intelligence / IQ / intelligence test



◆Shinya Tateiwa 1997 On Private Property
Chapetr 6.3.2 Eugenics in Germany and USA

The intelligence test which appeared at the beginning of the 20th century were used in several countries including America. The scale developed by Binet was used as an intelligence test in France and eventually spread to other countries including Belgium, Britain, America and Italy, but its most intense use and modification was carried out by the American scholars L.M. Terman, H.H. Goddard, and R.M. Yerkes. Unlike Binet, these scholars saw intellectual ability as being determined hereditarily. Intelligence tests were a means of proving the inherited nature of intelligence and measuring differences in this inherited intelligence in individuals. Based on this conception of intellectual ability intelligence tests became tied to various policies (including those of non-interference) and their intended results◆33.

"... in the near future intelligence tests will bring tens of thousands of these high-grade defectives under the surveillance and protection of society. This will ultimately result in curtailing the reproduction of feeble-mindedness and in the elimination of an enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the high-grade cases, of the type now so frequently overlooked, are precisely the ones whose guardianship it is most important for the State to assume." (the opening chapter from the Americanized "Stanford-Binet Test", Terman[1916:6-7], In Kamin [1974:6→1977:20=1977:15])

"... only recently have we begun to recognize how serious a menace it is to the social, economic and moral welfare of the state ... It is responsible ... for the majority of cases of chronic and semi-chronic pauperism. ... the feeble-minded continue to multiply ... organized charities ... often contribute to the survival of individuals who would otherwise not be able to live and reproduce...

If we would preserve our state for a class of people worthy to possess it, we must prevent, as far as possible, the propagation of mental degenerates ... curtailing the increasing spawn of degeneracy." (Terman [1917] cited in Kamin [1974:7, 1977:21=1977:17])

Crime and poverty were attributed to inherited mental defects and feeble-mindedness. Increases in crime and poverty were seen as being caused by social relief efforts and (as is stated in the quotation below) the high birth rate amongst the genetically inferior. Steps had to be taken to protect society from this crime and poverty (not so much poverty itself but the threats it posed to society), and intelligence tests became tools for discovering "currently overlooked" defective individuals. There were said to be differences in intellectual ability within "the human race" and within the different social strata. This assertion was connected to attempts to avoid the threat of increasing numbers of people in these inferior groups as well as to claims that it was natural for people to be assigned jobs and ways of life appropriate to their abilities.

'Hi-grade' or 'border-line' deficiency ; that is, I.Q.s in the 70-80 range (in terman's view, the test is particulary useful in the diagnosis of that level) "is very, very common among Spanish-Indian and Mexican families of the Southwest and also among negroes. Their dullness seems to be racial, or at least inherent in the family stocks from which they come . . . the whole question of racial differences in mental traits will have to be taken up anew and by experimental methods. The writer predicts that when this is done there will be discovered enormously significant racial differences in general intelligence, differences which cannot be wiped out by any scheme of mental culture.

Children of this group should be segregated in special classes ... They cannot master abstractions, but they can often be made efficient workers ... There is no possibility at present of convincing society that they should not be allowed to reproduce, although from a eugenic point of view they constitute a grave problem because of their unusually prolific breeding." (Terman [1916:91-92], in Kamin [1974:6, 1977:20-21=1977:17])

The current state of disparity was affirmed and policies aimed at creating greater equality were rejected◆34. There were also fears of an increase in inferior genes and people of low intellectual ability, and policies to oppose this were therefore designed and implemented. In America there were two main approaches taken in dealing with these issues.

The first approach was sterilization and laws regarding sterilization. A sterilization law was passed in 1905 in the state of Pennsylvania but was vetoed by its governor. In 1907 the first sterilization law to be fully implemented was passed in the state of Indiana, and following this many other states (including California, New Jersey, Washington, and Iowa among others) followed suit. The law passed in Iowa in 1913, for example, was provoded for "The prevention of the procreation of criminals, rapists, idiots, feeble-minded, imbeciles, lunatics, drunkards, drug fiends, epileptics, syphilitics, moral and sexual perverts, and diseased and degenerate persons" (Laughlin [1922:21-22], cited in Kamin [1974, 1977:27])◆35.

