Flynn effect, is intelligence actually increasing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Do you think it means intelligence is on the rise or is it a fluke?

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Do you think it means intelligence is on the rise or is it a fluke?

There is no doubt that IQ is on the rise as the article states. Many possible reasons are suggested in the article, some of which are not doubt true. For example, in Zambia, I have no doubt that nutrition plays a large role in intelligence and better nutrition over time means higher intelligence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is no doubt that IQ is on the rise as the article states. Many possible reasons are suggested in the article, some of which are not doubt true. For example, in Zambia, I have no doubt that nutrition plays a large role in intelligence and better nutrition over time means higher intelligence.

I wonder if you can quantitatively assign intelligence #'s to the human race as a whole. For instance, you imply that for whatever reason in your region intelligence was lower there than now, maybe for nutritional reasons, whatever. So you have a population in change intelligence wise. So if you chart that for the whole human race there should be an IQ score for the race as a whole say compared to 100 years ago. That should % of college grads now vs then for instance, or the # of scientific paper written by a given population then V now. Would the % of college grads be more of a cultural thing or would it be an indication of increased intelligence?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I wonder if you can quantitatively assign intelligence #'s to the human race as a whole. For instance, you imply that for whatever reason in your region intelligence was lower there than now, maybe for nutritional reasons, whatever. So you have a population in change intelligence wise. So if you chart that for the whole human race there should be an IQ sco ...[text shortened]... llege grads be more of a cultural thing or would it be an indication of increased intelligence?

I think that if you want to quantitatively assign intelligence #'s, you first have to be very clear about how exactly you define intelligence.

Originally posted by Palynka
I think that if you want to quantitatively assign intelligence #'s, you first have to be very clear about how exactly you define intelligence.

Yes indeed. Like is it success in school, success in job, success in patents, success in codebreaking, success in languages, success in the arts, what criteria do you use?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yes indeed. Like is it success in school, success in job, success in patents, success in codebreaking, success in languages, success in the arts, what criteria do you use?

I honestly don't know. As you point out, there is a multidimensional aspect to intelligence and so any single number will rely on some arbitrary weights to each dimension. This seems flawed from the start.

To go back on topic, though, I like to think of the Flynn effect as an improvement in software. The genetic hardware cannot possibly have changed that much in one or two generations, so the improvement must come from how we use that hardware.

Originally posted by Palynka
I honestly don't know. As you point out, there is a multidimensional aspect to intelligence and so any single number will rely on some arbitrary weights to each dimension. This seems flawed from the start.

To go back on topic, though, I like to think of the Flynn effect as an improvement in software. The genetic hardware cannot possibly have changed that much in one or two generations, so the improvement must come from how we use that hardware.

But does it really imply that if a person from the 1920's were given a test today, the average of that day, IQ of 100, would average more like 80 today? Could that be true?
The thing is, these scores are not just from countries with recently improved health care, nutrition, better schools and whatnot, it's a world wide thing.

You could make a case for just living in our era with computers, fast cars, jet travel, iphones, and the like, it takes more intelligence to be able to interact with all that, like you say, software changes.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But does it really imply that if a person from the 1920's were given a test today, the average of that day, IQ of 100, would average more like 80 today? Could that be true?
The thing is, these scores are not just from countries with recently improved health care, nutrition, better schools and whatnot, it's a world wide thing.

You could make a case for j ...[text shortened]... takes more intelligence to be able to interact with all that, like you say, software changes.

Again, it depends how you define intelligence. I think that when most people say intelligence they are thinking of the hardware part ("he is intelligent" as opposed to "he learned how to be intelligent"😉.

So I find it very hard to believe that has changed. What I think has changed is that people are more used to thinking in the abstract terms that the questions require. If you been doing it since early childhood (from going to school, reading, playing computer games, etc.) then you're going to perform better because you have learned (hopefully 😛) how to go about thinking about these problems.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Would the % of college grads be more of a cultural thing or would it be an indication of increased intelligence?

