УДК 159.925:331.102.344
L.I. Antoshkina
INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY AND LIFE PRACTICES
Summary. A discussion of the solutions to the issue of intellectual evolution in the context of
modern politics, governmental and social practices. A look at possible combinations of correlation
between requirements for an increase in intellectual potential and capabilities of life practices.
Key words: intellectual potential, scientific, economic, social and social progress.
THE SECOND PART
Summary of research materials (continuation).
Most of IQ tests are based on measuring of two types of intelligence – crystallized
and fluid. Raymond Cattell introduced these concepts into psychology in 1971. Fluid
intelligence is the capacity to solve problems in novel and unexpected situations, while
crystallized intelligence is the ability to use already available knowledge and experience.
Studies of Swiss psychologists (Susanne Jaeggi, Martin Buschkuehl) have shown that
fluid intelligence may be trained, i.e. it can be improved by special mental exercises.
These exercises are aimedat the development of memory, which may be long-term and
short-term. Crystallized intelligence is connected with the long-term memory, while fluid
intelligence is connected with the short-term or “working” memory. In its functions the
short-term memory is similar to random-access memory of a computer – it stores
information meant for direct use “here and now” – telephone number you have to dial right
now; shopping list for today, etc. One forgets such information as soon it becomes
unnecessary. Use of certain type memory tasks trains fluid intelligence and improves it
depending on intensity and duration of study. As a result, general intelligence increases:
IQ general = F (IQ crystallized, IQ fluid) → max;
(2)
IQ fluid = F (M short) → max,
where M short – volume of short-term memory, bits.
Volume of the short-term memory as a measure of the fluid intelligence may be
defined as follows:
M short = Sp x D, bits,
(3)
bits
where Sp – individual speed of information perception (remembering), /sec;
D – duration of information perception in short-term (random-access) memory, sec.
Consequently, training of short-term memory consists in maximization of variables
Sp and D or any of them with the help of special tasks. These calculations formalize an
idea that general intelligence quotient may be defined as a sum of natural talent
(crystallized intelligence) and learned abilities (fluid intelligence). Even if their share in
general intelligence accounts for 20% (according to evidences of A. Jensen [3]), for actual
implementation of this component, resources of educational environment and natural
talent of an individual must be used to the limit. This means that intelligence of an
individual depends not only on biological circumstances (mind you that Marxism and
modern left-wing radical researchers absolutely deny their influence on intelligence of a
future individual), but on the individual itself, as well as on educational environment,
essence of which was discovered by M. Montessori. Fact of the matter is not changed by a
circumstance that correlation of genes and subsequent work (of the individual itself,
society, government) in creation of intelligence unit remains a subject of scientific
discussions.
Until average (ordinary) young individual studies in preschool institution and then in
elementary school, his/her intellectual formation and development are almost completely
defined by influence of educational environment (family, environment, school). It has been
proven that countries where state and social system continuously (irrespective of any
internal and external circumstances) works on rising of people’s intelligence level and
welfare, provide children with a double advantage on part of genes and on part of
favorable environment for the development of intelligence. Similar process are observed in
families where parents with a high IQ provide their children with the same double
advantage [8]. In psychogenetics, this process is known as gene-environment correlation.
Conditions of the development of human intelligence change significantly during
transition to higher levels of education: educational environment remains important, but
training and self-analysis, that is work of an individual at self-improvement, become the
most important. Various tests and techniques of quantitative evaluation of one’s own
intelligence may be used for this purpose. Regular self-analysis will help to identify IQ
dynamics and adjust training program, in particular, to map out consistency (or
inconsistency) of chronological and mental age. Efficiency of preceding work at selfimprovement (reading books, newspapers, magazines, attending some trainings, etc.) is
recorded quantitatively after measuring of IQ. Subsequently, by equation (1) manipulation,
we derive equation for defining one’s mental age
MA = IQ x CA/100, years
(4)
Example 1: Chronological age (CA) of an individual – 25 years. Test self-analysis has
shown that his/her IQ = 105. Then, MA = 105x25/100 = 26,25 years, that is mental age
advances the chronological age of the individual, and his/her IQ is higher than threshold
value, which equals to 100 at any age.
Example 2: CA=25 years, IQ = 90. Then MA = 90x25/100 = 22,5 years, that is
mental age
falls behind the chronological age, because personal IQ is lower than
threshold value. In this case, additional efforts for the development of intelligence are
necessary in order to prevent personal degradation.
