The Measurement of Intelligence Part 30

_Unsatisfactory._ "A long train is nicer." "The engine pulls harder if the train has lots of cars." "That's all right. I suppose he likes a big train." "Nothing foolish; when I went to the city I saw a train that had lots of cars and it was going awfully fast." "He should have said, 'the faster I can _run_.'"

(c) _The girl who was thought to have killed herself_

_Satisfactory._ "She could not have cut herself into eighteen pieces." "She would have been dead before that." "She might have cut two or three pieces off, but she couldn't do the rest."

(Laughing) "Well, she may have killed herself; but if she did it's a sure thing that some one else came along after and chopped her up." "That policeman must have been a fool.

(Explain.) To think that she could chop herself into eighteen pieces."

_Unsatisfactory._ "_Think_ that she killed herself; they _know_ she did." "They can't be sure. Some one may have killed her."

"It was a foolish girl to kill herself." "How can they tell who killed her?" "No girl would kill herself unless she was crazy."

"It ought to read: 'They think that she committed suicide.'"

(d) _The railroad accident_

_Satisfactory._ "That was very serious." "I should like to know what you would call a serious accident!" "You could say it was not serious if two or three people were killed, but forty-eight,--that is serious."

_Unsatisfactory._ "It was a foolish mistake that made the accident." "They couldn't help it. It was an accident." "It might have been worse." "Nothing foolish; it's just sad."

(e) _The bicycle rider_

_Satisfactory._ "How could he get well after he was already killed?" "Why, he's already dead." "No use to take a dead man to the hospital." "They ought to have taken him to a grave-yard!"

_Unsatisfactory._ "Foolish to fall off of a bicycle. He should have known how to ride." "They ought to have carried him home.

(Why?) So his folks could get a doctor." "He should have been more careful." "Maybe they can cure him if he isn't hurt very bad." "There's nothing foolish in that."

REMARKS. The detection of absurdities is one of the most ingenious and serviceable tests of the entire scale. It is little influenced by schooling, and it comes nearer than any other to being a test of that species of mother-wit which we call common sense. Like the "comprehension questions," it may be called a test of judgment, using this term in the colloquial and not in the logical sense. The stupid person, whether depicted in literature, proverb, or the ephemeral joke column, is always (and justly, it would seem) characterized by a huge tolerance for absurd contradictions and by a blunt sensitivity for the fine points of a joke. Intellectual discrimination and judgment are inferior. The ideas do not cross-light each other, but remain relatively isolated. Hence, the most absurd contradictions are swallowed, so to speak, without arousing the protest of the critical faculty. The latter, indeed, is only a name for the tendency of intellectually irreconcilable elements to clash. If there is no clash, if the elements remain apart, it goes without saying that there will be no power of criticism.

The critical faculty begins its development in the early years and strengthens _pari pa.s.su_ with the growing wealth of inter-a.s.sociations among ideas; but in the average child it is not until the age of about 10 years that it becomes equal to tasks like those presented in this test. Eight-year intelligence hardly ever scores more than two or three correct answers out of five. By 12, the critical ability has so far developed that the test is nearly always pa.s.sed. It is an invaluable test for the higher grades of mental deficiency.

As a test of the critical powers Binet first used "trap questions"; as, for example, "Is snow red or black?" The results were disappointing, for it was found that owing to timidity, deference, and suggestibility normal children often failed on such questions. Deference is more marked in normal than in feeble-minded children, and it is because of the influence of this trait that it is necessary always to forewarn the subject that the sentence to be given contains nonsense.

Binet located the test in year XI of the 1908 scale, but changed it to year X in 1911. G.o.ddard and Kuhlmann retain it in year XI. The large majority of the statistics, including those of G.o.ddard and Kuhlmann, warrant the location of the test in year X. Not all have used the same absurdities, and these have not been worded uniformly. Most have required three successes out of five, but Bobertag and Kuhlmann require three out of four; Bobertag's procedure is also different in that he does not forewarn the child that an absurdity is to follow.

The present form of the test is the result of three successive refinements. It will be noted that we have made two subst.i.tutions in Binet's list of absurdities. Those omitted from the original scale are: "_I have three brothers--Paul, Ernest, and myself_," and, "_If I were going to commit suicide I would not choose Friday, because Friday is an unlucky day and would bring me misfortune._" The last has a puzzling feature which makes it much too hard for year X, and the other is objectionable with children who are accustomed to hear a foreign language in which the form of expression used in the absurdity is idiomatically correct.

The two we have subst.i.tuted for these objectionable absurdities are, "The road downhill" and "What the engineer said." The five we have used, though of nearly equal difficulty, are here listed in the order from easiest to hardest. Our series as a whole is slightly easier than Binet's.

