1159: IQ Tests | Skeptical Sunday

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Jordan Harbinger Show - Episode 1159: IQ Tests | Skeptical Sunday

Release Date: May 25, 2025
Host: Jordan Harbinger
Co-Host: Michael Rigilio

---

Introduction to Skeptical Sunday

Jordan Harbinger opens the episode by introducing Skeptical Sunday, a segment dedicated to unpacking and debunking common misconceptions about various topics. In this episode, he is joined by co-host Michael Rigilio to delve into the complex world of IQ tests.

---

The Origins and Evolution of IQ Tests

Historical Background:

• Michael Rigilio explains that IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient, a term coined by German psychologist William Stern, who was skeptical about relying solely on IQ to measure intelligence.
• The first significant IQ test, the Binet-Simon Test (1905), was developed in France to identify children with varying intelligence levels. Jordan humorously reflects on the harsh classifications used, such as "imbecility" and "idiocy" (05:00).

Development of Modern IQ Tests:

• Rigilio details how Lewis Terman adapted the Binet-Simon test into the Stanford-Binet Test (1916), introducing the now-familiar IQ scoring system: (Mental Age / Chronological Age) × 100. For example, a 40-year-old with a mental age of 40 would score 100 (07:34).
• Jordan queries the validity and purpose of these tests, leading to a discussion on their applications and limitations.

---

IQ Tests in Society and Historical Misuse

Military Application:

• During World War I, Robert Yerkes developed the Army Alpha and Army Beta tests to categorize over a million soldiers for appropriate military roles (09:00).
• Jordan draws parallels to dystopian societies like Brave New World, questioning the ethical implications of such categorization.

Eugenics and Ethical Concerns:

• Rigilio connects the use of IQ tests to the eugenics movement, highlighting how intelligence testing was misused to justify forced sterilizations and racial discrimination (11:20).
• The infamous Buck v. Bell (1927) Supreme Court case is discussed, where Justice Holmes endorsed sterilizing the "feeble-minded" to prevent societal decline (14:00).

Impact on Racial Policies:

• The conversation touches on the Bell Curve and Arthur Jensen’s controversial theories linking IQ scores to genetics and race, emphasizing the significant backlash and the role of environmental factors in intelligence (28:54).

Notable Quote:

Michael Rigilio (12:13): "Eugenics was just basically racism in a lab coat."

---

Modern Perspectives on IQ Testing

Advancements and Reducing Bias:

• Rigilio outlines modern IQ tests like the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Raven's Progressive Matrices, and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, which aim to minimize cultural biases by focusing on logical reasoning and pattern recognition (35:30).
• Jordan appreciates the shift away from culturally specific questions, noting that modern tests avoid scenarios irrelevant to diverse populations.

Multiple Intelligences:

• The discussion introduces the concept of crystallized and fluid intelligence, suggesting that intelligence is multifaceted and cannot be wholly captured by a single number (36:35).

Organizations and IQ Societies:

• Mensa and the Triple Nine Society are mentioned as organizations that use IQ scores for membership, highlighting their role in valuing and recognizing high intelligence (37:10).

Notable Quote:

Jordan Harbinger (38:35): "Now, we love skepticism. But I've got to tell you, I'm feeling as though I like the idea that in some way we can measure a person's intelligence, even if it's not totally accurate."

---

The Flynn Effect and Trends in IQ Scores

Flynn Effect Explained:

• Rigilio introduces the Flynn Effect, which observes a consistent increase in IQ scores by about three points per decade throughout the 20th century (43:19). This suggests that environmental factors significantly influence intelligence.

Possible Causes:

• Improved nutrition, better healthcare, cleaner environments, and more cognitively stimulating activities are identified as contributing to rising IQ scores (44:03).

Recent Trends:

• Recent data indicates a potential decline in IQ scores in countries like Norway, Denmark, and Finland since the 1990s, with mixed results in the United States. Jordan speculates humorously on causes like the rise of video games (45:12).

Notable Quote:

Rigilio (44:03): "The explanation seems to be environment. If IQ was mostly genetic and fixed, you wouldn't expect entire populations to get smarter over just a few decades."

---

Criticisms and Limitations of IQ Tests

Cultural and Subjective Biases:

• Rigilio criticizes early IQ tests for including culturally biased and subjective questions, such as identifying the author of "The Raven" or defining a "spare" in sports, which do not necessarily correlate with intelligence (20:31).

Test Reliability and Validity:

• The conversation highlights issues like test anxiety, repeated testing (e.g., the friend taking the same test multiple times to inflate his score), and the learning-to-test phenomenon, which undermine the reliability of IQ scores as true measures of intelligence (22:50; 23:53).

Impact of Socioeconomic Factors:

• Jordan and Rigilio discuss how factors like poverty, poor education systems, and health disparities heavily influence IQ scores, challenging the notion that intelligence is solely innate (31:06).

Notable Quote:

Michael Rigilio (32:18): "And this isn't to say that population groups don't have shared heritage and culture. But a biologist can't see that stuff under a microscope. And as far as they're concerned, race just isn't a thing."

---

IQ Tests and Artificial Intelligence

AI Performance on IQ Tests:

• Rigilio mentions a study where ChatGPT scored exceptionally high on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, outperforming 99.9% of humans in verbal IQ but struggling with specific questions requiring contextual understanding (49:26).
• Jordan humorously remarks on the implications of AI's performance, debating whether it signals an impending robotic takeover (52:08).

Understanding AI Intelligence:

• The hosts clarify that while AI can excel in pattern recognition and specific cognitive tasks, it lacks the holistic and adaptive intelligence inherent to humans (52:21).

Notable Quote:

Rigilio (49:36): "It doesn't mean that they have the kind of broad adaptive intelligence that humans possess. At least not yet."

---

Conclusions and Reflections

Complexity of Intelligence:

• Jordan and Rigilio agree that intelligence is a multidimensional and complex construct that cannot be fully encapsulated by a single IQ score.
• They emphasize the importance of recognizing individual strengths and weaknesses and using IQ tests as tools for identifying areas of improvement rather than definitive measures of worth or potential (54:04; 54:57).

Future of IQ Testing:

• The discussion concludes with a call for continued skepticism and critical thinking regarding IQ tests, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of intelligence that incorporates various factors beyond numerical scores.

Final Thoughts:

• Emphasizing the role of environmental influences and societal factors, the hosts advocate for a balanced perspective on intelligence, one that values diverse cognitive abilities and promotes equitable opportunities for all individuals to develop their potential.

Notable Quote:

Jordan Harbinger (55:29): "Intelligence seems like a rich and diverse concept and we just can't let one number dictate our self-worth or limit our potential."

---

Key Takeaways

1. Historical Context: IQ tests originated in the early 20th century with the intent to categorize intelligence but were marred by cultural biases and unethical applications.
2. Modern Developments: Contemporary IQ tests strive to minimize cultural biases and recognize multiple dimensions of intelligence, though limitations persist.
3. Societal Impact: Intelligence testing has been historically misused to justify discriminatory practices, necessitating ongoing scrutiny and ethical considerations.
4. The Flynn Effect: Environmental improvements have contributed to rising IQ scores over decades, highlighting the significant role of external factors in cognitive development.
5. AI and Intelligence: While AI systems can excel in specific cognitive tasks, they do not possess the holistic intelligence that characterizes human cognition.
6. Skepticism and Balance: Intelligence is a multifaceted construct that cannot be fully captured by a single metric, urging a balanced and critical approach to IQ testing.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Michael Rigilio (12:13): "Eugenics was just basically racism in a lab coat."
• Jordan Harbinger (28:54): "I thought you might bring that book up. Yeah. Because I've heard of this and I know it's controversial."
• Rigilio (35:30): "IQ tests have been changing for a long time now and working towards getting rid of cultural biases."
• Jordan Harbinger (38:35): "Now, we love skepticism. But I've got to tell you, I'm feeling as though I like the idea that in some way we can measure a person's intelligence, even if it's not totally accurate."
• Rigilio (43:19): "The Flynn effect highlighted increases in IQ scores measured all across the world over time."
• Jordan Harbinger (55:29): "Intelligence seems like a rich and diverse concept and we just can't let one number dictate our self-worth or limit our potential."

