The Pro-Human Aspects of Intelligence Research

One criticism of intelligence research that I often see is that it seems to place limits on people. This viewpoint was recently expressed in a popular tweet:

https://x.com/Saraht0n1n/status/1861821637894783003

The author has a point. Some findings in intelligence research can be limiting. For example, one of the largest workplace studies ever conducted showed that workers with lower IQs never reached the level of competence, even after years of on-the-job experience (National Research Council, 1991). The unfortunate reality is that there are some tasks that people with IQs below about 90 struggle with, and this is a reason for some of the bad press that intelligence research gets.

However, the author of the tweet shows an unfamiliarity of the scholarly discussions about intelligence and IQ. The reality is that many leading researchers in the field have discussed how the science of human intelligence can improve the lives of low-IQ people. The conclusion is that the field is actually led by people who are very pro-human and interested in improving the lives of others.

Richard J. Haier, the former editor for the field’s flagship scholarly journal (Intelligence) is very open about his goals for intelligence research: “. . . it is my view that all intelligence research speaks to the goal of enhancement, either directly or indirectly. This is a worthy goal; just ask most parents of a child with low IQ or a cognitive disability. . . . 16 percent of the population have IQ scores under 85 -- that’s about 53,000,000 people in the United States alone. Is this not a reason to think about enhancement as a means to make everyday life a bit easier?” (Haier, 2023, p. 151). For Haier, the purpose of intelligence research is to raise intelligence in people -- especially people with low IQs -- and improve their lives.

Linda Gottfredson is another intelligence researcher who wants to improve the lives of less intelligent people. In her work on the relationship between intelligence and health outcomes, she has discussed how low intelligence makes taking care of one’s own health difficult. Low IQ also increases the risk of accidental injury (Gottfredson, 2004). In response to these findings stated, “If we knew more about life’s daily demands for continual learning, spotting or problems, and reasoning, especially in health self-care, we might know better how to structure environments, deliver services, and provide instruction. This might ease the burdens of complexity and promote wiser choices for everyone, but especially persons lower on the IQ continuum” (Gottfredson, 2004, p. 196). 

Educational psychologists who research intelligence have a long-standing history of interest in helping people with low IQ succeed in school. Arthur Jensen (1971/1973) discovered that high-functioning children with IQs in the 70s and 80s performed just as well in basic learning tasks, like rote memorization, as higher-IQ children. Jensen believed that altering teaching methods to emphasize these basic learning functions (which he called “Level I abilities”) and away from abstract learning abilities that favored high-IQ people (which he called “Level II abilities”), could help lower-IQ children prosper in school. “This raises the interesting question whether all scholastic subjects can be taught in ways that maximize their dependence on Level I and minimize their dependence on Level II. If this can be done for children who are low in Level II ability -- and we will never know without trying -- it should reduce not only the scholastic achievement gap between majority and minority children but the achievement differences among all children of every group” (Jensen, 1971/1973, p. 321).

The same goal to identify teaching techniques that would benefit low-IQ children animated Lee Cronbach for a decade of his career. One important conclusion was that, “. . . students with superior intellectual development seem to profit from instruction that places on them considerable responsibility for organizing and interpreting. Conversely, below-average students tend to profit most from tightly structured lessons” (Cronbach, 1989, pp. 85-86). The practical importance of this insight cannot be overstated: this finding tells teachers how they should alter lessons to help students who struggle because of their below-average intelligence. Since the 1970s, curriculum development experts have had much success implementing this finding to help struggling students learn better -- and it all started with an expert on IQ trying to help people below average.

Other educational psychologists who researched intelligence have also stated their goal of helping learners with below average IQ. This group includes Lewis Terman (1915), Leta Hollingworth (1920), Julian Stanley (Clynes, 2016), and many others.

Intelligence researchers have even worked in the criminal justice system to save lives of low-IQ prisoners. Terman (1918) provided expert testimony for the defense of a man accused of sexual assault and murder, saving him from the death penalty. James Flynn’s work with the Flynn effect showed that older intelligence tests inflated examinees’ IQ scores, which placed people with mild intellectual disability at risk for the death penalty (Flynn, 2012). Flynn showed that correcting for older tests resulted in reclassifying some prisoners as having an intellectual disability. Because it is unconstitutional to execute a person with an intellectual disability, Flynn’s work has, literally, saved lives.

There are many other examples of intelligence researchers and theorists who have expressed their desire to improve the lives of people with below-average intelligence. In my book In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths About Human Intelligence (Warne, 2020), I expressed a hope that understanding intelligence differences will make people more accommodating of the needs of less intelligent citizens. Nathan Confas (2020) argued that it is justifiable to pass laws that protect less intelligent people from choices and life circumstances that put them at risk of harm. It seems that most people who understand individual differences in intelligence want to use that knowledge to help low-IQ people -- not place limits on them.

Even when intelligence researchers aren’t explicitly aiming to help people with IQs below average, much of the research helps them anyway. This is seen, for example, in the selection research, which uses tests and other sources of information to select people for educational programs or employment. Decades of research shows that higher-IQ applicants are more likely to succeed in advanced educational programs or in jobs (e.g., National Research Council, 1991; Sackett et al., 2008; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004). Applying these results means that lower-IQ people are more likely to be rejected from jobs or educational programs that have a minimum IQ standard. Rejection is, doubtlessly, disappointing to an applicant. But in the long run, this is beneficial for these people because they will not accrue student debt attending educational programs that they probably will not finish. Rejected applicants also do not waste time in educational programs or jobs that they are poorly suited for, and they do not suffer the stigma of dropping out or being fired when their performance is subpar. 

These are just a few examples of intelligence researchers who are motivated to help low-IQ individuals. Indeed, because of their understanding of individual differences, the typical intelligence researcher is keenly aware of the needs of less intelligent people. Because they have this understanding, many intelligence researchers have worked to improve the lives of low-IQ individuals. My experience is that intelligence research is a very pro-human field, and its leaders want to help low-IQ individuals as much as possible.

References

Clynes, T. (2016). How to raise a genius: Lessons from a 45-year study of super-smart children. Nature, 537(7619), 152-155. https://doi.org/10.1038/537152a 

Cofnas, N. (2020). Coercive paternalism and the intelligence continuum. Behavioural Public Policy, 4(1), 88-107. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.4 

Cronbach, L. J. (1989). Lee J. Cronbach. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 8, pp. 62-93). Stanford University Press. 

Flynn, J. R. (2012). Are we getting smarter? Rising IQ in the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press. 

Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Intelligence: Is it the epidemiologists' elusive "fundamental cause" of social class inequalities in health? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86(1), 174-199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.174 

Haier, R. J. (2023). The neuroscience of intelligence (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 

Hollingworth, L. S. (1920). The psychology of subnormal children. The MacMillan Company.

Jensen, A. R. (1971/1973). Do schools cheat minority children? In Educational differences (pp. 274-321). Routledge. (Originally published 1971). 

National Research Council. (1991). Performance assessment for the workplace: Volume I. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/1862 

Sackett, P. R., Borneman, M. J., & Connelly, B. S. (2008). High stakes testing in higher education and employment: Appraising the evidence for validity and fairness. American Psychologist, 63(4), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.4.215 

Terman, L. M. (1915). The mental hygiene of exceptional children. Pedogogical Seminary, 22(4), 529-537. https://doi.org/10.1080/08919402.1915.10533983 

Terman, L. M. (1918). Expert testimony in the case of Alberto Flores. The Journal of Delinquency, 4(4), 145-164. 

Warne, R. T. (2020). In the know: Debunking 35 myths about human intelligence. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108593298