TED演讲：智商测试的那些黑历史
相信大家都有做过一些IQ测试，简简单单几十道题就算出你是“聪明”还是“傻”，不过，我们平常看到的那些免费的IQ测试，大多都是假的。
1905年，心理学家阿尔弗雷德·比奈（Alfred Binet）和特奥多尔·西蒙（Théodore Simon）为法国学校里挣扎的孩子设计了一个测试。为了确定哪些孩子需要个体化的关注，他们的方法形成了现代智商测试的基础。那么智商测试是如何工作的，它们是智力的真实反映吗？我们今天一起来看看智商测试的那些黑历史~
1905年，心理学家阿尔弗雷德·比奈和特奥多尔·西蒙为法国学校里努力的孩子们设计了一个测试。为了确定哪些孩子需要个体化的注意，他们的方法构成了智商测试的基础。
Beginning in the late 19th century, researchers hypothesized that cognitive abilities like verbal reasoning, working memory, and visual-spatial skills reflected an underlying general intelligence, or g factor. Simon and Binet designed a battery of tests to measure each of these abilities and combine the results into a single score.
从19世纪末开始，研究人员假设，诸如语言推理、工作记忆和视觉空间技能等认知能力反映了潜在的一般智力或g因素。西蒙和比奈设计了一系列测试来测量这些能力，并将结果合并成一个单一的分数。
Questions were adjusted for each age group, and a child’s score reflected how they performed relative to others their age. Dividing someone’s score by their age and multiplying the result by 100 yielded the intelligence quotient, or IQ. Today, a score of 100 represents the average of a sample population, with 68% of the population scoring within 15 points of 100.
他们对每个年龄组的问题进行了调整，孩子的分数也反映了他们相对于其他同龄人的表现。然后把某人的分数除以他们的年龄，再乘以100，就得到了智商。如今，100分代表了样本人群的平均水平，68%的人得分在15分到100分之间。
Simon and Binet thought the skills their test assessed would reflect general intelligence. But both then and now, there’s no single agreed upon definition of general intelligence. And that left the door open for people to use the test in service of their own preconceived assumptions about intelligence.
西蒙和比奈认为，他们的技能评估测试将反映一般智力。但无论是当时还是现在，对一般智力的定义都没有一个统一的标准。而这也为人们利用这项测试，服务于他们自己对智力先入为主的假设打开了大门。
What started as a way to identify those who needed academic help quickly became used to sort people in other ways, often in service of deeply flawed ideologies. One of the first large-scale implementations occurred in the United States during WWI, when the military used an IQ test to sort recruits and screen them for officer training.
最初智商测试是用来识别那些需要学术帮助的人群的方法，但很快大家就以各种形式将它用来对人进行分类，而且大多是情况下是为了服务于意识形态有严重缺陷的人群。第一次大规模实施是在第一次世界大战期间，当时米国军方使用智商测试对新兵进行分类，并筛选他们进行军官培训。
At that time, many people believed in eugenics, the idea that desirable and undesirable genetic traits could and should be controlled in humans through selective breeding. There were many problems with this line of thinking, among them the idea that intelligence was not only fixed and inherited, but also linked to a person’s race. Under the influence of eugenics, scientists used the results of the military initiative to make erroneous claims that certain racial groups were intellectually superior to others.
当时，许多人相信优生学，他们认为通过选择性育种可以控制人类理想的和不良的遗传特性。这种思维方式有很多问题，其中一个观点是智力不仅是固定的和遗传的，而且与一个人的种族有关。在优生学的影响下，科学家们利用军事行动的结果，错误地宣称某些种族群体在智力上优于其他种族。
Without taking into account that many of the recruits tested were new immigrants to the United States who lacked formal education or English language exposure, they created an erroneous intelligence hierarchy of ethnic groups. The intersection of eugenics and IQ testing influenced not only science, but policy as well.