---

This episode of The Jordan Harbinger Show offers a comprehensive exploration of IQ tests, their historical context, societal implications, and ongoing debates surrounding their validity and ethical use. Through engaging dialogue and critical analysis, Jordan Harbinger and Michael Rigilio provide listeners with a nuanced understanding of intelligence measurement and its broader impact on individuals and society.

Transcript

[Jordan Harbinger]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying Big Wireless Way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month, of course, if you enjoy overpaying. No judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment.

[Michael Rigilio]

Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.

[Ryan Reynolds]

See full [e-mail] craving your next action packed adventure, Audible delivers thrills of every kind on your command. Like Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir where a lone astronaut must save humanity from extinction. Narrated with stunning intensity by Ray Porter. From electrifying suspense and daring quests to spine tingling horror and romance in far off realms, unleash your adventure aside with gripping titles that'll keep you guessing. Discover exclusive Audible originals, hotly anticipated new releases and must Listen bestsellers that hook you from the first minute. Because Audible knows there's no greater thrill than the one that speaks to you. Discover what lies beyond the edge of your seat. Start your free 30 day trial at audible.com wonderyus that's audible.com wonderyus.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Welcome to Skeptical Sunday. I'm your host Jordan Harbinger. Today I'm here with Skeptical Sunday co host Michael Rigilio on the Jordan Harbinger Show. We decode the stories, secrets and skills of the world's most fascinating people and turn their wisdom into practical advice that you can use to impact your own life and those around you. Our mission is to help you become a better informed, more critical thinker. And during the week we have long form conversations with a variety of amazing folks from spies to CEOs, athletes, authors, thinkers and performers. On Sundays though, it's Skeptical Sunday where a rotating guest co host and I break down a topic you may have never thought about and debunk common misconceptions about that topic. Topics such as why tipping makes no sense, sovereign citizens, diet supplements, the lottery, ear candling, self help, cults and more. And if you're new to the show or you want to tell your friends about the show, I suggest our Episode Starter Packs. These are collections of our favorite episodes on persuasion and negotiation, psychology, disinformation, crime and cults and more that'll help new listeners get a taste of everything we do here on the show. Just visit jordanharbinger.com start or search for us in your Spotify app to get started. For Decades, IQ tests have been used to judge people's intelligence. These scores were often used when considering job applicants or determining educational placement. And to this day, many of us still assume that somebody with a high IQ is smart and likely to succeed in life.

[Michael Rigilio]

I guess I'll consider myself the exception.

[Jordan Harbinger]

You do seem to be doing pretty well for yourself, Michael. You made it onto this podcast. You got that going for you.

[Michael Rigilio]

I guess your score is pretty low then, Jordan.

[Jordan Harbinger]

The bar for hiring. Yes, my IQ classified information. So far, I'm actually, truth be told, I'm not sure if I even know my IQ score. I have no clue. Do you know yours?

[Michael Rigilio]

I did take one of those tests once, but to be honest with you, I forgot my IQ score. Which I suppose goes to show you something.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, it might. To be honest, I'm not sure that any of this goes to show anyone anything. Which is why I have you, Michael Rugilio, our resident skeptic, or one of them, here to help unpack IQ tests. So what are they? How did they come about? And most importantly, should we take them seriously at all?

[Michael Rigilio]

I think it's fair to say that people with high IQ scores are more likely to support their validity than those with low IQ scores.

[Jordan Harbinger]

That sounds like a smart way of saying that if a test says somebody is intelligent, they're more likely to believe that the test is accurate. Color me surprised.

[Michael Rigilio]

And it's just like being good at chess. If you're good at chess, you want everyone to think that means you're smart. And if you're bad at chess, then chess doesn't mean a damn thing.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So if you're a skeptic of IQ scores, maybe you have a low iq.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, I see where you're going with this.

[Jordan Harbinger]

I might also be in that camp, so it's not the veiled insult you think it is. I might just be throwing myself in the same bucket. But I do wonder, is there even a gold standard, so to speak, IQ test anyway? And I'm remembering that Seinfeld episode where George was going to take one and he gets Elaine to do it for him.

[Michael Rigilio]

Oh yeah, there's actually a number of IQ tests that have evolved over time. Why don't we start at the very beginning?

[Jordan Harbinger]

Sure. Smart thing to do.

[Michael Rigilio]

Haha. So first off, IQ stands for intelligence quotient, which is a term coined by the German psychologist William Stern, who ironically cautioned against using it alone to categorize intelligence.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So you're saying the guy who came up with the term IQ was himself a skeptic of the idea that IQ alone measures intelligence. Is that right?

[Michael Rigilio]

Bingo. Yeah. Stern wasn't the only one at the time working on ways to test people's intelligence. Most people identify the Binet Simon test, published in 1905, as the first real IQ test. It was developed in France to identify which school children had normal intelligence and which had abnormal intelligence.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Oh, this is going to be one of those things that sounds harsh, right?

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, it was actually pretty harsh. And the fact of the matter is, the turn of the century was pretty harsh in general. The original Binet Simon test was particularly severe. It grouped children into four categories. Normality, debility, imbecility, and idiocy.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yikes. Yeah, that is harsh. Imagine getting that call like, I'm pleased to inform you that your son is merely an imbecile and not an idiot, as previously suspected. Good day.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, you know what? In their defense, these were technical terms. At the time, schoolyard bullies had yet to put the stank on the words imbecile and idiot. But y. These were the determinations made by the Binet Simon test.

[Jordan Harbinger]

It's funny that those are technical terms because, of course, that meaning is all lost. So what were these determinations even based upon?

[Michael Rigilio]

Okay, so the test was divided into four sections. The first section was called Basic Skills assumed of an idiot.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Oh, God. Okay, well, I shouldn't laugh. I hope I could pass that section. Who knows what's in there?

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, that one was pretty simple stuff, like unwrapping a piece of chocolate before eating it. Remember, this is a test for children.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So they were like, if he eats the chocolate with the wrapper on, he's an idiot. Why is that so funny? In grade school, I did know a kid who would eat a candy bar with the wrapper on just as a gag. And I suppose I feel a little bit better about myself. Hey, we all called him by the technically correct term.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, again, that would be the schoolyard doing its thing. It's funny. Comedian Doug Stanhope has a great bit about this. He says that it doesn't matter what they switch the technical term to. People will just co opt that word to call friends when they do something stupid. He's like, did you just put a metal plate in the microwave? What are you, developmentally challenged? Testing for idiocy was just an early 20th century way of saying basic.

