Measuring Intelligence

So, for those of you who don't know, I am majoring in psychology at BYU. Last semester, one of my psychology classes was discussing the topic of intelligence. The chapter on intelligence in our textbook spends about half of its pages discussing how to measure intelligence (IQ, etc.), predict intelligence (through genetics and schooling), and correlate intelligence and success (financial, social, etc.). Some of the concepts are very interesting, but as I read the chapter, I couldn't help wondering, "Why do we care about measuring intelligence?"

IQ tests and quizzes have got to be ranked among the most popular of Internet distractions. There are companies that make money by convincing people to order their IQ test results off the Internet, sometimes in the form of framed, official-looking printed certificates. Every third pop-up advertisement probes "How does YOUR IQ measure up to Barack Obama's?" The sidebars on Facebook constantly challenge users to see how smart they are compared to their Facebook cyber-friends. Why the obsession?

My thinking is that having intelligence is something valuable, of course, but that providing specific measures for intelligence doesn't do much good. Most members of the general population doesn't know how high or low her or his IQ is, and very few schools or businesses know the IQs of their employees. Intelligence tests themselves are often flawed in their development, and usually only measure a subject's intelligence in relation to the other subjects who have taken the test. Many intelligence tests automatically disadvantage individuals from countries other than Western nations, and many other tests are composed of seemingly random queries developed nearly ambiguously by psychologists and educators. Although there are many intelligence tests that are relatively well-constructed (i.e., Raven's Progressive Matrices Test), a small percentage of the population will ever need to know their intelligence scores in order to survive in daily life. If most people don't know the numerical measure of their own natural intelligence, then why do intelligence tests matter at all? People will possess a degree of intelligence whether they have been tested or not. What is the value in assigning a numerical value to an abstract, mostly inherently possessed quality?

One utility for knowing one's intelligence--one of the few that I have been able to come up with--is that knowing if one is "intelligent" might motivate one to work harder. It is a proven fact that people who are treated like they are intelligent and are told they are intelligent will perform better academically and in the workplace. So, in theory, being told you are intelligent might help you become more intelligent. However, if an "unintelligent" individual is told the truth--that he or she is unintelligent according to the intelligence test--then the intelligence scale acts as a punishment. Just as people who are told they are smart will act smarter, people who are told they are not smart will often perform at a lower rate. That being said, is it alright to lie to someone about his or her intelligence? Is it alright to lie and tell an unintelligent individual that he or she is intelligent if doing so could theoretically be beneficial?

So, back to my big question: Why do we care about measuring intelligence? Sure, it's nice to feel like you're intelligent, but it's got to hurt to feel like you're unintelligent. And how can you trust the method being used to measure your intelligence if its construction is flawed? What is intelligence, anyway? The concept itself seems to lack a concrete definition.