IQ

There is a lingering common misconception to the effect that the so-called IQ factor is the main criterion to determine whether a person in his or her mental development has broken the ‘genius barrier.’ Unfortunately there is no Mach number for genius, and it cannot be scientifically calculated at which point a person can be declared a genius, below which he or she is not. Nor does the IQ test give us any clue about the correlation of mental faculties between a hands-down genius and a great methodical scholar. In fact, in so far as the test itself is concerned, the genius and the scholar become virtually indistinguishable from one another, or from some quick-witted fellow with a knack for solving all those IQ problems, but not for much of anything else. All three types must therefore be declared geniuses with the only difference being in the numerical level of, say, 180, or 185, or 200.

On the other hand, I can imagine a genius in the traditional sense of the word, or even a great many of them, who would score quite poorly on this test, just because they would not be interested in the questions asked, and, considering the temperamental nature of genius, where there is no interest there is no answer, simply as a matter of principle. There is a track record of extremely talented people and scholars who refused to take the test, not only in protest against its argued incompetence, but probably for fear that a low scoring on their part would surely have a negative effect on their social standing.

But what does this IQ measurement measure? No one will dispute that IQ tests have something to do with the person’s intelligence, that is, his/her ability to process and assimilate information, to solve mathematical, logical, and other types of problems, and also the general capacity for abstract thinking and reasoning. The most common type of the IQ test problems was normally served at mathematical examinations and various competitions in the USSR, some of the most intricate IQ tests were served among the tasks of high school-level “Olympiads,” and anyone with an above-average capacity for mathematics could prodigiously excel in such IQ testings simply by virtue of regular practicing. I myself, just for fun, could run my IQ scores above 160, but at no time was I impressed by these dubious achievements and never took them seriously. I am sure that regular school practice easily accounted for at least forty extra IQ points, and thus the scores had little to do with a person’s natural intelligence, but everything to do with stereotype training, thoroughness, high level of concentration, and a specific capacity for rational thinking.

Although I have never conducted a scientific study of this, it is my well-reasoned hunch that well-organized and very diligent scholars must necessarily have better luck with these tests than intuitive creative geniuses, who will solve such problems spontaneously or not at all, depending on the circumstances and their specific frame of mind at the time. Once again, I repeat that some very excellent solvers of such problems may not be good at anything else they do, or cannot do. On the other hand, I can envisage a number of elegant ways of credibly testing a person’s creativity and natural imagination, but none of these fairly simple tools have ever been employed in the standard IQ measurements.

Therefore my conclusion is that what high scores on IQ testing do represent is a high level of training and a person’s ability to get organized. IQ tests are excellent as educational tools at school, and can be used for a variety of other useful applications.

But to make a connection between a high IQ score and genius is to trivialize genius, tantamount to defining genius as merely “someone who scores very well on an IQ test.”