92 PRETEND INTELLIGENCEcomplex cognition than a 2 × 2 matrix, even if we are not sure how to
describe it. Reproducing a nine- block pattern from one shown in a picture
is more complex than reproducing a four- block pattern. Describing the
similarity of the words “seed— egg” demands more complex cognition
than doing so with “pear— apple.”^22
Th e trou ble with this argument is that IQ test items are remarkably
simple in their cognitive demands compared with, say, the cognitive de-
mands of ordinary social life and other activities that the vast majority of
children and adults can meet adequately every day.
For example, many tests items demand little more than rote reproduc-
tion of factual knowledge most likely acquired from experience at home
or by being taught in school. Opportunities and pressures for acquiring
such valued pieces of information, from books in the home to parents’
interests and educational level, are more likely to be found in middle- class
than in working- class homes. So the causes of diff erences could be dif-
ferences in opportunities for such learning.
Th e same thing can be said about other frequently used items, such
as “vocabulary” (or word defi nitions); “similarities” (describing how two
things are the same); “comprehension” (explaining common phenomena,
such as why doctors need more training). Th is also helps explain why
diff erences in home background correlate so highly with school perfor-
mance— a common fi nding. In eff ect, such items could simply refl ect the
specifi c learning demanded by the items, rather than a more general
cognitive strength.
IQ testers might protest, though, that there is more than meets the eye
in such simple- looking test items. For example, Linda Gottfredson has
argued that even a simple vocabulary test is one of “a highly general ca-
pacity for comprehending and manipulating information... a pro cess of
distinguishing and generalizing concepts.”^23 However, that argument
must surely apply to all word defi nitions, not just those devised by an item
designer from a specifi c culture. Remember that items are not selected on
the basis of a theoretical model of cognitive complexity, but on how well
they produce the desired pattern of scores.
As an example, take the Scots word “canny” (meaning shrewd). Its
defi nition is subtly diff er ent from the same word used in northeastern
Eng land (meaning amiable, OK). In these diff er ent contexts, children are
This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:52:12 UTChttp://www.ebook3000.com