[Jordan Harbinger]

And basic, of course, now has already been co opted. Okay, so tell me about the other sections of the test. I suppose it gets harder from unwrap the candy before you eat it.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, you nailed it. It gets progressively more complicated. But remember, the highest level of the test was normality. So it's not exactly rocket science. For example, one of the later tasks had the tester fold a piece of paper in half twice before cutting out a triangle. Then the child would have to guess what the piece of paper would look like when he unfolded it.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Wow. I can feel my brain trying to work that one out. And I'm not sure how good I would do at something like that either.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, actually, that's a good one. The Binet Simon test was very limited, as Binet himself pointed out. So work continued on trying to develop more robust IQ tests. A psychologist from Stanford named Lewis Terman took the Binet Simon test, and he adapted it later, publishing what became known as the Stanford binet test in 1916.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So this is where we get the IQ scores we've come to know today.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah. And basically what they did was you took the mental age of someone, divided it by their actual age, their chronological age, and then multiplied that by 100, and bingo. That's what an IQ score is.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Okay. So if you're 40, chronologically and mentally, the test says you're 40. You divide 40 by 40, you get one, and you multiply that by 100. So your IQ is 100.

[Michael Rigilio]

Check out the IQ on Jordan.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So what's the average IQ, then?

[Michael Rigilio]

It's actually between 85 and 100 and 15. So using the bell curve, that's about 100.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So the tests, they hypothetically work, which I guess is good because people use these to determine so much about someone. So it sounds like it works to give you a score. That makes some sense. I don't know.

[Michael Rigilio]

Absolutely. Which is why psychologists have continued to come up with new tests ever since Binet Simon first published theirs. They've also modified how the number itself is calculated. The whole concept evolved over time, but this is how it started at the turn of the century.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Okay. As we've already established, a person's IQ score could really impact their life. It's starting to feel a little bit like Brave New World. They got the Alphas and the Betas.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah. In fact, you're not far off on that one. Two very consequential tests were even called the Army Alpha and the Army Beta tests.

[Jordan Harbinger]

That's really on the nose there. I guess it makes sense that the army would be looking into this kind of thing. They always want to figure out how to get big groups of people put into buckets, right?

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, they definitely were. And in 1917, it was the time of World War I. And a guy by the name of Robert Yerkes came up with the Army Alpha and the Army Beta test to determine which army recruits were better suited for leadership roles and or other specific positions. The Army Alpha was a written test and the Army Beta was made up of pictures in order to include soldiers who didn't read or didn't speak English. Over a million soldiers ended up taking these tests.

[Jordan Harbinger]

You know, you gotta wonder. Aldous Huxley, Brave New world was like 1932. I wonder if he knew about this and took that from this. You gotta wonder.

[Michael Rigilio]

Gotta wonder.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah. But okay, so they made everyone take this. It's crazy that there was people who didn't speak English in the U.S. army during World War I. That's just. That's kind of mind blowing to me. But I guess maybe even now there's people whose English is not super good in the Army.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Huh. Yeah.

[Michael Rigilio]

That's interesting. I don't even think you need to be a U.S. citizen to join the U.S. army, to be honest with you.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, there was something. Gosh, we're going to get an email about this. There was something I remember hearing where people from the Philippines especially, and I'm sure it's other countries too, you could join the U.S. army and basically after you got out however many years, you would get US citizenship, which is kind of a cool deal. But yeah, I guess in the Philippines they speak English. But I don't know if the deal's open to like anyone from anywhere. That would be an interesting question. It's something I should have looked up before and something I'll look up after the show. Ok, so if they had everyone take this test before World War I or during World War I, that is a lot of data to work with, right?

[Michael Rigilio]

Absolutely. And they used this data to screen for officers, sometimes not even considering someone who scored below a certain grade. Fortunately, this sort of data ended up being used in all kinds of nefarious ways, as I'm sure you can imagine. Remember, eugenics was having a moment around the time of these tests.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah. Should we also maybe take our moment to remind everyone what EUGENICS was? I don't think everybody knows what that is.

[Michael Rigilio]

Was. I wish EUGENICS was a was. Sadly, it's still creeping around out there.

[Jordan Harbinger]

By the way, Eugenics, it does sound like a supplement marketed towards guys my age when they're having problems urinating or getting it up. Basically anything to do with the equipment, you're going to sell a pill. Middle age is amazing, but yeah, eugenics sounds like a Multilevel marketing scam.

[Michael Rigilio]

But unfortunately, eugenics is not merely a dick pill, as eugenics was just basically racism in a lab coat. Eugenics was the notion that certain traits like intelligence, physical prowess, and even moral character were inherited and society would benefit by promoting the breeding of some people and in America, the forced sterilization of others.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So the idea that certain populations of lesser people should be prohibited from reproducing, that's some very dangerous stuff. Even if you. Man, there's a thought exercise here like what if we don't stop the people from reproducing, but we encourage people to reproduce who are like really smart and have achieved a lot. Even that is is fraught. Yeah, there's no good way to do that, huh?

[Michael Rigilio]

And by the way, that is the plot of Idiocracy, more or less. Or more to the point that super smart people have fewer children, which is true. And the Idiocracy, it's turns out it was more of a prophetic vision of America's future than just a comedy from the.

[Jordan Harbinger]

In 10 years it's going to be a documentary, which is. That's the worst part.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, no kidding. But you're right, it is super dangerous stuff. And in the US many of these ideas took their darkest forms around that time, the 30s and the 40s. There was a eugenics program implemented in North Carolina that started in 1933 and went on for over four decades. Over 7,000 people are estimated to have been sterilized on account of this program which singled out people with low IQ or as they called them, feeble minded.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Wow. Yeah, that's intense. So if we had to get rid of the feeble minded folks in 2025, there'd be almost nobody left.

[Michael Rigilio]

I'm pretty sure the traffic in Los Angeles would certainly get a lot better.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, no more Carmageddon.

[Michael Rigilio]

Some might argue that Michael Rigilio would be taken off the roads. But anyway, several states enacted similar programs. Not just North Carolina, in fact California, where I'm sitting right now. In fact, it was another principal that was enacting this kind of stuff. And this whole movement, these programs inspired none other than one Mr. Adolf Hitler and his views.

[Jordan Harbinger]

I've heard of that guy.

[Michael Rigilio]

In fact, all over Mein Kampf, there are references to American eugenics and the praise for what was going on in this country with sterilization of the feeble minded.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yikes. And this was all legal in America at the time. That's crazy. How did this not make it to the Supreme Court or whatever?

[Michael Rigilio]

Oh, it did in fact, the Supreme Court of the United states in Buck vs Bell, 1927 full on, supported the practice of sterilization of people they deemed to be feeble minded. Justice Holmes, delivering the opinion of the court, wrote, quote, it is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Oof.

[Michael Rigilio]

He later added, three generations of imbeciles are enough.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Wow. What's the three generations of imbeciles?

[Michael Rigilio]

That was the family that their case made it up to the Supreme Court. I can't remember who was the Bucks or the Bells, but.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Oh my God. Wow. That aged like milk. Oh, man.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, that's rough way to take a swing at mom and pop and grandma and grandpa at the same time, by the way.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah. Hey, it's not just you who were thinking about sterilizing. Your parents should have been sterilized and their parents should have been sterilized. Yikes. Wow. And that's coming from the Supreme Court of the United States. How dignified.

[Michael Rigilio]

And I've already hinted at this, but guess who ended up quoting Justice Holmes while on trial for crimes against humanity.

[Jordan Harbinger]

I'm going to go with Nazis.

[Michael Rigilio]

You got it. Nazis.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Man, you're on shaky ground when you've got Nazis quoting you. I mean, it's not necessarily your fault if you've got Nazis quoting you, but there's a reason that Nazis are quoting you. That's all I'm saying.

