What do you think?
Rate this book
IQ: How Psychology Hijacked Intelligence
One number has the power to determine the chances we have, the people we meet, the lives we live. In a competitive world, our performance in IQ tests can shape our destiny.
In this, the first popular history of the intelligence test, Stephen Murdoch reveals how universal education, mass immigration into the U.S. in the early 20th century and the demands of mobilisation in the First World War created the need to rank populations by intelligence. In the following decades the tests were used to decide whether people could settle in a new country, whether they could reproduce, even whether they lived or died. While IQ tests have some predictive power, they don't explain people's capacity to think and understand the world around them. What has only ever been a rough guide to ability has, through the seductive power of a single, all-explaining number, come to be seen as an objective and infallible measure of intelligence, even of human merit. Just as bad, we've often tried to reshape society based on exam results alone. Is that the smartest idea anyone ever had?
Stephen Murdoch is a journalist and writer. He has contributed to Newsweek, Marketplace, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and other publications. Previously he was a human rights lawyer in Cambodia and practiced civil litigation in Washington. He lives in California.
288 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2007
8 people are currently reading
199 people want to read
About the author
Stephen Murdoch
4 books3 followersStephen Murdoch is a writer and investor who lives in England with his wife and three daughters. The Fire Priest is his first novel. Previously, he wrote the non-fiction IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea (Wiley, 2007). He has written for various publications, including Newsweek, The Washington Post, and PRI’s Marketplace. Murdoch is the chairman of two UK companies that provide cutting edge digital and bricks-and-mortar solutions to the mental health sector.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
November 1, 2021
Peer into any smooth ingot marketing itself as the next big thing, the coming revolution, and you usually find a bunch of small, cruel, arrogant men stapling wild assertions together and stripping better thinkers for parts, These are men who either have looked closely at their bullshit and hope no one else does, or entirely lack the awareness to do so themselves as they shamble around, breaking things. So too with the notion of a generalized intelligence, used to justify nativist anti-immigrant zeal and the imprisonment/sterilization of disabled people -- and to gradually, anti-democratically, and baselessly ruin our school system. Maybe if everyone read this we could chuck these guys out of the driver's seat and reclaim a country that doesn't have to be as boring as it is brutish.
July 21, 2013
As far as academic histories go, I would consider IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea by Stephen Murdocch to be a fairly entertaining and engaging read. The author writes in a very conversational style and in a way that kept me interested in both the information that he was presenting and also in finding out what his overall conclusions were.
The book is a history of the development and advancement of the idea of way to actually measure human intelligence. The reader is taken on a journey through time from the days when measuring the size of a person’s head was thought to be an acceptable gauge of that individual’s intelligence to the modern day where we have a plethora of assessments which some, including the author, argue are just as effective as the former
The book tells of the first intelligence tests which were set up as almost a carnival sideshow type affair, the first paper tests which were created in France and formed the basis for much of what was to come, the first IQ test developed for the US Army in World War I in an attempt to sort soldiers into the job that would best fit their mental capacities and on to the SAT, psychological assessments and other assessments that we incorporate today. Murdoch presents the reader with many frightening ways that psychologists in the US and around the world have used intelligence testing to weed the mentally unfit out of society through institutionalization, forced sterilization and in some extreme cases (Nazi Germany for instance) as a basis for execution.
Murdoch’s main focus is to point out that, while trying to accomplish something to benefit society; psychologists have been very misguided in their attempts thus far to quantify human intelligence. He illustrates exactly how the assessments developed thus far actually are more of a measure of actual knowledge and to an extent some advanced reasoning skills. He very effectively points out the bias towards lower class and those of minority ethnicities that are inherent in the tests and illustrates how when the playing field is even, those groups that traditionally score lower than the dominant members of society actually equal and at times exceed the scores of the dominant group.
