2300 words
Introduction
The concept of “intelligence” has enthralled many people who wish to understand human cognition, including cognitive scientists, philosophers and psychologists. The claimed identity between IQ and intelligence has even led to the sterilization of people in the 1900s around the world. One’s IQ is an outcome, not a cause, and in this article I will explore arguments showing that IQ is best viewed as an outcome not a cause and I will provide arguments for the claim.
What would it mean for IQ to be a cause? Put simply, it means that IQ is causally efficacious for X. For example, the hereditarian may say that “IQ predicts” certain things, and so IQ explains and causes those things. This claim, though, is false. The claim “IQ predicts” is another way of saying “IQ is correlated with.” We all know that correlation doesn’t equal causation. So the claim fails.
When it comes to IQ as a whole, IQ is forced to a bell curve; the bell curve is not a mere outcome of test design, it was deliberately forced by the test constructors by adding and subtracting certain items that certain groups do well on over others. This is seen for the SAT for men and women (Rosser, 1989) and for the SAT for blacks and whites (Kidder and Rosner, 2002)—the fact of the matter is, these two studies are the best evidence that by having different assumptions about people and groups, the test constructors can get the distribution of scores they want by manipulating the test items. Thus, due to the way IQ tests are constructed, I can rightly state that IQ is arbitrary.
As a matter of fact, the bell curve was not an empirical discovery, it was posited a priori by Adolphe Quetelet. He believed that a sign of moral perfection was mathematical regularity. Quetelet’s observations led him create the concept of l’homme moyen—the average man. The bell curve is a main point of contention in the debate about IQ. Though we know that it is a forced consequence of test construction, that is item design and analysis, and it is not real and does not exist in nature (Fendler, 2014) while Richardson (2017: 45-50) notes that few biological traits are distributed in that manner. For example, the brain is log-normal (log-dynamic), meaning it’s strongly skewed with a heavy tail (Buszaki and Mizuseki, 2014). Since the bell curve is a “necessary component of IQ testing” as Fendler rightly notes, then if it can be shown that the assumption of a normal distribution is just not tenable, then it can be rightly inferred that the assumptions of IQ-ists should be questionable since their assumptions are false.
More evidence that IQ is an outcome and not a cause can be seen from the fact that schooling is causally efficacious for IQ and that summer vacation decreases IQ. Why does this happen? It’s quite simple—due to the content on test and the structure of it, when one goes on summer vacation they are thrown out of the school rhythm. Class gaps grew in the summer, which is yet another reason that the claim IQ tests are mere class-specific knowledge tests is true. This evidence shows that IQ is an outcome of what one is exposed to and that the knowledge on the test is class-specific. This class-specific knowledge is what the tests show; cultural and social exposure to information explains IQ gaps, not genes. Cognition is thinking and thinking is the main aspect of IQ test-taking, and thinking is an action which is irreducible to anything physical, so genes can’t explain IQ. Clearly, due to the nature of the tests, what explains how one scores is the knowledge they are exposed to. That much is clear.
IQ is a mere proxy for social class, and it helps to legitimatize social hierarchies (Mensh and Mensh, 1990; Roberts, 2015). Of course, Richard Herrnstein attempted to argue that the social hierarchies seen were a natural consequence of inherited differences among people, that is inherited differences that cause IQ. However, Stephen Ceci (1996) showed that when IQ is equated and social class is not, social class is predictive of life success. So the IQ-income relationship is in all actuality due to schooling and family background, not IQ.
A psychological test score is no more than an indication of how well someone has performed at a number of questions that have been chosen for largely practical reasons. Nothing is genuinely being measured. (Howe 1997: 17)
It is in this context that we need to assess claims about social class and race differences in IQ. These could be exaggerated, reduced, or eliminated in exactly the same way. That they are allowed to persist is a matter of social prejudice, not scientific fact. In all these ways, then, we find that the IQ testing movement is not merely describing properties of people—it has largely created them. (Richardson, 2017: 82)
The distinction between causes and outcomes
If X is an outcome, then X can’t be a cause. So if IQ is an outcome, then it can’t be a cause. So IQ doesn’t cause anything.
The conceptual distinction between an outcome and a cause will show that IQ can’t be a cause. Causes are events, actions or factors which precede outcomes and serve as initiating factors which set into motion chains of events which lead to a particular outcome. So causes come before the outcome they produce which establishes directionality in the cause and effect relationship.
The fact of the matter is, the malleability of IQ shows that IQ is an outcome not a cause. IQ can be changed over time through various experiences and interventions. What this suggests is that rather than being something that shows one’s potential, IQ could then be seen as how prepared one is to take a test with class-specific items. So if a characteristic is malleable and subject to change, then it is an outcome. IQ is a characteristic that is malleable and subject to change. Thus, IQ is an outcome and not a cause.
Causes shape or determine outcomes. They exert their effects on the occurrence of an outcome. That is, causes provide the driving force of the eventual outcome. But outcomes are passive in nature. They are the direct result or consequence that emerge as a direct or indirect consequence of the cause. So causes shape, influence, or determine the outcome while outcomes reflect the consequences of causal factors. Causal factors are what give rise to outcomes.
P1: If X is an outcome, then it is a result or consequence of certain factors or events.
P2: Y is a cause.
P3: If Y is a cause, then it cannot be an outcome.
P4: X is an outcome.
C: Thus, X cannot be a cause.