During selection of tests one shall take into account that their results must be
characterized by normal distribution with average IQ of 100 and dispersion, so that 50%
of individuals had IQ between 90 and 100, and 25% each – below 90 and above 110
(fig. 1):
0
60
80
100
120
140
IQ
Fig. 1. Normal distribution curve of IQ
If personal IQ falls within the field of the graph, then test selected for self-analysis
may be considered as a right one. As experience has shown, one of the most efficient tests
for this purpose is the Hans Jьrgen Eysenck’s test [7]. Test containing 50 tasks can be
found in the Internet. To help conveniently obtain personal IQ depending on the number of
IQ
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
10
20
30
40
50
Number of correct answers
correct answers, the following graph can be used (fig. 2):
Fig. 2.
Graph
for
defining
personal
IQ
based on the H.J. Eysenck’s test
Systematic work on the build-up of intellectual potential, especially if elevated to the
priority of state policy, facilitates development of a personality, improvement of
population quality, which by mediation of complicated multiple-factor relationships
materializes in social wealth growth and in turn creates new opportunities for growth of
human intelligence. This interdependent relationship has been well known for a long time;
it also becomes apparent in everyday life, i.e. on the level of individual family, as well as
on the level of continents, countries and their regions. Nevertheless, new problems
necessitating deeper research are being repeatedly revealed in these relationships.
In particular, questions like “should one link global and regional crises with general
decline of intelligence?”, “whether the policy of intellectual degradation of population is
purposefully realized by governments and big capital of some (may be for this reason
underdeveloped) countries?”, “which measure of responsibility (and to whom) shall
governments bear for the conscious slowing-down of the intellectual development of
young people, when other countries have already entered the Era of Knowledge
Economy?” have become especially vital. We believe that one shall not ease off in the
search for answers to these questions.
Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen in their fundamental work IQ and the Wealth of
Nations argue that the difference in national income (measured by GDP per capita) are
correlated with differences in the average national intelligence quotient [9]. The authors
interpret this correlation as an indicator of the fact that IQ is an important but not the sole
factor, contributing to differences in national wealth and rates of economic growth. Based
on published in different countries reports from studies performed in this area the authors
construed a table of average IQ scores for 81 countries. Comparing average IQ with GDP
of these countries, the researchers have observed correlation between these indicators.
Differences in IQ between nations (from 107 in Hong Kong to 66 in Equatorial Guinea;
Russia and Ukraine – 97; USA – 98) they have explained by genetic and environmental
factors.
Influence of these factors has been studied more deeply in the most recent work of R.
Lynn “Race Differences in Intelligence” [10]. In particular, he has proven that intelligence
quotient of native East Asians on average is 5 points higher than that of Europeans
irrespective of respondents’ place of residence.
In his studies, R. Lynn stepped on a “minefield”, since both originally and today
supporters of hypertrophied “political correctness” refuse to accept results of his studies. It
is not surprising because, as another prominent British thinker Thomas Hobbes said, “If
geometric axioms had offended interests of people, they would have been rejected”.
Statement of the Nobel laureate James Watson, who figured out the structure of DNA,
“Honesty is useful for this world, it makes the world to work more efficiently”, is quite
applicable to the works of R. Lynn. We notice that the governments of weak countries do
especially not like such works. However, the value of such works is everlasting; an
objective analysis of citizens' intelligence helps to suppress any racial and ethnic conflicts
in embryo, improve upbringing and education system, and make the most efficient use of
country’s gene pool for the purposes of its wellbeing.
In his article “Intelligence and Economic Development [8] published in 2008, R.
Lynn presented comprehensive and accurate picture of interrelationship between average
nations’ intelligence and indicators of their economic activity. People with higher level of
intelligence can: 1) manufacture high value scientific and engineering products, such as
airplanes, cars, computers, pharmaceuticals, research devices, etc., which cannot be
produced by countries with low IQ; 2) outside the field of science, ensure high level
products and services, for instance, in the field of banking services, insurance, architecture,
perfumery, cinema; 3) reproduce labor force, which efficiently works in all fields of
economy; 4) ensure formation of political leaders with the ability to manage economy
effectively.
