Intelligence
When he wrote “Neu eta nire ingurugiroa, hori naiz ni”, Ortega y Gasset did not refer to the measurement of human intelligence, but to the history of measuring and evaluating human intelligence... In fact, the prejudices and cultural context of the time can have a great influence on the results of supposedly pneumatic investigations, being the paradigmatic case of measuring human intelligence. XIX. The 20th century craniometrists gave outstanding examples. They believed that there was a direct relationship between brain size and intelligence, and knew that intelligence staggering ranged from white men to black men in Africa, thus achieving the conjugation of data and beliefs without intentional fraud. It is worth reading the chronicles of the barbarities of many of the best scientists of the time, to realize how easy it is to be partial in rigor, because no one is safe from being mistaken.
The collections of historical barbarities of the meters of intelligence smile, until we remember that in those lies some of the blackest and shameful episodes of human history were supported; measured and classified, man has come to delimit what people and collectivities could get and what they could be. It is not so long that people considered deficient were sterilized.
That would not have been the fate of the protagonists of this magazine, who are at the other end of the supposed scale of intelligence. They are children with great intelligence, people above average and who generate admiration. Their experiences and fears show that classification and labeling is for everyone.
It is not an option to measure. Not at least a good option. Practical tools are essential to identify people with special support or needs who by chance must measure intelligence. They could be incomplete and they will not pick up the complexity of intelligence, in short they have a limit on what we know (we are). We would have to limit ourselves to what is delimited, not to limit anyone.
Zu idazle
Zientzia aldizkaria
