Fallacy of abstract labels: IQ & EQ

A map is not the territory - Alfred Korzybski

Background

Korzybski's quote describes the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it. This much flogged saying encapsulates his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Alan Watts came up with a similar 'the menu is not the meal.'

As human beings, we categorise patterns. This tendency to categorize generates stereotypes. Since we recognize patterns so easily, we get lazy. Sometimes we accept the category, the form, instead of recognizing how things or even people depart from that form. Because it’s easier to file things into existing cabinets than to build new ones, so sometimes we put our carts before our horses and declare that the pattern comes before the distinction.

Stereotypes are examples of categories that turn out to be misleading far more often than they’re accurate. Everyone stereotypes other people - but stereotyping is always lazy! The problem is that, at least for cave people, quick and dirty categorization provides a huge advantage in recognizing danger with little survival cost in accuracy. However, In pursuit of efficiency, Mother Nature made it easy for us to be bigots. We stereotype, we judge, we generalise based on our beliefs.

Measurement

We used to diligently mark (with a pencil) my son's height every few months on the wall at a specific part of our bedroom. I know of people who measure their weight on bathroom scales every morning. Apple smart watches tell you your heart rate dip, sleep cycles and pulse - continuously if you desire to know. There are people (I am sure you know quite a few) who, as soon as they get to office first look at the stock market ups and downs.

Cars have odometers measuring speed, tachometers measuring engine revolutions per minute, and with Covid19, every time you enter a bank, the security guard points his Infra Red thermometer at your forehead to measure your temperature. Measuring things give us a number, and numbers can be used to predict. And when we predict something, and it comes true, we feel 'right' and that gives us a sense of safety. So all measurements, are designed to make us feel safe.

Problems in Measurement

It's perfectly fine to measure simple, discernable criteria, like height, weight, length, breadth, heart rate, temperature, value etc. We cheat on some like time. We reset clocks using concepts like 'Daylight saving time' fooling ourselves to recalibrate our Circadian Cycle. Most countries in Europe and the Americas do it - simply with the aim of refusing to accept nature and the rotation the earth and sticking to 9-5 jobs rather than change over to a 8-4 instead.

The problem further intensifies when we want to measure abstract concepts. Everyday on Facebook, you will see multiple quizzes attempted by people.

What would you be if you weren't a human? 'OMG xxxxx, you are a book, so lovely'

What animal you resemble the most? 'Yes, I knew xxxxx, you had to be a lion'

If you were a colour which would you be? 'Awwww, white is soooo your colour xxxx'

As humans, we have a tendency to stereotype, generalise and judge (as brought out earlier). Therefore in order to do that consistently, we create tools for it. Before we go on further, I would like to ask you three questions and I would request you to think about them and answer honestly.

OK? Here goes...

1. There is a questionnaire created on Trust. If a man (or a woman) scores full marks on it (implying that they are extremely trustworthy) - will you marry him(or her)?
2. There is a questionnaire created on Loyalty. If a person scores full marks on it (implying that he was extremely loyal), will you leave you toddler with him for 6 hours?
3. There is a questionnaire created on Leadership. If a man scores full marks on it (implying that he has superlative leadership qualities), will you make him CEO of your company?

If the answer to these questions are not YES, then why on earth would you believe in a test that grades 'intelligence'?

The idea that intelligence can be measured by IQ tests alone even though these tests have been used for decades to assess intelligence are fundamentally flawed because they do not take into account the complex nature of the human intellect and its different components.

Studies on the subject question the validity of controversial studies of intelligence based on IQ tests which have drawn links between intellectual ability, race, gender and social class and led to highly contentious claims that some groups of people are inherently less intelligent that other groups. Instead of a general measure of intelligence epitomised by the intelligence quotient (IQ), intellectual ability consists of short-term memory, reasoning and verbal agility. Although these interact with one another they are handled by three distinct nerve 'circuits' in the brain, scientists found.

“The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people,” said Dr Roger Highfield, Director at the Science Museum in London, a co-author of the study.

“Instead, several different circuits contribute to intelligence, each with its own unique capacity. A person may well be good in one of these areas, but they are just as likely to be bad in the other two,” opined Dr Highfield. The scientists found that no single component, or IQ, could explain all the variations revealed by the tests. The researcher then analysed the brain circuitry of 16 participants with a hospital MRI scanner and found that the three separate components corresponded to three distinct patterns of neural activity in the brain. “It has always seemed to be odd that we like to call the human brain the most complex known object in the Universe, yet many of us are still prepared to accept that we can measure brain function by doing a few so-called IQ tests,” he said.

