Humans differ from other animals by their ability to learn from experiences, to understand complex ideas with abstract reasoning, and to overcome problems and adapt to their surroundings by using many different ways of thinking. Let us begin by defining the whole of these mental skills as intelligence. When we consider that these mental skills vary to a significant extent among individuals, we can better appreciate the strong conviction that being more intelligent takes individuals, and consequently, societies, a step ahead in the competition.
The psychology literature is replete with research on the psychometric measurement of intelligence, which has popularized the term IQ (intelligence quotient). The desire to allocate a single number to human intelligence that started about a century ago has culminated in the development of tools measuring intelligence that can rather accurately predict the success of a person in business and social life (and even how long and healthily one can live). The fact that these tools have been invented in the West, and that they are verified with the Western measures of success, limit the extent to which their outputs can be generalized. Despite such limitations, however, these tests are the best tools we currently have, especially in measuring abstract reasoning and spatial abilities. Accordingly, a person with an IQ score of 130 should not have much difficulty understanding an abstract mathematical concept, whereas a person with an IQ of 100 will need more motivation to grasp the same concept. A person with an IQ of 70 may fail to appreciate the concept at all. An interesting finding is that a one point increase in the average IQ of a country corresponds to a 229 dollar increase in per capita income. Researchers have shown that a one point increase in the top 5% by IQ in a country corresponds to a 468 dollar increase in per capita income (Rindermann and Thompson, 2011).
Mozart Effect?
The fact that intelligence summed up by a single number can predict so well both on the individual and the societal scale is indicative of a significant scientific achievement. But this ability to summarize also brings with it the risk that consumers will conceptually oversimplify intelligence. This may be the reason why products that are marketed with the promise of increasing IQ with no apparent scientific basis seem convincing and attractive to consumers. A few examples may better illustrate this point. A 1993 article in the prestigious journal Nature showed that university students who listened to Mozart's Piano Sonata were more successful in an origami test that measured their spatial abilities compared to a control group that did not listen to the piece (Rauscher, Shaw and Ky, 1993). Researchers have calculated that this success corresponds to a 8 to 9 point increase in IQ. This finding, which has inspired confidence in the popular belief known as the Mozart effect, has neither claimed a permanent IQ increase, nor has it been tested on babies or children. In fact, further research has shown that the effect may be attributed to a temporary stimulation.
Turning the opportunity into money
This has not, however, stopped companies and entrepreneurs from extracting money from this opportunity. Speculating that this finding can be observed in babies as well, many Mozart effect CDs, video tapes and toys have been marketed to consumers who wanted to believe that it would be this easy to permanently increase human intelligence. Even today, a search for “Baby Mozart” on Amazon.com reveals around 3000 products with baby and child pictures on them. It should be stressed that the problem here is not getting minors (with the exception of the fetus) to listen to Mozart, but the continued marketing of these products with over a blatant lie.
“Super babies”
Similarly, an Amazon.com search for “Baby Einstein” reveals about 4000 products. This brand, which markets toys and videos that claim to increase the intelligence of minors from three months to three years old, has predictably nothing to do with Einstein or any of his work. The goal is to use this name to trick consumers into making such an inference. As long as it does not pose a danger for the sales figures of the brand, which exceed 100 million dollars, the accuracy of such inferences is of little importance.
For example, researches proposed that the time spent on watching Baby Einstein videos can be better invested in active play, with more beneficial results for children in the target age range (Anderson and Pempek, 2005). In a similar fashion in the 1980, parents who were convinced that they could grow “super babies” exposed their newborns to advanced mathematics and a foreign language. But since children of this age are far from the cognitive development required for such advanced skills, they only deserved the name coined for them in terms of their cost to their parents.
The tale of the 10 percent
Another false belief that strengthens the illusion that IQ can be readily enhanced thanks to commercial products is that we only use 10% of our brains. This fairy tale, which assumes that the cognitive potential of a human being is almost limitless, and which is often repeated and supported in the popular culture, continues to be cited as a fact in product commercials, especially in the US. The tale sounds nice because accessing the secrets that unlock the untapped 90% of our brains means we can easily have an edge over those unaware of these secrets. And for every consumer ready to believe, there is a salesman ready to convince. As a case in point, the marketers of the “spiritual” movement called New Age promise that those who can unlock the untapped 90% of their brains can utilize psychokinesis (the ability to control events with mental powers) and skills of extrasensual perception.