Only those who in principal reject facts and official statistics can see politics in
evidences of different productivity of different countries. Besides R. Lynn, Charles
Murray, Michael Hart, Derek Walcott, Toni Morrison and many other scientists, presented
such evidences. For example, representative is information about Nobel and other
prestigious prizes, obtained between 1901 and 2006 in different regions of the world
(table 2) [10]:
Table 2
South
Asia and Tropical
Europe East Asia
North
Africa
Africa
1
2
3
4
5
Population, million
933
878
872
300
Nobel Prize laureates in natural
357
14
5
0
sciences
Nobel Prize laureates in literature
91
3
4
1
Nobel Prize laureates in economics,
42
5
0
0
philosophical (mathematics)
Total
541
22
10
1
Per million population
0,580
0,025
0,011
0,003
Table 2 does not include indicators of North and South America, where more than
200 prizes go to USA alone (between 1991 and 2009).
Importance of average intelligence of world nations is clearly visible in indicators of
their patented creative activity. According to the data of US Patent and Trademark Office,
patents for different inventions and innovations issued in USA amounted to:
in 2004 – 181,3 thousands.
in 2005 – 157,7 thousands.
in 2006 – 196,4 thousands (including those issued to American companies and
inventors – 102 thousands, the rest was issued to foreigners).
In 2006 the largest number of US patents went to Japan – 39,4 thousands (average
nation’s IQ=105), Germany – almost 10,9 thousands (average IQ=99), Taiwan –
7,9 thousands (average IQ=105), South Korea – 6,5 thousands (average IQ=106) and
United Kingdom – 4,3 thousands (average IQ=100). Number of US patents issued to India
(average IQ=82), China (IQ=105), Finland (IQ=99), Israel (IQ=95) increases steadily in
recent years. American patent as a title of protection of intellectual property is very
prestigious all over the world thanks to the state guarantees proven during the centuries..
We should note, that presence of developing countries (China, India) in the group of US
patents holders reflects indirectly special role in this process of the USA itself, since most
of the foreign inventors are graduates of US institutes of higher education.
Among post-Soviet countries, number of patented discoveries and inventions in 2006
was as follows: Russia – 176 (average IQ=97), Ukraine – 25 (IQ=97), Lithuania – 11
(IQ=94), Belarus – 5 (IQ=97), Georgia – 3 (IQ=94), Estonia – 2 (IQ=99), Latvia – 2
(IQ=98), Kazakhstan – 1 (IQ=94), Uzbekistan – 1 (IQ=87). For comparison: in 1977,
USSR patented 396 inventions in the USA, while in 1984 – 216 [11]. These statistical data
indirectly reflect level of science and technology in world countries, i.e. reached
intellectual potential and extent of its realization in innovations.
However, since not the half of all inventions (first of all– Know-how) are patented
and not all foreign inventors tend to obtain US patent, presented statistical data are not
objective criterion for characterization of the intelligence level of world’s nations.
Indicators used by the World Intellectual Property Organization in annual publications of
aggregate data of the number of patents and certificates of authorship issued by different
countries are somewhat more objective. In 2007, this organization published data as of
2004 – more than 600 thousands titles of protection were issued in the world [11].
In recent decade, one can observe a marked tendency for internationalization of
patents, when certificates in different countries are being issued to non-residents (i.e.
companies and natural persons permanently operating/residing in other country). Out of
the total number of such patent licenses more than 74% were issued by USA, Japan, South
Korea, China and European Patent Office (serving EU countries). This process is an
evidence of intelligence exchange stirring up; however, its participants are countries with
relatively high level of average IQ, which is quite natural. Revealing in this connection is
a number of patents per million population, as well as indicators of efficiency of
intellectual activity and countries’ expenditures for its ensuring (table 3):
Table 3
Number
of
Number
of Number of patents
per
Countries
and Average
patents per patents per million
USD
worldwide indicators
IQ, points million
1
billion governments
population
USD GDP
and businesses
expenditure
1
2
3
4
5
Japan
105
2884
107,3
3,49
South Korea
106
2189
116,2
4,6
USA
98
645
17,7
0,78
Germany
99
587
22,6
n/a
Australia
98
479
n/a
n/a
United Kingdom
100
320
11,3
6,62
France
98
236
8,8
0,41
New Zealand
99
n/a
18,7
1,67
Israel
95
227
10,1
0,21
Russia
97
160
17,6
1,46
Italy
102
111
4,3
0,37
Belarus
97
108
16,9
3,15
Ukraine
97
68
14,7
1,50
China
105
51
9,4
0,78
Worldwide indicator
148
19
0,81
Sources: column 2 – Richard Lynn [8]; columns 3, 4, 5 – World Intellectual Property
Organization Report for 2007.
