Eating my words...
You know, I often find myself defending my field in social situations. I go to a party, other partygoers ask what I do, I say, "I'm a psychometrician", then I get blank looks, then I explain what that is....and every so often I get someone who's still pissed off about a bad testing experience. So they proceed to use me as a soundboard to rant and rave - by God, here is a real live person to blame for their testing ordeal. Most people are humorous about it and have some sense of perspective, although I understand how they can still be needled by a monitor who cheated them out of five minutes of testing time or a computerized test that shut down in the middle of their time slot. It's frustrating, and the test-taker doesn't have much control over any of the process. However, sometimes someone will get so out of hand with their complaints that I find myself saying, "Dude, calm down. It's not a matter of life and death."
I never thought I'd be eating those words.
Now, however, it looks like a one-point difference on an IQ test is going to be a matter of life and death. The recent Supreme Court decision that capital punishment of the mentally retarded is "cruel and unusual punishment" is all over the news. There are reams (or whatever the internet equivalent is) of commentary on it - in the Washington Post, by Jonah Goldberg in the Jewish World Review, Lowell Ponte in FrontPage magazine, Don Feder in the Boston Herald, in Newsweek, by Brian Doherty in Reason Online...and so forth. So much has been said about it that at first, I wasn't sure what I could add.
Even if I'm just repeating here what others have said, though, I do have to get my two psychometric cents in. My first thought was, oh, so NOW you think an IQ test is a great test, eh? None of this "emotional intelligence" or "multiple intelligences" or "IQ isn't everything" or "IQ scores are culturally biased" nonsense anymore, now that, as several commentators put it, a low IQ score is a Get Out of the Chair Free card. Yes, mental retardation is generally defined as an IQ of less than 70, but I hope that the definition of mental retardation that could keep someone out of the chair would be based on more than a test score. After all, researchers who use IQ scores to predict certain variables or who suggest that IQ scores should be used to make policy decisions (especially if their viewpoints are not particularly politically correct) often hear cries of outrage that such tests do not predict the whole person, that such tests don't tell you anything about motivation, or desire, or ambition, or potential, or "true" intelligence. So, why can't a prosecutor claim that when someone with an IQ of 65 murders another human, their actions speak louder than their test scores, and they should be judged on those actions?
It's not that I don't understand the desire to show compassion for those who, due to lack of intelligence, have been coerced into confessing or who were not able to adequately defend themselves against some serious charges. I think that death penalty cases should never hinge on just a confession, and that these cases should face greater or more careful scrutiny than they currently do. But setting a cutpoint for IQ scores and excusing everyone below it does not fall in the category of more careful scrutiny. It's extremely careless, in fact, to the point of being meaningless. IQ tests were not designed to keep people from being put to death, and if they are heavily relied on for selecting that outcome, we'll gradually move towards the time when only someone with a college degree, or some other obvious past testament to intelligence, will face the death penalty.
I also find it interesting that I didn't see mentioned anywhere just how many mentally retarded inmates get put to death each year - is it 10%? Less than 1%? Are the inmates in the 20 states that currently do not have laws against executing the mentally retarded going to clamor for retests, or will their current IQ scores stand? The potential for abuse is astounding here, and I wouldn't want to be the clinician in charge of testing individuals, knowing that a difference of a few points is indeed a matter of life and death. What's more, what is there now to stop the argument that incarcerating mentally retarded criminals for life is also cruel and unusual? Are we showing compassion here, or are we on a slippery slope to deciding that no punishment is acceptable once a certain IQ threshold is crossed? What about those with the "low-normal" IQ criminals - those in-between 70 and 90? Certainly, they're viewed as capable of functioning, albeit at a lower level, but should they receive less punishment, or less severe punishment, than the brilliant criminals? Is there now going to be an IQ-punishment continuum? Do only the Ted Bundys of the criminal world deserve to sit on the hot seat?
Hmmm, I don't seem to have any answers here, only questions.