IQ and EQ: differentiations and perspectives
IQ is one of the best predictors of long-term success, as well as the psychological concept whose validity has been tested and demonstrated with the greatest accuracy of all psychological concepts.
This article briefly explains the concept of IQ, how it works, and how different scores can affect life. It also explains the concept of EQ and why, personally, there is no belief in its existence, at least not in the form put forward by the inventors of this term.
But let's start at the beginning. First of all, what is IQ?
The history of the concept
Historically, the first attempt to create a standardized test for measuring intelligence was made by Sir Francis Galton, a Briton, in 1884. He hypothesized that there should be a correlation between intelligence quotient and other observable measures, such as head size or reflex speed. However, Galton failed to prove his theory, which led him to abandon research in this field.
Somewhat more successful were psychologist Alfred Binet and psychiatrist Theodore Simon, who in 1905 published the standardized Alfred-Binet test, which focused on verbal abilities. It was created to identify the degree of "mental retardation" in schoolchildren, while distancing itself from the claims made by psychiatrists of that time, who argued that these children were ill (not slow) and therefore had to be removed from school and placed in asylums.
Alfred Binet also introduced the notion of "mental age," a term referring to the cognitive age of children. It was obtained by comparing the results of participants in the Alfred-Binet test with the results of most representatives of that age category. For example, if a child was six years old and managed to solve a test that, on average, only eight-year-olds could solve, that child's mental age was 8. Thus, the score obtained was 8.0.
Later, a more precise approach was proposed by psychologist William Stern, who suggested that instead of subtracting the real age from the age estimated from test performance, the latter should be divided by the former. Thus, he was the first to use the term IQ, defined as the ratio between mental age and chronological age.
In the USA, IQ testing became a real success story after Lewis Terman revised Binet's test, creating a norm much more suitable than the original, and published it as the Stanford-Binet test. He was also keen to multiply the result by 100, so the final equation for IQ is (mental age) / (chronological age) x 10
Indeed, an IQ of 130 sounds MUCH better than an IQ of 1.3.
However, testing used to be possible only for children, the main condition for the result to be conclusive being that increasing age should be directly proportional to better cognitive abilities. Once age advances, this is no longer the case.
David Wechsler solved the problem of calculating adult IQ by simply comparing performance with the distribution of test scores, which is a normal distribution. In his system, the IQ of those whose score equaled the average of their age group was 100.
IQ: Usefulness and definition
If IQ as a concept is not accepted, then all of psychology might as well be thrown away. The reason is this: the IQ concept has been demonstrated with the greatest effectiveness and rigor of all psychological concepts, and rejecting it would mean discrediting most psychological concepts, which have not benefited from this degree of validity. At present, a simple Google Scholar search for “IQ” reveals over 2 million studies.
IQ is also one of the best predictors of long-term success. As a general rule, if a job is repetitive and involves performing the same task for a long period of time, then IQ does not accurately measure how well someone will perform at work. However, if a job involves constant change and adaptation to the environment, then IQ is the best predictor of long-term success.
In other words, IQ is a kind of “processing speed.” It determines how quickly and how vigorously new information is assimilated. For example, a person with an IQ of 85 will have a harder time compared to a person with an IQ of 102 when performing tasks that involve learning and acquiring knowledge and then applying it in the most productive way (except in cases where job requirements do not change constantly and the work is repetitive).
IQ and conscientiousness: The Yin and Yang of success
However, IQ is not the only trait that successfully predicts achievement in the workplace. Among these traits are conscientiousness, resistance to negative emotions, and openness to new experiences. Some studies place conscientiousness higher than IQ in the hierarchy of importance for long-term success. A study conducted on a group of 140 eighth-grade students found that conscientiousness predicts school performance up to twice as well.
Still, there are doubts about this conclusion for several reasons. First, the study was conducted on a small group of people, which means that the results do not fully reflect the relationship between IQ and long-term success in the general population. Second, a study conducted on 1,098,742 people in Denmark between 1968 and 2016 demonstrated a clear correlation between occupational/academic failure and low IQ, which means that the opposite is also true.
Third, IQ and conscientiousness can be compared to the main character and the supporting character in a story (IQ–M.C.; Conscientiousness–S.C.). The main character can manage on their own, although without the supporting character the story is not as pleasant or as smooth. However, the story cannot unfold without a main character, because it needs one.
It is the same with IQ and conscientiousness. Together they are unstoppable, but conscientiousness depends on IQ, with academic/professional success depending to a greater extent on the latter. Most studies reflect the same thing, showing a correlation of 0.5–0.6 (25–36%) between IQ and long-term success, while conscientiousness shows a correlation of 0.3–0.4 (9–16%).
Finally, it is very difficult to successfully measure conscientiousness, as it is not a score on a standardized test but rather an attitude, which means relying on questionnaires or third-party reports, and this sacrifices some of its validity.
Increased IQ: myth or reality?
Although some people claim that you can increase your intelligence through mental exercises, the general consensus is that IQ cannot be increased, being mostly genetic. The best way to preserve your mental health/increase your intelligence quotient is exercise, with good cardiovascular health translating into more prompt and rapid responses to outside requirements.
The problem with performing mental exercises to increase IQ is that the intelligence quotient is present only in the short time you struggle to understand a particular problem, not when you repeat a previously understood problem and improve yourself in solving it.
However, we can prevent lowering IQ by performing mental exercises. As we know, with age IQ tends to decline, so maintaining brain activity can be helpful in maintaining intelligence quotient, not to mention preventing neurodegenerative diseases. (Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Dementia)
The problems of the EQ concept
I have three big problems with EQ:
1. The term was first used by a journalist, so let me question the validity of this concept of psychological "seeming". The word intelligence put before "emotional" is also problematic and can easily mislead, making people believe in EQ as a "new" intelligence uncorrelated to IQ.
2. We have a problem of major definition: no consensus has been reached on the definition of the term EQ. How can you pretend to know something about EQ if you can't decide on a definition of EQ?
3. We also have an empirical problem. It is very difficult to quantify emotional intelligence, especially when its definition is so vague. What is the difference between emotional intelligence and empathy? Do we differentiate between the two based on which of them is more successful? If so, then how do we define success as a result of an empathic attitude?
Conclusions
Although some people consider emotional intelligence to be part of human consciousness, I am skeptical about conceptualizing a "new" type of intelligence.
A more appropriate definition of EQ would be "use of IQ for the purpose of tactfully controlling or manifesting emotions in a manner that can promote emotional or intellectual progress".
It is important to note, however, that the manifestation of activities related to a high intelligence quotient, or the score obtained on the IQ test does not translate into higher human value. Each of us is valuable by our mere existence as a human being, and this value is independent of our intellectual achievements.
Bibliography
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children (The Binet-Simon Scale). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. London: Macmillan.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Stern, W. (1914). The Psychological Methods of Testing Intelligence. Baltimore: Warwick & York.
Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Wechsler, D. (1939). The Measurement of Adult Intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162
Ritchie, S. J. (2015). Intelligence: All That Matters. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774253
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63(6), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.503
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(2), 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00195-6