3 ms·
We do not even have good enough data to support IQ results in a single generation related to this... (there are problems when checking across cultures) Additio
by AstralStorm 8y ago
We do not even have good enough data to support IQ results in a single generation related to this... (there are problems when checking across cultures)
Additionally, the tests were modified over time.
Is the reaction test the same? Was it checked for reproducibility? Has an alternative hypothesis of slower muscle speed been excluded?
So, drawing any conclusion from these numbers is very, very risky, even riskier over time - unless you somehow invent time travel and give Victorian era people the exact same test we give people now.
Remember, IQ tests are graded across average in a generation...
- TangoTrotFox 8y agoOne standard measurement of IQ is the Stanford-Binet exam. It's been around since 1916 with extensive concern given to consistency in the 5 updates it has received over the century. And that consistency is determined through thousands of trials with demographically representative samples to avoid predictable issues like a self selection bias in testing. But like you mention the tricky part is that IQ is measured across an average in a generation. The mean is normalized to 100 with a standard deviation of about 15 points. An IQ of 115 does not mean you 'scored' 115 in a vacuum, it means you performed better than 84% of people. The idea that IQ would substantially increase or decrease for an entire population over very short periods of time (thus changing the meaning, in a vacuum, of e.g. 115 IQ over short periods of time time) was surprising, and that's precisely what the Flynn Effect [1] is. However that change is precisely measurable and enables researchers to produce comparable values between generations. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect