别以智商论英雄

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 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 website 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 of 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.

That leaves us with early education， which， when done right―and for poor children， it rarely is―seems to largely overcome whatever cognitive and emotional deficits poverty and other environmental circumstances impart in the first years of life. As instantiated by dozens of experimental programs， early education done right means beginning at the age of 3 or earlier， with teachers who are well trained in the particular demands of early education. Unfortunately， public early-education programs rarely come close to this level of quality， and are nowhere near universal.

Confronted with evidence that our approach is failing we comfort ourselves with the idea that we’re taking steps to locate those underprivileged kids who are， against the odds， extremely intelligent. Finding this tiny minority of gifted poor children and providing them with exceptional educational opportunities allows us to conjure the evening-news-friendly fiction of an equal-opportunity system， as if the problematically ungifted majority were not as deserving of attention as the “overlooked gems.”

We must stop glorifying intelligence and treating our society as a playground for the smart minority. We should instead begin shaping our economy， our schools， even our culture with an eye to the abilities and needs of the majority， and to the full range of human capacity. The government could， for example， provide incentives to companies that resist automation， thereby preserving jobs for the less brainy. It could also discourage hiring practices that arbitrarily and counterproductively weed out18） the less-well-IQ’ed. This might even redound to employers’ benefit： Whatever advantages high intelligence confers on employees， it doesn’t necessarily make for more effective， better employees. Among other things， the less brainy are， according to studies and some business experts， less likely to be oblivious19） of their own biases and flaws， to mistakenly assume that recent trends will continue into the future， to be anxiety-ridden， and to be arrogant.

When Michael Young， a British sociologist， coined the term meritocracy in 1958， it was in a dystopian satire. At the time， the world he imagined， in which intelligence fully determined who thrived and who languished20）， was understood to be predatory， pathological， far-fetched. Today， however， we’ve almost finished installing such a system， and we have embraced the idea of a meritocracy with few reservations， even treating it as virtuous. That can’t be right. Smart people should feel entitled to make the most of their gift. But they should not be permitted to reshape society so as to instate21） giftedness as a universal yardstick of human worth.

不知何时，我们对高智商产生了一种执念。我们赞美高智商的人取得的成就；我们研究聪明人的行为和心理；我们爱看高智商类的美剧和电影；甚至我们创造了一个词――sapiosexual （高智商控）。受此影响，我们想尽办法让更多的人更聪明，却忽视了社会和个人发展的规律。但是，我们看看自己，看看身边的大多数人，不都是智商中等的普通人吗？难道我们不应该更关心、做更多让我们这些“笨人”受益的事情吗？

就在不久前的20世纪50年代，仅拥有中等智力还不足以严重限制我们的人生轨迹。智商还不太会影响我们有怎样的伴侣，有怎样的生活条件，受到别人怎样的看待。不论是在流水线上还是在办公桌后的好工作，其要求还大多围绕着正直、职业道德、交际能力这几个方面。老板们通常并不要求大学文凭。

然而，在21世纪前十年，那些不大聪明的人迎来了苦日子。那些自以为聪明的人公开地嘲笑没有自己聪明的人。如今，人们高度关注微侵略和迫害，可是却听任对不聪明人的讥讽。有些人宁愿坠崖身亡也不愿说出带有种族歧视、宗教歧视、外貌歧视和对残疾人歧视的词，却乐于动辄骂人笨蛋：实际上，产生分歧时把别人贬低为“笨蛋”几乎已经成为条件反射。

这也成了受大众欢迎的娱乐形式。在那些原本无意对他人说不敬之语的晚间电视节目中，事实上会出现至少一种对不聪明之人的诋毁，而这样带有诙谐意味的诋毁数不胜数。Reddit上经常有一连串帖子讲述最受人喜爱的羞辱笨蛋的方法。趣事网（）也在其繁多的派对装饰创意和饮料制作法之外开辟了一个网页，专门讨论这一话题。