X, 3. DRAWING DESIGNS FROM MEMORY

PROCEDURE. Use the designs shown on the accompanying printed form. If copies are used they must be exact in size and shape. Before showing the card say: "_This card has two drawings on it. I am going to show them to you for ten seconds, then I will take the card away and let you draw from memory what you have seen. Examine both drawings carefully and remember that you have only ten seconds._"

Provide pencil and paper and then show the card for ten seconds, holding it at right angles to the child's line of vision and with the designs in the position given in the plate. Have the child draw the designs immediately after they are removed from sight.

SCORING. The test is pa.s.sed if _one of the designs is reproduced correctly and the other about half correctly_. "Correctly" means that the _essential plan_ of the design has been grasped and reproduced.

Ordinary irregularities due to lack of motor skill or to hasty execution are disregarded. "Half correctly" means that some essential part of the design has been omitted or misplaced, or that parts have been added.

The sample reproductions shown on the scoring card will serve as a guide. It will be noted that an inverted design, or one whose right and left sides have been transposed, is counted only half correct, however perfect it many be in other respects; also that design _b_ is counted only half correct if the inner rectangle is not located off center.

REMARKS. Binet states that the main factors involved in success are "attention, visual memory, and a little a.n.a.lysis." The power of rapid a.n.a.lysis would seem to be the most important, for if the designs are a.n.a.lyzed they may be reproduced from a verbal memory of the a.n.a.lysis.

Without some a.n.a.lysis it would hardly be possible to remember the designs at all, as one of them contains thirteen lines and the other twelve. The memory span for unrelated objects is far too limited to permit us to grasp and retain that number of unrelated impressions.

Success is possible only by grouping the lines according to their relations.h.i.+ps, so that several of them are given a unitary value and remembered as one. In this manner, the design to the right, which is composed of twelve lines, may be reduced to four elements: (1) The outer rectangle; (2) the inner rectangle; (3) the off-center position of the inner rectangle; and (4) the joining of the angles. Of course the child does not ordinarily make an a.n.a.lysis as explicit as this; but a.n.a.lysis of some kind, even though it be unconscious, is necessary to success.

Ability to pa.s.s the test indicates the presence, in a certain definite amount, of the tendency for the contents of consciousness to fuse into a meaningful whole. Failure indicates that the elements have maintained their unitary character or have fused inadequately. It is seen, therefore, that the test has a close kins.h.i.+p with the test of memory for sentences. The latter, also, permits the fusion or grouping of impressions according to meaning, with the result that five or six times as many meaningful syllables as nonsense syllables or digits can be retained.

Binet had many more failures on design _a_ than on design _b_. This was probably due to the fact that he showed the designs with our _b_ to the left. A majority of subjects, probably because of the influence of reading habits, examine first the figure to the left, and because of the short time allowed for the inspection are unable to devote much time to the design at the right. We have placed the design of greater intrinsic difficulty at the left, with the result that the failures are almost equally divided between the two.

Binet used this test in his unstandardized series of 1905, omitted it in 1908, but included it in the 1911 revision, locating it in year X.

Except for G.o.ddard, who recommends year XI, there is rather general agreement that the test belongs at year X. Our own data show that it may be placed either at year X or year XI, according as the grading is rigid or lenient.

X, 4. READING FOR EIGHT MEMORIES

MATERIAL. We use Binet's selection, slightly adapted, as follows:--

_New York, September 5th. A fire last night burned three houses near the center of the city. It took some time to put it out.

The loss was fifty thousand dollars, and seventeen families lost their homes. In saving a girl, who was asleep in a bed, a fireman was burned on the hands._

The copy of the selection used by the subject should be printed in heavy type and should not contain the bars dividing it into memories. The Stanford record booklet contains the selection in two forms, one suitable for use in scoring, the other in heavy type to be read by the subject.

PROCEDURE. Hand the selection to the subject, who should be seated comfortably in a good light, and say: "_I want you to read this for me as nicely as you can._" The subject must read aloud.

p.r.o.nounce all the words which the subject is unable to make out, not allowing more than five seconds' hesitation in such a case.

Record all errors made in reading the selection, and the exact time. By "error" is meant the omission, subst.i.tution, transposition, or misp.r.o.nunciation of one word.

The subject is not warned in advance that he will be asked to report what he has read, but as soon as he has finished reading, put the selection out of sight and say: "_Very well done. Now, I want you to tell me what you read. Begin at the first and tell everything you can remember._" After the subject has repeated everything he can recall and has stopped, say: "_And what else? Can you remember any more of it?_"

Give no other aid of any kind. It is of course not permissible, when the child stops, to prompt him with such questions as, "_And what next?

Where were the houses burned? What happened to the fireman?_" etc. The report must be spontaneous.

