Title,

The  Rewriting  of  the  Louis Leon Thurstone  Intelligence  Test  System

 

Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, and References.

 

By

Dr. Thurston E. Sawyer II

 Introduction

:A Critical Examination**

 

The legacy of intelligence testing has long been fraught with ethical and scientific challenges. Among the pioneers in this field was Louis Leon Thurstone, known for his development of the Multiple Factor Theory of Intelligence. However, an analysis of his work reveals a troubling undercurrent that merits urgent critique: a perspective steeped in a Eurocentric worldview, which raises questions about implicit racial biases embedded within his assessments. This essay will critically evaluate the underpinning principles of Thurstone's system and its implications within a broader societal context.

​

At the core of Thurstone's theory is the notion that intelligence is not monolithic but multifaceted, characterized by several distinct factors--reasoning, word fluency, verbal comprehension, numerical ability, spatial visualization, and memory. While his contributions to psychometrics are significant, the reality of these tests reveals a narrow framing of intelligence that resonates predominantly with Western paradigms. Thurstone's model inadvertently elevates a conception of intelligence that aligns tightly with European cognitive styles while marginalizing diverse modes of thought prevalent in non-Western cultures.
 

Thurstone’s approach to measuring intelligence operates on the premise of standardization, which itself raises questions about fairness and representativeness. The tests were designed based on populations familiar with specific cultural references, examples, and problem-solving strategies rooted in Western experiences. Consequently, individuals from diverse backgrounds often find themselves at a disadvantage. For example, questions relying on idiomatic expressions or culturally specific knowledge can skew results, highlighting a systemic bias that benefits those who conform to the dominant culture's norms.

 

Methods

​

Moreover, while Thurstone undoubtedly sought to provide a scientific basis for understanding intelligence, his framework is constrained by its fundamental adherence to reductionism. By isolating cognitive abilities, the richness of human intelligence becomes flattened. This is particularly evident when intersecting with concepts of emotional intelligence, creativity, and other forms of social cognition that are indispensable in a global society driven by diverse interpersonal interactions. The danger of relying solely on Thurstone's system lies in fostering a simplistic understanding of human capabilities that do not account for the contextual factors shaping human behavior.

The repercussions of such a limited vision extend to educational settings that employ standardized testing as a primary means of assessment. Schools that implement Thurstonian models often prioritize rote memorization and algorithmic problem-solving over critical thinking and collaborative learning. This not only stifles the potential of students who may shine in non-traditional areas of intelligence but also reinforces a narrow form of educational success that is disproportionately accessible to white, affluent populations Only.

 

Results

​

To exacerbate matters, the legacy of such testing continues to influence public policy--particularly in the realms of education and criminal justice. Policies predicated on standardized intelligence measures often fail to consider the broader socio-economic factors contributing to educational inequities. The misapplication of Thurstone's tests has consequently perpetuated cycles of poverty and marginalization in underrepresented communities, effectively rendering these populations voiceless in discussions about their capabilities and potential.

​

In light of these critiques, it is imperative to reconsider the application of Thurstone's intelligence tests within modern contexts. The underlying assumptions must be challenged, and more inclusive frameworks should emerge that encapsulate a broader understanding of intelligence. Alternatives that value cultural context, nurture diverse talents, and emphasize collaborative problem-solving should take precedence over outdated models steeped in privilege.

​

Educational systems must embrace a paradigm shift that recognizes the importance of multiple intelligences as articulated by Howard Gardner, among others. By integrating various metrics of intelligence, educators can create an environment where all learners are afforded opportunities to thrive, irrespective of cultural or socio-economic background. This requires a commitment to redefine intelligence itself--not as a fixed trait determined by race or culture, but as a dynamic interplay of abilities shaped by experience, context, and community.

​

The Louis Leon Thurstone intelligence test system is not simply a matter of reforming a measurement tool; it embodies a deeper challenge to wrestle with the embedded biases within our understanding of human intelligence.

 An unequivocal acknowledgment of its Eurocentric foundations reveals how notions of intelligence have historically reinforced racial hierarchies. Moving forward, we must advocate for a more egalitarian approach to intelligence assessment, one that honors diversity and celebrates the multitude of ways in which people engage with the world. The ongoing discourse surrounding intelligence testing must evolve, urging us to dismantle the structures that have long favored certain narratives over others in a quest for a more equitable framework.