My only real complaint with this study is that, at times, it feels very one sided. Mr. Murdoch does a very good job of presenting both sides of things, but the tone used when looking at things from the side of the proponents of the current IQ assessment system is at times mocking or condescending. There is no question that he feels that many of the developments throughout the years in the field of intelligence testing are pure rubbish and he is of the opinion that the entire system should be scrapped and started anew. He does make a few concessions in the afterward of the book to tone things down a bit, but for the most part, he seems to feel that these tests were created in a very unscientific and almost buffoonish manner.
Overall, I did feel that this was a successful book. The author did a good job of making his point clear and provided many, many examples of the failures of IQ testing. He illustrates that many people are capable of so much more than their supposed IQ scores indicate and that throughout history these people have been unfairly maligned, mistreated and abused. After reading the book, I do feel that more research needs to be done to change the current assessments that we use to gauge intelligence if we are going to continue to base so much on these scores. Lives are made or broken because of how a student scores on an SAT or ACT test and we need to make sure that whatever assessment we are giving, that it accurately reflects the potential of the person who is taking it.
The book is a history of the development and advancement of the idea of way to actually measure human intelligence. The reader is taken on a journey through time from the days when measuring the size of a person’s head was thought to be an acceptable gauge of that individual’s intelligence to the modern day where we have a plethora of assessments which some, including the author, argue are just as effective as the former
The book tells of the first intelligence tests which were set up as almost a carnival sideshow type affair, the first paper tests which were created in France and formed the basis for much of what was to come, the first IQ test developed for the US Army in World War I in an attempt to sort soldiers into the job that would best fit their mental capacities and on to the SAT, psychological assessments and other assessments that we incorporate today. Murdoch presents the reader with many frightening ways that psychologists in the US and around the world have used intelligence testing to weed the mentally unfit out of society through institutionalization, forced sterilization and in some extreme cases (Nazi Germany for instance) as a basis for execution.
Murdoch’s main focus is to point out that, while trying to accomplish something to benefit society; psychologists have been very misguided in their attempts thus far to quantify human intelligence. He illustrates exactly how the assessments developed thus far actually are more of a measure of actual knowledge and to an extent some advanced reasoning skills. He very effectively points out the bias towards lower class and those of minority ethnicities that are inherent in the tests and illustrates how when the playing field is even, those groups that traditionally score lower than the dominant members of society actually equal and at times exceed the scores of the dominant group.
My only real complaint with this study is that, at times, it feels very one sided. Mr. Murdoch does a very good job of presenting both sides of things, but the tone used when looking at things from the side of the proponents of the current IQ assessment system is at times mocking or condescending. There is no question that he feels that many of the developments throughout the years in the field of intelligence testing are pure rubbish and he is of the opinion that the entire system should be scrapped and started anew. He does make a few concessions in the afterward of the book to tone things down a bit, but for the most part, he seems to feel that these tests were created in a very unscientific and almost buffoonish manner.
Overall, I did feel that this was a successful book. The author did a good job of making his point clear and provided many, many examples of the failures of IQ testing. He illustrates that many people are capable of so much more than their supposed IQ scores indicate and that throughout history these people have been unfairly maligned, mistreated and abused. After reading the book, I do feel that more research needs to be done to change the current assessments that we use to gauge intelligence if we are going to continue to base so much on these scores. Lives are made or broken because of how a student scores on an SAT or ACT test and we need to make sure that whatever assessment we are giving, that it accurately reflects the potential of the person who is taking it.
December 7, 2012
Let's open with a quote in the book from David Flynn on page 180 "Psychologists should stop saying that IQ tests measure intelligence. They should say that IQ tests measure abstract problem-solving ability."
Beyond that, Stephen Murdoch shows that IQ tests can honestly be seen as measuring KQ (knowledge quotient), SQ (socialization quotient), and SESQ (socio-economic status quotient), but not intelligence quotient.
First, Murdoch points out that, contra people like Arthur Jensen and Charles Murray, there's not a lot of consensus that some abstract measure of intelligence called "g" exists, let alone exactly what it is, doubly let alone how to test for it. Once one gets out of the field of psychology and into the more rigorous fields of cognitive science and neuroscience, this "no-g" stance becomes even stronger.