Now and then, though not often, a subject hesitates or even refuses to try, saying he is unable to do it. Perhaps he has misunderstood the request and thinks he is expected to repeat the selection word for word, as in the tests of memory for sentences. We urge a little and repeat: "_Tell me in your own words all you can remember of it._" Others misunderstand in a different way, and thinking they are expected to tell merely what the story is about, they say: "It was about some houses that burned." In such cases we repeat the instructions with special emphasis on the words _all you can remember_.

SCORING. The test is pa.s.sed _if the selection is read in thirty-five seconds with not more than two errors, and if the report contains at least eight "memories."_ By underscoring the memories correctly reproduced, and by interlineations to show serious departures from the text, the record can be made complete with a minimum of trouble.

The main difficulty in scoring is to decide whether a memory has been reproduced correctly enough to be counted. Absolutely literal reproduction is not expected. The rule is to count all memories whose thought is reproduced with only minor changes in the wording. "It took quite a while" instead of "it took some time" is satisfactory; likewise, "got burnt" for "was burned"; "who was sleeping" for "who was asleep"; "are homeless" for "lost their homes"; "in the middle" for "near the center"; "a big fire" for "a fire," etc.

Memories as badly mutilated as the following, however, are not counted: "A lot of buildings" for "three houses;" "a man" for "a fireman"; "who was sick" for "who was asleep"; etc. Occasionally we may give half credit, as in the case of "was seventeen thousand dollars" for "was fifty thousand dollars"; "and fifteen families" for "and seventeen families," etc.

REMARKS. Are we warranted in using at all as a measure of intelligence a test which depends as much on instruction as this one does? Many are inclined to answer this question in the negative. The test has been omitted from the revisions of G.o.ddard, Kuhlmann, and Binet himself. As regards Binet's earlier test of reading for two memories, in year VIII, there could hardly be any difference of opinion. The ability to read at that age depends so much on the accident of environment that the test is meaningless unless we know all about the conditions which have surrounded the child.

The use of the test in year X, however, is a very different matter.

There are comparatively few children of that age who will fail to pa.s.s it for lack of the requisite school instruction. Children of 10 years who have attended school with reasonable regularity for three years are practically always able to read the selection in thirty-five seconds and without over two mistakes unless they are r.e.t.a.r.ded almost to the border-line of mental deficiency. Of our 10-year-olds who failed to meet the test, only a fourth did so because of inability to meet the reading requirements as regards time or mistakes. The remaining failures were caused by inadequate report, and most of these subjects were of the distinctly r.e.t.a.r.ded group.

We may conclude, therefore, that given anything approaching normal educational advantages, the test is really a measure of intelligence.

Used with due caution, it is perhaps as valuable as any other test in the scale. It is only necessary, in case of failure, to ascertain the facts regarding the child's educational opportunities. Even this precaution is superfluous in case the subject tests as low as 8 years by the remainder of the scale. A safe rule is to omit the test from the calculation of mental age if the subject has not attended school the equivalent of two or three years.

It has been contended by some that tests in which success depends upon language mastery cannot be real tests of intelligence. By such critics language tests have been set over against intelligence tests as contrasting opposites. It is easy to show, however, that this view is superficial and psychologically unsound. Every one who has an acquaintance with the facts of mental growth knows that language mastery of some degree is the _sine qua non_ of conceptual thinking. Language growth, in fact, mirrors the entire mental development. There are few more reliable indications of a subject's stage of intellectual maturity than his mastery of language.

The rate of reading, for example, is a measure of the rate of a.s.sociation. Letters become a.s.sociated together in certain combinations making words, words into word groups and sentences. Recognition is for the most part an a.s.sociative process. Rapid and accurate a.s.sociation will mean ready recognition of the printed form. Since language units (whether letters, words, or word groups) have more or less preferred a.s.sociations according to their habitual arrangement into larger units, it comes about that in the normal mind under normal conditions these preferred sequences arouse the apperceptive complex necessary to make a running recognition rapid and easy. It is reasonable to suppose that in the subnormal mind the habitual common a.s.sociations are less firmly fixed, thus diminis.h.i.+ng the effectiveness of the ever-changing apperceptive expectancy. Reading is, therefore, largely dependent on what James calls the "fringe of consciousness" and the "consciousness of meaning." In reading connected matter, every unit is big with a ma.s.s of tendencies. The smaller and more isolated the unit, the greater is the number of possibilities. Every added unit acts as a modifier limiting the number of tendencies, until we have finally, in case of a large mental unit, a fairly manageable whole. When the most logical and suitable of these a.s.sociations arise easily from subconsciousness to consciousness, recognition is made easy, and their doing so will depend on whether the habitual relations of the elements have left permanent traces in the mind.