Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Mind
-
How to Enjoy Your Decision
5/22/13 -
Inside the Mind of a Psychopath
5/14/13
In the 1980s the psychologist and philosopher James Flynn noticed one of the most striking trends of the 20th Century: that IQ scores have increased by about three points per decade, across the globe, for as long as we’ve had recorded tests.
In his latest book, “What is Intelligence?” Flynn continues to refine reasons for the increase – and in doing so debunks the idea that IQ measures a genetically controlled quality and that any racial differences are deterministic.
Flynn notes that the very fact that there are significant generational gains in IQ means that the scores cannot be ruled by genetics.
Flynn found that the highest gains are not on subtests that measure vocab and arithmetic, but rather on culturally-loaded subtests with questions like “How are dogs and rabbits similar?” that can illicit different answers depending on one’s everyday life experience.
Flynn says our modern lives are more cognitively demanding and so we’ve acquired something he calls, “scientific spectacles.” Today, we are more likely to answer using abstract categories, like, dogs and rabbits are mammals, rather than the more concrete, like, dogs and rabbits are pets.
(The former by the way is considered the “correct” answer.)
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentNow if we can just get a handle on "elicit" versus "illicit".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf genetics has no bearing can you explain the significant difference in Ashkenazic Jews. Culture, I think not. Nature is full of basic differences, however we should lay these arguments to rest. Can you imagine what "proving" racial differences in IQ would do?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith regard to the Ashkenazic Jews, I would argue that most if not all of Ashkenazic Jews that were not among the elite in intellectual and political status were killed by the Nazis. Thus any claims of above the average intelligence for the this group is due to the elimination of the average and below peoples by the Holocaust.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Flynn effect was latched onto by those with an egalitarian political agenda like a drowning man would grab a life-preserver... James Watson was essentially correct in his comments on racial differences. The average IQ difference between African blacks and Europeans is very large (a standard deviation) and very stable. Blacks here in the USA have a smaller gap (no less stable -- despite Head Start programs and the like) and they are also about 20% mixed with white or European genes. Genetic studies are slowly revealing the complexity of IQ -- it is affected by many genes. The IQ of mixed American blacks follows the percentages of the respective genes pretty well. We know that MOST of the differences in IQ seen between individuals and groups is from genes. Things like nutrition and birth traumas are lumped in with the "environment" and have a greater effect than what we normally think of as "environment" (education and the like). people need to accept the truth about IQ and race.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Flynn Effect no more proves anything about the relationship of IQ and genes than metamorphosis proves that genes have no effect in butterflies, beetles, and moths....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by spiralsun1 at 01/08/2008 3:40 AM
The Flynn Effect is quite intriguing and James Flynn's explanation of it is brilliant. But this article takes things a bit futher than the evidence allows. Flynn does not claim, as this articles says, that " the very fact that there are significant generational gains in IQ means that the scores cannot be ruled by genetics." Within a generation, IQ differences are still valid. But neural plasticity combined with the contant intellectual demands required by the increasing complexity of modern life forces us to keep our brains sharper than the farmers of a century back. (Clan of the Cave Robot).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh my goodness! With the improper use of the word "illicit" in the article, the level of content credibility was immediately called to question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this