The second approach was to limit immigration. The federal immigration law of 1875 barred coolies, convicts, and prostitutes and in 1882 lunatics and idiots were added to the list of banned immigrants, 1903 law added epileptics and insane persons. By 1907, a differentiation had been made between "imbeciles" and "feeble-minded persons", both of which classes were excluded. And the "persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority" were added in 1917. At the beginning of the 20th century the ratio of immigrants from south-eastern Europe increased and there began to be calls for "quality control". It was first demanded that prospective immigrants take a literacy test. In 1912 Goddard was invited to visit the immigrant receiving station on Ellis Island in New York harbour by the Public Health Service. He administered Binet test along with other supplementary test of intellectual aptitude and "proved" that 83% of Jews, 80% of Hungarians, 79% of Italians, and 87% of Russians were feeble minded. His work led to an increase in the number of foreigners being deported.

During the World War I the American Psychological Association, headed by Yerkes, applied for and was granted permission to carry out a battery of intelligence tests on large numbers of assembled soldiers and an army hygiene group was put together composed of Yerkes and other psychologists. The tests conducted on roughly two hundred thousand soldiers did not directly affect the war effort, but the data which had been collected remained and was published and analyzed. It was learned that the average mental age of the assembled white soldiers was thirteen. Results were divided according to country of origin, and it was shown that those of Scandinavian and British descent were intellectually superior and those of Latin and Slavic descent intellectually inferior. There were fears of an influx of inferior blood and intermixing which were then expressed in immigration law.

In 1921, as a temporary measure, the number of people from a given country allowed entry by the government in a single year was limited to 3 percent of the number of citizens from that country currently residing in the United States according to the citizenship census of 1910. The Johnson-Lodge Act of 1924 established a permanent immigration policy of limiting the number of immigrants from a given country to 2 percent of the number of American citizens from that country according to the 1890 census. This was intended to limit immigration from southern and eastern Europe which had largely begun after 1890◆36.

■Shinya Tateiwa 1997 On Private Property
Chapetr 7 note 4

The "nature versus nurture" debate regarding intellectual development was set off by a paper written by Arthur Jensen at the University of California in 1968. At the start of this paper Jensen states "compensatory education has been tried and apparently it has failed "(Jensen [1969→1972:69=1978:85])", and regarding the cause of this failure develops a criticism based on the assertion that there are problems with two mutually reinforcing aspects of the theory which led to this program being implemented, namely the "average-child concept " according to which "all children are viewed as basically more or less homogenous" (Jensen [1969→1972:71]) and "social deprivation hypothesis" (see note 3). The conclusions drawn from this approach are as follows.

"(1) Roughly 80% of the distribution of I.Q. within the population is determined by genetic distribution. The influence of genetic factors on I.Q. is significantly greater than the influence of environmental factors. / (2) It is clear that the large differences in average intellectual development between groups based on class and race is due to genetic differences between these groups rather than differences in the good and bad qualities of the environments in which they live. / (3) Among environmental factors, those which have the biggest influence involve the environment of the fetus before birth. / (4) Because of the differences in the pattern of abilities found in different races and classes it is necessary to develop different methods of education for each of these groups" (Inoue[1979:35]).

A paper presented by Herrnstein in 1971 asserting that differences in I.Q. were determined more by genetic than by environmental factors was also a source of controversy (the content of this paper was further developed and later published as a book with a preface entitled "True Tales from the Annals of Orthodoxy" which described the debate between Herrnstein and some of his critics (Herrnstein [1973]).

Doubts and criticisms have been voiced regarding the conclusions drawn in both of these papers and the methods they implied should be taken. For example, regarding assertion 1) above Jencks et al. assert that genetic regulation (h2) is 45% (Jencks et al. [1972]). Karmin examines research carried out involving identical twins and points to a contradiction between these data and those cited in the papers he criticizes, asserting that upon inspection of this data it cannot be said that genetic factors play a significant role in determining intellectual ability and alleging (see Karmin [1974]) that in their writings Jensen, Herrstein and Vandenberg intentionally distort the content of some of the texts they cite in making their claims (see Karmin [1974]). In the same text Karmin also alleges that no basis is provided for assertion 4). For other criticisms and questions regarding assertions 3) and 4) see Inoue [1979:39-44]. This text examines also the question of whether it is valid to use I.Q. as an expression of intellectual ability and whether it is in fact clear that compensatory education was a failure. See also Williams [1974] and Gould [1977]. On developments in the reform of the educational system in America see Kurosaki [1989].

