On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, arthur battram wrote:
> I've been ignoring this thread, but when Hal Steinbeigle quoted someone
> [thankfully nameless] as saying "120 as a minimum IQ for an ideal LO
> employee" I had to write.
>
> Yes, Gardner on multiple intelligences tells us that it's more complicated
> than that, but good grief let's just spell it out:this is just dumb! IQ is
> dumb! IQ has no place in a learning organisation because IMO [not IMHO] a
> learning organisation values everyone for their contribution and enables
> everyone to grow [which includes increasing your IQ, BTW.]
Furthermore, all IQ scores indicate is how an individual performed on a
particular test *relative to other people*. A "120 IQ" simply means that
the individual got a higher score than approximately 91% of the
individuals in his age group. This may surprise many people, but a score
of 120 *today* represents a better absolute performance on an IQ test
than a score of 120 did 50 years ago (this is known as the "Flynn
effect"; the reason it surprises many people is that everybody knows that
*SAT* scores declined slightly during that same period, but 1) the SAT is
an entirely different kind of test and 2) the proportion of the
population taking it increased *very substantially* during that same period).
In other words, stating a "minimum IQ" for anything amounts to deciding
*in advance* what percentage of the population is capable of something
*without looking at the actual capabilities*. Doing so amounts to
unconsciously John Calvin's ideas about salvation to organizational
performance.
Eric Bohlman (ebohlman@netcom.com)
--Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@netcom.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>