Beyond that, Murdoch goes back to the origins of testing for intelligence, then the history of the original Binet, the Stanford-Binet, the Wechsler, and the SAT. One slight quibble is that Murdoch could have done even more to put this enamoration with intelligence testing of early 20th-century Americans into even broader context, i.e. things such as Taylorism in analyzing worker performance.
As Murdoch reports, according to IQ tests, blacks today are smarter than 1930s whites. We know evolution doesn't work that fast; ergo, whatever IQ tests measure, it ISN'T innate/hereditary intelligence. And, that holds true whether or not there's justification, or even strong justification, for the idea of "race."
Murdoch also reports on how IQ tests can be, and have been, tweaked to eliminate the black-white 15-point gap, or even have blacks scoring higher. Again, one minor quibble: Murdoch could have internationalized these findings more, such as higher-caste vs. lower-caste IQ test differences in India.
Related to this test-tweaking, Murdoch shows that specific-skill tests have more predictive value of future life success than the SAT. One other minor quibble here: having taken both tests, I'm disappointed that Murdoch had no discussion of the ACT test, which IS more subject-specific than the SAT. I have feeling that if the ACT were the standardized test, and were tweaked to address different cultural backgrounds, we'd be on a lot better footing than the recently revised SAT II.
Therefore, don't believe any reviewers who claim this isn't a balanced book. People like Arthur Jensen and Charles Murray have opened themselves up for proper, non-"politically correct" critique by making statements that in some cases are not scientifically verifiable and in other cases, can be and have been refuted.
Beyond that, Stephen Murdoch shows that IQ tests can honestly be seen as measuring KQ (knowledge quotient), SQ (socialization quotient), and SESQ (socio-economic status quotient), but not intelligence quotient.
First, Murdoch points out that, contra people like Arthur Jensen and Charles Murray, there's not a lot of consensus that some abstract measure of intelligence called "g" exists, let alone exactly what it is, doubly let alone how to test for it. Once one gets out of the field of psychology and into the more rigorous fields of cognitive science and neuroscience, this "no-g" stance becomes even stronger.
Beyond that, Murdoch goes back to the origins of testing for intelligence, then the history of the original Binet, the Stanford-Binet, the Wechsler, and the SAT. One slight quibble is that Murdoch could have done even more to put this enamoration with intelligence testing of early 20th-century Americans into even broader context, i.e. things such as Taylorism in analyzing worker performance.
As Murdoch reports, according to IQ tests, blacks today are smarter than 1930s whites. We know evolution doesn't work that fast; ergo, whatever IQ tests measure, it ISN'T innate/hereditary intelligence. And, that holds true whether or not there's justification, or even strong justification, for the idea of "race."
Murdoch also reports on how IQ tests can be, and have been, tweaked to eliminate the black-white 15-point gap, or even have blacks scoring higher. Again, one minor quibble: Murdoch could have internationalized these findings more, such as higher-caste vs. lower-caste IQ test differences in India.
Related to this test-tweaking, Murdoch shows that specific-skill tests have more predictive value of future life success than the SAT. One other minor quibble here: having taken both tests, I'm disappointed that Murdoch had no discussion of the ACT test, which IS more subject-specific than the SAT. I have feeling that if the ACT were the standardized test, and were tweaked to address different cultural backgrounds, we'd be on a lot better footing than the recently revised SAT II.
Therefore, don't believe any reviewers who claim this isn't a balanced book. People like Arthur Jensen and Charles Murray have opened themselves up for proper, non-"politically correct" critique by making statements that in some cases are not scientifically verifiable and in other cases, can be and have been refuted.
October 29, 2007
This book was really informative and really disheartening. As a special educator, I guess I've taken for granted all the hype about IQ. I know to take it all with a grain of salt, but I also know that for most states still, to prove a child has a learning disability there must be demonstrable proof of a discrepancy between ability (as measured by IQ) and achievement. I never bothered to look into the history of IQ test themselves, because they've been so entrenched in our society for so long. I assumed the establishment had taken care of that. But no. It's maddeningly frustrating to read this book and see how questions and formats we use now have been largely unchanged since they were first used in WWI to test incoming soldiers. And the tests do not test ability. They test knowledge. I highly doubt anyone can craft a test to determine innate ability, but we all talk like there's already one out there. And lives and educational paths and careers are built around this largely arbitrary number.
