別以智商論英雄

楊銳

As recently as the 1950s， possessing only middling intelligence was not likely to severely limit your lifes trajectory. IQ1） wasnt 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 didnt 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 whod 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.

Its 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.com 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 dont 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 its assumed to be. The late Harvard Business School professor Chris Argyris argued that smart people can make the worst employees， in part because theyre 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， havent 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. “Weve 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 wont raise SAT scores or grades， and so probably wont result in a good job. Instead of bending over backwards16） to find ways of discussing intelligence that wont leave anyone out， it might make more sense to acknowledge that most people dont possess enough of the version thats required to thrive in todays world.

Many people who have benefited from the current educational system like to tell themselves that theyre working hard to help the unintelligent become intelligent. This is a marvelous goal， and decades of research have shown that its 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 theres 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 were 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-IQed. This might even redound to employers benefit： Whatever advantages high intelligence confers on employees， it doesnt 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， weve almost finished installing such a system， and we have embraced the idea of a meritocracy with few reservations， even treating it as virtuous. That cant 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.

不知何時，我們對高智商產生了一種執念。我們贊美高智商的人取得的成就；我們研究聰明人的行為和心理；我們愛看高智商類的美劇和電影；甚至我們創造了一個詞——sapiosexual （高智商控）。受此影響，我們想盡辦法讓更多的人更聰明，卻忽視了社會和個人發展的規律。但是，我們看看自己，看看身邊的大多數人，不都是智商中等的普通人嗎？難道我們不應該更關心、做更多讓我們這些“笨人”受益的事情嗎？

就在不久前的20世紀50年代，僅擁有中等智力還不足以嚴重限制我們的人生軌跡。智商還不太會影響我們有怎樣的伴侶，有怎樣的生活條件，受到別人怎樣的看待。不論是在流水線上還是在辦公桌后的好工作，其要求還大多圍繞著正直、職業道德、交際能力這幾個方面。老板們通常并不要求大學文憑。

然而，在21世紀前十年，那些不大聰明的人迎來了苦日子。那些自以為聰明的人公開地嘲笑沒有自己聰明的人。如今，人們高度關注微侵略和迫害，可是卻聽任對不聰明人的譏諷。有些人寧愿墜崖身亡也不愿說出帶有種族歧視、宗教歧視、外貌歧視和對殘疾人歧視的詞，卻樂于動輒罵人笨蛋：實際上，產生分歧時把別人貶低為“笨蛋”幾乎已經成為條件反射。

這也成了受大眾歡迎的娛樂形式。在那些原本無意對他人說不敬之語的晚間電視節目中，事實上會出現至少一種對不聰明之人的詆毀，而這樣帶有詼諧意味的詆毀數不勝數。Reddit上經常有一連串帖子講述最受人喜愛的羞辱笨蛋的方法。趣事網（fun-stuff-to-do.com）也在其繁多的派對裝飾創意和飲料制作法之外開辟了一個網頁，專門討論這一話題。

對于那些先天智力不足的人，現代社會已經嚴重虐待他們了。考慮到這一點，這些幸災樂禍式的嘲弄尤其殘忍。根據一項長期的聯邦調查，智商和獲得高薪工作的機會是相互關聯的，幾乎沒人會對這個結論感到驚訝。研究還進一步發現，跟高智商的人相比，低智商的人更有可能患某些類型的精神疾病，更可能變胖、得心臟病，更容易因為外傷而遭遇永久性的大腦傷害，更容易在監獄中度過余生，而且在監獄里還比其他獄友更容易使用暴力。

那些有影響力的成功人士似乎比以往更堅決地要把那些不那么聰明的人排擠出去，而不是給他們一個喘息的機會。招聘網站Monster給經理人提供了一些建議，認為他們要尋找的候選人毫無疑問要“工作努力”“志向遠大”“人好”，但首要的還是要“聰明”。該建議體現了當前人事招聘的策略。為了確保能錄取到這樣的人，越來越多的公司對求職者進行一系列的測試，內容包括技術能力、判斷力到知識儲備。還有許多用人單位要看應聘者的SAT分數（SAT分數與智商之間的聯系已得到公認）；一些公司剔除掉了那些分數沒有進入前5%的人。

是的，有些職業確實需要機靈的大腦。盡管人們日益把高智力當成干好工作的先決條件，但有證據表明，高智力并非像想象的那樣完全是優點。已故哈佛商學院教授克里斯·阿基里斯認為，聰明人也可能成為最糟糕的員工，部分原因是他們不習慣應對失敗或批評。多項研究的結論認為：比起傳統上所說的智商，社交技能、自我意識和其他“情感”特質可以更好地預測一個人出色的工作表現。而且，很多逐漸要求大學學歷的工作，從零售經理到行政助理，那些學歷低一點的人干起來難度并沒有增加。

與此同時，那些不需要大學學歷即可求得的職位正在消失。機器人、在線服務、各種應用軟件、自助服務機和其他自動裝置已經或將要接手許多工業生產和低端服務業的工作，而且接手的工作還在不斷增加。對從事諸多不同種類工作的人而言，喪鐘可能很快就會敲響，其中就包括以下人員：以載人或運貨為生的人，敲鐘的是（比如）谷歌正在準備階段的無人駕駛汽車以及（比如）亞馬遜檢測中的送貨無人機這類東西；還有大多數在餐廳工作的人，為他們敲鐘的是越來越廉價且人性化的機器人和日益增多的可以自助訂位、點餐、付款的應用軟件——這些都不再需要人類幫忙。

同時，我們對智商的迷戀遠不止于職場。智力和學術成就在對伴侶要求的排行榜上的排名也在穩健上升；愛荷華州立大學的研究者報告說，智力的排名已在家務技能、經濟實力、外表、社交能力和健康之上。

“縱觀歷史，每個時代都會選出一些特征來夸大一些人的成功，我們選定的是學術技能。”評定學生特質的專家羅伯特·史丁伯格說道。