 

 

 

 

 

​
 

*The Rewriting of the Louis Leon Thurstone Intelligence Test System*

 

Abstract

​

: A Cause and Effect Analysis

 

The legacy of intelligence testing is steeped in controversy, particularly when examining the work of Louis Leon Thurstone and his approach to measuring human intelligence. While Thurstone's theory has contributed significantly to psychometrics, it is essential to scrutinize the roots of his methodology and its implications.

 This Eurocentric foundation leads to a narrow definition of intelligence, often sidelining diverse cognitive expressions found in non-Western cultures. Consequently, the original testing system inadvertently perpetuates stereotypes and biases against individuals from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.

​

The cause of this biased outlook can be traced back to historical contexts where Western colonial ideologies dominated social sciences. These ideologies shaped the perception of intelligence as a fixed attribute associated with race, contributing to the stigmatization of non-European groups. For example, when standardized tests fail to consider cultural context, they risk misrepresenting capabilities, effectively aligning intelligence with race rather than recognizing diverse intellectual traditions. Such skewed interpretations result in disproportionate labeling of minority populations as "less intelligent," which has lasting consequences for educational and occupational opportunities.

​

As society becomes increasingly diverse, the effects of maintaining a racially biased intelligence test system become more pronounced. One significant outcome is the reinforcement of existing educational inequalities. Students from marginalized communities are often subjected to lower expectations based on their performance on these tests, influencing both their self-perception and the perceptions held by educators and policymakers. This cycle not only hinders the potential of these students but also perpetuates systemic inequities that extend into adulthood, affecting job prospects and social mobility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

​
 

*The Rewriting of the Louis Leon Thurstone Intelligence Test System*

​

Discussion & Keywords

​

 :A Critical Analysis

 

Critics argue that the very measures of intelligence utilized in the Thurstone test system perpetuate a racist paradigm. For example, the reliance on verbal and mathematical reasoning as primary indicators of intelligence can disadvantage individuals from cultures where such skills are not prioritized or emphasized. Consequently, the framework promotes a narrow view of intelligence that overlooks the multifaceted nature of human thought and cognition, further entrenching societal inequalities.

​

Additionally, contemporary research in Psychology and Education highlights the dangers of adhering to outdated models of intelligence assessment. Modern theories, such as Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, advocate for recognizing the diverse ways people learn and demonstrate intelligence. These perspectives underscore the limitations of Thurstone’s model and the necessity for a re-evaluation of how intelligence is defined and measured within various cultural contexts.

​

In light of these critiques, it becomes evident that the rewriting of the Louis Leon Thurstone Intelligence Test system is not merely an academic endeavor but a Moral Imperative. Educators, psychologists, and policymakers must engage critically with the history of intelligence testing and acknowledge its racial implications. This means redesigning assessment tools that are culturally responsive and equitable, allowing for a clearer understanding of intelligence that transcends Eurocentric definitions.

​

​

Keywords

1: Psychology                                               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

2: Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences        https://www.simplypsychology.org/multiple-intelligences.html

3: Moral Imperative                                       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_imperative

4: Eurocentric                                               https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Eurocentric

 

​

​

​

​

​

*The Rewriting of the Louis Leon Thurstone Intelligence Test System*

​

Conclusion

​

:Personal Statement

 

The legacy of intelligence testing has long been subject to scrutiny, and the work of Louis Leon Thurstone is no exception. His contributions, while foundational in the field of psychometrics, are increasingly viewed through a critical lens that questions not only their validity but also their underlying assumptions. My personal engagement with the Thurstone intelligence test system has led me to conclude that it represents a one-sided, Eurocentric perspective that fails to encompass the diverse cognitive strengths present within various cultures.

​

As I delved deeper into this subject, I began to see parallels between the limitations of Thurstone’s tests and broader societal issues. In educational contexts, for instance, students from underrepresented backgrounds frequently encounter assessments calibrated to reflect cultural norms that do not align with their lived experiences. The repercussions are disheartening. Students may be unjustly labeled as less intelligent or capable, resulting in diminished opportunities for advancement. This systemic bias perpetuates cycles of inequality reminiscent of the very issues Thurstone sought to address through his research.

​

In re-evaluating the Thurstone intelligence test system, I draw inspiration from emerging theories in psychology and education that celebrate cognitive diversity. Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, for example, advocates for recognizing varied forms of intelligence that arise from different cultural environments. This perspective aligns more closely with a holistic understanding of human capability and challenges the rigid definitions that have predominated traditional intelligence testing.

