The cult of IQ tests versus the scientific method and reality

 Hypothesis: (all) individuals (deemed gifted) who score above 135 on IQ tests are "geniuses" (highly creative, insightful, perfectionistic, talented... with great potential for achievement...) and are mentally balanced...

Method: scientific...

(Lewis Terman's famous longitudinal study)

Around 1,500 Californian children who scored 135 or higher on IQ tests were selected to participate in a long-term study aimed at observing and analyzing their life trajectories into old age.

Result: they grew up to become, on average, professionally successful adults who were healthier and more socially adjusted than the general population. However, no disproportionate number of high-impact scientific, philosophical, or artistic achievements—or instances of "genius"—was observed within this group.

Note: two of the children who were rejected for scoring below the established threshold of 135 or higher went on to distinguish themselves as adults through exceptional creative achievements (William Shockley and Luis Alvarez)...

Despite these facts, a cult-like reverence for cognitive tests has been fostered—one clearly marked by misunderstanding and/or ignorance regarding human intelligence itself. Here is a simple list of the main dogmas or misconceptions held by those who worship IQ:

- There are no multiple "intelligences" / human intelligence is not multifaceted, or it consists solely of what cognitive tests "measure" and estimate (convergent learning potential);

-- IQ = intelligence;

-- Creativity is not a (psycho)cognitive sub-domain separate from convergent learning/memorization;

-- Gifted = genius;

- People with high IQs are [absolutely] more intelligent than people with average or low IQs; -- People with high IQs are "geniuses" precisely because of their scores;

-- People with relatively low scores on cognitive tests are "mentally deficient";

- If there are high-IQ individuals [the majority] who show no significant creative achievements throughout their lives, the reason is never a lack of potential for creativity *per se*, but rather society's fault or a lack of motivation;

- Only the main test scores matter, because differences in subtests are irrelevant;

- Due to the *g* factor, most people show little variation in their cognitive abilities...

What IQ fetishists think, in essence:

"A person who scores high to very high on cognitive tests is automatically a 'genius'."

Reality:

High scores on cognitive tests reflect, on average, greater capabilities regarding memory, verbal, arithmetic, spatial, and reasoning "intelligences," and/or convergent learning. Students who—in my parents' day—were called "nerds" for consistently getting the highest grades in school are also the most likely to score high on IQ tests, because both assessments focus on the same facets of human intelligence. There are exceptions to this rule—for instance, students who would score high on IQ tests but lack interest in what teachers are presenting and end up being more lax about their classroom performance, usually because they are self-motivated in their pursuit of knowledge and/or are ahead of their class level.

Creativity plays a decisive role in genius; thus, it is possible to be highly intelligent—depending on the specific set of abilities—without being particularly creative or becoming a "genius." However, every "genius" stands out precisely because of their creative achievements. Therefore, to identify individuals with the greatest creative potential—perhaps even at an extraordinary level—it might be better to focus on those who score highest on cognitive tests of divergent thinking and/or possess strong intrinsic motivation. Instead of just looking for "nerds," we should seek out all children and adolescents//adults who display intense passions—typically for specific fields like astronomy, the arts, history, or paleontology.