James Flynn studies intelligence at the University of Otago in New Zealand. And he features prominently in an article called "Can We Keep Getting Smarter?" in the September issue of Scientific American magazine. Back on July 10, Flynn visited the SA offices, where he chatted with a group of editors
James Flynn studies intelligence at the University of Otago in New Zealand. And he features prominently in an article called “Can We Keep Getting Smarter?” in the September issue of Scientific American magazine. Back on July 10, Flynn visited the SA offices, where he chatted with a group of editors.
See what we're tweeting about
DNLee5 you look awesome!! :) @SuzieZUMO @arikia @maggiekb1
JenLucPiquant The Ophthalmology of a Redon-ized Bosch: interesting rumination on his "Seven Deadly Sins" (ca. 1400) http://t.co/mo2spfiRTr JenLucPiquant Of mice and men: "genes do vary, and they vary subtly. There is no one crystal ball, not even for mice" http://t.co/bmm4WeCXNi
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
Listen to this Podcast
9 Comments
Add CommentYou'd think that the ability to interpret reality accurately would have been an evolutionary advantage, especially when preyed upon by your own kind
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe better an individual at interpreting reality accurately, the more intelligent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's true - https://www.facebook.com/groups/247514481932070/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased only on the print article, the claims of increasing intelligence seem dubious and unsupported, putting aside for a moment if the article gives any serious meaning to "intelligence".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe claims were based on two so-called intelligence tests.
Neither example given, was shown to meet any criteria of being "culture-independent", they were just claimed to be culture-independent.
For one type of test quoted, - how do objects A & B compare - the judgement of which answers show "higher" intelligence is completely culturally dependent. I do not see how an assessment that some type of categorization - for example fruit vs vegetable - is more "intelligent" than another - possibly color, shape, etc - is in any way an intrinsic measure of a culturally independent "intelligence" factor.
For both type of tests (how do object A and B compare, and pattern recognition) , no consideration is given to how in such a testing obsessed society, students are merely learning how to do better on standardized tests or simply becoming more familiar with the type of test question.
@Andrew, brain tissue is one of the most expensive types of tissue next to digestive tissue, so there is a cost for intelligence. The fact that children take so long to learn to walk is just one of the prices we pay. When speaking in evolutionary terms it isn't a matter of more is better. It is a cost benefit analysis. Also keep in mind as the old joke says; it isn't important to be able to out run the bear, it is only important that you can outrun the other guy being chased. In other words, sometimes it is only important that you are better than the competition and not that you have maximized some trait.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow ironic that this article on "modernity", whatever that is, making us smarter, and the Mind Matters article stating that people's intuitive reasoning methods are, supposedly, worthless should appear on the same page. All of a sudden, qualities of the "modern world" are supposed to be raising more intelligent people, James Flynn claims, yet, at the same time, Jason Castro contends, intuitive, "naive" reasoning methods are all but utterly useless!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote, among other things, the reliance on the all but universally discredited idea of the IQ to "validate" Mr. Flynn. Only a couple of decades ago, it was denounced as meaningless, now Flynn is riding to fame and political influence based on it! Are IG tests valid or not? If you look to the definition of IQ tests, you see a strong trend toward standardization of material, yet those who want to make students just signing their name sufficient to get an "A", standardization is excoriated. In the vein of those who condemned them, to what extent are IQ tests produced today truly, reliably demonstrable of intelligence and to what extent does it just represent what those designing the test wanted them to say?
Consider, for example, the point in the audio about the "test" to prove that headmen of Russian villages were "stupid". It was put to them, "Whre there is always snow, bears are white. What color are bears at the North Pole?" They replied that they had never been to the North Pole, so they didn't know. But, face it, there's always snow in Siberia, but bears there are brown! They had no reason to take what they were posited as true and reason from it. The audio condemns them for not taking the hypothetical, in other words, for being suspicious of the tester. But, face it, can you really test those who would ask loaded, and inappropriate, questions like that? The Flynn Effect, for example, only says that the shape of modern scoiety is making people more apt to come to conclusions Flynn personally and arbitrarily adjudicates to be more "intelligent", but that doesn't mean the conclusions others come to are untrue! Only that they don't satisfy Flynn's bias! To what extent can "science" be trusted not simply to be assembling fraudulent collections of stuff to convince the gullible what the "scientists" want? This may be removed for saying this, comments on other "science" websites were removed for much the same, which is evidence for just how much "science" can't be trusted.
"What do dogs and rabbits have in common?" What a relief! Flynn has finally determined that the correct answer is "They're both mammals." I suppose I'll have to delete other thoughts I had, such as both having 4 legs, both being available as a pet, both being signs in the Chinese Zodiac, or both being used as food in various parts of the world. It is true that we often use our "Scientific Spectacles" while a the "Utilitarian Spectacles" were used more often a century ago. But to find "intelligence" in the ability to parrot back a single correct answer means Flynn has on "Scientific Blinders." I find much greater intellegence in the ablity to come of with 20 different ways that dogs and rabbits are similar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the reply. I find your last sentence a bit paradoxical though. Isn't the position that you are ''better than the competition'' mean that ''you have maximized some trait?'' By the way, I saw a TED video in which was said that the human digestive system has the equivalent in neurons as does the brain of a cat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs an increase in abstract thinking always "smarter"? An essay "I am not a trope" decried the pervasive labeling of anyone and everything using a category from popular culture, old tv shows. Societal "trolls" go out of their way to take anything someone says and cast them into a caste that explains away individual thinking. Abstraction is a great lever, when appropriate. But so is brute force and hard work and observation...these too are qualities that create good things. Our increase in IQ could then be a measure of the increasingly artificial world in which we live. Note that today, the physically strong, except in criminal acts, have no competitive advantage. Where as the overly verbal, can defend, attack and make a name for themselves on the Internet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this