was more accurate and much slower than average. Accuracy is measured by the percentage of right answers, impulsivity by the number of wrong answers, and speed is measured in hundredths of a second.
That’s interesting, and you might think of it as a kind of intelligence, at least if you’re ski racing or playing tennis. But the tests are often misunderstood. I was told that I was too slow and should be faster and that I didn’t need to be so accurate.
This was clearly nonsense as one’s speed and accuracy are reciprocal and voluntary. It is the way that I work with my mental machinery that leads me to my preferred speed and accuracy of response. In other situations I would develop these differently. I’m sure that as I practice walking on a slack rope, I’ll increase my response speed. But for the purposes of being a clinical counselor my slow and steady abilities are more important.
My point is that “intelligence” is linked both to aptitude and inclination. You should improve your speed and accuracy on the TOVA if you want to compete or survive on the battlefield, but these skills are contrary in other situations. To judge what you should do on the basis of some average is social engineering. It will offer you no benefit.
The person who assessed my ability using the TOVA score and suggested that it needed improvement was a psychotherapist providing a brain training program. Luckily, I know more than they do, and I discarded their faulty advice. Their advice was faulty because they were judging me based on a statistical norm and not on what was appropriate for my individual situation.
I paid for this test in order to see if this was something I could recommend to my clients. I’m glad I did because now I know not to recommend this aspect of their training. This is a case in point: why would a technically knowledgeable practitioner fail to understand the use and meaning of the TOVA? I think the answer is that they lack the creative ability to question it. The combination of technical ability and conformist thinking is dangerous. It is an attractive path to failure.
What’s It Worth?
Overall, people display a fairly static level of intelligence. Some of this is innate, having to do with their aptitudes, but most of it is intentional. They decide to behave in intelligent or unintelligent ways.
Social acceptance and personal support are important to some people, and these people are inclined to conformist, convergent thinking. They act unintelligently because they’re undiscerning and uncreative. They’ve traded security for their ability to grow.
I’m the opposite, but I’m also a funny mix of stability and instability. I encourage my clients to embrace their instability while, at the same time, holding their hands and telling them, somewhat insincerely, that their worlds will not collapse.
These are people who want to level up, but they’re afraid to. They’re so afraid, in fact, that they cannot see their fear, and this is the crux of the problem. They continue to be motivated by security and secondary gains while, at the same time, suffering from their habitual and destructive patterns.
Is this intelligent or not? Certainly, it’s not to be measured on an IQ test. Your ability to rotate three-dimensional shapes in your mind or explain rarely used words will play no role in your ability to change your personality. On the other hand, people who never try to rotate three dimensional shapes in their minds and don’t bother to explore other ways of saying things are likely to avoid confronting their confusion.
It’s not what you know that determines what you can accomplish, it’s what you’re willing to try. In that regard, some people really are more intelligent than others, but it’s measured by the quality of their life, not the score on a test.
Enter your email for a FREE 1x/month or a paid 4x/month subscription.
Click the Stream of the Subconscious button.