> You are 40 years out of date.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. Score

> You are 40 years out of date.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.