[Michael Rigilio]

Oh, the Nazis got a lot of ideas from America. And in fact, I'll do you one better than just quoting us. Or perhaps one worse than just quoting Americans. Adolf Hitler famously hung a portrait of Henry Ford in his office. Really? Yeah, it's just a fact. Racism and eugenics was very popular in the U.S. okay, so there was this whole idea at the time that some people were born inferior feeble minded and it was best to sterilize them or otherwise remove them from your population in order to create a better society. And they used none other than these IQ tests to justify these ideas.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Hey, imbeciles, even you can figure out how to use the deals and discounts on the fine products and services that support this show. We'll be right back. This episode is also sponsored in part by Flykit. If you travel internationally a lot, jet lag is big. Basically the enemy. We got back from China and Taiwan a couple days ago and the kids are a disaster. At least for me. I follow FlyKit and it makes a huge difference each time. FlyKit is an algorithm based scheduling tailored to your trip details that tells you when to eat, when to sleep and how long and when to take the supplements that you'll receive in the mail. It's like having a personal travel health assistant in your pocket. I've tested it on multiple time zone busting trips and it works every single time. Flykit is of course rooted in Navy SEAL research, bro. And it was initially designed for fighter pilots and athletes to combat the inflammation that flying causes. I was a massive skeptic and I actually was like really annoyed when I found out about this and paid for it. And it was just vitamins and I asked for a refund and it was my friend's company and then he's like, just keep it and try it. And I tried it and I ended up being like, ah, here's your money because it worked so well. FlyKit uses AI to time everything from light exposure to meals, all tailored to your specific travel itinerary. And I became an immediate lifelong fan after that. Now I use it on every trip that involves more than a couple time zones. So if you're tired of losing precious days of your life to jet lag, you gotta check out flykit. It's got everything you need in one small organized packet and the app walks you through every step of the way.

[Gabriel Mizrahi]

Go to flykitwith2t's com. So that's f l y K-I-T t.com to get a flykit for 15% off with code jordan f l y k I t t.com promo code jordan.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Try it out on your next trip and hit me up. I really want to know what you think. I want to know if it works for everyone as well. I think it's amazing and it's just a must have. This episode is also sponsored by Caldera Lab. Let's be real. Most guys, Gabriel aside, skincare routine is just splash water on my face and hope for the best. I mean that's kind of what I do. But it's been a bit dry and flaky and I realized maybe I need a little maintenance. Maybe I'm not 25 anymore. Thank goodness for Caldera Lab. This is skincare made for us, which is guys who want to look better without needing a 12 step nighttime routine. I'm not trying to pull an American Psycho skincare routine here. I want something simple, simple, effective, and designed to actually work. My favorite is something called the base layer. It's their daily moisturizer the consistency is perfect. It's not greasy, it's not sticky. None of that like why do I feel like I put mayo on my face? Feeling it absorbs fast, it feels clean. They also have the Good, which is their award winning serum loaded with botanicals which sounds very fancy antioxidants in there that helps protect your skin from all the daily stress, sun, lack of sleep, general chaos. And the eye serum is a lifesaver for those mornings when you look more exhausted than you feel. Little hangover maybe you're up with the baby all night. So if you're ready to step up your face game without turning into a skincare influencer, check out Caldera Lab and definitely grab at least that base layer to start.

[Gabriel Mizrahi]

Skincare doesn't have to be complicated, but it should be good. Upgrade your routine with Caldera Lab and see the difference for yourself. Go to calderalab.com jordan and use jordan at checkout for 20% off your first.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Order if you're wondering how I managed to book all these great authors, thinkers and creators every week, it's because of my network. And I'm teaching you how to build your network for free [e-mail] I know you're probably thinking I don't book podcast guests. I get it. But this is about improving your relationship building skills and it is decidedly non cringe and down to earth. Very not awkward or cheesy. It's just practical exercises that'll make you a better connector, a better colleague, a better friend, and a better peer in six minutes a day is really all it takes. And many, many of the guests on the show subscribe and contribute to the course. So come on and join us. You'll be in smart company where you belong. You can find the [e-mail] all right, now back to Skeptical Sunday. It is crazy to think that intelligent, educated people could come to these conclusions without acknowledging that a lack of education, lack of being healthy and access to food, access to education, whatever, is a big contributing factor.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, it's crazy to think that you could be on the Supreme Court of the United States and be that imbecilic, I believe, would be the correct term.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, I guess IQ isn't everything.

[Michael Rigilio]

Also, the test questions themselves were deeply flawed. Some of the questions on the Yerkes test, for example, are pretty subjective, arguably more about knowledge of culture rather than intelligence. Here's an example straight from The Army Alpha Test 8, Form 7, Question 31. The author of the Raven is Stevenson Kipling Hawthorne Or Poe?

[Jordan Harbinger]

Are you asking me?

[Michael Rigilio]

Sure, why not? Aren't you curious if you'd been an officer or a private po?

[Jordan Harbinger]

I don't know, man.

[Michael Rigilio]

Actually. You got it.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Wow.

[Gabriel Mizrahi]

Okay.

[Michael Rigilio]

How about this? Number 32, spare is a term used in bowling, football, tennis, or hockey.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Oh, that one's easier. Bowling. So I'm a genius, and I should have been at least a lieutenant general or whatever. Is that where this is going?

[Michael Rigilio]

That's exactly what we're saying here.

[Jordan Harbinger]

All right, I'm okay with it.

[Michael Rigilio]

But perhaps, as you can see, knowing what a spare is and who wrote the Raven shouldn't exactly qualify you as being intelligent or not.

[Jordan Harbinger]

No, that's true. Right. Of course. Especially, there's tons of people who grew up in a place where bowling is not a sport that people play or you couldn't afford to bowl. And maybe you never heard of Edgar Allan Poe because you had a third grade education. I mean, the only reason I know that one is because I think my mom read me Poe stuff when I was a kid in the Raven. Sounds very po somehow, but I also just guessed. Really? At the end of the day, if.

[Michael Rigilio]

I'm being honest, it's because the Simpsons did a bit on Edgar Allan Poe's the Raven in one of their famous Halloween episodes.

[Jordan Harbinger]

It's like a fluke that we would have gotten those questions correct in 1917.

[Michael Rigilio]

I would not have gotten that question correct, I can assure you. Look, the fact of the matter is, maybe you've read hundreds of other worthwhile poems from countless other authors, just didn't come across Poe. Or maybe you were a mathematical genius who stayed away from poetry altogether.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So we're talking about some. What do you call it? Like, culturally relevant questions on the test that don't make sense if you're not from that culture.

[Michael Rigilio]

Right. But now there are other questions on the Army Alpha test that are less. Like determining the number of blocks in a stack or what comes next in a pattern. And these types of questions are far more along the lines of the kind of questions you find on modern IQ tests.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So those are like the ones you see when you're scrolling through social media. Like, hey, if you can count the number of blocks in this, you're a genius. Or if you can figure this puzzle out, you'd need to join Mensa.

[Michael Rigilio]

Oh, man, that is some of the best clickbait out there.

[Jordan Harbinger]

It is. Because who doesn't want to think of themselves as smart? Maybe I'm secretly a genius and nobody ever knew.

[Michael Rigilio]

Everyone wants to think of themselves as smart. It's human nature. And if you're convinced that certain tests are going to tell you how smart you are, you might just go ahead and take those tests to find out. In fact, I have a friend who was quite fond of dropping into conversations that he had a 145IQ according to one of those online tests. Yeah, and one day, after having heard him drop the 145 brag into a conversation for like the 90th time, I said, you know what, I'm gonna ask some follow up questions. Turns out he had to take the exact same test eight times before he achieved this high score. And he was looking up answers in between tests. The dude just likes to think of himself as smart, even if he doesn't realize that admitting you took the same IQ test eight times to get your score makes you sound not smart.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, no kidding. Wow. Well, it's pretty nerve wracking to think about that. I mean, what if I take an IQ test or many tests and it just turns out I'm not as smart as I think I am? I don't know if I could handle it. This is the psychological equivalent of getting out a ruler in college and being like, let me measure my wang. It's going to be totally above average. Just. You don't want to answer this question, folks. You don't trust tape Voice of experience.

