Why Is Most Journalism About IQ So Bad?

In March, Sarah Carr—a professor of journalism and contributor to the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and Slate—published an essay in the Hechinger Report titled, “How Flawed IQ Tests Prevent Kids from Getting Help in School.” Reliance on IQ tests in many US schools, she wrote, “is now slowly starting to ebb after decades of research showing their potential for racial and class bias, among other issues. IQ scores can also change significantly over time and have proven particularly unreliable for young children.”

In August, the Atlantic published an essay by staff writer Ali Breland titled, “The Far Right Is Becoming Obsessed with Race and IQ,” which fretted that “right-wing gatekeepers are shrouding [their] bigotry in a cloak of objectivity and pseudoscientific justification.” That essay was approvingly linked by a contributor to the Free Press the following month in an essay titled, “Pseudo-Scholars and the Rise of the Barbarian Right.” Three days after the Atlantic essay appeared, Lithub ran an essay titled, “On the Dark History and Ongoing Ableist Legacy of the IQ Test.”

These are just a few recent examples of the tendentious journalism about IQ that routinely appears in mainstream news outlets otherwise dedicated to scientific rigour and accuracy. Reporting and commentary like this would lead any reasonable citizen to conclude that intelligence tests are biased and that the study of IQ is pseudoscientific. Conversely, there is very little reporting on the field’s strong research base or its efforts to improve the health of people with low IQs, accelerate treatment for children with learning disabilities, and understand the link between the brain and behaviour. Consequently, there is a mismatch between the work and findings of intelligence researchers and the portrayal of their field in the popular media.

The drumbeat of negative press about IQ is nothing new. In 1975, Dan Rather hosted an hour-long CBS television special titled The IQ Myth, during which viewers were misinformed that intelligence tests are not useful for predicting work performance, that IQ “is mainly a talent for school work,” and that intelligence tests are biased. In an essay for the August 1982 issue of the Atlantic, Richard Herrnstein complained that “the press won’t report both sides of the IQ controversy.” In response, the New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade declared that the “lack of attention [to intelligence research] is richly deserved.”

What has caused this enduring media narrative? The issue is nuanced, but understanding it can help society pull itself out of decades of misinformation and misapprehension.

One of the reasons that news on intelligence research is so often negative is that some of the field’s most robust findings are unwelcome to the general public. The intelligence researcher is like a tactless party guest who tells his companions that some people are unavoidably smarter than others, that there are real-world consequences to IQ differences, and that there is not much that can be done about any of this. Such a guest would probably not be invited back, so it is hardly surprising that when intelligence researchers announce findings no one wants to hear, universities do not want to publish a press release, journalists do not want to write an article, and the public does not want to read about it.

This negativity only increases when intelligence research contradicts egalitarian viewpoints on controversial topics. Many people instinctively recoil from studies that find differences in average IQ between different demographic groups, or that show economically developing nations to have lower average IQs than industrialised countries. It is easier to simply dismiss findings like these (and those who discuss them) as racist rather than grapple frankly with their implications. Such research is a very small part of the scholarly research on intelligence, but it receives a disproportionate amount of attention. And with that attention comes a backlash (some of which is deserved), which may lead outsiders to decide that all intelligence research is morally suspect. As a result, when other topics in intelligence research do come to the attention of journalists and the general public, they are already steeped in controversy.

There is little that intelligence researchers can do about the mismatch between their findings and people’s egalitarian desires. It is extremely unlikely that, after a century of consistent findings, well-conducted studies are going to discover that higher intelligence does not predict higher academic achievement, better job performance, and higher income, after all. The intelligence-research community should make peace with the fact that their “product” is not one that a lot of people want to buy. But this is not an insurmountable difficulty.

Another problem that the field has is its propensity to attract provocateurs. In the mid-20th century, Nobel-winning physicist William Shockley used intelligence research to justify his racist beliefs and to propose policies that were not supported by the data. In the 21st century, the same process occurs, though not with anyone of Shockley’s standing in the general scientific community. And when activists—of any political stripe—use science to justify (rather than inform) their social views, the research is inevitably oversimplified, methodological weaknesses are ignored, and the entire field loses credibility.

