The basic difference is that the one tests your intelligence which is innate and comes with the cultural groups and context you come from whereas testing for knowledge refers to evaluate the learning that took place in formal education and the knowledge you acquired through formal education. Since intelligence is innate, I would not say anyone is less intelligent or more intelligent. If it is innate it is connected to our contexts and where our ancestors come from. Testing for intelligence has to be based on context. From what I can gather in the intelligence tests of Binet, Goddard and Yerke is that it was developed based on certain peoples contexts and ancestral lines and what resembles them as a cultural group, which discriminated against people of colour and other cultures. It also seems as if intelligence tests, in the beginning, did not care about the knowledge a person has or how much of the world they knew as it assumed that they already innately are intelligent or not based on where they come from; thus there was no connection between the two. So intelligence tests, in my opinion, are only appropriate when it is designed to test various cultural groups and races based on where they come from and their heritage. Testing for knowledge in my opinion is appropriate as that is the most common way of getting an idea of what someone knows, what their skills are, their abilities are. However, this type of testing should look at the individual, their own unique skills, learning styles and contexts. In reading some of the comments by participants I am providing my comments accordingly. @ Richella Najatirta mentioned that intelligence as a concept is broad. I agree with this participant. First, based on our context intelligence might have a different meaning for person A then it has for person B. Second, intelligence is not as easy as saying, ‘this is what intelligence is’. Our worldviews influence how we see things and what our opinions are of concepts such as intelligence. We cannot say intelligence is ‘this’, because if we say so, we are excluding the perceptions and views of others on what intelligence is. This supports the theory of multiple intelligences by Howard Gardner as cited by Richella Najatirta. @ Yuyuthan Lwun argues that intelligence is based on higher or lower order cognitive skills in terms of reasoning whereas when knowledge is tested it tests whether a person can solve a problem using the knowledge they acquired. This knowledge could have been acquired through surface learning or deep processing of information. The former argument baffles me in that it says something about where a person comes from and the privilege they enjoy which could be detrimental to others. This is because a person might be seen as intelligent due to their prestigious background and the wealth they possess due to their heritage and others could be regarded as irrelevant due to their low-class background. However, my thoughts go in many directions, but I am thinking is that is a person’s intelligence or which is regarded as innate not influenced by the knowledge his/her/their ancestors/parents have acquired through time? My opinion is that one cannot omit this from an understanding of what intelligence is and what knowledge is or rather the testing of intelligence and the testing of knowledge. Testing for intelligence in the case of the intelligence tests mentioned such as the Binet’s intelligence test, the Goddard test on IQ and Yerke’s army intelligence test is biased and exclude certain people not privileged enough of being included. At least, testing knowledge in an ideal world where everyone had equal opportunities of education can be tested and based on the knowledge they acquired from various perspectives hopefully which strengthens the need to decolonise education (totally of the topic). Contextual education is key, then testing for knowledge can the requirements of equity and equality. That, however, is in an ideal world. It remains more appropriate to test for knowledge and not IQ, but that in itself requires an increased focus on providing learners/students with more contextual education that is decolonised and based on multiple perspectives from African, European and Western contexts and frames of references. @ Ron Green argues that although the tests are different and there are different things tested in each type of testing. However, the argument made is that standardising the tests and wanting to put them in a particular box also wanting to put people, who are diverse and unique into a particular box expecting everyone regardless of context, backgrounds, and opportunities among others to fit into the same boxes. He goes on to say that it is theoretically impossible. I agree with him. I also argue that it is not possible when there is much empirical evidence available indicating that people are different and that we cannot assess today with criteria that tests whether everyone is the same and whether they have succeeded to fit in a box we want them to fit into. My example of an intelligence test: The intelligence test example I am using is the Stanford-Binet test used for adults who experience intellectual disabilities. From what I understand from the article I read is that the Stanford-Binet test is used widely. This test is based on the cognitive ability of the persons taking the test. Disadvantages – initially this test was not really appropriate to test the cognitive ability of adults but rather children. That required other tests to be used for adults. Another disadvantage I identified is that the test is exclusive or a range of abilities and perhaps are biased to a certain set of abilities which it tests for (the same issue with the WAIS test for example). Another disadvantage is that I find in the article I read that it might be best to combine one test with another in this case the Stanford-Binet test and the WAIS test to gain more data and a range of data that reveal a picture of participants rather than working with a single test which is biased towards certain people. Advantage – From the article I read, it seems that the quantitative data generated from the data analysis are easy to populate into graphs and tables so as to give someone a clear indication of the findings. Despite its limitations, the Stanford-Binet test carries significant respect where other IQ generic IQ tests do not. Due to a rigorous evaluation process of the Standford-Binet test to tests its reliability, it can be said that the results yielded from the test have been stable over time. So the results can be regarded as reliable, however, those are not the only results needed to make a definite conclusion.

References Bally, J., 2020. The Advantages of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. [Online] Available at: https://classroom.synonym.com/advantages-stanfordbinet-intelligence-test-8212545.html [Accessed 13 September 2021]. Silvermann, W. et al., 2010. Stanford-Binet and WAIS IQ differences and their implications for adults with intellectual disability (aka mental retardation). Intelligence, Volume 38, pp. 242-248. Stanford-Binet test., 2021. How Reliable Is the Stanford-Binet Test. [Online] Available at: https://stanfordbinettest.com/all-about-stanford-binet-test/how-reliable-stanford-binet-test [Accessed 13 September 2021].