Ask A Genius 641: The History of IQ and the SAT with a bit of Cumberbatchery

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/12/05

[Recording Start]

Rick Rosner: We’ve delved quite a bit into IQ, its history, and tests related to aptitude, like the SAT. The SAT, as we know it now, came about after World War II, mainly because the GI Bill was made available to veterans, though African Americans, despite their service, often didn’t receive these benefits. This led to a historic surge in college enrollments, and college admissions officers found themselves needing a quicker method to differentiate among the applicants. No longer a craft-like process, admissions turned into a systematic operation. The SAT, which had been around for 40-50 years or possibly more before this, involved essays and language translations, including Latin. It wasn’t based on multiple-choice questions and required detailed assessment rather than machine scanning. This need led to the creation of the modern SAT.

From this, we can infer that people saw a need for IQ testing, desiring a tool that could quickly determine if someone was, in plain terms, not very smart or indeed brilliant. If you work with someone for about six months, you generally get a good sense of their abilities and personality. But there was this belief that no one had time to potentially waste on unsuitable individuals. This led to the development of aptitude testing for school children in France at the start of the 20th century, initially using a simple scale from one to five. IQ testing in California, particularly the Terman model, expanded this to a hundred point system, plus or minus. This approach really took off with mass testing, especially during World War I, where millions received these early and, frankly, problematic American IQ tests.

People had convinced themselves of the necessity of these quick assessment tools, despite their issues. IQ and SAT tests, at best, were just okay at differentiating intelligence levels. Mensa, created in the late ’50s, is a case in point. Named after the Latin word for ‘table,’ its founder envisioned a round-table discussion of the world’s highest IQ individuals to solve global problems – a modern-day Knights of the Round Table, but focused on IQ. However, it’s pretty obvious that Mensa hasn’t exactly resolved any major world issues.

IQ tests don’t really excel at what they were initially designed for. If you can figure out someone’s not too bright in six months, you can likely do it in a week. The prime time of IQ testing has passed. The SAT, too, is on a rapid decline. It’s been playing this game for 30, 40, 50 years, where it gets periodically revamped. In the television world, I call this ‘the churn,’ where shows are constantly updated to keep the audience’s interest. The Tonight Show is a classic example. It’s been a late-night ratings leader since the ’50s. Johnny Carson and then Jay Leno dominated this slot for decades. When Jimmy Fallon took over, NBC heavily advertised this change. The Tonight Show maintained its lead, but the show I worked on began to lose out in the ratings. This situation often prompts networks to make changes – ‘the churn.’ You replace staff, particularly writers, to show that you’re addressing the issue, even if it doesn’t really change the core problem.

The SAT has been doing this for decades. They change things up – tweak the essay section, drop analogies – and claim it’ll solve all the problems with the SAT. But these changes are superficial. Recently, they’ve gone all digital, claiming it will make the test more responsive. But it doesn’t address the inherent issues with the SAT. The test doesn’t really add much in predicting a student’s success in college beyond what you’d get from the rest of their application. The COVID pandemic was a real eye-opener, with the SAT becoming impractical due to social distancing, leading many colleges to drop the requirement. This has significantly impacted the relevance of the SAT.

So, after all that, you asked about productivity, genius, and IQ. When we talk about productive geniuses – those extremely rare individuals like Einstein, who in one year, 1905, wrote four papers that revolutionized physics, and then did it again in 1915 with general relativity, and even had a hand in inventing the laser – we’re talking about something extraordinary. Newton, too, who developed calculus and universal gravitation, is another example. These kinds of geniuses are so rare. Even Stephen Hawking, while brilliant, didn’t revolutionize physics to the extent of Einstein. Then there’s Crick, Watson, and Rosalind Franklin, who discovered DNA’s structure – a significant achievement, but again, a singular event. Shakespeare wrote numerous plays and sonnets, most of which are highly regarded. But when you consider the billions of people who have lived, the number of these extraordinary geniuses is exceedingly small.

You might think there’d be some overlap between IQ test geniuses and these historic figures, but it’s incredibly rare. The history of IQ testing is littered with people celebrated for high scores, but few have achieved what these notable geniuses did. Even in cases like Terence Tao, the UCLA mathematician, or the Polgár sisters, chess prodigies, where people have estimated their IQs based on their achievements, it’s just speculation. So, the odds of an overlap between an IQ test genius and an Einstein-type genius are astronomically low.