This problem is evident in, for example, the use of estimated average IQs for different countries. When these estimates were first produced over twenty years ago, some intelligence researchers relied upon them to investigate the relationship between average intelligence and national-level variables, arguing that higher average intelligence could have a causal relationship with beneficial economic and social outcomes. This apparent endorsement signalled to activists and other outsiders that test scores could be used to rank different countries on the basis of their citizens’ average intelligence. But this interpretation was not justified because cross-cultural intelligence testing is a complicated endeavour.

While it is possible to have cross-cultural validity of IQ scores, it requires sophisticated statistical analysis to say that the same test measures the same trait in different groups. For many countries—especially impoverished nations—the research that might justify such an interpretation has not been conducted. Had some researchers been more careful with the data and interpretation, the field could have avoided the bad press that results when critics legitimately point out the problems with the underlying data.

This dynamic is not unique to intelligence research. Well-meaning climate scientists have used weak or incomplete data to make dire predictions that polar bears will soon be extinct or that “snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” Activists seized on these claims for their own purposes, and when the truth was shown to be much more complex or the most catastrophic predictions did not come true, the public’s confidence in the scholarly field was undermined. The research community (the majority of whom are cautious, data-oriented scientists) must then deal with the fallout.

Bad news is not enough to make a topic receive negative press coverage, however. If bad news always resulted in bad press, then economic downturns, climate change, geopolitical conflicts, and other major topics of press coverage would also have the irrationally negative valence that IQ research has.

Journalists choose which stories to report, which sources to contact, and which articles to write and publish. If the journalistic narrative about intelligence research is lopsided, it is not necessarily a reflection of the natural state of the world. Most journalists are not trained as scientists, they major in journalism or English in college and their talent involves retelling stories, not evaluating scientific research. This is not a fatal flaw of news coverage—most crime reporters have no training in police investigation or criminal law, but years of working the same beat will inform a reporter and help them make connections with sources and experts who can help them tell a story accurately.

However, the science beat is uniquely broad. On the same day, a science reporter may be asked to write stories about a NASA probe’s latest discovery, a breakthrough in cancer research, and an archeological dig in Peru. It is impossible for one person to have expertise in all of these areas, and the decimation of newsrooms in the 21st century has only made this problem worse. At most news outlets, the reporter who writes science stories also writes stories on topics like education or local politics. Journalistic coverage of scientific topics will always mean that science reporting is at risk of oversimplification and inaccuracy to a greater degree than many other topics.

However, the political climate in newsrooms also contributes to the generally poor standard of IQ-related journalism. In 1971, 35.5 percent of American journalists were Democrats, 25.7 percent were Republicans, and the rest were either independent or “other.” By 2022, the Democratic percentage was essentially unchanged (36.4 percent), but the Republican journalist had become an endangered species: just 3.4 percent of reporters said they belonged to the GOP. Political independents now make up about half of journalists, but that doesn’t mean they are centrists. In 2016, 96 percent of presidential campaign donations from journalists went to Hillary Clinton. The typical journalist on Twitter in 2020 was left of Bernie Sanders in their ideology while the average Twitter user was—as one would expect—to the left of the median Senate Republican and to the right of Barack Obama.

The political leanings of journalists matter because IQ research is coded as “right-wing” or “conservative” in the public discourse, a tendency that gets magnified when the topic becomes controversial. In his Atlantic article, Breland noted that discussion of IQ, genes, and race is becoming more prominent on the “far right.” In 1994, conservative psychologist Richard Herrnstein and libertarian political scientist Charles Murray published The Bell Curve as Republican congressional candidates campaigned to reduce the size of the federal government, including welfare payments. Some commentators alleged that the book was an attempt to justify the Republicans’ political agenda, even though that political platform was developed independently of the book.

