To begin with, both Warwick and Flynn challenge the foundation of intelligence. Warwick establishes and develops his claim by stating that all IQ tests are subjective. First, he addresses the possible misunderstandings on the concept of intelligence. Warwick states, “Any attempts to define intelligence that do not involve identifying specially valued cultural attainments must fail (Warwick 199).”Oftentimes, humans see themselves being on top of the ladder simply because they arrange and connect every aspect according to their own standards and values. However, it is in fact improbable and pointless to compare the mental and physical abilities between two species, except referring to specific assignments. Warwick successfully clears up the assumption …show more content…
He approaches this argument by illustrating different scenarios, including parents’ interest toward their children’s academic standing and the general cognitive trends over the past century (163). These evidences support his beliefs and serve as a matter of fact that “IQ tests may offer only a relative measure of intelligence but much of what people want to know about intelligence is comparative (Flynn 162).” In addition, Flynn also raises awareness that Jensen’s design on Reaction Times might actually eliminate any possibility of cofounding variables that could possibly alter the result of IQ tests. Foremost, he argues that cross-cultural differences in terms different strategy and temperament should be factored into considerations during the study of intelligence (165). He backs up his arguments by presenting a case, which identifies how the different cognitive demands in two societies play significant roles and impacts on the test results. For instance, if a society that emphasizes on vocabulary capacity, children tend to obtain a higher score on vocabulary …show more content…
He supports his subclaims by references Deary’s findings on the correlation between hospitalization for violence-related injury and low IQ (179). While most researchers hold firmly on their belief that IQ directly relates to one’s behavior, the study showed that gangs fighting for honor and defending their territory actually fall into the ethnical and cultural categories. This demonstrates that culture is the active factor that lies behind the situation, not “the behavioral manifestation of low IQ (180).” Similarly, Flynn counterargues on how researchers deliberate too much attentions and emphasis on heritability estimate and individual multiplier in the kinship studies, which cripple and twist the understanding on how the environment and the social multiplier that are also essential for producing similar IQ results between individuals. First, he expresses interest by stating that if genes are the ultimately factor for similar IQ results, then the twins should have obtained the same BAQ when they reach the age of 18, however, that was not really the case (168). Then, Flynn raises his concerns and points out that “the problem with heritability is that it ignores that their identical genes for intelligence have allowed to benefit from environments for intelligence whose quality is highly similar. The potency of doing homework,