New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Race, IQ and Flynn

James Flynn, who noticed that IQ scores have risen by three points every decade (a trend called the Flynn Effect), makes a case for why any racial differences in IQ are not immutable and caused by genetics. For more see his latest book, "What is Intelligence? Beyond the Flynn Effect."

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


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.)

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe