2. Methodology Technology, IQ, and Koko the Gorilla

3. Are people getting smarter? HYPOTHESIS: Technology advances produce a smarter population. METHOD: Plot average IQ test results as a function of year. ASSUMPTION: IQ tests accurately measure intelligence. Technology advances occur at a constant rate.

4. Results of IQ study

5. Does this prove the IQ hypothesis?  Nothing in the study demonstrates that the IQ increase is due to technology!  The IQ test changed during the test period.  Other indicators like SAT scores have fallen!  Environmental explanations for IQ result.  Cultural, social & economic biases in IQ testing.

6. Take Koko, for example:  a vocabulary of 375 signs.  IQ measured to be 84  an IQ only slightly below average for a human child!  good results even though some IQ test questions were biased against gorillas! Koko has been taught sign language. In 1978 she had: Patterson, P. (1978) Conversations with a gorilla, National Geographic Magazine, Oct. 1978, p. 438-465.

7. IQ Test Question: Point to two things that are good to eat:

8. Koko: a current update  In 1999 Koko knows >500 signs and 2000 words of spoken English.  Understands the notions of past, present, and future, and truth and falsehoods.  IQ has been measured to be as high as 95 despite anti- gorilla bias in testing.  Koko is getting smarter, and/or she is getting better at taking IQ tests! http://www.gorilla.org/gorilla/koko/index.html

9. Planet of the Apes?

10. What can we actually conclude? Keeping Koko’s story in mind, the methodology proposed only proves the following: People are getting better at taking multiple choice IQ tests, just like gorillas! Intelligence testing is hard to get right.

11. Where did we go wrong?  Principal assumptions flawed.  Failed to develop methodology that connected technology with the intelligence.  Faith in numbers over and above method!

12. Interpreting results...  If you produce a result which is out of bounds or unexpected, trust your intuition and ask WHY?  It may be that your hypothesis is false.  It may mean that your method is flawed