When we look at the social assumptions behind intelligence testing, many people believe it reflects a person’s natural ability or potential. Society often treats high scores as proof of being “gifted” and low scores as a sign of limited ability. For some learners, this can open opportunities like enrichment programs or early interventions, which is a good thing. But the downside is just as strong—labels can stick, and students may start to see themselves only through the lens of a test result. This can lead to self-doubt, low expectations from teachers, or even bias in opportunities later on.

On the other hand, knowledge testing carries the assumption that what a student knows right now—facts, formulas, or lessons learned in class—shows how successful they are. When learners do well, it feels validating and encourages persistence. But when these tests are treated as the main measure of success, students may end up cramming, memorizing, and feeling pressured to perform rather than truly understanding. Worse, those who come from different backgrounds or have less support at home might appear “weaker” when really, they just had fewer chances to practice.

For better or worse, both types of assessment shape how learners are viewed by teachers, parents, and even themselves. Used carefully, they can guide support, celebrate strengths, and motivate growth. But if misused, they risk boxing learners into labels, creating stress, or narrowing the idea of what it means to be “smart.”