[Michael Rigilio]

I will say that I'm old enough that coming across the information as to the average size of one's weighing was hard to come by when I was a kid, so couldn't Google it.

[Jordan Harbinger]

No, when we really could have doubled down on our insecurity about that, that information wasn't available, thank God. Yeah, that's true. No, sometimes less is more, folks. And I'm talking about information.

[Michael Rigilio]

So I've been told, okay? And look, the fact of the matter is your nerves are going to affect how you take the test. Your environment, your mood. All these things are going to factor in. Imagine being a soldier in 1917 and being stuffed into an exam room and knowing that how you score on this test is going to determine if you're an officer or if you're in the trenches.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, I'm sweating thinking about that. I mean, that's a life or death situation. Am I going to be organizing ammo crates that go out by plane or am I going to be getting shelled?

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, and World War I, according to the movies I've seen, particularly brutal. And these Army Alpha and Alpha Beta tests devised by Yerkes and Yerkes went off with the data from These army tests, he got charts in there with what professions scored what number, and then based on different scores, what professions are best suited for certain people?

[Jordan Harbinger]

It's reminding me of the movie Divergent. They take a test and it determines what faction they're going to be in. Basically, one test determines what their whole life is going to be.

[Michael Rigilio]

I can't say I saw that particular movie, but you're absolutely right. This is a tricky idea. On the one hand, maybe you can test people for a certain level of intelligence, and maybe some people are better suited for certain jobs than others. On the other hand, how is one test made up of a series of questions going to accurately give you that information?

[Jordan Harbinger]

I doubt any test would tell me. You should host a podcast. We did these tests when I was in high school, I think, and the questions were so dumb. It would be like, do you enjoy organizing different kinds of paper? Do you enjoy stamping images or words into metal? It's like, how would I know? And then they're like, oh, just answer to the best of your ability. And I remember the teachers telling us that. And I just filled it out fast because I don't know, maybe stamping things into metal would be interesting. I don't know. Next question. And then we get this report back that's like, jobs. You might be cut out for. Machine, metal, stamper, machine press. And it's just made no sense. How is a kid who's never done something gonna say, yeah, stampin something into metal might be cool? And they're like, aha. Career idea for you. Stamping things into metal. It was the absolute dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life. So these tests can't be that far from that.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, I mean, as far as determining what somebody's gonna do with the rest of their life, when I was in high school, I think they did take the test and I skipped that day. And that tells you all you need to know. Yeah. They were like, don't worry about it. You missed the test like every other test. But we didn't need to give you the test. We have an idea.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, we know where you're gonna end up. Regila. Yeah, they didn't need a test.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, I like to joke that, hey, my life might not have turned out the way I thought it would, but it is a little bit comforting to know that my life did turn out the way everybody else thought it would.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So fair. Yeah, I guess they did not need a test to know where you were going. And the test couldn't tell me where I was going, yeah.

[Michael Rigilio]

So anyway, after World War I, the US government got into these IQ tests and what they purported to mean. They started using the dubious results in all kinds of shady ways. One can even argue that the Immigration Restriction act of 1924 was influenced by these tests. The Immigration Restriction act severely limited immigration into this country for people from Asia while favoring Europeans. Surprise, surprise.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, so that just sounds like it could be plain old racism, but I don't know enough about it to say.

[Michael Rigilio]

For sure we're talking about America here. So, yeah, let's just go with racism. You could also argue that the whole field of psychology was validated at the time by Yurich's tests and how much the army dug it.

[Jordan Harbinger]

The army does like digging stuff. That sounds like a dumb pun, but that was not what I meant there.

[Michael Rigilio]

But yeah, especially trenches is where most of the people who took these Yerik's tests ended up.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So that brings us to the 30s. Okay, World War I, post World War I, whatever. So social Darwinism and eugenics are in vogue. Rudimentary IQ tests, I guess they were back then, are being used as a tool to justify these concepts now. I'm going to imagine that after World War II and all the atrocities committed by the Nazis and stuff, did that whole idea fall off a little bit, I hope?

[Michael Rigilio]

Yes and no. Eugenics definitely quieted down, at least for a while. But the notion that you could test someone's intelligence continued. Which gets us to talking about the book the Bell Curve.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Okay. I thought you might bring that book up. Yeah. Because I've heard of this and I know it's controversial.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah. You really can't talk about IQ without talking about the book the Bell Curve. And you really can't talk about the book the Bell Curve without talking about Arthur Jensen, who was before the Bell Curve. Arthur Jensen was an American psychologist who worked mostly out of UC Berkeley. In 1969, he published a paper in the Harvard Educational Review called How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? Now this paper basically set off a bomb in the world of psychology because he suggested that genetics played a part in black students scoring lower on IQ tests than white students. Critics were fierce and pointed out that his research ignored the obvious roles of poverty, poor schools, race, racism, and health inequality.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, 2025 me says duh. But I'm guessing that was maybe even also controversial back then.

[Michael Rigilio]

No, I mean, it struck at people's emotional core that there was something terribly wrong with that. And it didn't go well for Jensen at the time either. I Mean colleagues tried to formally censure him. He had protesters storming into his lectures. So it was more than a bit shocking that after that, all that happened with Jensen. That in 1994, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein published a book called the Bell Curve, which claimed that genetics was a part of what contributed to iq. And again, when we say genetics, Murray and Herrnstein broke that down by race. Predictably, a massive backlash followed the publication of the book.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, I'm guessing the criticisms were largely the same, that the study didn't take into account poverty, poor schools, health inequality. Some people might think, oh, those are weak, the poverty argument. But poor schools, health inequality. And when we say health inequality, we're talking about bad nutrition and, like, lead paint chips in the house, right?

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, absolutely. In reading some of the criticisms of the Bell Curve, I learned a few new things. Like that intelligence is what's called polygenetic. That is to say, it's influenced by a great many genes, each one contributing only a small amount, and that there is no smart gene, and that gene expression itself can be turned up or turned down by environmental factors.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Environmental factors. So I know some kids grow up with books and computers, and I know I'm harping on this, but other kids grow up with lead paint chips. That was a big thing in Detroit when I was growing up. It was like all those old houses down there that had kids in it. All you need to do is eat a couple lead paint chips as a kid, and you're in trouble. Or the dust from it.

[Michael Rigilio]

And that's because it actually. Apparently lead paint chips are sweet and they taste good.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Ooh, I didn't know that. Yeah, gross.

[Michael Rigilio]

That's why kids eat lead paint chips. They taste like candy. At least the ones that I ate did.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So even in talking about the genetic aspects of intelligence, our environment also plays a part, which totally makes sense.