​

My commitment to rewriting the narrative surrounding intelligence testing stems from a desire for inclusivity. I envision a system that honors diverse ways of knowing and being, one that integrates cultural responsiveness into its methodology. The path forward requires dismantling existing paradigms rooted in racial and cultural biases. It calls for collaboration between educators, psychologists, and communities to develop assessments that recognize the unique strengths of all individuals, regardless of their background.

​

Moreover, the rewriting process involves not just reforming existing tests but fundamentally rethinking what we define as "intelligence." By expanding our understanding, we can create educational systems that truly support every learner. We must challenge the notion that intelligence is a fixed trait and embrace it as a dynamic interplay of skills shaped by context, culture, and personal experience.

​

In my front line conclusion, while Thurstone's contributions to the field of intelligence testing cannot be dismissed, they must be contextualized within a critical framework that recognizes their inherent biases. To advance towards a more inclusive understanding of intelligence, it is crucial to challenge the foundations upon which these tests were built and strive for systems that honor the rich tapestry of human cognition across all racial and cultural spectrums. Embracing such a shift not only enhances our grasp of intelligence but also fosters greater equity and understanding within society.

​

In final conclusion, the redefinition of the Louis Leon Thurstone Intelligence Test system is not merely an academic exercise; it is a necessary step toward a more equitable and just society. As I continue to explore these themes, I am driven by a vision of a future where every individual’s potential is recognized and nurtured, transcending the constraints of outdated and biased measures. Through this endeavor, I hope to contribute to a broader conversation about intelligence that values and respects the rich tapestry of human cognition.

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

References for

*The Rewriting of the Louis Leon Thurstone Intelligence Test System*

​​

1. References

 

Stout, Dale (February 2000). "Thurstone, Louis Leon (1887-1955), psychologist". American National Biography. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.1400635. (subscription required)

1. ^ L.L. Thurstone (Indiana University)

2. ^ E. G. Boring; H. S. Langfeld; H. Werner; R. M. Yerkes, eds. (1952). "L. L. Thurstone" (PDF). A History of Psychology in Autobiography. Vol. IV. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. pp. 295–321. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 June 2010.

3. ^ Haggbloom, Steven J.; Warnick, Renee; Warnick, Jason E.; Jones, Vinessa K.; Yarbrough, Gary L.; Russell, Tenea M.; Borecky, Chris M.; McGahhey, Reagan; Powell III, John L.; Beavers, Jamie; Monte, Emmanuelle (2002). "The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century". Review of General Psychology. 6 (2): 139–152. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.586.1913. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139. S2CID 145668721.

4. ^ Adkins, Dorothy C. (1964). "Louis Leon Thurstone: Creative Thinker, Dedicated Teacher, Eminent Psychologist". In Frederiksen, Norman; Gulliksen, Harold (eds.). Contributions to Mathematical Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winson. pp. 1–40.

5. ^ Isaacson, Walter (2021). The Code Breaker. Simon & Schuster. p. 392. ISBN 978-1-9821-1585-2.

6. ^ Swedes in America (Benson, Adolph B.; Naboth Hedin. New York: Haskel House Publishers. 1969)

7. ^ L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory (University of North Carolina)

8. ^ Horst, P. (1955). "L. L. Thurstone and the Science of Human Behavior". Science. 122 (3183): 1259–60. Bibcode:1955Sci...122.1259H. doi:10.1126/science.122.3183.1259. PMID 13274085.

9. ^ "Louis Leon Thurstone, 1887–1955". Individual Differences Homepage. Archived from the original on 13 December 2003.

10. ^ Louis Leon Thurstone 1887–1955 (J. P. Guilford O National Academy of Science. 1957)[1]

11. ^ Louis Leon Thurstone Biography (LoveToKnow, Corp.)

12. ^ L.L. Thurstone (Human Intelligence)

13. ^ "Louis Leon Thurstone". American Academy of Arts & Sciences. 10 February 2023. Retrieved 6 March 2023.

14. ^ "Louis Thurstone". www.nasonline.org. Retrieved 6 March 2023.

15. ^ "APS Member History". search.amphilsoc.org. Retrieved 6 March 2023.

     

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Leon_Thurstone

 

Anastasi, A. (1984). 7. Aptitude and Achievement Tests: The Curious Case of the Indestructible Strawperson.

Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83 (4), 817.

Binet, A., Simon, T., & Simon, T. (1912). A method of measuring the development of the intelligence of young children. Chicago medical book Company.