Since IQ is subject to change development over time, this shows how it is malleable. Due to the differences in cultural and psychological tools between groups (Richardson, 2002), they will necessarily be exposed to different kinds of knowledge. Thus, if people are exposed or not exposed to certain things and they take a test which have a narrow set of class-specific knowledge and skills, then the group more familiar with the content—in virtue of being surrounded by it—would score higher.
P1: If IQ is an outcome, then it is influenced by various factors like education and environment.
P2: IQ is influenced by various factors such as education and environment.
C: Thus, IQ is an outcome.
I can see someone trying to say “IQ is an outcome, you’re right—an outcome of one’s genetic constitution.” However, this claim fails. It fails due to the fact that such a claim reduces to “The way one thinks is an outcome of one’s genetic constitution.” Different cultures and environments can lead one into thinking in different ways since they are exposed to different knowledge bases. Since anything mental is irreducible to the physical, then one’s IQ can’t be an outcome of one’s genetic constitution.
In On Intelligence, Ceci (1996: 118) describes how cultural context is an important part of cognition:
One’s cultural context is an integral part of cognition because the culture arranges the occurrence or nonoccurrence of events that are known to affect cognitive developments (e.g., literacy and orientation in hostile situations). Each culture and subculture presents a limited number of contexts in which children may interact during development, and many of these could have an impact on cognitive performance. Moreover, culture controls the frequency of occurrence of events, thus dictating the amount of time spent doing some tasks (e.g., weaving) over others (e.g., abstracting and interacting with others).
Similarly, cultures control the level of difficulty of tasks within various contexts. For example, in many cultures it is “uneconomical” to encourage each child’s maximal or potential cognitive growth. Rather, these societies endeavor to keep their children in a “zone of proximal development,” which is the difference between their level of independent problem solving and their level of problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). The advantage of the latter is that children are exposed to a complete task while only engaging in those aspects found at the limits of their own cognitive competence.
…
…large-scale cultural differences are likely to affect cognition in important ways. One’s way of thinking about things is determined in the course of interactions with others of the same culture; that is, the meaning of a cultural context is always negotiated between people of that culture. This, in turn, modifies both culture and thought. (119)
In order to establish cause and effect (say, the claim that genes cause or influence the etiology of IQ and differences between individuals), then it is necessary for there to be a theory or definition of the so-called cause. The absence of a well-established theory and definition of intelligence makes it difficult to establish that intelligence is a cause. So this lack of consensus establishes that it can’t be defined easily or measured. The lack of a consensus definition, the multi-determined nature of IQ, the presence of mediating factors, along with cultural variability establishes that IQ/intelligence isn’t a cause.
Since all tests are culture-bound, then a culture-free test is an impossibility (Cole, 2002). Since culture-free tests are an impossibility, then what explains differences between cultures (say, blacks and whites, Asians and whites), is the item content on them that are biased toward certain classes. Since items are biased toward certain classes, then one getting a low score is due to them not being prepared for the test’s content due to being exposed to different knowledge bases. So since all tests are culture-bound, then what explains differences between groups are methodological test construction differences, and we can state this since IQ test results have been changed in the past due to differing assumptions.
P1: If IQ is a cause, the specific outcomes can be solely attribute to IQ.
P2: Specific outcomes cannot be attributed to IQ.
C: Thus, IQ isn’t a cause.
P1: If changes in IQ are observed as a result of external interventions, then IQ is an outcome.
P2: Changes in IQ are observed as a result of external interventions.
C: Thus, IQ is an outcome, not a cause.
Conclusion
For these reasons and more, IQ is an outcome not a cause. And believing that IQ is a cause and not merely an outcome has had some troubling consequences for some people, as the eugenics movement in America in the early 1900s has shown.
Adoption studies (Skodak and Skeels, 1949; Dumaret and Stewart, 1985; van Izendoorn et al, 2005; Kendler et al, 2015; see also Nisbett et al, 2012 for a review of adoption studies and Brockwood, 2021 for review of Skeels and Skodak) along with the results of Headstart and natural experiments like summer vacation show that IQ isn’t a cause, but it’s merely an outcome of what one was exposed to in their lives. This is necessarily true, due to the kinds of items on the test which are specific to certain groups of people. The fact that IQ is an outcome not a cause shows that one can’t invoke IQ as an explanation for anything. One may try to say that IQ is an outcome of genetics, but I’ve argued that those claims fail.
At the end of the day, IQ-ists are trying to say that one’s IQ is causal for how they act in their life. They base this on flawed studies of IQ and job performance (Richardson and Norgate, 2015). In any case, the arguments given in this article show that IQ isn’t a cause and it is an outcome.
To claim that IQ is a cause means that’s it’s a causal factor for something. This means that a higher or lower IQ would have a causal impact on different aspects of one’s life. This is true regarding academic performance but this is due to there being similar items and structure between the tests so they are in effect different versions of the same test. Nevertheless,
To claim that IQ is an outcome means that IQ is the result or consequence of numerous factors rather than the primary cause or determinant of those factors. Thus, IQ is a mere reflection of the influences on an individual’s cognition, not a causal factor which directly affects other aspects of their lives.
The very fact that genetic and mental reductionism are false means that the outcome can’t be due to genes. If it can’t be due to genes, then it has to be due to one’s life experiences. If it’s due to one’s life experiences, then we must recognize IQ as being an outcome due to the environmental factors they are exposed to along with the experiences they have.
NotPoliticallyCorrect 