I've never had an IQ test myself. I understand they used to be given en masse to students. But that was phased out before my time. Not being referred for a LD, I never had to take one. So I didn't realize what they tested before. As I'm immersing myself in the field and preparing to administer these myself, I'm really questioning what the hell I'm doing.
I've never had an IQ test myself. I understand they used to be given en masse to students. But that was phased out before my time. Not being referred for a LD, I never had to take one. So I didn't realize what they tested before. As I'm immersing myself in the field and preparing to administer these myself, I'm really questioning what the hell I'm doing.
Read
January 20, 2025Fuck! Zero stars. Nice to confirm my inkling that IQ testing is a facade rooted in jingoistic racist nonsense, as this book summarised its history. Still, I should’ve stopped reading well before I got to the nauseating final chapter which included some vomit from Linda Gottfredson (a recipient of a $267,000 donation from a white supremacist group). Not sure if it’s better or worse that this crackpot author has moved on to writing children’s fiction.
April 17, 2018
Interesting history of such a simple thing. Really eye opening. I thought IQ test where bad enough and we don’t limit people’s reproductive rights (anymore).
January 17, 2021
Entertaining narration style for the stories; the information sections are a bit sense but it's a good read
January 3, 2010
Started out with Darwin's cousin measuring people's head sizes and having them do odd physical feats... then changed to a set of questions that were answered by lengthy explanations (open-ended questions, like "What does one do when they get a lot of money?" and the testers thought there was only one right answer to these!
Focused upon rating the "feeble-minded" (yes, the politically correct/so-called scientific terms were "Feeble-minded, moron and idiot." It was a way to weed such folks out of classrooms, to justify sterilization of undesirable gene pools or denying citizenship. Jeez! Hitler agreed with USA's IQ+eugenics studies and referred to our psychologists study results when justifying killing cognitively disabled and, better known, Jews.
Now called "aptitude tests." They help to rank and sort people for the education system and for some jobs.
Focused upon rating the "feeble-minded" (yes, the politically correct/so-called scientific terms were "Feeble-minded, moron and idiot." It was a way to weed such folks out of classrooms, to justify sterilization of undesirable gene pools or denying citizenship. Jeez! Hitler agreed with USA's IQ+eugenics studies and referred to our psychologists study results when justifying killing cognitively disabled and, better known, Jews.
Now called "aptitude tests." They help to rank and sort people for the education system and for some jobs.
February 6, 2008
As a parent, I only think of test only in relation to my child's score. The history of the IQ test is disturbing in how un-scientific it's development was and how it has been used as a basis for mass killing (yes, the Nazi's used it) and even for sterilization within our own country. The part about the SAT seems like it was tacked on as an afterthought but I enjoyed Afterword where the author bluntly stated his conclusions/opinions which he eluded to throughout the text.
June 24, 2013
I read about one third of this book. The subject matter ( the quest for a good measurement of intelligence) is fascinating but I didn't find this book thorough, accurate or comprehensive. For instance, the French term for their German adversaries during the World Wars ("Boche") was spelled as "Bosch". There was no explanation of what Spearman's correlation coefficient was, etc.
People interested in this topic would do better to read Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man".
People interested in this topic would do better to read Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man".
January 7, 2013
This book actually doesn't claim that IQ is as useless of concept as some other reviewers claim. That conclusion to the book isn't based on much in the book, of course, because this is a history book, not cost/benefit analysis book.
October 7, 2007
It started out interesting but I felt it could've pushed the envelope more.
Want to read
December 1, 2008A thought- and emotion-provoking tale of the back room beginnings of the IQ test and its crooked implications in our society.
Read
October 9, 2014There are 15 chapters in this book. The only ones I didn't read were chapters 9, 10, and 15 because they weren't required.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews