I would like to speak about the notion of innate intelligence in behaviorism, its transformation both in scale and in usage, and a couple of examples of its limits.

Alfred Binet (1857–1911) was interested in looking for a tool to determine if a child were neurodivergent compared to their peers and needed therefore special attention during their educational career. It was based on relating the intellectual skills of the child to the material and that had been presented so far in their education.

Henry Goddard (1866–1957) is known as the creator of the Intelligence Quotient test, based on the idea that intelligence is a measurable, limited by the age parameters given by Binet, defined potentiality that defines how a subject uses its synapsis to solve the quizzes presented to them. He goes so far to present his thought by giving an analogy where a machine represents the potentiality of a machine while knowledge is the material the machine must work on.

The idea of giving a single grade and labeling a subject with such was in such demand, that his created IQ test will be later used to select which of the immigrants coming into the US “deserved” to enter and which were to be deported. This test would then be the basis on which Robert Yerkes (1876–1956) would base the Army intelligence test.

The first limit that rises is the definition itself of intelligence and, given the usage, how it can impact the life of the labeled subject. While receiving helpful tools during one’s education is key for a child’s development, being subjugated to society’s prejudice and being discriminated against because of the result is has lifelong impact on all aspects of life. One would argue that the IQ test is not to blame. It wouldn’t if it were tailored to mirror the intersectional complexity of a subjects’ life.

All the forementioned authors and their colleagues created IQ tests that reflect their reality which lacks cultural, religious, and gender diversity and label a subject as “intelligent” or “moronic” relative to what they deem so.This is apparent in both the literate and illiterate versions of the test.

In the following image link https://lhsepic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1_id_SAT_SAMPLEIQTEST-411x475.png , we can deduce that to pass the test, the subject must have had a western privilege education to be considered intelligent. Highlighting question five “Why is beef better than food than cabbage?” 1) it tastes better 2) it is more nourishing 3) it is harder to obtain. This would have a prospect soldier from a poorer Hinduist background quite confused. A prospect soldier who has dedicated their early life to mastering surviving in the wilderness, rock climbing and hunting might have issues with answering question fourteen “in the leap year February has 29 days because…”.

In the illiterate version of the test https://newlearningonline.com/_uploads/yerkes_s.png , figures 5 to 12 and 15 to 20 require prior knowledge that was not available universally to society, while the remaining questions could be interesting even today. Interestingly, the “common sense” measured in these tests is actually the “knowledge” the authors were so desperate not to measure and keep separate.

The consequences of using these tools so broadly are still felt deeply by minorities. Intelligence Quotient tests were at times used as "transparent ideological weapons" by the majority to give validity to their oppression and status, therefore it is important for the populus to question the reason behind the usage of these tools and be aware of who they actually serve (Noam Chomsky, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQm2kf5vbqs&ab_channel=Chomsky%27sPhilosophy).

In conclusion, diagnostic tools can aid and improve an individual’s life tremendously if the differences in background are integrated in the process. Reducing a intersectional complex reality held by an individual for the sake of labaling whole facets of society should be cause of alarm as it might be used justify discrimination and oppression. I leave a quote form the book Fish in a Tree by Lynda Mullaly Hunt”: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” 

https://i0.wp.com/novelunits.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/26223034/FishQuote-300x207.jpg?resize=406%2C247&ssl=1