Why prioritizing linguistic intelligence is inherently flawed

Yet another commentary on intelligence–I am in the academic world after all. Intelligence, as discussed previously is multifaceted, and linguistic intelligence is one of those facets. But is language aptitude, and perhaps the way it is currently being assessed in our society, a valid proxy for intelligence? Maybe, but not a great one. Let me explain. Currently, the most popular and objective way to assess language skills in the United States is through the reading comprehension section with the multiple choice format–the writing section is regarded as more of a subsidiary section. The problem with multiple choice standardized exams is that rote memorization–a lower level skill–can be used to game the test. Anyone who’s taken the SATs or the GREs know that if you brute memorize a copious amount of vocabulary–words many will never interact with again for the rest of their lives–you can effectively inflate the critical reading section score. That is one of the main strategies in preparing for these exams.

So then is free response assessment the answer? I’m not certain of this, but I believe that the United Kingdom is much more friendly to the free response format compared to the multiple choice exam favoritism of the United States. The problem with free response assessment, however, is that it introduces the human element to grading and the biases associated with it. Since language, unlike mathematics, contains subjective elements that effectively have no correct answer. Thus, free response assessments as graded by humans are inherently biased. Free response is both impractical to administer on a large scale and adds partiality to the assessment process. It may, nonetheless, at least improve the writing skills of students, assuming that they study for the exam.

To conclude, prioritizing language abilities as the most important mark of intelligence is inherently flawed. Language has subjective elements to it and is region-specific. Though language formation follows a set of rules (grammar) these rules are malleable in practice–think poetry. Thus, a scholar singularly devoted to the study of language puts himself or herself at risk to ideas that may be inherently false or dangerous on the grounds that they just sound good (see Language, the poor man’s music).