4 ms·

At the core of this article, to my mind (and ignoring Flynn's typical baby-boomer lament that kids today don't know what I know), is the false dichotomy of "nat

At the core of this article, to my mind (and ignoring Flynn's typical baby-boomer lament that kids today don't know what I know), is the false dichotomy of "nature vs nurture." The article claims that IQ is 80% predicted by genes by adulthood. It's the same point stressed by Charles Murray in "The Bell Curve," which suggested that government social programs were a waste because African Americans lacked the genes for higher IQ and were therefore doomed to poverty [1]. But then, as the article notes, if IQ is so reliant on genes, then why the Flynn Effect? Why are IQs collectively rising year-over-year in our society [2]? If it is the result of our modern society, where technology perpetually challenges us to think abstractly every waking minute of our lives, then wouldn't the Flynn Effect eventually level off at some point in the future? If it really is 80% genes (and I'm still waiting for my 23andMe results to identify the specific SNPs responsible for my Mensa membership) then how far can that 20% environmental influence take us? These are the most interesting questions to me. Our brains exhibit a high-degree of plasticity. Making students and teachers aware of neuroplasticity can have significant positive outcomes on their education [3][4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect [3] http://www.edutopia.org/blog/neuroscience-higher-ed-judy-willis http://www.edutopia.org/blog/neuroscience-higher-ed-judy-wil... [4] http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec09/vol67/num04/How-to-Teach-Students-About-the-Brain.aspx http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec0... *edited for formatting.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Maybe IQ rises because people are learning to take IQ tests. I read in some HN posting: in the 40's folks registered ~70 on IQ tests (old tests found in drawers at some University). The questions were 'trick questions' and the test-takers weren't familiar, so answered pragmatically and were marked wrong. Example: "There are no Rhinos in Germany. Munich is in Germany. How many Rhinos are in Munich? A) 0 B) 1 C) 3 D)other" Folks would answer B. We imagine they are thinking "Well Munich is a big city, and probably has a zoo. There would be at least one Rhino in the zoo." Are they wrong? As an "IQ test question" they're wrong. But as a real-world issue, they're on the right track. Today people have encountered trick questions by the time they take IQ tests, so they do better. That might be all there is to it.
- John23832 10y ago
  > Maybe IQ rises because people are learning to take IQ tests. That's a pretty interesting thought. You could actually apply that to a lot of "trainable" personal metrics.
- mcguire 10y ago
  Interestingly, the article supports that hypothesis.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  For questions like that, it's less that it's a trick question (unless you're familiar with the Munich Zoo), than that you are only supposed to take the constraints of the problem as presented. The situation is presented as a hypothetical, it's not a trick, it's an abstraction that (many) people have trouble with. Like getting students to understand that a figure in a geometric sketch isn't precise, it's just representative, look at the numbers included to actually understand it.
  - barrkel 10y ago
    If it's abstract, why does it use a real place in the question? Answering the question correctly is in fact predicated on a sophisticated assumption of how this particular type of question is constructed: using metaphors of real life to construct abstract scenarios to test arithmetic or logical predicates. You need to know that it's abstract, and that the construction of the abstract scenario is by metaphor with reality.
lmm 10y ago
> But then, as the article notes, if IQ is so reliant on genes, then why the Flynn Effect? Why are IQs collectively rising year-over-year in our society [2]? Compare the increase in e.g. height, which for some reason people seem much happier to admit is mostly genetic.
- ideonexus 10y ago
  The increase in height observed over the past two centuries is mostly genetic? Would you mind providing a citation for that? Everything I've read attributes the recent increase in average height to environmental factors, such as improved nutrition and quality of life in the societies in which it is observed [1]. As with the increase in IQ, genes simply can't change that quickly to account for the change in height. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/human-height/ https://ourworldindata.org/human-height/
  - lmm 10y ago
    A quick search found http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human-height/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human-... - saying that height is 60-80% genetic (i.e. close to the 80% being claimed for IQ). My claim is not that the improvement is necessarily genetic - just that the improvement in height is comparable to the improvement in IQ. So there's no contradiction.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Maybe IQ rises because people are learning to take IQ tests. I read in some HN posting: in the 40's folks registered ~70 on IQ tests (old tests found in drawers at some University). The questions were 'trick questions' and the test-takers weren't familiar, so answered pragmatically and were marked wrong. Example: "There are no Rhinos in Germany. Munich is in Germany. How many Rhinos are in Munich? A) 0 B) 1 C) 3 D)other" Folks would answer B. We imagine they are thinking "Well Munich is a big city, and probably has a zoo. There would be at least one Rhino in the zoo." Are they wrong? As an "IQ test question" they're wrong. But as a real-world issue, they're on the right track. Today people have encountered trick questions by the time they take IQ tests, so they do better. That might be all there is to it.

John23832 10y ago
> Maybe IQ rises because people are learning to take IQ tests. That's a pretty interesting thought. You could actually apply that to a lot of "trainable" personal metrics.
mcguire 10y ago
Interestingly, the article supports that hypothesis.
Jtsummers 10y ago
For questions like that, it's less that it's a trick question (unless you're familiar with the Munich Zoo), than that you are only supposed to take the constraints of the problem as presented. The situation is presented as a hypothetical, it's not a trick, it's an abstraction that (many) people have trouble with. Like getting students to understand that a figure in a geometric sketch isn't precise, it's just representative, look at the numbers included to actually understand it.
- barrkel 10y ago
  If it's abstract, why does it use a real place in the question? Answering the question correctly is in fact predicated on a sophisticated assumption of how this particular type of question is constructed: using metaphors of real life to construct abstract scenarios to test arithmetic or logical predicates. You need to know that it's abstract, and that the construction of the abstract scenario is by metaphor with reality.

lmm 10y ago

> But then, as the article notes, if IQ is so reliant on genes, then why the Flynn Effect? Why are IQs collectively rising year-over-year in our society [2]? Compare the increase in e.g. height, which for some reason people seem much happier to admit is mostly genetic.

ideonexus 10y ago
The increase in height observed over the past two centuries is mostly genetic? Would you mind providing a citation for that? Everything I've read attributes the recent increase in average height to environmental factors, such as improved nutrition and quality of life in the societies in which it is observed [1]. As with the increase in IQ, genes simply can't change that quickly to account for the change in height. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/human-height/ https://ourworldindata.org/human-height/
- lmm 10y ago
  A quick search found http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human-height/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human-... - saying that height is 60-80% genetic (i.e. close to the 80% being claimed for IQ). My claim is not that the improvement is necessarily genetic - just that the improvement in height is comparable to the improvement in IQ. So there's no contradiction.