From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Mon Dec 21 1998 - 11:07:01 MST
Max M wrote:
> From: Timothy Bates <tbates@bunyip.bhs.mq.edu.au>
>
> >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 ...
> >
> >2. The tests have been made less valid as all children now have 7 years
> >of head start at macdonalds ...
>
> It could also be simply that since the IQ test has become the meassurement
> tool, the education system has been directed toward acheiving how to improve
> the scores in the IQ tests. The education has simply become more focused on
> teaching what is relevant for a high IQ-test score.
I don't think so. Having taken numerous IQ tests, which can depend on
mathematical knowledge or not, IQ tests can be tailored to someone with
absolutely no schooling at all (indeed, they have been used on dolphins, monkeys
and dogs), so I don't think you can teach someone to do well on any IQ test. I
do think that the shift in the schools from rote memorization to problem solving
may have some bearing on the shift in IQ, as I tested at 128 IQ in kindergarten,
but am now around 160. If the Flynn effect is exhibited in kindergarten age
children I don't think that education has anything to do with it. If the effect
is smaller than a high school graduate, then it may have an influence, but not
the whole ball of wax.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:04 MST