Should Elected Public Officials Be Intelligence Tested

Intelligence testing should not be required for candidates prior to running for public office.

Firstly, the assumption that higher traditional measures of intelligence will result in better governance is highly debatable and flawed. Second, the ability to govern may be better determined by a measurement of emotional intelligence, rather than standard IQ measurements. Third, moral character may be a better measure of the ability to govern than intelligence.

Americans often complain that the nature of our democratic government leads to the election of individuals whose intelligence levels leave a great deal to be desired. Clearly, the actions of a great many public officials give credence to this claim. We have only to think of the, the indiscreet and inappropriate sexual shenanigans of Gary Hart, and the infamous inability of Dan Quayle to spell potato correctly as evidence of this assertion. In response to these criticisms, many Americans have begun to push for mandatory intelligence testing of candidates before running for public office.

Initially, critics of this plan argued that the noted unreliability and the age and sex biases of existing tests made such testing untenable. In response, a new intelligence test was created. The new test is free of bias toward specific ethnic groups or ages. In addition, it is an accurate measure of four main areas of intelligence: reasoning power; creative thought; memory; and understanding.

At the basis of the argument for intelligence testing for public officials is the dubious assumption that higher intelligence results in better governance. While this may seem intuitively correct, there is certainly little concrete evidence that high intelligence automatically equates with high performance. On an individual level, all we have to do is look back on the after-school accomplishments of the brightest and most accomplished individuals that we knew in high school or college. Most people can note numerous examples of highly intelligent people that for some reason or another failed to live up to their potential. Certainly, we all likely encountered a star student with enormous potential who went on to drop out of school, take a job in the service industry, and faded into obscurity.

Certainly, the assumption that high traditional intelligence automatically equals high achievement is faulty. As such, it appears that there is a great deal underlying achievement than simple, standard IQ measurements. Interestingly, recent researchers in intelligence testing have revealed that intelligence may be composed of a great many more components than originally thought, or tested for within the new intelligence test. These components were first outlined in Howard Gardner's his 1983 book, Frames of the Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Gardner argued that intelligence is much that intelligence is more than the standard IQ measurement. Instead, he argues that intelligence incorporates seven main components, including an Interpersonal and Intrapersonal intelligence, more commonly called emotional intelligence. If Gardner is correct, then perhaps emotional intelligence would be a better measure of the abilities of potential politicians. After all, a politician's interpersonal skills are likely a key indicator of success in his chosen field.