A Tale of Two Bell Curves

The truth, surprising as it may seem today, is this: The Bell Curve is not pseudoscience.

QuilletteBo Winegard and Ben Winegard

There is no intrinsic reason why IQ must be a “right-wing” topic. Decades ago, Charles Murray pointed out that the data in The Bell Curve could be used to justify a “massive redistribution of income.” In my book In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths About Human Intelligence, I argued that IQ research could be used to support increased immigration. I have also stated that research into average differences in IQ across racial groups could be used to support racial affirmative-action programs.

The socialist writer Freddie deBoer has used the research on intelligence, genetics, and economic outcomes to make arguments in support of his political views. One of the keynote speeches at this year’s meeting of the International Society for Intelligence Research was about the problem of genes and IQ perpetuating economic inequality—a concern for many on the Left. Despite these connections between intelligence research and politically progressive ideas, IQ continues to be seen as “right-wing.” This hampers journalistic coverage of the topic, especially since a majority of journalists do not believe they have an obligation to report both sides of an issue equally.

The interplay between journalists’ beliefs and the perception of IQ as right-wing is most apparent when research on intelligence does not violate leftist political beliefs. A recent federal government report that suggested a link between high fluoride exposure and low IQ was covered widely in mainstream media outlets, and the use of IQ scores was almost unquestioned (though there were exceptions in left-leaning outlets). A similar phenomenon occurs when journalists report the damaging effects of lead exposure on IQ. Apparently, it is not taboo in the newsroom to report on the negative impact of toxins on intelligence because this finding does not threaten politically progressive goals.

Ironically, intelligence research is probably the most ideologically balanced area in the social sciences. In a survey of intelligence researchers published in 2020, approximately half stated that they were on the political Left, and about equal proportions of the other half stated that they were centrists or conservatives. In contrast, just six percent of social psychologists in a 2012 survey stated that they were conservative; in a study of the political party registrations of faculty at 51 top liberal arts colleges, 94 percent of registered faculty in psychology, 98 percent in sociology, and 100 percent in anthropology were Democrats.

Some journalists wilfully engineer a narrative that portrays intelligence research and intelligence tests negatively. Earlier this year, the author of a New Yorker essay about smartphones casually remarked that social psychologist (and political moderate) Jonathan Haidt “has been beset by a troubling fixation on the heritability of I.Q.—a contention widely dismissed as scientific racism.” I emailed the editors multiple times to request a correction because (1) the heritability of IQ is widely accepted among psychologists, and (2) it is not “scientific racism” to discuss a finding on the heritability of a trait. My emails went unanswered and the article remains unchanged. Apparently, the New Yorker is not interested in accuracy when reporting on IQ.

One of the most common strategies that reporters use to produce a one-sided view of intelligence research is to only interview people critical of the topic or the tests. For example, in Sarah Carr’s 2,500-word article for the Hechinger Report, the views of an expert in intelligence testing were allotted just 133 words, and only to make the point that “traditional” IQ tests are flawed. One-sided reporting like this can often be found in articles on college-admissions testing, many of which (such as a 2023 article in Forbes, written by the outlet’s senior contributor on higher education) treat FairTest—an anti-testing advocacy organisation funded by teachers’ unions—as an authority on testing. Yet none of FairTest’s staff has any training in the science of testing. Reporters rarely interview the many psychometricians, researchers, and independent investigators who have found that the use of standardised tests for college admissions is scientifically valid. The experts on intelligence and related topics are out there. Most are eager to talk to the media and clarify misconceptions about their discipline. But many journalists don’t even bother to seek them out.

Some journalists paint IQ research negatively by presenting a distorted version of the field. The Atlantic’s recent article is about the far-right’s supposed “obsession” with a connection between genetics and average racial differences in IQ. But Breland attacks straw-man arguments, writing, “No matter how hard people try, however, race cannot be reduced to the results of an IQ test.” In the 119 years that intelligence tests have existed, no scientist has ever tried to “reduce” race to IQ scores. Nowhere in the article does Breland mention that multiple lines of evidence indicate that genes may contribute to some of the average differences in average IQ in racial groups in the United States, or that the majority of intelligence researchers believe this. The combination of inaccurate information and strategically omitted facts inconvenient to the anti-IQ narrative reduce the article’s presentation of intelligence research to a funhouse mirror reflection rather than an accurate depiction.

