I n a statement signed by Raymond B. Cattell, Hans Eysenck, Arthur R. Jensen and Richard Lynn, all eminent professors and experts in the field of intelligence and IQ testing, they concur that the definition of intelligence is “general mental capacity that involves the ability to reason, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.” These gentlemen agree that intelligence is not merely book learning or test-taking smarts; rather it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending one’s surroundings. It is important to realize that “catching on,” “making sense” and “figuring out” are the key factors in “intelligence.” The professors also agree that IQ tests measure this general ability, and that most standardized IQ tests measure more or less the same traits – so far so good! However, they overemphasize the role genetic factors play in the measurement and understanding of human intelligence. According to these men and 48 other signees of the approval of the conclusions of the book  The Bell Curve,  Blacks are doomed to be less intelligent than Whites and Asians. The group further declares that there is no convincing evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial groups are converging. In unison they affirm that there is no definite answer as to why IQ bell curves differ across racialethnic groups. Could it be that IQ tests themselves hold the key to this problem…? Is it really “genetics” that explains why a hungry child in Ethiopia or young student in some war-torn area of the globe does not learn math and language as well or score as high on an IQ test as his counterpart who lives in a good neighborhood in the socalled First World, is at peace with himself and his environment, has the benefit of a decent education and parents who can care for and tutor him? The signees believe that research on matters of intelligence relate to some  unclear  social and primarily biological  distinctions. A phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect may reduce or eliminate differences in IQ between races and cultures in the future. With IQ scores in affluent Holland and Spain up by 6–8 points, respectively, in just one decade and an astonishing 26- point increase in the past 14 years in developing Kenya, it is evident that the Flynn Effect is a reality and that genetic bias against Blacks does not carry any weight. There is, in addition, an argument that the average IQ of the United States was 75 before improved nutrition increased the scores of the general population. (The IQ for the average American is currently 98.) It is almost universally agreed upon that a person’s IQ can predict academic success, but not how to function successfully in one’s environment. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence from re-testing and the application of different tests that a person’s IQ does not remain fixed over his  lifetime.

Emotional and motivational factors play a key role on how one scores on any given test and may vary from one test to another. It is a believed that as many as 60% of IQ test scores change significantly over time. With this in mind, can we assume that a test score accessed at a particular point in an individual’s life is a valid indicator of his “native” intelligence? “G” or “general intelligence” is as cultural as it is controversial. The core element in measuring a person’s intelligence is vocabulary. Vocabulary reflects one’s cognitive skills but exposure to words is not genetic, it is learned (read environmental). A child or an adult who has never seen an octagon or the male icon or symbol (B&) or the symbol for female (@&) would most certainly not recognize them if they were presented to him in an intelligence test. The genetic component in IQ is the reciprocal of the environmental component: the larger the difference in environments, the less thecomponent determined by genes will appear. Today it is acceptable and realistic to embrace the view that racial and gender differences are not genetic but reflect environmental challenges. But consider Harvard University’s President in 2005, Lawrence Summers. Summers suggested that gender differences in intrinsic ability were a cause of the dearth of top echelon female scientists. He cavalierly disregarded the realities of bias in hiring, discriminatory tenure practices and negative stereotypes. Stating that sex differences in cognitive ability were the “real” reason there were less women scientists than men; he and his supporters felt that research on the matter clearly pointed in that direction. Summers must have completely forgotten about Marie Curie, the only person to win two Nobel Prizes: one in chemistry and the other in physics! Summers later apologized for his “reckless” language and shortly thereafter resigned.  Phillip Emeagwali, who helped give a boost to the supercomputer, is a Nigerian-born scientist who stunned the world of high tech and HIQ when he won the Gordon Bell Prize in 1989. The fact that a Black African would have an IQ of 190 and be married to a Black American microbiologist/biochemist may have caused racist Nobel Prize winner, Dr. William Shockley, to roll over in his grave. Ironically, Shockley died the same year that Emeagwali won the Gordon Bell Prize for The Connection Machine. Andy Warhol was one of the most important representatives of pop art and best remembered for his representations of Campbell’s Soup cans. Warhol created hundreds of other works during his allotted 58 years, including commercial advertisements, films, the blotted-line technique and the process of silk screening in painting. His IQ was allegedly 86. Yet many would call  both  Emeagwali and Warhol geniuses despite the 104 point difference in IQ scores. The idea that one group of people is, in comparison to another, smarter or dumber than another should be discarded. Clearly there will always be individual differences, but it should be emphasized that the individual who is well adjusted has the capability; life experience and motivation will be a success in his elected vocation.