Breslin, J., Spanò, G., Bootzin, R., Anand, P., Nadel, L., & Edgin, J. (2014). Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and cognition in Down syndrome. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 56 (7), 657-664.

 

 

Brooks, B. L., Holdnack, J. A., & Iverson, G. L. (2011). Advanced clinical interpretation of the WAIS-IV and WMS-IV: Prevalence of low scores varies by level of intelligence and years of education. Assessment, 18 (2), 156-167.

Canivez, G. L. (2013). Psychometric versus actuarial interpretation of intelligence and related aptitude batteries.

Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of educational psychology, 54 (1), 1.

Cherry, K. (2020). Why Alfred Binet Developed IQ Testing for Students. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of-intelligence-testing-2795581

Crowther-Heyck, H. (2005). Herbert A. Simon: The bounds of reason in modern America. JHU Press.

De Ligt, J., Willemsen, M. H., Van Bon, B. W., Kleefstra, T., Yntema, H. G., Kroes, T., … & del Rosario, M. (2012).

 Diagnostic exome sequencing in persons with severe intellectual disability. 

New England Journal of Medicine, 367 (20), 1921-1929.

Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95 (1), 29.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1987). The theory of multiple intelligence. Annals Of Dyslexia, 37, 19-35

Gignac, G. E., & Watkins, M. W. (2013). Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48 (5), 639-662.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Little, Brown. Harkness, S., Super, C., & Keefer, C. (1992). Culture and ethnicity: In M. Levine, W. Carey & A. Crocker (Eds.), Developmental-behavioral pediatrics (pp. 103-108).

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253-270.

 

 

Jensen, A. R. (1982). Reaction time and psychometric g. In A model for intelligence (pp. 93-132). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Heidelber Kalat, J.W. (2014). Introduction to Psychology, 10th Edition. Cengage Learning.

Lally, M., & French, S. V. (2018). Introduction to Psychology. Canada: College of Lake County Foundation, 176-212.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298.

Moore, D. S., Notz, W. I, & Flinger, M. A. (2013). The basic practice of statistics (6th ed.). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Parental beliefs and children’s school performance. Child Development, 64 (1), 36-56.

Pahor, A., Stavropoulos, T., Jaeggi, S. M., & Seitz, A. R. (2019). Validation of a matrix reasoning task for mobile devices. Behavior Research Methods, 51 (5), 2256-2267.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The urban review, 3 (1), 16-20.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9 (3), 185-211.

Sansone, S. M., Schneider, A., Bickel, E., Berry-Kravis, E., Prescott, C., & Hessl, D. (2014). Improving IQ measurement in intellectual disabilities using true deviation from population norms. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 6 (1), 16.

Spearmen, C. (1904). General intelligence objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 107-197.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. CUP Archive.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997).

 The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and success.

 American psychologist, 52 (10), 1030.

 

 

 

 

 

( Exclusive SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE )

The Rewriting of the Louis Leon Thurstone Intelligence Test System

 

By Doctor

Thurston E. Sawyer II

 

ULCU-Multi-Denominational Minister Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Divinity-

Economics- Metaphysics- Ufology- Human Scientist-

Blockchain Crypto Science & Crypto Economics.

 

The First Black Pro Surfer in 1990 & Pro Triathlete in 1984

The 1st Only Black WSL member -&- RED BULL Surfing Competitor

Curently Ranked in the TOP 5 BLACK Long boarders surfers Worldwide.

https://tsproperties.wixsite.com/brohuna

“THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL PERSON EVER”

Says > SURFER TODAY .COM

https://www.surfertoday.com/surfing/a-black-surfers-manifest-of-destiny

 

 

Universal Ambassador

Gung fu Master Sensei

Fighting Jet Li In the film “MASTERS”

 

Investigative Journalists

(((((( Author of the Book: "NAZI 9-11 CONNECTION" ))))))

http://tiny.cc/Nazi911book A 2005 Publication

CEO for The Con2versial News and Media Network Inc.

http://C2News.info

https://c2news.medium.com

A Wikileaks partner and the Designer of it's Anti Hacker Backbone since 2010

World's Leading Expert on UFO's and the Hidden 

http://New-Swabia.info

or

https://tsproperties.wixsite.com/usamadenazis

 

Author of The "THURSTONIAN ALIEN LIFE THEORY"

https://tsproperties.wixsite.com/mysite-2/alien-life-thurstonian

 

CEO for T S Properties & Assets Holdings LTD.

Technical & Scientific Research

http://TS-Digital-Research.com/ ™©

 

 

 

 

 

###