[Michael Rigilio]

Exactly. Environmental factors that can influence gene expression are stuff like diet, which we talked about nutrition, but also toxics and chemicals.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, okay, so once again, paint chips and weird gasoline fumes. Or highway stuff, if you live near a highway, probably.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, absolutely. Also physical activity, sleep, infections, exposure to UV light and other forms of radiation. And stress. The stresses that come from living in poverty can lead to chronic stress, which can lead to elevated hormone levels like cortisol, which can affect gene expression like immune function and brain development.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Because I think a lot of people are, like, being poor doesn't make you have a lower iq. The UV thing actually explains a lot, too. I might be getting dumber, but I have A sick tan right now.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, you definitely got a beach bod. By the way, that field of study is called epigenetics. And none of these arguments even touch on the whole race is a man made construct and not a biological category. And the fact of the matter is, genetic differences between people or populations within what we call a race are very often far greater than the differences between any two people in what we consider to be a different race.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So that sounds like its own episode entirely. I didn't know the race thing was kind of not necessary.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, even though some people in America will explode if you profess the idea that race doesn't exist. The modern understanding of race is born out of racism, mostly European colonization. Hierarchies between population groups were devised to justify exploitation. This isn't to say that population groups don't have shared heritage and culture. But a biologist can't see that stuff under a microscope. And as far as they're concerned, race just isn't a thing. Without rehashing the entire controversy, let's just say the overwhelming number of experts in the field disagree with the findings of Jensen and the Bell curve.

[Jordan Harbinger]

This is really interesting because before you would think, okay, people who lean right are going to be like, not everything is racism. And I get that, maybe there's something to that. But then the people on the left are like, what do you mean race doesn't exist? If you said that to a college kid right now, depending on the college, I suppose you would get an earful. So it's the horseshoe theory, right? It's like these groups might actually agree for completely different reasons.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, that's exactly the horseshoe. And by the way, I did say that to some college kids when I was doing this research. I was at a friend's house and their son was there with his girlfriend. And I said that, and she had to leave the table because she didn't want to sit with me anymore because I said that race isn't a biological category.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, that would make for an awkward dinner. But you know what? When I hear that, I gotta say that's what people are talking about when they're like snowflakes can't handle the thinner. Like, she had to leave the dinner, she got all upset and couldn't handle that particular line of argument. I don't know.

[Michael Rigilio]

I do get it. Because again, people have a shared culture that they're very proud of and a shared struggle that they're very proud that they made it through. And so they think that in some way you're coming after that when you say this, which you're absolutely not, I'm just talking about from a scientific perspective. This is just not something that truly exists.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Meanwhile, an overwhelming number of racist organizations probably agree with with the Bell Curve and the findings of Jensen and all that stuff. So how do we square that?

[Michael Rigilio]

And by overwhelming number of racist organizations, I assume you mean all racist organizations agree with them.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Well, it seems like the more things change, the more they stay the same. I suppose. I want to jump back to the IQ stuff before we get too far off the reservation, which also sounds racist now that I say it out loud. Save me.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, okay, fine. Let's get back to iq. IQ tests have been changing for a long time now and working towards getting rid of cultural biases. A test known as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale was published in 1955, and modern editions continue to be released, including a fifth edition that just came out in 2024. There's also Raven's Progressive Matrices and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. These tests have tried to reduce these cultural biases as much as possible.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So no more questions like with which hand do you hold a caviar spoon? Or what does it mean for a dressage horse to pf.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, those questions are gone. These tests focus on logical reasoning, pattern recognition, things that anyone could be good or bad at, regardless of background. The goal being to measure general cognitive ability with as little bias as possible. And there's also the idea that there are multiple types of intelligence. There's mathematical intelligence, spatial, linguistic. There's fluid intelligence, and crystallized intelligence.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Crystallized intelligence. Sounds pretty cool.

[Michael Rigilio]

It does sound cool. Sounds Star Wars Y. Yeah, it's.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Oh, yeah. This new Jedi has crystallized intelligence.

[Michael Rigilio]

Only Master Yoda has crystallized intelligence.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Jordan, I would like to take the crystallized intelligence test. I feel like I might want to take all these tests actually, just for shits and gigs. I mean, if I take a bunch of different IQ tests and consistently get around the same score, then that might.

[Michael Rigilio]

In fact tell you something.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Okay. Plus, if I score super high, then I'll be inducted into some kind of secret society. Ostensibly.

[Michael Rigilio]

Actually, there are some organizations like that, only they aren't secret. Mensa. I know you've heard of that one.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah.

[Michael Rigilio]

For example, is the largest and oldest high IQ society. You have to score in the 98th percentile or higher on an approved supervised IQ test. They even have their own IQ tests. There's also the triple nine society. You need to have an even higher IQ to get into that one.

[Jordan Harbinger]

I've heard of Mensa and it's actually the opposite of a secret society because people who are in it often cannot shut the actual fuck up about being a member of mensa. So they're not secretly controlling the world. That's maybe disappointing.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, they're really just nonprofits publishing journals with puzzles and poems and helping to provide scholarships to gifted students.

[Jordan Harbinger]

All based on IQ tests.

[Michael Rigilio]

That's right. Like the Wechsler or the Stanford Binet 5.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So there are a few places out there that still value IQ scores on specific IQ tests. In fact, it seems like they hold them in pretty high regard.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, that's right. And more than a few, we still use IQ scores when determining certain public policies. We still consider it regarding military service.

[Jordan Harbinger]

And kids still take stuff like SATs. But that's not necessarily IQ.

[Michael Rigilio]

I think that is just the idea that we can test people's intelligence. And that is still alive and well, just with some healthy skepticism mixed in.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Now, we love skepticism. But I've got to tell you, I'm feeling as though I like the idea that in some way we can measure a person's intelligence, even if it's not totally accurate.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah. At a basic level, you'd hope that we'd be able to test people's intelligence just generally so we can try to make people smarter or find out what is hindering their development.

[Jordan Harbinger]

You don't need an IQ test to tell you that you're a genius for taking advantage of the deals and discounts on the fine products and services that support this show. So we'll be right back. This episode is sponsored in part by Haya Health. If you've got kids, you know the vitamin aisle is a disaster. Most kids vitamins are basically glorified candy. We're talking five grams of sugar. There's artificial junk in there. There's weird dyes that are probably banned in other countries. And our kids love them because they're basically eating gummy candy. And that's why we made the switch to Haya. It's a chewable vitamin, zero sugar, no gummy nonsense. Still tastes good. Even our picky eater kids are into it. Haya nailed the packaging as well. You get this cool reusable bottle with the first order. It comes with stickers. Your kids personalize it. They really like that. This little detail turned taking vitamins from a chore into something fun for the kids and ours. They just love decorating the bottle. It was like a whole evening of fun. Haya vitamins are packed with all the essentials. 12 organic fruits and veggies plus 15 vitamins and minerals like vitamin D, zinc, B12, folate. It's clean, non GMO, vegan, gluten free, allergy friendly. They also just launched a kid's probiotic and some nighttime essentials which we are excited to try next.

[Gabriel Mizrahi]

We've worked out a special deal with Haya for their best selling children's vitamin. Receive 50% off your first order. To claim this deal you must go to hyahealth.com Jordan this deal is not available on their regular website. Go to H I Y a H E a l t h.com jordan and get your kids the full body nourishment they need to grow into healthy adults.

[Jordan Harbinger]

This episode is also sponsored by SimpliSafe. A few months ago, something happened. I still can't believe I'm saying out loud. Our home was broken into. While we were home, I was in bed. Jen was reading a bedtime story in the next room to the kids. It's easy to think stuff like this happens to other people. I mean, we're other people. We live in a safe neighborhood, we're careful. But that night, three masked intruders kicked through the glass door of the room that I was in. We'd think they'd been watching our house. They noticed a car leaving our driveway, saw the lights were off, figured the house was empty. No, we just go to bed ridiculously early because we're old and we have kids. Thankfully, though, we have Simplisafe. The sirens went off instantly. Cameras rolling, everything lit up. Let me tell you, hoping something like that won't happen to you. Not a good security plan. Simplisafe gave us peace of mind that we didn't really realize we needed until we needed it. It's easy to set up. Jen had the whole system running in an afternoon. Cameras, glass break sensors, door alarms, 247 monitoring, all connected to your phone whether you're at home or halfway across the country. I did check in when we were in Taiwan. You know exactly what's going on. And after what we went through, the peace of mind honestly is priceless. And right now it's actually affordable.