对于那些先天智力不足的人，现代社会已经严重虐待他们了。考虑到这一点，这些幸灾乐祸式的嘲弄尤其残忍。根据一项长期的联邦调查，智商和获得高薪工作的机会是相互关联的，几乎没人会对这个结论感到惊讶。研究还进一步发现，跟高智商的人相比，低智商的人更有可能患某些类型的精神疾病，更可能变胖、得心脏病，更容易因为外伤而遭遇永久性的大脑伤害，更容易在监狱中度过余生，而且在监狱里还比其他狱友更容易使用暴力。

那些有影响力的成功人士似乎比以往更坚决地要把那些不那么聪明的人排挤出去，而不是给他们一个喘息的机会。招聘网站Monster给经理人提供了一些建议，认为他们要寻找的候选人毫无疑问要“工作努力”“志向远大”“人好”，但首要的还是要“聪明”。该建议体现了当前人事招聘的策略。为了确保能录取到这样的人，越来越多的公司对求职者进行一系列的测试，内容包括技术能力、判断力到知识储备。还有许多用人单位要看应聘者的SAT分数（SAT分数与智商之间的联系已得到公认）；一些公司剔除掉了那些分数没有进入前5%的人。

是的，有些职业确实需要机灵的大脑。尽管人们日益把高智力当成干好工作的先决条件，但有证据表明，高智力并非像想象的那样完全是优点。已故哈佛商学院教授克里斯・阿基里斯认为，聪明人也可能成为最糟糕的员工，部分原因是他们不习惯应对失败或批评。多项研究的结论认为：比起传统上所说的智商，社交技能、自我意识和其他“情感”特质可以更好地预测一个人出色的工作表现。而且，很多逐渐要求大学学历的工作，从零售经理到行政助理，那些学历低一点的人干起来难度并没有增加。

与此同时，那些不需要大学学历即可求得的职位正在消失。机器人、在线服务、各种应用软件、自助服务机和其他自动装置已经或将要接手许多工业生产和低端服务业的工作，而且接手的工作还在不断增加。对从事诸多不同种类工作的人而言，丧钟可能很快就会敲响，其中就包括以下人员：以载人或运货为生的人，敲钟的是（比如）谷歌正在准备阶段的无人驾驶汽车以及（比如）亚马逊检测中的送货无人机这类东西；还有大多数在餐厅工作的人，为他们敲钟的是越来越廉价且人性化的机器人和日益增多的可以自助订位、点餐、付款的应用软件――这些都不再需要人类帮忙。

同时，我们对智商的迷恋远不止于职场。智力和学术成就在对伴侣要求的排行榜上的排名也在稳健上升；爱荷华州立大学的研究者报告说，智力的排名已在家务技能、经济实力、外表、社交能力和健康之上。

“纵观历史，每个时代都会选出一些特征来夸大一些人的成功，我们选定的是学术技能。”评定学生特质的专家罗伯特・史丁伯格说道。

我们所谓的智力指的是什么呢？我们投入大量精力去罗列智力的各种可能的表现形式，如人际交往能力、身体运动能力、空间感等等，这样一来实际上没有人“不聪明”。但是这些形式中的许多都不能提高SAT成绩，因而也不能带来好工作。与其竭尽全力去寻找讨论智力的不同方式，以涵盖所有人，还不如承认，大多数人都不具备足够的在当今社会有所成就的智力――这样或许还更明智些。

许多受益于现代教育体系的人喜欢自我安慰说，自己在努力地帮助不聪明的人变聪明。这是一个了不起的目标。数十年的研究表明，要达到这个目标有两种方法：一是迅速消除贫困，二是让那些有可能成绩差的孩子接受强化的早期教育。但是把讨论消除贫困作为解决之道几乎没有意义，因为我们的政府和社会从没有认真考虑过任何计划来显著减少贫困人口或改善贫困人群的生活状况。

