Human intelligence, which is widely viewed nowadays in the variety of contexts and social situations, refers to the intellectual capabilities of individuals and takes into account a multiple attributes and influential factors. The information on the intelligence is usually gathered with the help of special tests developed with the help of interpersonal relations and contact. The concept of intelligence as such, as well as stereotypes and biases related to it, vary across cultures and societies, and modern scientific community criticizes the use of standard Intelligence Quotient(IQ) measure, because it cannot be effective in establishing valuable judgments, as it does not take the variety of biological and social factors into account. James Flynn and Kevin Warwick analyze the measure of human intelligence in the larger social context, as they argue that interpreting human intelligence is complex task, so there should not be a universal measure. The authors go far beyond the standard nature versus nurture argument, and intersect in their focus on social and cultural factors of intelligence development. Flynn extends Warwick’s argument on the multi-dimensional nature of intelligence and its subjectivity in the modern society by emphasizing the role of social imagination and its underestimation in intelligence description.
Warwick and Flynn develop the idea that the intelligence quotient largely receives the results from genetic attributes, rather than social aspects, and therefore, the usual approaches to intelligence are inconsistent, as they ignore cultural reality. According to Warwick discerning the intellect quotient of a person requires combining cultural influence with other measures of intellect. (199). Intelligence cannot be measured without consideration of the culture of a specific occupation. He proves the claim providing the example of David Beckham and Albert Einstein, as two individuals who achieved success in different fields, so none of them can be treated as more intelligent than the other (Warwick 200). If the fields are differentiated, when it comes to intelligence measure, than the cultural factors should be also treated separately. The authors agree that intelligence can only become sensible if the examined cultures of the individuals are considered as vital contributing elements. In this realm Flynn develops Warwick’s claims about individual intelligence to the consideration on elitism and absolutist theories that largely disregard social and cultural facts. For example, Flynn neglects IQ gap based on racial differentiation by providing the example of the performance of the Chinese in comparison to the performance of the whites. Chinese American culture possesses different values of victory and failure, and it is a crucial factor that affects the performance, rather than racial differences (Flynn 177). Additionally, he states that the IQ alterations exhibited between evolving and advanced states are highly dependent on sociological factors, while diseases, starvation, and natural calamities stifle IQs of a particular party. It is a reasonable level of argument that intelligence cannot be compared without consideration of a common ground which is the culture of the involved individuals. It is clear that different cultures offer different platforms, as well as expectations, which define the uniqueness of every society in dictating the intelligence level of its members.
Multi-dimensional nature of intelligence is another factor that requires adequate treatment of the intelligence in the wider context of social imagination. Warwick claims, “It is not that intelligence has two, three, or even seven different attributes. It has, potentially, an infinite number” (Warwick 202).While some of these infinite attributes in the hypersphere of intelligence may be explained by genetics, the other are developed in social context: in this case, the mind acts in the same manner as the physical attributes of an individual, as the differences in physical attributes of people relate to the ability to improve through training the same way as intellectual performance advances with the help of relevant practices and stimulation. (Warwick 203). Flynn acknowledges the ways the physical and mental attributes develop, but brings the discussion on the next level, by analyzing social situations that measure the attributes development out of the relevant social context. The author gives an example of the study linking intellect to leisure activities, such as riding a horse and driving, as having high and low IQs respectively. (Flynn 181). However, the necessary social context, and in this particular case the family social status is not taken into account, therefore, multi-dimensional nature of intelligence is not addressed relevantly and the results of the studies do not represent valid and reliable data. Warwick emphasizes that it is not only social context, but rather the system of factors that are closely tied together in their interaction. Social imagination and multidimensional character of intelligence are the essential premises of the studies of human mind capacities.
One of the major elements of social context that is sensitive for the definition of intelligence is gender. Both authors agree that gender is not a platform for the definition of difference in levels of intelligence. Warwick claims that the environment is exposing all the people to equal opportunities for intelligence development. Therefore, all the people in a particular environment may be influenced to have equal levels of intelligence. The environment does not discourage performance for a certain gender. Thus, people regardless of their gender have equal chances to achieve excellence through high intelligence levels. Flynn develops the idea of gender equality in terms of social imagination, as he believes there is equal platform for the performance of the female and male students in institutions. Nowadays women are matching the IQ of men in situations, in which previously men were thought to be superior. What is more, in schools women are topping men in class performance (Flynn 178). However, Flynn uses social factors to establish the reasons for the divergence in the IQ gap between women and men, as it largely depends on the access to education and social status of woman in society and varies depending on the culture.
Intelligence is not an element of personal success, but is rather connected with the evolution and extension of success of previous generations. Human beings’ reproduction characteristics may define intelligence by the level of success that individuals have for their generations, as “it is natural for the intelligence of individuals within a species to evolve” (Warwick 205). The social environment is constantly changing, and every generation faces different cultural expectations and other factors that influence their development. On the other hand, humanity has a capacity to alter the social situation and produce a new environment for the next generations. Flynn suggests that modernity is as a result of successful application of intelligence by the previous generations. To illustrate this trend Flynn gives an example of the growth and urbanization of Turkey and suggests that it is a result of application of intelligence by the previous generations (Flynn 174). The ideas of the authors interconnect, as the essence of evolving intelligence lies in the ability of people to change the environment with the help of intellectual capacities, and consequently, adjust to the changes in the next generations.
The discussion of factors influencing the intelligence state of an individual provides the insight into the complexity of intelligence measure. The sociological imagination plays an extremely significant role in discerning the intelligence level of a particular person, and therefore, should be incorporated into the interdisciplinary approach to intelligence. Flynn and Warwick successfully argue the importance of social contribution to intelligence development that is closely interrelated with other factors, as the process is not solely determined by genetics and brain physiology. Intelligence is exceedingly influenced by the environment in which an individual exists, as it has a way of attributing certain levels of intelligence to certain cultures and communities. Therefore, people within the same environment are likely to reason the same way and retain certain attributes, so it is irrelevant to compare the intelligence levels of people from different environments. Furthermore, the culture of a certain society would be significant in defining the intelligence levels of its people. The culture comes with the exposure of the people to different activities and patterns of behavior, so under its influence people develop unique intelligence that is in line with the exposure to certain cultural activities, as well as their intrinsic characteristics.
Works Cited
Flynn, James R. Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print.
Warwick, K. Qi: The Quest for Intelligence. London: Piatkus, 2000. Print.