But to answer your question, I think the real indicator of a super-genius is an unrelenting drive to figure things out, coupled with the ability to do so. Newton, for example, was fascinated by the natural world. He pondered why apples fell and connected it to the moon’s orbit around the Earth. He developed calculus to explain these phenomena. He even tried to decode the Bible, though he wasn’t successful there. Newton also tackled practical problems, like the issue of coin clipping, by adding milled edges to coins. Edgar Allan Poe, known for his literary work, also contemplated why the night sky is dark, a genuine scientific inquiry. So, true genius is about relentless curiosity and the ability to make significant discoveries or create profound works.

Living a long life can help, but it’s not a guarantee. Newton lived a long time, but others, like Poe, died young. Getting your work recognized and accepted is crucial – you have to appear more brilliant than eccentric. Newton managed this, despite his difficult personality. Shakespeare got all his work published. Then there’s Emily Dickinson, who barely published anything in her lifetime but is now considered a major poet.

Genius is often a solitary pursuit, but it’s defined in relation to society. Many in the high IQ community haven’t achieved recognition for their work. It’s not just about being smart; it’s about having your work acknowledged as legitimate, which involves a mix of factors, including luck. For instance, the original creator of shadow boxes was just doing it for personal amusement, but later, people recognized it as genius. So, being a genius isn’t just about having a high IQ or making groundbreaking discoveries; it’s also about how your work is perceived and valued by society.

So, this is what the SAT has been doing roughly every decade since, I believe, the 1980s. The test remains essentially the same, primarily multiple choice, but they do tweak things here and there. For instance, they mess with the essay section, eliminate analogies, and then claim, “Look, these changes we’ve made will solve all your issues with the SAT.” But really, they don’t accomplish much. Just recently, the SAT went through this process again; they’ve moved to an all-digital format. Paper-based SATs are a thing of the past. Now, you’ve got to sit in front of a monitor to take it. The SAT seems to be saying, “Yeah, this shift will make us more responsive to the needs of an aptitude test,” even though they don’t label it as an aptitude test anymore. However, this change doesn’t address any of the SAT’s fundamental flaws; it’s just a desperate attempt to appear up-to-date. The main issue with the SAT is that it doesn’t really give you a better prediction of whether a student will excel at your university compared to simply reviewing the rest of their application. It’s not adding any real value. Also, with Covid, the SAT faced its moment of truth when it became impractical to administer the test to large groups. Consequently, thousands of colleges dropped the SAT requirement, which really hit the test hard.

Now, moving on to the broader issue you were asking about – productivity, genius, and IQ. When we talk about productivity, I think what we’re really discussing is true productive genius. I’m talking about those one-in-a-gazillion types, like Einstein, who wrote four ground-breaking physics papers in a single year, 1905, and then changed the game again in 1915 with general relativity, not to mention his role in inventing the laser. Or take Newton, who invented calculus and the theory of universal gravitation. These types of geniuses are incredibly rare. Think about the likes of Einstein, Newton, and Darwin. Hawking dealt with black holes, which are, well, super hard to see, and while he was brilliant, it’s tough to say if he revolutionized physics like Einstein did. Then there’s Crick, Watson, and Rosalind Franklin, known for their discovery of DNA’s structure – again, a significant achievement, but a singular one. Shakespeare wrote tons of plays and sonnets, almost all of which are highly acclaimed. But still, out of the billions of people who have lived, you can count these extraordinary geniuses on one or two hands.

It’s statistically improbable that there’s much overlap between those with sky-high IQs based on tests and these super-duper productive geniuses. Throughout the history of IQ testing, we’ve seen a few dozen individuals celebrated for their high scores, but their achievements don’t compare to those historical figures. Then there are people like Terence Tao, the UCLA mathematician, and the Polgár sisters, chess prodigies, whose IQs are estimated based on their accomplishments. But in reality, the likelihood that such IQ test geniuses and Einstein-level geniuses overlap is extremely low – hundreds of millions to one, and even optimistically, maybe two million to one.

So, any questions? I’m not sure if I’ve fully addressed your initial query.

