You may be familiar with something called the Flynn Effect. It's named after James Flynn, a researcher who discovered that IQs had been rising about three points per decade for most of the 20th century.
The evidence for this has been replicated numerous times and is now accepted as pretty rock solid. I've always had a hard time with it, though, since it suggests that, relative to today, the average IQ of people in the 1920s was about 70. This is roughly a 6th grade level, so it means that the Jazz Age was mostly populated by a bunch of 6th graders.
That doesn't sound right, does it? Then again, I suppose F. Scott Fitzgerald didn't hang around with ordinary people very much, so maybe our view of the '20s is distorted.
In any case, there's now a controversy over whether this IQ increase has continued into the 21st century. I'll spare you all the gruesome details about g-loading and fluid vs. crystallized intelligence and just show you the numbers:
The Flynn Effect, according to some researchers, has slowed down a bit but is still going strong. But a few others, mostly relying on administrative data from conscripts in Scandinavian countries, say that the Flynn Effect slowed down in the 1960s and then reversed. If it's continued along this path, it would mean that Team Flynn estimates an increase of about 14 IQ points since 1960 while Team Reversal estimates a decline of about 3 points.
That's a big difference! And you'd think someone would try to research this. One obvious way is to get a copy of, say, a Stanford-Binet test from 1960 and administer it to a random group of a few hundred people. Would their average score be 100, as it is on a modern IQ test, or would it be around 115, suggesting that we're so smart these days that we score like geniuses on older tests?
This would be neither a difficult nor an expensive study. Why has no one done it?
Fun! But remember, the wetware that runs this Intelligent OS hasn't received an upgrade for thousands of years.
Start making more money weekly. This is valuable part time work for everyone. The best part ,work from the comfort of your house and get paid from $10k-$20k each week . Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. Visit this article
for more details.. https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com/
IS we getting dumber, Kevin.
IS we.
Is *I*.
I've always had a hard time with it, though, since it suggests that, relative to today, the average IQ of people in the 1920s was about 70.
I've never taken a deep dive into the research on this, but I've always assumed (yes, that can be dangerous) that the Flynn effect, while no doubt valid, has to be considered with reference to what IQ actually measures. IOW it's not a measure of the innate cognitive "power" of that biological entity known as the human brain. And in any event the effects of natural selection (in this case, at least) aren't likely to be observable in such a short time interval.
In short, IQ is something made up my humans. Kinda like generational groupings (Boomer, GenX, Millennial, etc). A handy measurement to keep track of shit we homo sapiens think is important, sure. (In the case of IQ, I'd guess it's mostly stuff like the efficacy of education systems), but no basis whatsoever in nature.
The way I put it is that IQ tests measure the subjects' ability to take IQ tests. This is, of course, a tautology. Now recast the Flynn Effect: Subjects ability to take IQ tests is rising. This casting changes the questions that rise in response. Is it more plausible that people are getting smarter in an absolute sense (whatever that means) or that they are getter better at test-taking?
On my understanding, the test is reviewed regularly to ensure an average score of 100 and a standard deviation of fifteen. Presumably the psychologists who design the test could provide details of the extent and direction of the adjustments over the decades. Indeed I imagine they already have, somewhere deep in the academic literature.
However the whole concept of measuring intelligence is fraught with so much controversy, starting with a definition of what is actually being measured, that trying to draw firm conclusions about long-term trends is problematic.
All I know is that Brawndo has what plants crave.
Electrolytes! And plants love it, too!!
Aside from that, we know, or ought to, how truly dreadful the "IQ" tests of a century ago were. Are these the numbers that are being used? Are all the numbers from tests that are comparable and not simply biased by the test takers' socioeconomic status and level of education?
Excellent points. Not to mention that the IQ test from the mid 1900's was, I think, heavily biased toward white middle class Americans.
IQ tests are pure BS, end of story. Every test of anything includes the biases of those who created it, and measuring IQ is not like taking a ruler and measuring someone's height. I read a lot of articles on best places to live and they always make me think the writers are idiots. You can make any place the best depending on what and how you measure it. Same with IQ.
Would a person born 20 years ago do well on an IQ test from 1960? The tests aren't culturally neutral, and America was a very different country then.
DUH... of course the country as a whole is getting dumber. You have one major political party (GOP) that has spent the last 40+ years actively trying to dumb-down Americans.
Like +5. You would get additional points if you had brought in social media and cell phone addiction.
5+ one more time.