在没有考虑到许多被测试的新兵是缺乏正规教育或没有英语背景的米国新移民的情况下，他们建立了一个错误的族群智力等级体系。优生学和智商测试的交叉不仅影响科学，也影响政策。
In 1924, the state of Virginia created policy allowing for the forced sterilization of people with low IQ scores— a decision the United States Supreme Court upheld. In Nazi Germany, the government authorized the murder of children based on low IQ.
1924年，弗吉尼亚州制定了允许强迫智商低的人绝育的政策——米国最高法院维持了这一决定。在Nazi德国，政府以低智商为由批准捕杀儿童。
Following the Holocaust and the Civil Rights Movement, the discriminatory uses of IQ tests were challenged on both moral and scientific grounds. Scientists began to gather evidence of environmental impacts on IQ. For example, as IQ tests were periodically recalibrated over the 20th century, new generations scored consistently higher on old tests than each previous generation. This phenomenon, known as the Flynn Effect, happened much too fast to be caused by inherited evolutionary traits. Instead, the cause was likely environmental— improved education, better healthcare, and better nutrition.
在大屠杀和民权运动之后，智商测试的歧视性使用受到了道德和科学两方面的挑战。科学家开始收集环境对智商影响的证据。例如，在20世纪，随着智商测试周期性地重新校准，新一代人在旧测试中的得分一直高于前一代人。这种现象被称为弗林效应，发生得太快，不能由遗传的进化特征引起。相反，原因很可能是环境改善后的教育、更好的医疗和更好的营养。
In the mid-twentieth century, psychologists also attempted to use IQ tests to evaluate things other than general intelligence, particularly schizophrenia, depression, and other psychiatric conditions. These diagnoses relied in part on the clinical judgment of the evaluators, and used a subset of the tests used to determine IQ— a practice later research found does not yield clinically useful information.
在二十世纪中叶，心理学家还试图用智商测试来评估一般智力以外的东西，特别是精神分裂症、抑郁症和其他精神疾病。这些诊断在一定程度上依赖于评估者的临床判断，并使用了用于确定智商的测试子集——后来的研究发现，这一实践并不能提供有用的临床信息。
Today, IQ tests employ many similar design elements and types of questions as the early tests, though we have better techniques for identifying potential bias in the test. They’re no longer used to diagnose psychiatric conditions. But a similarly problematic practice using subtest scores is still sometimes used to diagnose learning disabilities, against the advice of many experts.
如今，智商测试采用了许多与早期测试相似的设计元素和问题类型，尽管我们有更好的技术来识别测试中的潜在偏见。它们不再被用来诊断精神疾病。但是，在许多专家的建议下，使用子测验分数的类似问题实践有时仍然被用于诊断学习障碍。
Psychologists around the world still use IQ tests to identify intellectual disability, and the results can be used to determine appropriate educational support, job training, and assisted living.
世界各地的心理学家仍然使用智商测试来确定智力残疾，结果可以用来确定适当的教育支持、工作培训和辅助生活。
IQ test results have been used to justify horrific policies and scientifically baseless ideologies. That doesn’t mean the test itself is worthless— in fact, it does a good job of measuring the reasoning and problem-solving skills it sets out to.
智商测试结果曾被用来证明可怕的政策和科学上毫无根据的意识形态是正确的。但这并不意味着测试本身就一文不值——事实上，它很好地衡量了测试的推理能力和解决问题的能力。
But that isn’t the same thing as measuring a person’s potential. Though there are many complicated political, historical, scientific, and cultural issues wrapped up in IQ testing, more and more researchers agree on this point, and reject the notion that individuals can be categorized by a single numerical score.
但这与衡量一个人的潜力不同。尽管智商测试涉及到许多复杂的政治、历史、科学和文化问题，但越来越多的研究者同意这一点，并反对个人可以通过一个数字分数来分类的观点。
RECOMMEND
推荐阅读
欢迎在文章底部写下精彩留言哦！
欢迎在文章底部写下精彩留言哦！