These promises have no scientific basis. If what the 10% story suggests is that 90% of the physical mass of the brain is unutilized, it is noteworthy that advanced imaging techniques have shown no silent or idle areas in the brain. Also, in cases of accidents and strokes, it is well known that losing much less than 90% of the brain can have devastating consequences. It is worrying, though not surprising, despite no scientific merit, many people continue to believe in this story.
Smart or intelligent?
I would like to conclude by mentioning a difference I find significant in this context, between IQ and the newly developed RQ (rationality quotient). The difference between IQ and RQ roughly corresponds to the colloquial difference between intelligence and smartness. We often encounter situations in which people we consider to be intelligent do not behave rationally. RQ is a quotient that helps us account for these apparently contradictory impressions. RQ aims to measure the awareness of individuals of their mental processes. People with high RQ are thought to be highly aware of these processes Hence, being aware of the cognitive shortcuts that influence our decision-making may help to reduce their effect on our decisions. This also implies that a person with a high IQ but low RQ may make poor decisions despite high intelligence..
A simple example may help to make the point. Confirmation bias suggests that while people use information that confirms their expectations without questioning, they tend to overlook or question information that does not confirm their expectations. A person of high RQ who is aware of this much internalized cognitive bias can evaluate information more objectively by uncoupling it from their expectations, and make more rational decisions as a result. Since not enough people have taken the RQ test for a meaningful comparison, an RQ score cannot be generated at this point. If and when this becomes possible, be prepared to see advertisements that claim to increase your baby’s RQ . Because insights into one's own mental processes can be learned, it can be easier to increase one’s RQ than IQ score. If these products do indeed succeed in increasing RQ, as they promise, this will herald the news that future consumers will make much smarter choices.
Humans differ from other animals by their ability to learn from experiences, to understand complex ideas with abstract reasoning, and to overcome problems and adapt to their surroundings by using many different ways of thinking. Let us begin by defining the whole of these mental skills as intelligence. When we consider that these mental skills vary to a significant extent among individuals, we can better appreciate the strong conviction that being more intelligent takes individuals, and consequently, societies, a step ahead in the competition.
The psychology literature is replete with research on the psychometric measurement of intelligence, which has popularized the term IQ (intelligence quotient). The desire to allocate a single number to human intelligence that started about a century ago has culminated in the development of tools measuring intelligence that can rather accurately predict the success of a person in business and social life (and even how long and healthily one can live). The fact that these tools have been invented in the West, and that they are verified with the Western measures of success, limit the extent to which their outputs can be generalized. Despite such limitations, however, these tests are the best tools we currently have, especially in measuring abstract reasoning and spatial abilities. Accordingly, a person with an IQ score of 130 should not have much difficulty understanding an abstract mathematical concept, whereas a person with an IQ of 100 will need more motivation to grasp the same concept. A person with an IQ of 70 may fail to appreciate the concept at all. An interesting finding is that a one point increase in the average IQ of a country corresponds to a 229 dollar increase in per capita income. Researchers have shown that a one point increase in the top 5% by IQ in a country corresponds to a 468 dollar increase in per capita income (Rindermann and Thompson, 2011).
Mozart Effect?
The fact that intelligence summed up by a single number can predict so well both on the individual and the societal scale is indicative of a significant scientific achievement. But this ability to summarize also brings with it the risk that consumers will conceptually oversimplify intelligence. This may be the reason why products that are marketed with the promise of increasing IQ with no apparent scientific basis seem convincing and attractive to consumers. A few examples may better illustrate this point. A 1993 article in the prestigious journal Nature showed that university students who listened to Mozart's Piano Sonata were more successful in an origami test that measured their spatial abilities compared to a control group that did not listen to the piece (Rauscher, Shaw and Ky, 1993). Researchers have calculated that this success corresponds to a 8 to 9 point increase in IQ. This finding, which has inspired confidence in the popular belief known as the Mozart effect, has neither claimed a permanent IQ increase, nor has it been tested on babies or children. In fact, further research has shown that the effect may be attributed to a temporary stimulation.
