French writer Pierre Dac said: “I have a bright future ahead of me. But I will be a fool every time I turn back. " Can we apply this expression to human intelligence? After a gradual increase in the average indicators of the so-called IQ (Flynn effect), today we are watching with alarm its stagnation and even decline (the opposite effect). Should we be afraid that humanity will become "stupid"?
Does the Flynn effect really have to do with intelligence?
The facts are there. New Zealand philosopher James Flynn showed that in the 20th century, the average IQ of US residents gradually increased. Similar studies in other countries have shown similar results. In Western countries, there has been an increase of 3 to 7 points over the decades. But a new study by Richard Lynn and Edward Dutton found that IQ has been declining since 1995 in several countries. Thus, the average IQ of the French dropped by 4 points between 1999 and 2009.
Research into possible causes of IQ increases and decreases is of great interest. The controversy concerns mainly two aspects related to the environment and genetics. We again plunge into the notorious opposition of the innate and acquired.
The stakes are high in this debate. The question is whether "intelligence" is a natural given, in which case the possibilities of intellectual development of some will be limited due to their weak individual "data" (gift theory) or general (racial concept). Or, on the contrary, it is the result of social belonging, which gives hope for good intellectual development, if there are all the conditions for this.
But it is by focusing all our attention on the causes of IQ fluctuations, without questioning the nature of what fluctuates, that is, the very essence of intelligence, that we agree with all the conclusions! We really recognize the existence of intelligence as a natural "given" that can grow or diminish in "volume."
Does intelligence come down to IQ?
Promotional video:
The question is what actually measures IQ. The ability to determine, using special tests, the level of certain skills and abilities or certain criteria (for example, verbal or numerical) is no longer disputed. Following the successfully developed Binet-Simon technique, the tests have proven to be effective and useful. But to measure what? In essence: the levels of indicators in certain areas, and their determination in relation to the indicators of the rest of the population.
Of course, this way of "measuring" raises many technical questions and faces many biases. But this is very important for us. For, first of all, it should be understood that this measure is relative. IQ does not assess the "intellectual weight" of an individual, but determines his place in the test.
And here it is important not to make a mistake and not confuse efficiency with competence. At best, fluctuations in IQ correlate with fluctuations in results, cognitive or motor. That the results can fluctuate is undeniable. For example, the level of spelling literacy of the population has decreased, and this may be due to the fact that now everyone is sitting in front of computers and prefers to give reports rather than write. However, fluctuations in results are in no way evidence of the existence of a certain natural ability inherent in the structure of the personality, which would be the equivalent of the sections and lobes of the human brain in organic terms.
This is the whole problem of the concept of general intelligence, the existence of which has always been in question. By talking about “multiple intelligences,” a concept coined by the American psychologist Howard Gardner, we are moving towards a more intelligent understanding of intelligence. An understanding that would allow us to get rid of the idea of the "reality" of the intellect, which was hidden inside our personality, like a monster at the bottom of Loch Ness …
How to understand what intelligence is?
Should we continue to use the term "intelligence" if this term does not refer to a natural given? We cannot be content with the fact that with the help of IQ we measure only the "edges" of intelligence. It is necessary to go further, to break out of the vicious circle, to get away from the scheme: efficiency (established) - intellectual potential (stimulated), and then from this to the general concept of intelligence (recognized). Intellect is not an organ, and it is important to refrain from the temptation to materialize it, presenting it as something material.
That is why it would be prudent to free ourselves from the concept of intelligence, tacitly accepted by those who, when the Flynn effect appeared, rejoiced at its spread before regretting its failure. But how then to figure out what we will mean by this term?
We propose to classify this concept as "anthropological universals" and to consider what is commonly called intelligence as a kind of possibility. Anthropological universals are attributes or specific properties that are common to all people. These attributes are embedded in the closed part of the genetic program. But they determine only the possibilities: the ability to walk, speak any language, understand.
We can say that intelligence is an attribute that manifests itself in the ability to think. Thanks to this opportunity, we become equal in our intellectual abilities. This is just an opportunity: everyone is free to choose whether to use it or not. The intellect has a great future if people want to realize the opportunity they have to become smart, that is, if they decide to preserve and increase their ability to think. Otherwise, we risk witnessing the victory of stupidity.
"Ultimately, intelligence only diminishes when not used!"