Last week's Newsweek featured an article on how the average IQ of America's children is no longer 100 (the "norm" of the test) but rather 112. The title of the article? "Are our children getting smarter?"

Geez. My question? Something like "You still think IQ tests actually measure intelligence?"

More than 20 years ago, Steven Jay Gould wrote a book called The Mismeasure of Man in which he debunked the notion of using brain size and other objective measurements, including IQ tests, to determine a supposed level of general intelligence. In fact, one of the main points of the book is that while IQ tests are very useful in determining a given person's level of education, they're useless in figuring out exactly how much a person could learn.

Do you know what the original Binet test measured? It determined the "intellectual age" of the subject and then divided that age by the subjects chronological age, multiplying the quotient by 100 for simplicity. That's where the "Q" in "IQ" comes from. The test was originally intended only to figure out how kids were doing in school. It wasn't intended to measure adults (if you were above average in intelligence, as you got older you'd have to keep increasing your knowledge at an alarmingly exponential rate just to stay at the same IQ) and it wasn't intended to measure "intelligence," but rather relative education.

I took the IQ test at emode.com (supposedly "developed by Ph.D.s") just to see what they're asking on these tests these days. I did well. I've always tested well, mostly because I have a near-photographic memory and I process information quickly. According to the test, I'm brilliant. If you want a second opinion, just ask my wife or any of the folks who know me well. They'll set you straight right away.

The thing is, almost all of the questions on the test didn't measure innate logic skills or the like, but rather specific knowledge of English vocabulary (I guess only people who speak English can be smart--this was one of the faults Gould found in studying some of the old "scientific" data on IQ tests and how their results were interpreted), algebra, geometry and American history. There were a few pictorial questions, but even those were fraught with cultural knowledge.

With all this in mind, I'd like to present my own version of an IQ test, incorporating a specific knowledge set that just about every educated person should hold: A fanatical knowledge of the Kansas City Royals baseball club during the glory years of 1975-1985 (with some excursions toward the present, just to be tricky). Test yourself. It's fun! (Answers provided at the end).

1. Which word best completes the analogy: Splittorff is to Gura as left is to...
a) right
b) left
c) up
d) down
e) Satan

2. Which number should come next? 1976 1977 1978 1980 1981 ?
a) 1982
b) 1983
c) 1984
d) 1985
e) 1986

3. Which of these five years is least like the other four?
a) 1976
b) 1980
c) 1982
d) 1983
e) 1990

4. If you rearrange the letters "ONSCWE," you would have the name of a(n)?
a) second baseman
b) pitcher
c) catcher
d) outfielder
e) designated hitter

5. Willie Wilson is batting right-handed. If he hits a ball into the right field corner and it takes him four seconds to get to first base, where will he be after ten seconds have elapsed since the hit?
a) third base
b) second base
c) first base
d) center field
e) the dugout

6. Steve Balboni was to the 3-6-1 double play as George Herbert Walker Bush was to:
a) Ronald Reagan
b) George Walker Bush
c) read my lips: no new taxes
d) the wimp factor
e) the Gulf War

7. Which of these players is least like the other four?
a) John Mayberry
b) Cookie Rojas
c) Freddie Patek
d) Steve Mingori
e) Amos Otis

Right. Seven questions is more than enough to determine your Royals Quotient (or RQ, as I like to call it). Now, for the answers.

1. (b) left. Both Paul Splittorff and Lary Gura were left-handed pitchers. Partial credit for answering (e), as "left" and left-handedness have long been associated with Satan and thus the terms are somewhat interchangeable.

2. (c) 1984. The first five years were all playoff seasons for the Royals, and 1984 was the next such year after 1981.

3. (d) 1983. In all the other years, a Royal won the A.L. batting crown. George Brett won batting titles in 1976, 1980 and 1990, and Willie Wilson topped the league in 1982.

4. (d) outfielder. Al COWENS played left and right field for the Royals in the 1970s. You get partial credit if you answered (e), because Cowens did put in a few games at DH during his career.

5. (a) third base. It takes about a second for a right-handed batter to break out of the batter's box, and so if it takes Willie Wilson four seconds to get to first, you count one second for the break and three to get there. Since the ball was hit into the right-field corner, you know that Willie's going for three, and since you give him six more seconds, he'll easily make it to third base within 10 seconds from the time he hit the ball.

6. (c) read my lips: no new taxes. Steve Balboni was the master of hitting the lead runner in the back on the throw to second at the start of a potential 3-6-1 double play. I mean, you could count on it. He promised to take his time, think, take two steps to the right or left and then throw, but he rarely did. A promise in vain, just like George H.W. Bush. By the way, this question could also be asked as "Steve Balboni is to the 3-6-3 double play..." Either way, the analogy fits.

7. (e) Amos Otis. While all played for the Royals in the 1970s, only Otis played for K.C. during the 80s.

Give yourself 25 points for each correct answer (10 points for partial credit on #1 and/or #4) and add 'em up.

25 or less: Plant matter. Venus Flytraps have more intelligence than you.

26-50: Moron. A technical term, meaning (basically) sub-human. Sorry, man.

51-75: Imbecile. Another technical term meaning a little better than sub-human.

76-100: Below average. When you look for a job, don't be wearing a tie.

101-125: Average to above average. Find yourself a nice, faceless desk job somewhere.

126-150: Well above average. Go forth and conquer!

151-175: Genius. You already rule the world, so why are you taking this test?

I culled most of those bits of analysis and advice from the conclusions of past IQ studies detailed in The Mismeasure of Man. Absurd, hunh? the vast majority of the big studies came at Ellis Island (that's where speaking English comes into play) and in tests of raw recruits for WWI. That was a long time ago, and people are still using the highly-biased results of those studies (remember The Bell Curve?).

It's time to get past IQ tests as predictors or proclaimers of intelligence. The reason test scores for U.S. children rose is because, despite all the scare stories that incessantly crop up in the news, our children are better-educated than we were, so they test better. Simple as that. So why don't you take your IQ scores and shove 'em?

Jon Worley is now soaking his head.