Well in my part of the world the percentage of college grads is more or less entirely dependent on the number of colleges available. Everyone goes to college if they can, there just aren't enough colleges to go round, then there is the money side of things too. Not everyone can afford to go to college.

Don't underestimate nutrition. In my part of the world it is a major factor when it comes to IQ.
I would say that culture too plays an important role. Eduction starts at home, and unless your parents are not only educated, but also try to pass on some of that education to their children from an early age, the children will be at a disadvantage. It takes several generations for education to really sink into a population.

As for the question of what is intelligence, the article was talking about IQ, which really is a measure of how well you do at IQ tests.

I do think that the brain thrives on activity. I think my son has a more active life brain wise than I did as a child. I did not have computers or even much tv, only books and some board games to be intellectually stimulating. He has far more stimulation.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But does it really imply that if a person from the 1920's were given a test today, the average of that day, IQ of 100, would average more like 80 today? Could that be true?

The average person in the 1920s was illiterate and so could not even do an IQ test.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The average person in the 1920s was illiterate and so could not even do an IQ test.

Yeah, there is that. You have to have a certain standard of literacy to actually do an IQ test, which by no means says that population is stupid. There are also tests not involving the need to read but they are not used as much, mainly on primates, which have shown in some cases an IQ close to human, in the 80 range for some gorilla's.

Here is a link to non-verbal IQ tests:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Verbal-Or-Non-Verbal-IQ-Tests-For-Special-Education---Which-is-Best-For-Your-Child?&id=1997090

I wonder if there is much of a difference in nutrition in the US. Is say this because in the US there is a about a 15 difference between self identified whites and blacks. Most of the IQ stuff I've read rates races something like this:

blacks < native americans < whites < east asians

Originally posted by Eladar
I wonder if there is much of a difference in nutrition in the US. Is say this because in the US there is a about a 15 difference between self identified whites and blacks. Most of the IQ stuff I've read rates races something like this:

blacks < native americans < whites < east asians

I think that goes to show how biased the tests are. There are no differences between Asian brains and Black brains per se but cultural differences abound. Suppose they designed the test around blacks, how to get by in the projects, that kind of thing, how well would an Asian buffered as they are by their family, big kids help little kids with homework, etc., family businesses helping #2 son start some business.

All those differences are not taken into account and of course will effect the score. How bout if we could go back in time to Neandertal days and THEY made up an IQ test, about how you tell what are the best hunting grounds, what herbs do you use to cure a tummy ache, how is the best way to hid to trap your prey, that kind of thing. Not many people on Earth now would get a very high score, eh. Feral Aborigines would probably have the highest IQ on the planet from that perspective, eh, maybe Inuit.

You can be sure no high born white, black, Asian, or Hispanic would do well on that kind of test I can assure you.

Are you sure there are no differences? If there are no differences in bodies, then why is it that you do not see whites winning medals at the olympics in sprinting events? Is it because there are no white people who try to run sprints?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yeah, there is that. You have to have a certain standard of literacy to actually do an IQ test, which by no means says that population is stupid. There are also tests not involving the need to read but they are not used as much, mainly on primates, which have shown in some cases an IQ close to human, in the 80 range for some gorilla's.

Which only highlights the fact that measuring intelligence is not an easy thing to do. There is clearly a massive gap between some aspects of human intelligence and gorilla intelligence, so the IQ difference should equally be large. If the test is measuring something that Gorillas are particularly good at then they may excel. It is difficult to lest the various aspects of intelligence and to give each aspect a fair weighting. Should a great composer or a great chess player be given better rating?

To what extent can we consider skills education and to what extent can we call them intelligence?
I think that it is a mistake to try and separate intelligence from eduction as the two are intimately linked. Our ability to use our brain is largely a function of our knowledge and skilled gained through experience (education).
As eduction levels improve, so does IQ.
The ease with which we are educated is a function of hardware (genes and nutrition), but the education we achieve is a function of both hardware and environment (culture, deliberate eduction, home environment etc).