◆立岩 真也 20020401 「生存の争い――医療の現代史のために 2」,『現代思想』30-05(2002-04):41-56

 「☆04 IQ論争については『私的所有論』[1997:310-312]に文献をあげた。関連して社会生物学論争についての文献は[1997:309-310]。その後出た本としてGould[1996=1998]があり、[2001-(12)]でも紹介した。この本はGould[1981=1989]の増補改訂版であり、付け加えられた部分には論議を呼んだHerrnstein & Murray[1994](著者の一人は[1997:63,310]で一部を紹介したHerrnstein[1973=1975]の著者でもある)に対する批判がある。グールドによるこの書に対する批判の紹介から知能テストの創始者ビネの論の検討に進む重田[2001]、グールドの本の統計学的手法についての検討と訳書の日本語訳のわからなさについて石田[2001]がある。」



◇Binet, Alfred 1911 Les idées moderne sur enfants, Flammarion=1961 tr. by Hatano, Kanji (波多野 完治),Meiji Tosho (明治図書) <438>
Terman, L. M. 1916 The Measurement of intelligence <395,397>
◇Terman, L. M. 1917 "Feeble-minded Children in the Public School of California", "School and Society 5 <396>
◇Goddard, H. H.1912 The Kallikak Family : A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-mindedness, Macmillan, 121p. <710>
◇Goddard, H. H. 1920 Human Efficency and Levels of Intelligence, Princeton Univ. Press <439>
◇Jensen, Arther R. 1969 "How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement?", Harvard Educational Review 39: 1-123→Jenen [1972=1975]
◇Jensen, Arther R. 1972 Genetics and Education, Associated Book=1978 tr. by Iwai, Yuji (岩井 勇児) and Matsushita, Fukashi (松下 淑),Reimei Shobo(黎明書房) <519>
◇Jencks, Cristpher et al. 1972 Inquality: A Reassessment of the Effct of Family and Schooling in America, Basic Books=1978 Hashizume, Sadao (橋爪 貞雄)・Takagi, Shotoro (高木 正太郎),Reimei Shobo(黎明書房)<520>
◇Bowles, Samuel ; Gintis, Herbert 1972-1973 "IQ in the US Class Structure", Social Policy Nov.-Dec.1972,Jan.-Feb,1973=1973 Aoki ed.[1973:221-288] <521>
◇Herrnstein, Richard J. 1973 I.Q. in the Meritocracy, Little, Browm=1975 tr. by Iwai, Yuji (岩井勇二),Reimei Shobo (黎明書房) <125,520>
◇Watanabe, Jun (渡部 淳) ed. 1973 Intelligence Pollution (『知能公害』),Gendai Shokan (現代書館),204p. <534>
◇Wolf, Theta 1973 Alfred Binet, Univ. of Chicago Press=1979 tr. by Utsugi, Tadashi (宇津木保),Seishin shobo (誠信書房) <438>
◇Kamin, Leon J 1974 The Science and Politics of IQ, Lawrence Erbaum Associates=1977 tr, by Iwai, Yuji (岩井 勇二),Reimei Shobo (黎明書房)  <395,396,397,429,438,439,440,441,518,520>
◇Williams, Robert 1974 "The Silent Mugging of the Black Community", Psychology Today May 1974=1975 tr. by Administrative Office, Hanshin Branch, Study Group on High School Career Guidance, Hyogo Prefecture (兵庫県高校進路指導指導研究会阪神支部事務局),The Japanese Journal of Clinical Psychology (『臨床心理学研究』) 12-3:45-53 <520>
Gould, Stephen Jay 1977 Ever since Darwin, W. W. Norton=1984 tr. by Uramoto, Masaki (浦本 昌紀) and Terada, Ko (寺田鴻),Hayakawa Publishing (早川書房),219p.+221p. <520>
◇Yamashita, Tsuneo (山下 恒男) 1977 Against Human Developmet: The Liberaton from Oppressive (『反発達論――抑圧の人間学からの解放』),Gendai Shokan (現代書館),278p. <534,731>
◇Inoue, Kenji (井上 健治) 1979 Growth of Children and Environment (『子どもの発達と環境』),University of Tokyo Press (東京大学出版会) <519>
◇Yamashita, Tsuneo (山下 恒男) ed. 1980 The myth of Intelligence (『知能神話』),JICC Publishers (JICC出版局) <535>
◇Eysenck, H. J. vs. Kamin, Leon 1981 Intelligence : The Battle for the Mind, Pan Books=1985 tr. by Saito, Kazuaki (斎藤 和明),Chikuma Shobo (筑摩書房),366p. <438> JV
◇Binet, Alfred & Simon, Theodor =1982 中野善造・大沢正子訳,Development and of Evaluation of Intellignence: The Birth of Intelligence Test (『知能の発達と評価――知能検査の誕生』),Fukumura Shuppan (福村出版) <438>
◇Kevles, Daniel J. 1985 In the Name of Eugenics : Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, Knopf, 426p., 1986 Penguin Books(Out of Print) , 1986 Univ. of California Press=1993 tr. by Nishimata, Sohei (西俣 総兵),The Asahi Shimbun Company (朝日新聞社),529p. JV <430,434,438,441,443,451,452,453>
◇Yamashita, Tsuneo (山下 恒男) 1987 "The Thought of Evolution and Eugenics and 'Disablity': Background of Early Detection and Early Treatment and Appearance of 'Disablity' " (「進化・優生思想と「障害」――早期発見・治療の思想的背景と「障害」の必然性」,Japanese Association of Clinical Psychology ed.[1987:369-412] <731>
◇Kurosaki, Isao (黒崎 勲) 1989 Education and Inequality: The Study of Educational System of Contemporary USA) (『教育と不平等――現代アメリカ教育制度研究』,Shinyosha (新曜社),368p. <520>
◇Yamashita, Tsuneo (山下 恒男) 1990 "The IQ Debate, or Hidden Malice" (「IQ論争,あるいは隠された悪意」,Takarajima Special Edition (『別冊宝島』) 123:22-31 <711>
Sato, Tatsuya (佐藤 達哉) 1997 『知能指数』,講談社現代新書1340,198p. <260> ※
Sato, Tatsuya (サトウ タツヤ) 20060125 『IQを問う―知能指数の問題と展開』,ブレーン出版,179p.ISBN-10: 4892428248 ISBN-13: 978-4892428241 ¥2940 [amazon]


