The g Quotient is Education and Success

Few years back an engineer friend of mine had arrogantly stated that school education should place more emphasis on technical education rather than wasting time with financially non-rewarding subjects like social sciences and the arts. True, the contribution made by scientists and engineers to society and the human condition is paramount and the market economy does create a higher demand for engineers and people with technical competencies but where does that leave students or others who find science and mathematics to be impervious and stolid. Are engineers and scientists really much more intelligent or are certain portions of their brain genetically or otherwise programmed to produce better output?

The ubiquitous question that students face early on in their lives and which continues to bother many an adult for a lifetime, the question about what line of work to choose, to follow our hearts and take a risk, to go where most of the money is or to follow subjects we like and have had some academic success in. All of us at one time or the other have dreamt about being sportstars or rockstars but few of us really have the inherent talent to be a Tendulkar or an A.R. Rehman.

Can the talents exhibited by Tendulkar, Rehman or on a grander scale by a Beethoven, a Michelangelo or a Shakespeare be defined as a kind of inherent intelligence? How good were their logical, spatial or kinesthetic skills? Are the great leaders, philosophers, innovators, artists jack or jack’s of all trades or they merely the master of their own craft. Barring a few rare geniuses like Leonardo da Vinci who were masters at both the sciences and the arts, most ordinary geniuses have been found to excel only in their specialized field. But what about the rest of us, the hoi polloi, the intellectually non-patrician crowd, Are we intelligent?

In the world of science and psychology intelligence is defined by g, g being the standard measure of intelligence or intelligence quotient or I.Q. Two major definitions have been proposed to define the idea behind the idea of intelligence. The more mainstream being that intelligence involves mental capabilities such as the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, learn from experience and learn quickly. It’s not just book learning or test taking smarts but a broader and deeper capability to catch on and make sense of things, that there is a single dominant form of intelligence, g or "general intelligence" and that the fundamental indicator of this general factor are test scores on a wide range of seemingly unrelated cognitive ability tests such as sentence completion, arithmetic, memorization and three-dimensional understanding which correlate positively? People who score highly on one test tend to score highly on all of them. Based on evidence in these I.Q. tests and other studies it would be apt to say that an individual’s efficacy at performing all the complex and distinct activities listed above would be consistent based on his or her I.Q level. Proponents of this theory are called g theorists.

The other definition of intelligence tries to define it as more of a subjective phenomenon, or as multiple-intelligence. Intelligence here is the ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to an environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by thought, but for any and all individuals all these complex activities will never be consistent and will vary according to time, place, environment and as judged in different tasks and criterion. The central idea being, that intelligence is a set of relatively independent activities.

So far in the scientific world the former school of thought or the g theorists have stolen a march over their multiple-intelligence peers, the results from most studies have proven that intelligence may be single factor and that higher I.Q. has been found to positively correlate with school and job performance and on a moderate level with better health, higher income, self esteem and a positive attitude towards life and on an lesser level still with law abidance.

In response multiple-intelligence theorists like Yale psychologist Robert J. Sternberg has proposed a Triarchic Theory of Intelligence while Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences breaks intelligence down into at least eight different components: logical, linguistic, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, naturalist, intra-personal and inter-personal intelligences. Daniel Goleman in his brilliant book “emotional intelligence – why it can matter more than I.Q.” looks at the emotional brain and tries to advance the case that people who control their emotions better, people with better self awareness and empathy possess a distinct kind if intelligence.

In response, g theorists have pointed out that g’s predictive validity has been repeatedly demonstrated, for example in predicting important non-academic outcomes such as job performance, while no multiple-intelligences theory has shown comparable validity. Meanwhile, they argue, the relevance, and even the existence, of multiple intelligences have not been borne out when actually tested.

The gap over what can be called intelligence and how we should measure it is wide and is still widening. Standard forms of I.Q. testing fail to look at creativity, wisdom, knowledge, initiative, leadership, empathy, character, passion, discipline, charisma and overall happiness.

How these ideas translate into our education system is even more interesting. Our standard belief is that success is science or arts are based on set parameters. That logical and analytical reasoning and good mathematical skills are the only thing needed for success in science and that creativity, abstract thinking and a philosophical approach are the key to the arts. No education system emphasizes how closely linked these two actually are, of how the greatest ideas in science are a result of abstract creativity and tremendous empathy, and how art and artists have to conform to set patterns of logical thinking to create something artistic out of abstract ideas.

Our education system overwhelmingly favors science; the best and the brightest opt for it while students who choose or end up with the arts are considered duffers. Even the tests for our prestigious engineering and management institutes use the mainstream method of I.Q. testing to choose students, the mentality being that engineers and science students will prove better at problem solving. Arts and the importance it plays is completely overlooked.

Art is and can be a means for finding resolution to the many complex philosophical questions in life, through out the ages religion has used the lessons from the art of story telling and mythmaking to spread it’s message. Art creates it’s own mind space and tremendously effects our subconscious mind and the source of our emotional intelligence. Art can bring upon better self-awareness and help develop empathy. I wonder how many management books cover the topic of empathy. Empathy could be a tool for wondrous innovation, especially in this market driven economy with its emphasis on product and process innovations. By understanding who people are and what they want, it can help create new products for customers and provide better management ideas to deal with employees and everybody else in the business chain.

To provide employment to our ever-growing population we need dynamic entrepreneurs who use the entire scope of human knowledge to create ideas for products and services. The key to this could be a balanced approach to education, a system where students who might not be good at certain subjects don’t feel left out and stupid, where everybody contributes. The real test though would be the market place and it’s ability to create jobs for people with distinct specializations. What is needed for that are dynamic entrepreneurs who in turn need a broader base in their education. It comes full circle.

In many cultures the mind or knowledge has being likened to a tree, it’s many branches being the different streams of knowledge and understanding that the conscious mind is capable off. The study of any of these branches of intellect and human consciousness throws up amazing ideas and contributes tremendously to our overall existence.

Success though, in any sphere of life is a different ball game all together. All kinds of people succeed in real life, the book smarts, the street smarts, people of sound or questionable character, people with specialization in sciences or the liberal arts. There are all kinds of leaders, aggressive hard asses, silent workaholics, hot heads, people who did well in school, people who dropped out of school. A study to of the CEO’s of the top fortune 500 companies is bound to throw up amazing stories. For a more fun study of leaders and their personalities all you have to do is look at the colorful characters that adorn the seats of the Indian parliament.

No amount of academic success guarantees success in life, success in career or in relationships. In fact some have greatest minds have struggled at maintaining success at both. Charles dickens summed it up wonderfully when he wrote, “it’s a melancholy truth that even great minds have poor relationships”. A lot has been written about the art of effective communication at work or at home. Einstein stated that imagination is more important than education while Edison’s formula for success is 99% perspiration, 1% inspiration. Maybe success is a mountain which has many ways to the top, some known, some unknown, there are no rules.

The human brain with its intricate circuitry has over 11 billion nerve cells which form over 100 trillion connections most of which are not completely understood. As our understanding of the various functions of the brain grows, the old and time tested definitions of many a thing are bound to fall wayside. There may still lie talents beyond what we have seen, the power of the unconscious mind still remains unexplored.