这样一来，我们就只有早期教育这个方法了。早期教育如果做得好――对穷人家的孩子来说这方面极少做得好――似乎可以很大程度上克服童年由于贫困或其他周边环境造成的认知或情感上的缺陷。有几十项实验确切表明，早期教育做得好意味着从三岁或更早开始，有在早期教育特殊需求方面接受过良好训练的老师。不幸的是，公共早期教育离这个质量还很远，更不用说全面覆盖了。

有证据表明，我们上述的方法失败了。面对这种困境，我们安慰自己说，我们正在逐步找到那些家境虽然困难却极其聪明的孩子。发现这些极少数的聪明的穷孩子，给他们非常好的教育机会――这让我们构想出一个适合在晚间新闻里播放的教育机会平等体系的故事，就好像那些没有天分的棘手的大多数人不应当像“被忽视的宝玉”那样值得关注。

我们必须停止美化智力，不再把我们的社会当成少数聪明人的舞台。相反，我们应该着眼于大多数人的能力和需求，着眼于人类的全部能力，着手打造我们的经济、我们的学校甚至我们的文化。例如，政府可以鼓励公司抵制自动化，从而为不那么聪明的人保留工作。政府还可以阻止一些人员聘用措施，这些措施会适得其反，武断地淘汰掉了智商不那么高的人。这样做可能甚至对雇主也有利：不管高智商会给员工带来什么样的优势，但不一定会使员工更好、更高效。根据研究的结果以及一些商业专家的观点，智商不高的人有许多优点，包括不大可能对自己的偏见和缺点视而不见，不会错误地认为现在的趋势会一直延续下去，不会充满焦虑，不会恃才傲物。

英国社会学家迈克尔・杨1958年创造出“精英社会”这个词时，是用作反乌托邦式讽刺的。在他当时想象的那个世界里，谁成功谁失败完全由智商决定。人们认为这个世界充满掠夺性，是病态和不着边际的。但是，今天，我们几乎已经完全建立了这样的世界。我们几乎毫无保留地接受精英社会的观念，甚至认为这种观念是高尚的。这是不对的。聪明的人应该感受到自己有权充分发挥自己的天分，但是他们不应该被允许重塑社会，把天分作为衡量人类价值的普适尺度。

1. IQ：即intelligence quotient，指智商。

2. knack [n?k] n. 诀窍，本事

3. microaggressions：微侵略，指人们透过语言或肢体，排挤或贬低不同人种、性别和弱势群体的现象。

4. swerve [sw??（r）v] vi. 突然转向

5. pejorative [p??d??r?t?v] n. 贬低的话，贬损的话

6. thread [θred] n. 网上的帖子

7. derision [d??r??（?）n] n. 嘲弄

8. freeze sb. out：（通过不友好行为或联合抵制）逼走或排挤

9. SAT：即Scholastic Assessment Test，美国大学委员会（College Board）主办的考试，其成绩是世界各国高中生申请美国大学入学资格及奖学金的重要参考，被称为美国高考。

10. screen out：剔除掉

11. unalloyed [??n??l??d] adj. 纯粹的

12. kiosk [?ki??sk] n. 原意为路边无人看管的书报摊，现引申为自助服务机。

13. fetishization [&apos；fet??a?ze??（?）n] n. 盲目迷恋

14. copious [?k??pi?s] adj. 大量的

15. bodily-kinesthetic：即bodily-kinesthetic intelligence （身体运动能力），指善于运用整个身体来表达思想和情感、灵巧地运用双手制作或操作物体的能力。

16. bend over backwards：拼命，竭尽全力

17. alleviate [??li?vie?t] vt. 缓和，减轻

18. weed out：淘汰；除去，清除

19. oblivious [??bl?vi?s] adj. 没意识到的

20. languish [?l??w??] vi. 未成功

21. instate [?n?ste?t] vt. 确立