[Gabriel Mizrahi]

Head to SimpliSafe.com Jordan to get 50% off a new system with professional monitoring plus your first month free. That's SimpliSafe.com Jordan there's no safe like SimpliSafe.

[Jordan Harbinger]

This episode is also sponsored in part by Progressive. You ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Shift a little money here, shift a little over there. You kind of just hope it all works out well with the Name your price tool from Progressive. You can be a better budgeter and potentially lower your insurance bill too. You tell Progressive what you want to pay for car insurance. They'll help you find options within your budget. Try it [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates pricing coverage match Limited by state law not available in all states. Thank you so much for listening to and supporting the show. All of the deals and discounts and ways to support the podcast are searchable and Clickable [e-mail] deals. You can also email us if you can't find the code. It is that important that you support those who support the show. Now for the rest of Skeptical Sunday. I mean, if there's no way to determine intelligence, at least to a degree, then there's no way to find out if somebody's getting smart. So doesn't that take the whole idea of education and kind of throw it out the window? In a way, it behooves us as.

[Michael Rigilio]

A society to try and figure out a way to gauge intelligence, at least generally speaking. I'm not sure breaking it all down into a single number is plausible, but you'd like to think that we could come up with some sort of value.

[Jordan Harbinger]

But then again, intelligence is a concept, really, so how can you nail it down to a series of questions? Aha.

[Michael Rigilio]

This is the back and forth playing out to this day. And there are scholars, academics and psychologists, you name it, on both sides of the fence. Some have disputed the idea that IQ has any value at all when measuring intelligence. Others believe it can determine academic potential or has validity for clinical purposes. Others will straight up swear by the results and extrapolate all kinds of things from the data.

[Jordan Harbinger]

All right, so what if we assume, for argument's sake, that IQ scores, or at least modern ones, are a valid way of measuring people's intelligence? What does the data that we've accumulated over the years tell us, if anything? Are there trends? Are there takeaways? I'm almost afraid to hear the answer. Speaking of idiocracy, the results and interpretations.

[Michael Rigilio]

Of long term studies of IQ among large populations is hotly contested. But there is the Flynn effect, named after research James Flynn. This highlighted increases in IQ scores measured all across the world over time. On average, IQ scores were rising by about three points per decade starting in the first half of the 20th century.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Meaning people, generally speaking, are getting smarter. Great.

[Michael Rigilio]

And not by a little. Three points per decade might be one small step for a ten year period, but over the course of half a century, that's One giant leap for mankind's intelligence.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, that seems super important. But it also seems like exponential growth, like that kind of needs an explanation of some sort. What's going on here?

[Michael Rigilio]

You nailed it. Actually, it does. And that explanation seems to be environment. If IQ was mostly genetic and fixed, you wouldn't expect entire populations to get smarter over just a few decades. Genes don't evolve that fast.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So what is it? I'm guessing nutrition, as we've discussed, has to be one of the factors.

[Michael Rigilio]

Absolutely. But other factors play in as well, like better health, cleaner water. And the one that kind of blew my mind was that we live in more cognitively demanding environments. People do more abstract thinking in the modern world. Modern life just requires more problem solving and quote, unquote, out of the box.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Thinking smaller family size might play as well. I don't know. But kids get more attention from parents. They get more resources. Maybe.

[Michael Rigilio]

Check out the IQ on Jordan. That's right.

[Jordan Harbinger]

I am an only child, so it all makes sense.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah. Family size is, in fact, one of the many factors experts point to to explain the Flynn effect. And there are plenty of studies that suggest that IQ is going up. Or at least for several decades, it was going up.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Ah, crap. So are we getting dumber now?

[Michael Rigilio]

There is some data pointing to a decrease in IQ in recent years. Norway, Denmark, Finland have all seen decreases in IQ ever since the 1990s. In Britain, scores started dropping around the year 2004. In the United States, it's a mixed.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Bag because you figured if anybody was getting dumber, it was Americans.

[Michael Rigilio]

But there are hints that scores are dropping for people born after 1990.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah. Damn video games, eh?

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, could be that's the appeal of the IQ test in the first place. If we do have a reasonably accurate way of measuring intelligence, then we can use that data and try and determine variables or factors that can affect intelligence.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, like nutrition, cleaner food, smaller family sizes, yada, yada. If this makes sense, I feel bad. I'm taking potshots at Americans. But the data showed the Scandinavians. Suck it, Norway. But it makes sense. My dad was one of eight kids and Ukrainian immigrant. The parenting was different. They lived in a small house. There wasn't a whole lot of. Let me focus on helping Don with his homework. You know, it's like. No, I just. I'm trying to make sure nobody dies in my watch. The end.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah. I'm from a family of six kids, Catholic. Go figure. I like to say my mother had three ways of helping me with my homework. First, she tried Yelling at me, then she tried screaming at me, and then she tried shrieking at me, and then she was totally out of ideas.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Geez. Yeah, so the family size thing does matter. Okay, and like I said, cleaner food and blah, blah, blah.

[Michael Rigilio]

Exactly. If we don't have a measure of intelligence, at least in general, how can we tell if things are making us smarter or dumber?

[Jordan Harbinger]

Let's just say we're trying to assess if a person's cognitive abilities are declining. I mean, don't we need a test for that kind of stuff?

[Michael Rigilio]

Absolutely. And it's helpful to know if, say, an aging person is starting to lose their intelligence and what can be done to reduce that decline. Also, how can we ensure that every school kid has the best opportunity to learn and succeed? How can we identify students who need extra assistance to achieve their potential?

[Jordan Harbinger]

Or standardized testing? Isn't that what George W. Bush's no Child Left behind was all about? Not the paste eating, but the standardized.

[Michael Rigilio]

Testing, which, from what I remember of George W. Bush's presidency, he may have done a little paste eating himself. Okay, politics aside. Look, the fact of the matter is no Child Left behind had good intentions but became deeply unpopular and for valid reasons. It instituted standardized testing. And schools were often seen as just.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Trying to teach the test, which is definitely a factor. If I kept looking at piles of blocks and got really good at figuring out how many there were, or practice pattern recognition, I might do exceedingly well on a specific IQ test. That's actually how I ended up doing decent on the lsat, which is a test you take before you apply to law schools. But I would study old exams and stuff like that. And I knew that what I was studying would be on the test. I literally only took old exam questions, took a bunch of old practice tests, and then if I had trouble with something, I'd look it up in the book or whatever. So I could be a full blown moron, but just be really good at specific tasks. Like your friend who took the same IQ test a dozen times and looked up all the answers or whatever. It doesn't tell you their intelligence. It just tells you if they learned how to take the test.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, and by the way, this doesn't mean that IQ tests are completely useless either. They still have some value. An IQ test can illustrate that someone, for instance, has difficulty with pattern recognition or word association. We're not saying that they aren't intelligent, but we can identify areas for improvement.

[Jordan Harbinger]

And for educational purposes that can be helpful. Like when teachers see which subjects a student is having trouble with and focus. Extra attention there.

[Michael Rigilio]

I guess maybe a kid has got a calculus down but needs help with creative writing. I think the takeaway here is that intelligence is complex. It's a concept that we should remain skeptical about when attempting to quantify, especially into something as simple as a single number.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, this has me thinking about all that.