Let us go from relatively particular (though very important) characteristics of
intelligence level of different countries of the world to general indicators, which to large
extent are being formed because of realization of intellectual potential. One of them is a
human development index (HDI) published annually by the United Nations since 1993.
This composite indicator is calculated based on three types of data:
average life expectancy at birth (indicates longevity);
adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weighting) and gross enrolment ratio (with one-third
weighting);
standard of living, as indicated by GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) in
USD.
The second and the third indicators directly influence formation of individual and
average intelligence quotient; on the other hand, increasing IQ leads to GDP growth and
creation of more favorable conditions for education and health protection. Since increasing
longevity is a direct consequence of more efficient economy, one can say about economy’s
decisive influence on improvement of the quality of population (gene pool). Strong direct
and inverse correlation of each of these three indicators makes HDI one of the most
objective criteria for assessment of the role of country’s intellectual potential and
satisfactory argument for comparisons.
Based on the HDI value, United Nations divide countries into four groups of the
development level:
1) very high level, HDI>0,900;
2) high level, HDI =0,899…0,800;
3) medium level, HDI =0,799…0,500;
4) low level, HDI <0,500.
According to the UN Report for 2008, the first group consists of approximately 30
countries (table 4):
Table 4
Life
Average
Income per Literacy
Country
HDU
expectancy,
IQ, points capita, USD rate
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
Iceland
0,968
101
29240
99,0
79,9
Norway
0,968
100
36390
99,0
78,9
Canada
0,967
99
28930
99,0
79,3
Australia
0,965
98
27440
99,0
79,1
Ireland
0,960
92
29570
99,0
76,9
Netherlands
0,958
100
28350
99,0
78,3
Japan
0,965
105
27380
99,0
81,5
Luxembourg
0,956
100
53230
99,0
78,3
Switzerland
0,955
101
31840
99,0
79,1
France
Finland
Denmark
Austria
USA
Spain
Belgium
Greece
Italy
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Hong Kong
Germany
Israel
South Korea
Slovenia
Brunei
Singapore
Kuwait
Cyprus
Taiwan
For comparison:
Russia
Ukraine
Sources: column 2
Lynn [8]
0,955
0,954
0,952
0,951
0,950
0,949
0,948
0,947
0,945
0,944
0,942
0,942
0,940
0,930
0,928
0,923
0,919
0,918
0,912
0,912
0,910
98
99
98
100
98
98
99
92
102
99
100
108
99
95
106
96
91
108
86
91
105
27040
26160
30600
28910
36120
21910
28130
18770
26170
20550
26580
27490
26980
19000
16960
18480
19210
23730
17780
18650
23400
99,0
99,0
99,0
99,0
99,0
97,7
99,0
97,3
98,5
99,0
99,0
93,5
99,0
95,3
97,9
99,0
93,9
92,5
82,9
96,8
96,1
78,9
77,9
76,6
78,5
77,0
79,2
78,7
78,2
78,7
78,2
78,1
79,9
78,2
79,1
75,4
76,2
76,2
78,0
76,5
78,2
77,1
0,806
97
8080
99,0
66,7
0,786
97
4800
99,0
69,5
– UN’s Human Development Report; columns 3, 4, 5, 6 – Richard
In general, strong correlation between IQ and factors, which form HDI, first of all,
income per capita, is observed across the group of 30 countries. Only Luxembourg is
divergent very high income, of course, cannot be explained only by high IQ of citizens of
the country well known as international “tax haven”, the largest offshore. Cyprus has
found itself in the same group because of the same reason – another international offshore
with relatively low average IQ of country’s population. As regards Brunei and Kuwait,
high income per capita and, consequently, HDI is a consequence of solely “oil incomes”,
however if assessed based on IQ level these countries are divergent comparing with the
rest. Nevertheless, in absolute majority of highly developed countries HDI is closely
correlated with work and intelligence of their population.