Jacobsen: Perhaps I can broaden the question a bit from the specific one. What would you say are the most significant indicators of intelligence, qualitatively speaking, rather than relying on paper and pencil or electronic tests? The original question focused on productivity, but that seems a bit narrow.

Rosner: My best guess for the real markers of a super genius involves an unstoppable drive to figure things out, coupled with the actual ability to do so. Take Newton, for instance. He observed things falling – whether it was an actual apple or not, I don’t know, but stuff falls, right, like apples from trees. He was around in the 1660s when not much was happening. He had to leave Cambridge due to the plague and ended up back at the farm or in the countryside. So, he’s observing trees and the moon and makes this connection that the moon and the apple are both pulled toward the Earth. The moon never crashes into us because it’s moving fast enough to miss but keeps getting pulled around in a circle by gravity. He figured that out and came up with calculus to explain how this all works. He also spent a lot of time with the Bible, looking for secret codes, though he didn’t find any. He was wrong there, but he was still driven to search for these codes.

Newton also dealt with practical issues, like when he was in charge of the Mint. Back then, coins were made of precious metal, and people would file down the edges to steal the metal. If you filed off a bit from a bunch of coins, you could make a decent sum. Newton addressed this by adding milled edges to coins – think of the lines on the edge of a US dime. This made it obvious if someone tried to file the edges off. It wasn’t a perfect solution, but it probably stopped most of the tampering. So, Newton had this drive to figure things out, and he was successful in many cases. Then there’s Edgar Allan Poe. He figured out why the night sky is dark, which is pretty impressive. He’s known for creating the detective story genre and unfortunately died young, under somewhat mysterious circumstances. But before that, he wrote a lot and pondered significant scientific questions. And, of course, Einstein – he just figured out all sorts of stuff.

So, that’s about it. If you’re keen on figuring stuff out and you’re actually good at it, those are key indicators. Oh, and another thing: living a long life. In Poe’s case, no, he died young. Newton, on the other hand, lived a remarkably long life. His most significant scientific contributions were made when he was younger, but living long doesn’t hurt. You know, not everyone like Shakespeare lived to old age. Well, maybe not, but that’s something to consider. It seems that about half of the names I’ve mentioned didn’t have particularly long lives.

Another thing that might be a tell is getting your work recognized as legitimate. You need to appear more brilliant than insane, and Newton was pretty good at this. He made it to Cambridge, despite being quite difficult to get along with, but he apparently had the social skills to prevent his prickliness from being a major issue. Shakespeare managed to get all his plays and sonnets published, so luck plays a part too. Take Emily Dickinson, for example; she barely published anything during her lifetime. Someone stumbled upon her poems later and decided they were noteworthy, despite her reclusive nature.

One more thing I’d like to add is that being a genius is somewhat solitary by nature, historically speaking. But it’s not entirely so. Newton did a lot of work alone, as did Einstein, though Einstein had a group of physics friends to discuss ideas with. What I’m getting at is that genius is often seen as an individual trait, but it’s actually defined in relation to society. You need societal recognition to be considered a genius. This might sound obvious, but it’s an important dynamic. In the high IQ community, there are many smart people, even self-proclaimed mega geniuses, who haven’t managed to get their work acknowledged as legitimate by society.

It’s not just a black and white situation. There are factors that can increase the likelihood of your work being recognized as genius, and luck is certainly one of them. Consider the guy who invented shadow boxes. Nowadays, you can buy these shadow boxes in craft stores, where you can display little found objects, like rocks or a piece of pottery. The original creator of these shadow boxes was probably just making them for his own amusement in the Northeast US, and then people discovered them and deemed them genius.

There are other factors too, like having a romantic or intriguing story. Think of a reclusive individual who’s written thousands of poems; there’s a certain allure to that. Or take Louis Wain, the Victorian era artist known for his cat drawings. They’re making a movie about him, starring Benedict Cumberbatch. Wain made art for postcards and greeting cards featuring cats, which people adore. His life was quite dramatic – he was surrounded by cats, and it’s said he developed schizophrenia, which influenced his art. His cat drawings evolved from pretty pictures to abstract, spiky designs, eventually resembling mandalas with just a couple of cat eyes in the center. The movie about him will explore the fine line between madness and genius. So, there you go, I’ve been rambling on. The end.

[Recording End]

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.