[Michael Rigilio]

Well, that's a good sign.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, we've really only been talking about human intelligence as it relates to IQ tests. I actually, this is probably beyond the scope, but whatever. I'm wondering how all this applies to something like AI.

[Michael Rigilio]

Are you asking what is ChatGPT's IQ?

[Jordan Harbinger]

Do we know that? Is that even possible to measure?

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah. In fact, a guy by the name of Ekaroy Vanen from Scientific American copied the exact questions from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and he tested ChatGPT with it.

[Jordan Harbinger]

And I'm gonna imagine that it aced the test.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, the verbal IQ of ChatGPT was better than 99.9% of the standardized sample of humans.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So, yeah, we're doomed, as expected.

[Michael Rigilio]

Maybe. But like we said earlier, there's a lot of nuance when you're talking about intelligence. As they mentioned in their article in Scientific American, ECRA asked chatgpt what is the first name of the father of Sebastian's children? And ChatGPT couldn't get the answer. I tried it when I was researching this and it couldn't get the answer either. Full disclosure, because ChatGPT is getting better all the time, and Perhaps somebody from ChatGPT read the article in Scientific American. I did it right before you and I started taping it. Got the answer.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Really? So it learned that, because, in fact, I'm going to try it right now if I can. So I just tried it right now real quick, and it asked me which Sebastian I'm referring to because it could be a lot of different people. So it still doesn't know that the obvious answer is Sebastian, because that's a man. And I mean, I guess there are technical ways that Sebastian could have children that are his, even though he's not the father directly. I guess this should be like an easy one that. Unless you're thinking these crazy exceptions, ChatGPT should say it's probably Sebastian. However, it could be a myriad of other people because of these various scenarios. But yeah, you're right, it's not quite there. So this is a riddle that if I had to think about it, it would just be so obvious. I'd like to think, I don't know, maybe I don't want to take all those IQ tests.

[Michael Rigilio]

Oh, perhaps you're struggling with riddles, but you're crushing pattern recognition. Doesn't mean you're not intelligent.

[Jordan Harbinger]

I can count blocks, Michael. I can count blocks. All right, it sounds like the Wechsler test is a pretty prolific one. Is there like a short list of IQ tests?

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, I'd say that the Wechsler 1, the Stanford Binet 5, Raven's Progressive Matrices, the Cattell Culture Fair Intelligence Test, those are the most highly recognized IQ tests out there today.

[Jordan Harbinger]

So if I score low on all those tests, don't take it to heart for some reason.

[Michael Rigilio]

Exactly. Don't take it to heart. Even though IQ tests have certainly come a long way, they still have a lot of limitations. Real world scenarios, emotional intelligence, unpredictable situation. These are all things that can't be measured really in any of those tests.

[Jordan Harbinger]

I see. So just because ChatGPT scores high on an IQ test, it doesn't necessarily mean robots are going to take over the world, at least not tomorrow.

[Michael Rigilio]

AI systems are great at applying patterns based on its training, and obviously a computer is naturally going to be very good at math, but that doesn't mean that they have the kind of broad adaptive intelligence that humans possess.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Crystallized intelligence, if you will.

[Michael Rigilio]

I told you, only Master Yoda has crystallized intelligence.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Man, such nerds. So this leaves me with a kind of win win scenario here. When I'm out there taking IQ tests, getting my scores, if I score high, I can lean into all the data and support for IQ tests and what they mean. And if I score low on the IQ test, then I can lean into all the healthy skepticism of them and say that it just doesn't necessarily mean anything because I've got crystallized or some kind of other intelligence.

[Michael Rigilio]

Yeah, you just won't get into the Triple Nine society, which is their loss.

[Jordan Harbinger]

At this point, I think.

[Michael Rigilio]

I don't know exactly, I agree. But in all scenarios, I think what's important is that intelligence is incredibly complex. It's more than a simple three digit number, or in some of our cases, two digit number. And whether it's emotional intelligence, creativity, or problem solving skills, there are many ways to measure it, or more accurately, to try and measure it.

[Jordan Harbinger]

And even if IQ scores don't tell us everything, it sounds like there's still some value in trying to understand how our minds work right. And tests can show us where somebody might need help, where they might excel. It's not about labeling people as smart or dumb or feeble minded, imbecilic, whatever, but Rather about identifying areas to improve or maybe even tap into.

[Michael Rigilio]

Now that you've put it that way, I kind of feel bad that I kind of labeled my friend who took the IQ test eight times as dumb.

[Jordan Harbinger]

He might not be dumb, he might not even be an imbecile or an idiot for that matter.

[Michael Rigilio]

I know him. So I just feel bad that I said it on a podcast. That said, everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses and we all need to be very cautious and skeptical about putting too much stock in any single test or number.

[Jordan Harbinger]

At the end of the day, it sounds like IQ scores are not going to tell the whole story of someone's life. Whether it's overcoming obstacles, gaining skills through experience, or developing other kinds of intelligence, there's a lot more to human potential than any one test could capture.

[Michael Rigilio]

While IQ tests can offer some worthwhile insights, they're just one piece of a much bigger puzzle. They can help us understand certain cognitive patterns, but they can't and shouldn't define who we are or what we're capable of.

[Jordan Harbinger]

An IQ test, or any test for that matter, shouldn't tell us what profession we need to be in or how the rest of our life is going to look. It certainly doesn't tell us that one type of person is inherently smarter than the other.

[Michael Rigilio]

Exactly. And take AI for example. ChatGPT may ace the Wechsler test, but it doesn't have the same holistic intelligence that we humans possess. At least not yet. Human intelligence is much more nuanced than that.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Now one little note. There is a correlation between IQ and making better decisions long term, especially for health long term lifestyle mortality. As expected, people with higher IQ tend to make better decisions in certain areas. Now we didn't do a deep dive into this on the episode, but I just thought that was worth noting. And it's not completely uncorrelated with decisions you would expect. You know, quote unquote smart people to make. Intelligence seems like a rich and diverse concept and we just can't let one number dictate our self worth or limit our potential. That's what I'm telling myself right now anyway.

[Michael Rigilio]

Sounds like maybe you did take one of those tests.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Yeah, maybe or maybe not, but I'm really considering it.

[Michael Rigilio]

I say go for it. Just remember it's not the end all be all. It's just another way to get to know yourself and help your intelligence grow.

[Jordan Harbinger]

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Michael Rigilio]

And who knows, maybe you will be inducted into Mensa or the Triple Nine Society. Or maybe you'll just take pride in being a great podcast host.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Jordan I think I'll stick with that one for now. Doing okay. Maybe I don't need to get out the ruler, so to speak.

[Michael Rigilio]

Smart move.

[Jordan Harbinger]

Thanks everyone for listening. Topic suggestions for future episodes of Skeptical Sunday to me Jordanordanharbinger.com, show notes on the website, advertisers, deals, discounts and ways to support the show, [e-mail] deals I'm JordanHarbinger on Twitter or Instagram. Michael Rigilio is over Ichael Regilio on Instagram. Tour dates are up now as well. We'll link to that in the show notes because nobody can spell Rogelio. This show is created in association with podcast one. People with high IQs might be able to spell Rogelio. I don't know. We'll see. This show is created in association with Podcast one. My team is Jen Harbinger, Jace Sanderson, Tata Sidlowskis, Robert Fogarty, Ian Baird, and Gabriel Mizrahi. Our advice and opinions are our own and I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. Do your own research before implementing anything you hear on the show. And remember, we rise by lifting others. Share the show with those you love. If you found the episode useful, please share it with somebody else who could use a good dose of the skepticism and knowledge that we doled out today. In the meantime, I hope you apply what you hear on the show so you can live what you learn and we'll see you next time.