Just back from teaching, James R. Flynn darts into his office to write down a revelation about Marx, free will, Catholicism and the development of the steam engine that came to him in the midst of his lecture. Busily scribbling, the professor of political science at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, declares that extemporaneous talking leads to creative thinking and new ideas. His pronouncement made, Flynn--who, it should be noted, talks for a living--is ready to discuss the insight that made him famous: the observation that intelligence quotients, as measured by certain tests, have been steadily growing since the turn of the century.

Flynn's carefully documented findings have provoked a sort of soul-searching among many in the psychological and sociological communities. Before Flynn published his research in the 1980s, IQ tests had their critics. In general, however, the tests were viewed as imperfect yet highly helpful indicators of a person's acuity and various mental abilities or lack thereof. But after the widespread discussion of the eponymous Flynn effect, nothing has been the same. Debates roil about what the tests really measure, what kinds of intelligence there are, whether racial differences persist and, if IQ truly is increasing, why and what the political and social implications are.

This article was originally published with the title Flynn's Effect.

1 Comments

1. 1. spiralsun1 06:45 AM 12/13/07

   Most of this can be explained by products of the western intellectual revolution from Europeans spreading out over the world. Much of what has been shown to be "environmental" as opposed to genetic in IQ has been factors other than education though -- things like nutrition pre-and post-natal, medicine and the elimination of disease, less birth trauma, etc. only a tiny percentage -- approx 5% -- has been shown to vary with intensive programs like "head start". Moreover, the RELATIVE DIFFERENCES between races have remained remarkably stable throughout this rise. Therefore, there MUST be an external third factor involved -- possibly epigenetic, activated genes or some sort of evo-devo effect earlier on. most likely it is population increase, and / or communication and technology (all European / western inventions, or the result of them) have made the difference. It would be nice to see a study over time of isolated bushmen populations or something, if that is even possible these days.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this