I have no doubt that a large swath of the population is functionally illiterate. Watching FOX etc. has indoctrinated them to the point where a lack of education is a not just a good thing. It's the goal. Pretty sad actually, that they voluntarily aimed for stupid.
In one of his books (I don't recall which) Flynn reported that he examined raw scores of different parts of "the" IQ test to try to understand what is going on with the Flynn effect. He found that the raw scores were rising the most for parts of the test that measured abstract reasoning, e.g., Raven's Progressive Matrices. He suspects -- hypothesizes, aka "has a theory" -- that as the economy has changed over the last 150 years, different types of intelligence have changed in their relative importance to society.
In the past, concrete intelligence was much more important. Nowadays, being able to abstract from specific situations and to generalize are much more important skills. Reflecting this situation, these skills are now emphasized much more in school than formerly. Further, the average number of years of completed schooling is considerably greater than it was a century and more ago. The result is that people are scoring much higher on this part of the IQ exam than they did back in the day.
Cosima Shalizi has a really good rundown of this here, with a nice example from Flynn about "the correct answer" to a hypothetical question: "How are dogs and rabbits alike?"
**********************************
Flynn's discussion of a hypothetical, but typical, test question: "How are rabbits and dogs alike?" Answers like "both are raised on farms", "both come in breeds with different colors", "both are eaten by people in some parts of the world and kept as pets in others", "both have claws", "both can destroy gardens", and Flynn's example answer, "you can use dogs to hunt rabbits" are true, but not what IQ testers look for. (Even the answer "they're not alike, in any way that matters" could be sensibly defended.) The test-makers want you to say "both are mammals". What the testers look for, in other words, is not knowledge of the concrete world or of functional relationships, but mastery of one set of abstract concepts, which the test-makers themselves have internalized as highly-trained scientific professionals and literate intellectuals.
**********************************
An interesting personal note about Flynn. When he was young, his politics were relatively left for the time and place (early 1960s USA) and he concluded that he would not be able to have a reasonable career in the US, so he immigrated to New Zealand in 1967, where he lived until his death a couple of years ago.
S/b Cosma Shalizi, not Cosima Shalizi. I edited that comment up the wazoo in the 5 minutes allotted for doing so, but missed that!
Damn! Damn! Damn! Damn!
I've grown accustomed to that mistake.
I’ve read of a number of examples like this. Basically people who worked on a farm or had a practical job would answer questions one way that made sense to them, but wasn’t abstract so they got the answer wrong. They were never taught to think that way in school since it didn’t make them better farmers or carpenters, etc. But they were smart enough to build and feed a nation.
Just my way of reminding everyone that if you think IQ measures some kind of natural ability you’re an idiot even though you might have a high IQ.
Great
The IQ test has to be based on some common knowledge. It has to be given in a language that everyone understands, for example. This may be the main reason that immigrants (European) in the early 20th century tested low in the early days of IQ testing, although there obviously could be other cultural factors. But this common knowledge is not only different for different cultures, it changes over time. Penmanship was very important a hundred years ago, but may be entirely abandoned in the future. Kids were spending time on that and not on things that they have to know now. It's impossible to design an "intelligence" test that is completely devoid of the influence of common knowledge, whether this is based on cultures from different places or different times. If people now were given tests from many decades ago, it's possible that they would score lower on an absolute scale, since they aren't taught the same things and the things they learn - or the way they are taught to think - are not on the test. This assumes that the tests are not exactly the same every year. If they are kept the same, then improvement would be explained by teaching to the test. If you know exactly what questions will be asked it is certainly possible to do better than if you don't know.
The whole problem stems from the fact that we don't know exactly what it is that IQ is measuring. What it almost certainly does not measure is inborn mental capacity (I understand that this was the original purpose of the thing).
BTW look at the twenties: lots of people voted for or otherwise supported fast its leaders. What do lots of people now? Vote or otherwise support fascist leaders. Seems to me the Norwegians have a point here...
I took an online IQ test a few weeks ago, turns out my healing color is lavender.
A tiny group of people is getting smarter, and the vast bulk of the population is staying the same intelligence.
I dunno. In the 1920's most Americans were dirt farmers with poor educations. Every IQ test I've ever taken seemed mostly to measure education level, so I can believe in the 20's pretty smart people could test in the 70's.
"...Why has no one done it?"
Anything to do with IQ is taboo in the woke academy.
I don't have a hard time believing that IQ rose worldwide, but stayed flat in Norway. Nutrition, education, lead, disease, ... would all have an effect.