From: Timothy Bates (tbates@bunyip.bhs.mq.edu.au)
Date: Fri Dec 18 1998 - 03:13:22 MST
Hal Finney said
>The January, 1999 issue of Scientific American has a profile of James
>R. Flynn, discoverer of the Flynn effect
Actually it was well known prior to James' popularisation of the effect.
Until his work, most of us had simply discounted it as an artifact of
something unrelated to underlying intelligence. It may turn out to be
such.
>which we have discussed here
>occasionally. This is the observation that IQ test raw scores have
>steadily risen over the last century, suggesting that people are in some
>sense getting smarter. It appears that the average person today would
>have scored at near genius levels on IQ tests 100 years ago.
Not the average person by any means, but yes, since the war increases of
up to a standard deviation have been observed on some, but not all, tests.
Defining genius as scores >140, 9.2% of Netherlanders would score in this
range using 1945 norms.
>Flynn is an interesting character, with a far left wing background
and foreground as well, i understand. far left for this list anyhow ;-)
>Despite Flynn's political beliefs, he says he has deep regards for Jensen
>as a scholar. Nevertheless, he "nearly roars" out a denial when asked
>directly whether he believes that black people "are genetically inferior
>for a kind of intelligence that pays dividends in the computer age."
>I found this somewhat inconsistent; if he is so certain about this that
>he is willing to shout his denial, how could he respect someone who has
>come to the other view?
because anyone who has talked to Art for more than 10 minutes recognises
that he is a real scientist: insightful and precise with an honest
curiosity. his latest book on the g factor is virtually an encyclopedia.
His previous works are in daily use when most texts are propping up
equipment in the back of the lab.
>My conclusion is that Flynn probably does not view the matter as clearly
>established, and that intellectually he can see how someone could come
>to the opposite conclusion.
The "matter" is simply one of fact: scores have increased.
The real question is why? This is in no-way settled.
Flynn argues that we cannot be more intelligent (he sees no signs of it)
and that therefore the tests are to be viewed as rather distant
indicators of general ability.
There are a range of other interpretations, most simply, there are two
main alternatives.
1. Average IQ HAS increased. Scholars argue that this could be due to
either a decrease in the the number of people with nutritional
deficiencies for instance.
2. The tests have been made less valid as all children now have 7 years
of head start at macdonalds (it is the macDonalds place-mat type tests
which have shown the greatest grade inflation. This could easily account
for the increase in the same way that giving a person the same crossword
puzzle every day for 7 years might explain their filling it out rather
rapidly ;-)
I have a set of web pages on IQ that some of you may find useful in
navigating these issues for yourselves.
http://teach.bhs.mq.edu.au/~tbates/
http://teach.bhs.mq.edu.au/~tbates/104/104_overview.html
cheers,
tim
____________________
Dr. Timothy Bates Don't compromise. Use QuickTime.
Dept Psychology <http://www.apple.com/quicktime/>
Macquarie University <http://www.QuickTimeFAQ.org/>
Sydney NSW 2109 Australia
tbates@bunyip.bhs.mq.edu.au
Get QuickTime Announce -- your source for QuickTime news and information
<mailto:quicktime-announce-subscribe@public.lists.apple.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:03 MST