MethodologyMethodologyTechnology, IQ, and Koko the GorillaTechnology, IQ, and Koko the Gorilla

Are people getting smarter?HYPOTHESIS:

Technology advances produce a smarter population.

METHOD:Plot average IQ test results as a function of year.

ASSUMPTION:IQ tests accurately measure intelligence.Technology advances occur at a constant rate.

Results of IQ study

Does this prove the IQ hypothesis?

Nothing in the study demonstrates that the IQ increase is due to technology!

The IQ test changed during the test period.

Other indicators like SAT scores have fallen!

Environmental explanations for IQ result.

Cultural, social & economic biases in IQ testing.

Take Koko, for example:

a vocabulary of 375 signs. IQ measured to be 84 an IQ only slightly below

average for a human child! good results even though

some IQ test questions were biased against gorillas!

Koko has been taught sign language. In 1978 she had:

Patterson, P. (1978) Conversations with a gorilla, National Geographic Magazine, Oct. 1978, p. 438-465.

IQ Test Question:

Point to two things that are good to eat:

Koko: a current update

In 1999 Koko knows >500 signs and 2000 words of spoken English.

Understands the notions of past, present, and future, and truth and falsehoods.

IQ has been measured to be as high as 95 despite anti-gorilla bias in testing.

Koko is getting smarter, and/or she is getting better at taking IQ tests!

http://www.gorilla.org/gorilla/koko/index.html

Planet of the Apes?

What can we actually conclude?

Keeping Koko’s story in mind, the methodology proposed only proves the following:

•People are getting better at taking multiple choice IQ tests, just like gorillas!

•Intelligence testing is hard to get right.

Where did we go wrong? Principal assumptions flawed.

Failed to develop methodology that connected technology with the intelligence.

Faith in numbers over and above method!

Interpreting results... If you produce a result which is out

of bounds or unexpected, trust your intuition and ask WHY?

It may be that your hypothesis is false.

It may mean that your method is flawed