310
PARTISAN REVIEW
objective basis? To support the unitary view of intelligence, Jensen
cites statistical evidence showing that children who perform well on
one mental test tend to perform well on others. But these children also
tend to be taller, healthier, and better adjusted than children who do
less well on intelligence tests. To some developmental psychologists
this suggests that physical, emotional, and intellectual development
are interdependent and mutually reinforcing processes and that differ–
ent aspects of cognitive development also interact and tend in general
to
reinforce one another.
There is another important source of correlation (again not
mentioned by Jensen) between tests that ostensibly measure distinct
abilities. Consider a test that requires the subject to match line
drawings of a solid object seen from different angles. This would seem
to be a pure test of spatial ability. But some people solve such problems
in ways that depend heavily on verbal ability. Instead of performing
appropriate mental rotations, they talk their way through the problem.
Knowing this, we should not be surprised to find performance on
spatial tests correlated with performance on verbal tests. Such a
correlation obviously does not mean that spatial and verbal abilities
both partake of some more general ability.
Contrary
to
the impression that Jensen gives in this book, modern
psychometric research does in fact support the commonsense view that
there are many distinct kinds of intelligence, which in most people
tend to be unevenly developed. People with one or two strongly
developed abilities are sometimes conspicuously weak in others: poets
and biologists are often poor mathematicians, some painters are tone–
deaf, and some musicians have no eye for color or visual form.
Bias in Mental Testing
offers an elaborate apologia for mental
tests and their use by educators and admissions committees. The book's
first three chapters are given over to a detailed examination of various
criticisms that have been leveled against standardized tests and their
use. Jensen dissects first the criticisms, then their authors' motives for
making them. Much of the hostility
to
tests, he tells us, comes from the
critics' personal insecurities.
But, once again, something has been left out. Some tests measure a
particular skill or kind of knowledge, others purport to test intelli–
gence or aptitude. No one questions the possibility of devising valid
and reliable tests of reading comprehension, organic chemistry, famil–
iarity with nineteenth century English literature, or the ability to solve
problems in elementary calculus. But intelligence and aptitude tests are
related to skill and achievement tests much as patent medicines are t9