Against the background of these countries, Russia and Ukraine occupy humiliatingly
low position. Being in the group of world leaders in terms of average IQ and literacy rate,
Russia and Ukraine actually belong to the group of countries with medium level of HDI,
because they have mainly “raw materials-based economy” and, as a consequence, low
income per capita and life expectancy, which is further aggravated by diseases, hard
drinking (especially in Russia), social vulnerability and apathy of the majority of
population.
With such correlation of indicators of real potential and its actual use, we have all
grounds to assert that countries’ management systems do not correspond with their
population’ right for life of dignity achieved through much suffering. As appears from the
UN Report, also the rest of post-Soviet countries are in quite similar situation, though they
have almost the same quality of human potential (especially Belarus and Kazakhstan).
Their "independent journey” in the search for “national idea”, “special choice” lasts for
almost twenty years, but apparently – either compass has been spoiled, or pilots see the
road bad.
Conclusions. The analysis has revealed that in order to reach success both in the life
of an individual, as well as a country overall, certain mental abilities are necessary.
Individual intelligence depends on complex aggregate of objective and subjective factors,
but with the decisive importance of the genetic ones strong influence have educational
environment and personality measures, which can be developed by an individual
himself/herself, and especially successfully if society and government actively facilitate
him/her. Aggregate of factors determining average indicator of the intelligence of the
country’s population is even more complex. Government’s quality, priorities of the state
policy, attitude of government and big capital to international experience are the
determining factors in this regard.
References
1.
Большой энциклопедический словарь. – 2-е изд., перераб. и доп. – М.:
«Большая Российская энциклопедия»; СПб.: «Норинт», 1998. – 1456 с.
2.
Reklama, № 28(686), July 24, 2008, p. 54-55; Новый Свет № 3880,
November 6, 2009, p. 18-20.
3.
Jensen, A. Biasin in Mental Testing. Free Press, 1980; Jensen,
A.R. Psychological research on race differences. American Psychologist, № 50, 1995.
4.
Plomin, R; De Fries, J.C.; Craig, I.W.; McGuffin, P. behavioral genetics in
the postgenomic era. Washington (DC): American Psichological Association, 2003; Shaw,
P. et al. Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and adolescents. Nature
440(7084), 2006; Thompson, P.M. et al. Genetic influences on brain structure. Nat.
Neurosci. 4(12), 2001; Jensen, A.R. Clocking the Mind: Mental Chronometry and
Individual Differences. Elsevier, 2006; Gale, C.R.; Deary, I.J.; Schon, I.; Batty, G.D. IQ in
childhood and vegetarianism in adulthood. British Medical Journal 334(7587), 2007;
Matzel, L.D.; Han, Y.R.; Grossman, H.; Karnik, M.S.; Patel, D.; Scott, N.; Specht, S.M.;
Gandhi, C.C. Individual differences in the expression of a “general” learning ability in
mice. Journal of Neuroscience, 23(16), 2003.
5.
Flynn, J.R. Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure.
Psychological Bulletin, 1987, № 101, p. 171-191; Flynn, J.R. What Humane Ideals:
Substitutes for Objectivity, 2008.
6.
Wechsler, D. The Measurement of Adult Intelligence. Baltimore: The
Williams & Wilkins Company, 1944; Reber, A.S. The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology,
2nd ed. Toronto: Penguin Books, 1995; Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised
(http://www.cps.nova.edu/cpphelp/wais-r.html).
7.
Eysenck, H.J. Four ways five factors are not basic//Personality and Individual
Differences, № 13, 1992, p. 667-673; Eysenck, H.J., Eysenck, M.W. Mindwatching, 1981:
Eysenck, H.J. The Measurement of Intelligence, 1973; Айзенк Г. Проверьте свои
способности/Пер. С англ. – М., 1972. – 121 с.; Айзенк Г. Вильсон Г. Как измерить
личность/Пер. с англ. – М.: Когито-центр, 2000.
8.
Линн Ричард. Интеллект и экономическое развитие//Психология.
Журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2008. Т. 5. № 2. С. 89-108.
9.
Lynn, R., Vanhanen, T. IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Praeger/Greenwood,
2002. – 320 p.
10. Линн Ричард. Расовые различия в интеллекте. Эволюционный
анализ./Пер. с англ. Румянцева Д.О. – М.: Профит Стайл, 2010. – 304 с.
11. Земляки, № 23(271). Декабрь 2009.