We already know that, from a scientific point of view, the notion of race is meaningless. Genetic differences do not map on to traditional measurements of skin colour, hair type, body proportions and skull measurements. Now we know that IQ is meaningless too.

EQ

If measuring an abstraction of 'intelligence' was not enough, Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer coined the term 'Emotional Intelligence' in 1990 describing it as “a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and action”. Further fillip was given to the idea by Daniel Goleman when he wrote his 'Emotional Intelligence' in 1995 which remained a bestseller for more than a year and a half. Buoyed by the success, he has written two more books on the subject which too have been lapped up by 'template-seeking' professionals.

So now, intelligence was further burdened by the prefix 'emotional'. Since the world was becoming more and more politically correct and empathy, compassion, inclusiveness and equality were becoming buzzwords, emotional intelligence fit in like a glove. Institutes teaching 'emotional intelligence' mushroomed. EI became part of the curriculum of corporate trainings, of training of coaches and counsellors and empathy (another abstract concept which cannot be measured) made way to EI once Emotional Quotient (EQ) made its appearance in 1996.

Here's the problem with EQ: It will forever be linked to IQ--and the very meaning of the word 'quotient' implies a degree of measurement. But EQ tests don't really measure emotional intelligence.

Why not? Because emotional intelligence, by definition, emphasizes practical use - an individual's ability to apply his or her knowledge of emotions to manage one's own behavior (or, to influence others). The very best EQ test may measure your knowledge of emotions and how they work, but it won't evaluate your ability to put that knowledge to work in real, everyday situations.

People, noted to have high EQ, can still do such stupid things (emotionally speaking). You and I may believe we're open to feedback. We might think we're sensitive to others' feelings. But are we really? Social Media tiffs - on Facebook and Twitter prove that we actually don't care for others opinions, even if they are giving first hand evidence to what they say.

Labels

And this brings me to my pet peeve - labels. The problem with labels is their stickiness. Once you label a person, it sticks like shit on a shoe. It becomes part of the identity and hence dictates the person's behaviour.

You would have heard of people saying 'I am divorced' or 'I am bipolar' or 'I am a Teacher' or 'I am a Homemaker' - whatever the person identifies himself/herself with, the person behaves according to that 'personality'. So if a person sits for an IQ test and gets a 100 - they start behaving like someone 'with average intelligence' - which actually means nothing because your definition of average and my definition of average would be different.

Let's say a young boy in school undergoing an IQ test. It is subjective and hence may ask questions beyond the interests of this boy. And he scores poorly - and is told that he is low on intellect by a Teacher (an authority figure). Imagine what this piece of information will do to his psyche.

Similar would be of someone whose boss knows that his EQ score is 95. The poor guy would be pushed to attend EI trainings, his inputs would be disregarded and he would be told that he is not empathetic enough irrespective of his affinity to puppy pictures on Instagram and he being available to all his friends, neighbours and extended family in their time of need.

So we use incorrect tools to measure an immeasurable abstraction and then based on the result affix a label on people - something that they carry with them all their lives.

Conclusion

We are model-building, pattern-recognizing predictors—which makes us lazy bigots.

It’s as though Mother Nature said, 'You can be good, fast, or cheap - pick two,' and natural selection said, 'We’ll take fast and cheap.'

In biological terms, cheap = efficient. You learned the sound of your mother’s voice before you left her womb. You had to learn most patterns, but you came out already able to recognize nipples.

Booting up a brain takes years because you need a trove of patterns in order to think. Babies’ brains learn to adapt to the onslaught of reality. That we can be aware of our prejudices and correct them means that prejudice is a form of laziness. I mean prejudice in every form, not just judgement and bigotry, but also 'idea prejudice.'

Every thought that we discard because it doesn’t immediately match a pattern that we’re comfortable with could have led to something great. We could have been contenders! Suppression of ideas is the antithesis of creativity, and idea prejudice is suppression, suppression of ourselves. The brain does more than create reality; it makes us actors . If we’re all actors, are some of us more talented than others? Can we change?

The possibilities, as they say, are endless.

Stop being lazy.

Get rid of labels!