Turning the opportunity into money
This has not, however, stopped companies and entrepreneurs from extracting money from this opportunity. Speculating that this finding can be observed in babies as well, many Mozart effect CDs, video tapes and toys have been marketed to consumers who wanted to believe that it would be this easy to permanently increase human intelligence. Even today, a search for “Baby Mozart” on Amazon.com reveals around 3000 products with baby and child pictures on them. It should be stressed that the problem here is not getting minors (with the exception of the fetus) to listen to Mozart, but the continued marketing of these products with over a blatant lie.
“Super babies”
Similarly, an Amazon.com search for “Baby Einstein” reveals about 4000 products. This brand, which markets toys and videos that claim to increase the intelligence of minors from three months to three years old, has predictably nothing to do with Einstein or any of his work. The goal is to use this name to trick consumers into making such an inference. As long as it does not pose a danger for the sales figures of the brand, which exceed 100 million dollars, the accuracy of such inferences is of little importance. For example, researches proposed that the time spent on watching Baby Einstein videos can be better invested in active play, with more beneficial results for children in the target age range (Anderson and Pempek, 2005). In a similar fashion in the 1980, parents who were convinced that they could grow “super babies” exposed their newborns to advanced mathematics and a foreign language. But since children of this age are far from the cognitive development required for such advanced skills, they only deserved the name coined for them in terms of their cost to their parents.
The tale of the 10 percent
Another false belief that strengthens the illusion that IQ can be readily enhanced thanks to commercial products is that we only use 10% of our brains. This fairy tale, which assumes that the cognitive potential of a human being is almost limitless, and which is often repeated and supported in the popular culture, continues to be cited as a fact in product commercials, especially in the US. The tale sounds nice because accessing the secrets that unlock the untapped 90% of our brains means we can easily have an edge over those unaware of these secrets. And for every consumer ready to believe, there is a salesman ready to convince. As a case in point, the marketers of the “spiritual” movement called New Age promise that those who can unlock the untapped 90% of their brains can utilize psychokinesis (the ability to control events with mental powers) and skills of extrasensual perception.
These promises have no scientific basis. If what the 10% story suggests is that 90% of the physical mass of the brain is unutilized, it is noteworthy that advanced imaging techniques have shown no silent or idle areas in the brain. Also, in cases of accidents and strokes, it is well known that losing much less than 90% of the brain can have devastating consequences. It is worrying, though not surprising, despite no scientific merit, many people continue to believe in this story.
Smart or intelligent?
I would like to conclude by mentioning a difference I find significant in this context, between IQ and the newly developed RQ (rationality quotient). The difference between IQ and RQ roughly corresponds to the colloquial difference between intelligence and smartness. We often encounter situations in which people we consider to be intelligent do not behave rationally. RQ is a quotient that helps us account for these apparently contradictory impressions. RQ aims to measure the awareness of individuals of their mental processes. People with high RQ are thought to be highly aware of these processes Hence, being aware of the cognitive shortcuts that influence our decision-making may help to reduce their effect on our decisions. This also implies that a person with a high IQ but low RQ may make poor decisions despite high intelligence..
A simple example may help to make the point. Confirmation bias suggests that while people use information that confirms their expectations without questioning, they tend to overlook or question information that does not confirm their expectations. A person of high RQ who is aware of this much internalized cognitive bias can evaluate information more objectively by uncoupling it from their expectations, and make more rational decisions as a result. Since not enough people have taken the RQ test for a meaningful comparison, an RQ score cannot be generated at this point. If and when this becomes possible, be prepared to see advertisements that claim to increase your baby’s RQ . Because insights into one's own mental processes can be learned, it can be easier to increase one’s RQ than IQ score. If these products do indeed succeed in increasing RQ, as they promise, this will herald the news that future consumers will make much smarter choices.
REFERENCES
- 1. Anderson, D. R. ve Pempek, T.A. (2005). Television and Very Young Children. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 505-522.
- 2. Rauscher, F. M., Shaw, G. L., ve Ky, C. N. (1993). Music and spatial task performance. Nature, 365, 611.
- 3. Rindermann, H. ve Thompson J. (2011). Cognitive Capitalism: The impact of ability, mediated through science and economic freedom, on wealth. Psychological Science, 22, 754-763.