◇肥田野 直 編 1970 『知能』(講座心理学9),東京大学出版会
◇品川 不二郎 1971 「知能テスト有害論に答える」,『教育心理学研究』31 →1975 『現代のエスプリ』97:105-111 ※
◇滝沢 武久  1971 『知能指数――発達心理学からみたIQ』,中公新書 ※
◇上出 弘之・伊藤 隆二 編 1972 『知能』,有斐閣
◇『現代のエスプリ』97 1975 「知能」,至文堂
◇伊藤 隆二・苧坂 良二・東 洋・岡本 夏木・板倉 聖宣・麻生 誠 1981
 『知能と創造性』 (講座 現代の心理学 4) 小学館
Gould, Stephen Jay 1981 The Mismeasure of Man, W. W. Norton & Company Ltd.=19890720 鈴木善次・森脇靖子訳,『人間の測りまちがい――差別の科学史』,河出書房新社,466p.,3900円
◇滝沢 武久 19711025 『知能指数――発達心理学からみたIQ』,中公新書,166p. 470 <260> ※
◇古庄 敏行 1971 『知能の遺伝学』,酒井書店
◇渡部 淳 編 19730901 『知能公害』,現代書館,反教育シリーズXI,204p. ISBN-10: 476841110X ISBN-13: 978-4768411100 600 [amazon] ※ d, i02
◇古畑 種基 監修・古庄 敏行 1975 『知能の遺伝学』,酒井書店
◇倉 武志  19800925 「「障害児」診断における知能検査の実態――テストする側からの声」,『福祉労働』08:071-078 ※
◇東 洋 1981 「知能テスト論」,伊藤他[1981:135-212]
◇明峯 哲男 19810325 「書評:山下恒男編『知能神話』」,『福祉労働』10:118-121 ※
◇Gould, Stephen Jay 1981 The Mismeasure of Man, W. W. Norton=1989 鈴木善次・森脇靖子訳、『人間の測りまちがい――差別の科学史』、河出書房新社 〔2〕
◇Eysenck, H. J. vs. Kamin, Leon 1981 Intelligence : The Battle for the Mind
 Pan Books=19850510 斎藤和明訳,『IQ論争』 筑摩書房 366p. 2472円
◇伊藤 隆二・苧坂 良二・東 洋・岡本 夏木・板倉 聖宣・麻生 誠 1981 『知能と創造性』 (講座 現代の心理学 4),小学館
◇田島 仁 19831207 『おとなのIQ――知能指数診断と知能の開発法』
 産心社,238p. 750 ※
◇真田 孝昭  1985 「知能理論と優生思想」,『臨床心理学研究』23-1:54-63 <260>
◇Gould, Stephen Jay 1996 The Mismeasure of Man, revised edition, W. W. Norton=1998 鈴木善次・森脇靖子訳、『人間の測りまちがい――差別の科学史 増補改訂版』、河出書房新社 〔2〕
日本社会臨床学会 編  20080330 『心理主義化する社会』,現代書館,298p. ISBN-10: 4768434789 ISBN-13: 978-4768434789 \3000 [amazon][kinokuniya] ※ mp i02

UP:20140918 REV:20140919
TOP HOME (http://www.arsvi.com)