别以智商论英雄
reddit作者：杨锐
来源：《新东方英语》2017年第01期
        As recently as the 1950s， possessing only middling intelligence was not likely to severely limit your life’s trajectory. IQ1） wasn’t a big factor in whom you married， where you lived， or what others thought of you. The qualifications for a good job， whether on an assembly line or behind a desk， mostly revolved around integrity， work ethic， and a knack2） for getting along—bosses didn’t routinely expect college degrees.
        The 2010s， in contrast， are a terrible time to not be brainy. Those who consider themselves bright openly mock others for being less so. Even in this age of rampant concern over microaggressions3） and victimization， we maintain open season on the nonsmart. People who’d swerve4） off a cliff rather than use a pejorative5） for race， religion， physical appearance， or disability are all too happy to drop the s-bomb： Indeed， degrading others for being “stupid” has become nearly automatic in all forms of disagreement.
        It’s popular entertainment， too. An evening of otherwise hate-speech-free TV-watching typically features at least one of a long list of humorous slurs on the unintelligent. Reddit regularly has threads6） on favorite ways to insult the stupid， and fun-stuff-to-do dedicates a page to the topic amid its party-decor ideas and drink recipes.
        This gleeful derision7） seems especially cruel in view of the more serious abuse that modern life has heaped upon the less intellectually gifted. Few will be surprised to hear that， according to a long-running federal study， IQ correlates with chances of landing a financially rewarding job. Studies have furthermore found that， compared with the intelligent， less intelligent people are more likely to suffer from some types of mental illness， become obese， develop heart disease， experience permanent brain damage from a traumatic injury， and end up in prison， where they are more likely than other inmates to be drawn to violence.
        Rather than looking for ways to give the less intelligent a break， the successful and influential seem more determined than ever to freeze them out8）. The employment websit
e Monster captures current hiring wisdom in its advice to managers， suggesting they look for candidates who， of course， “work hard” and are “ambitious” and “nice”—but who， first and foremost， are “smart.” To make sure they end up with such people， more and more companies are testing applicants on a range of skills， judgment， and knowledge. In addition， many employers now ask applicants for SAT9） scores （whose correlation with IQ is well established）； some companies screen out10） those whose scores don’t fall in the top 5 percent.
        Yes， some careers do require smarts. But even as high intelligence is increasingly treated as a job prerequisite， evidence suggests that it is not the unalloyed11） advantage it’s assumed to be. The late Harvard Business School professor Chris Argyris argued that smart people can make the worst employees， in part because they’re not used to dealing with failure or criticism. Multiple studies have concluded that interpersonal skills， self-awareness， and other “emotional” qualities can be better predictors of strong job performance than conventional intelligence. Moreover， many jobs that have come to require college degrees， ranging from retail manager to administrative assistant， haven’t
generally gotten harder for the less educated to perform.
        At the same time， those positions that can still be acquired without a college degree are disappearing. The list of manufacturing and low-level service jobs that have been taken over， or nearly so， by robots， online services， apps， kiosks12）， and other forms of automation grows longer daily. Among the many types of workers for whom the bell may soon toll： anyone who drives people or things around for a living， thanks to the driverless cars in the works at （for example） Google and the delivery drones undergoing testing at （for example） Amazon， and most people who work in restaurants， thanks to increasingly affordable and people-friendly robots， and to a growing number of apps that let you arrange for a table， place an order， and pay—all without help from a human being.
        Meanwhile， our fetishization13） of IQ now extends far beyond the workplace. Intelligence and academic achievement have steadily been moving up on rankings of traits desired in a mate； researchers at the University of Iowa report that intelligence now rates above domestic skills， financial success， looks， sociability， and health.
        “Every society through history has picked some traits that magnify success for some，” says Robert Sternberg， an expert on assessing students’ traits. “We’ve picked academic skills.”
        What do we mean by intelligence？ We devote copious14） energy to cataloging the wonderfully different forms it might take—interpersonal， bodily-kinesthetic15）， spatial， and so forth—ultimately leaving virtually no one “unintelligent.” But many of these forms won’t raise SAT scores or grades， and so probably won’t result in a good job. Instead of bending over backwards16） to find ways of discussing intelligence that won’t leave anyone out， it might make more sense to acknowledge that most people don’t possess enough of the version that’s required to thrive in today’s world.
        Many people who have benefited from the current educational system like to tell themselves that they’re working hard to help the unintelligent become intelligent. This is a marvelous goal， and decades of research have shown that it’s achievable through two approaches： dramatically reducing poverty， and getting young children who are at risk o
f poor academic performance into intensive early-education programs. But there’s little point in discussing alleviating17） poverty as a solution， because our government and society are not seriously considering any initiatives capable of making a significant dent in the numbers or conditions of the poor.

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。