4 ms·

> But all of these genes together account for just a small percentage of the variation in intelligence test scores, the researchers found; each variant raises o

> But all of these genes together account for just a small percentage of the variation in intelligence test scores, the researchers found; each variant raises or lowers I.Q. by only a small fraction of a point. OK. Even if you believe there's an objective measure of intelligence and that IQ tests do a good job at measuring this (both very questionable premises), it's worth keeping in mind that slight monetary motivation can boost IQ scores by 10 points[1], and the general population's scores go up about 3 points every 10 years[2]. Much more of an impact than the genes here that correlate with "only a small fraction of a point" difference. [1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/motivation-may-influence-iq-scores https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/motivat... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/

MagnumOpus 9y ago
You are 40 years out of date. The Flynn effect disappeared in the 1970s once everyone had compulsory secondary education and access to decent nutrition. Scores have been flat since then.[1] To your other point: just like money, a lot of other variables can influence test scores. As long as everyone in the study group gets the same monetary motivation or lack thereof, results will be robust. [1] https://image.slidesharecdn.com/intelligence-150210083926-conversion-gate01/95/intelligence-47-638.jpg?cb=1423579241 https://image.slidesharecdn.com/intelligence-150210083926-co...
- Chathamization 9y ago
  > You are 40 years out of date. The Flynn effect disappeared in the 1970s once everyone had compulsory secondary education and access to decent nutrition. Scores have been flat since then That's addressed in my second link (published 2014): The mean effect size for 53 comparisons (N = 3,951) (excluding three atypical studies that inflate the estimates) involving modern (since 1972) Stanford-Binet and Wechsler IQ tests (2.93, 95% CI [2.3, 3.5], IQ points per decade) was comparable to previous estimates of about 3 points per decade, but not consistent with the hypothesis that the Flynn effect is diminishing. As for your other point, the results of that study suggest that at least a large part of what's being tested is motivation. If people have motivations besides money (as most people do), or if monetary motivations aren't uniform across the population, this is going to influence the test. This is also a relatively recent study. It's likely that there are many other factors that have a large influence on the test that haven't been studied yet. At the very least, being able to significantly alter the test scores by giving someone a small monetary incentive shows that the scores aren't simply capturing innate ability.

MagnumOpus 9y ago

You are 40 years out of date. The Flynn effect disappeared in the 1970s once everyone had compulsory secondary education and access to decent nutrition. Scores have been flat since then.[1] To your other point: just like money, a lot of other variables can influence test scores. As long as everyone in the study group gets the same monetary motivation or lack thereof, results will be robust. [1] https://image.slidesharecdn.com/intelligence-150210083926-conversion-gate01/95/intelligence-47-638.jpg?cb=1423579241 https://image.slidesharecdn.com/intelligence-150210083926-co...

Chathamization 9y ago
> You are 40 years out of date. The Flynn effect disappeared in the 1970s once everyone had compulsory secondary education and access to decent nutrition. Scores have been flat since then That's addressed in my second link (published 2014): The mean effect size for 53 comparisons (N = 3,951) (excluding three atypical studies that inflate the estimates) involving modern (since 1972) Stanford-Binet and Wechsler IQ tests (2.93, 95% CI [2.3, 3.5], IQ points per decade) was comparable to previous estimates of about 3 points per decade, but not consistent with the hypothesis that the Flynn effect is diminishing. As for your other point, the results of that study suggest that at least a large part of what's being tested is motivation. If people have motivations besides money (as most people do), or if monetary motivations aren't uniform across the population, this is going to influence the test. This is also a relatively recent study. It's likely that there are many other factors that have a large influence on the test that haven't been studied yet. At the very least, being able to significantly alter the test scores by giving someone a small monetary incentive shows that the scores aren't simply capturing innate ability.