Can you complete this IQ test in 480 seconds?

Engineering Human Intelligence in the 1920’s

Can you complete this part of Thorndike’s intelligence test in 480 seconds?

In Edward L. Thorndike pursued a ‘scientific’ aproach to understanding and engineering human intelligence, he was motivated by a simple idea, if we can harness the forces of nature to power our cities, why can’t we do the same with human thought?

Thorndike was interested in finding a system, a method, a way to make the inner workings of the mind less of a mystery and more of a blueprint for society to follow. His motivations were also influenced by the social and political context of his time, a period characterized by industrial growth, a fascination with efficiency, and a desire to bring order to an increasingly complex society. The scientific community was eager to create methods that could improve societal functioning, and Thorndike's vision of human engineering fit neatly into this drive for a systematic, controlled approach to progress.

Let’s remember that in the late 19th and early years of the 20th century, science had helped to radically change technologies, such as electricity and steam. Machines could do what once seemed impossible. And Thorndike believed the human mind could be approached in the same way as those mechanical marvels, effectively understood, taken apart, put back together, and made better. It was a hopeful belief, perhaps even naive, but it captured a sentiment of the times: that through reason and rigorous study, we could conquer anything, even the chaos of the human condition.

Thorndike called his method: “Principles for human engineering”.

Thorndike’s early efforts involved carving intelligence into three neat categories: mechanical, abstract, and social. These were the boxes he hoped would hold all the messiness of human thought. The theory sounded good, clear and rational, the kind of thing you could write into a textbook. But anyone who’s ever met another person knows the truth, people rarely fit neatly into categories. You can almost picture Thorndike, observing a family gathering, thinking that Uncle Joe had stellar mechanical intelligence but perhaps lacked the finer points of social grace. It was science, but stripped of the nuance that makes people truly themselves.

“Complex as human life is, it is at bottom explainable by a few principles’’… ‘‘it has been shown that in great measure the intellects and characters of men are explainable by a single law [the law of effect]’’ ~ Thorndike

In fairness, Thorndike believed intelligence was like your high school grades, a mix of highs and lows, strengths and weaknesses. You might ace algebra but be hopeless at changing a tire, and that was okay. The trouble was, these categories of human engineering seemed so tidy, so alluring in their simplicity, that people wanted to lean into them, to use them as a shortcut to understanding themselves. Thorndike offered a guide, a way to know where you stood, and what your strengths might be, so you could ignore the rest. If it helped some people sleep better at night, that was a win.

“There is a general rough correspondence or correlation, that a man notably intelligent in one respect will usually be above the average in others also.” ~ Thorndike

Too much Labelling?

But those neat little boxes soon evolved into a full-blown obsession with categorizing and ranking human worth. While this obsession had its downsides, it's also true that some forms of categorization have been instrumental in providing educational and psychological support, helping tailor learning experiences to individual needs.

The 20th century became the era of tests and measurements. From IQ tests to aptitude exams, the need to define, to label, and to quantify became inescapable. People wanted to know, where do I fit? Am I above average? Am I good enough? The 21st century took this obsession and amplified it, with artificial intelligence and algorithms now judging and categorizing us with cold precision. Thorndike’s effort to classify army personnel has transformed into HR algorithms deciding whether you're worth hiring, all with a simple data point. It’s efficient. It’s effective. But it’s also profoundly impersonal.

Despite all this, our desire to define ourselves hasn’t gone anywhere. We still crave labels, whether it’s a number on a standardized test, a personality type, or even our follower count on social media. The categories have shifted, mechanical and social intelligence have morphed into new titles like “data guru” or “social influencer”, but the impulse to understand our worth through external markers persists. There’s comfort in knowing, in being able to say, “This is who I am.”

Multiple Intelligences

Yet, if Thorndike were alive today, he might grudgingly admit that human intelligence is more unpredictable, more complex than he ever imagined, although he did concede differences. Alternative models of understanding intelligence, such as Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences or Robert Sternberg's triarchic theory, embrace the complexity and individuality of human cognition. These approaches offer a more holistic perspective, one that celebrates diverse abilities and acknowledges that intelligence is not a singular, measurable entity but a multifaceted spectrum of skills and potentials. It’s not a clockwork mechanism you can set by a formula. It’s more like a chameleon that defies being pigeon-holed. His desire to categorize, measure and human intelligence missed what makes people interesting, the quirks, the inconsistencies, the flashes of brilliance that defy explanation.

For all the charts, the tests, and the classifications, Thorndike’s vision of a perfectly understood and engineered humanity has proven elusive. And maybe, that’s why we remain fascinating, not because we fit into the boxes, but because we evolve.

Stay curious

Dr Colin W.P. Lewis

IQ Test from – Intelligence and Its Uses by Edward L. Thorndike, Harpers Magazine

Quotes from - Thorndike, E. L. (1905). Elements of psychology.