The most common rhetorical tool employed to tarnish IQ research is guilt by association. Breland’s Atlantic article details how unsavoury people are interested in research in what he calls “race science.” The people named in the article include white supremacist Nick Fuentes, white nationalist Richard Spencer, the heterodox essayist Steve Sailer, and a couple of anonymous data-focussed Twitter accounts that discuss racial differences in crime rates, immigration, and welfare use. Breland draws no distinctions between these individuals, their politics, or their methods, so we are invited to judge them all by the standard of their worst example. The message conveyed is clear: reprehensible people are interested in the topic of race and IQ, therefore the topic itself must be reprehensible.

Guilt by association is not just used to discredit contemporary figures. Writers often use the links between pioneering intelligence researchers and the early 20th-century eugenics movement to taint current research on IQ. These connections are real; Sir Francis Galton was the first person to attempt to measure intelligence in a scientific fashion, and he coined the word “eugenics,” launching the movement in the late 19th century. The next generation of intelligence researchers continued both streams of thought. The creators of both the SAT (Carl Brigham) and the Stanford-Binet intelligence test (Lewis Terman) were eugenicists. Modern writers often use this information to discredit the modern versions of both tests (which do not resemble the versions from a century ago) for having “racist origins” that sully the use of IQ or the SAT today.

A hundred years ago, the eugenics movement was widely supported throughout society, including among leading scientists and cultural leaders. Fields like genetics, social work, sociology, anthropology, law, and many others were led by eugenicists at the time. But no other scholarly field seems to have its work impugned because of this history. John Maynard Keynes was a eugenicist throughout his career but his beliefs have not been used to discredit Keynesianism, or economics in general, in the public consciousness. Only IQ research gets attacked for the beliefs of long-dead people, even though their rhetoric bears little resemblance to what is found in scholarly journals on intelligence and psychometrics today.

It is easy to create a negative image of intelligence research because most people know very little about the topic. Even though intelligence is one of the best-understood concepts in psychology, American universities almost never offer a dedicated course on the concept. If students learn about it at all, it is as a short unit in a broader course, such as introductory psychology. This exposure is often inadequate, though. Three-quarters of introductory psychology textbooks contain inaccurate information about intelligence. As a result, ignorance and misunderstandings about intelligence have proliferated.

The negative image of intelligence research does a disservice to the field’s hard-working scientists and the general public. Because of IQ’s distorted image, some of the most well-established facts about intelligence are unknown outside of the field:

• A standardised test administered at the age of twelve can predict who will earn a PhD, register a patent, or achieve another major accomplishment by midlife.
• Smarter people tend to live longer than average.
• For most jobs, IQ is one of the best predictors of employee performance.
• Genetic factors are a stronger influence on people’s IQs in adulthood than in childhood.
• Some of the same genetic variants that are more common in low-IQ individuals are also more common in people with some mental-health conditions.

There are many more fascinating findings, including studies related to ageing, neuroscience, and child development. Intelligence research is an interdisciplinary field, and many studies relate to topics that interest the general public. This information is hiding in plain sight. If it were widely known—or at least responsibly and fairly reported and discussed—it would reduce ignorance and help society navigate the reality of individual differences in intelligence.

Fortunately, the tide is turning. It is no longer necessary for scientists to go through journalists to reach the public. The intelligence community is active on social media, and some members have thousands of Twitter followers. Most share strong research about non-controversial topics and engage with the public directly, often correcting misconceptions. Progress is slow, but thanks to those efforts, intelligence research is probably at its highest level of public awareness and esteem in decades. That may be why we are also seeing an uptick in bad journalism that seeks to stigmatise the topic.