4 ms·

This hypothesis is contested. Average IQ results have gone up generation by generation. While IQ tests aren't a straightforward intelligence measure, it's at le

This hypothesis is contested. Average IQ results have gone up generation by generation. While IQ tests aren't a straightforward intelligence measure, it's at least a result based on data rather than conjecture.

ummonk 5y ago
The specific book linked in the grandparent’s post seems to be some silly pop science claim that human intelligence peaked a few thousand years ago when most humans were hunter gatherers, and subsequently declined. I believe you’re talking about the Flynn effect of rising IQs in the past several decades, which might have actually leveled off recently (or even reversed slightly) in developed countries.
ALittleLight 5y ago
This doesn't really make sense as a long term trend though. If I recall correctly the Flynn Effect is something like 3 points a decade, so people born ten decades were retarded by today's standards? If you look at older literature or school tests from the 19th century or similar it doesn't seem like people one hundred years ago were dumber than modern humans.
- SamPatt 5y ago
  Consider that the survivorship bias might be in play here. The writings / workbooks you see may have been from / for the brighter students, whereas the average may not have much work which remains today.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    It's not just the writings or workbooks that exist, but also the things that people read. For example, in his day, Mark Twain was a massively popular author. Were retarded people (projecting the Flynn Effect backwards) enjoying great literature? Seems implausible to me. If the average intellect at the time were relatively much reduced compared to the modern intellect I would expect the public to prefer simpler literature.
    - garbagetime 5y ago
      What do studies say about the Flynn Effect when it comes to the upper classes? My guess is that the upper classes have always had a decent diet and good living conditions. So, if improvements in those things are what is driving the Flynn effect, the upper classes were probably always just about as intelligent as the average person today. And, in all classes, at least a portion of people, who happened to have decent living conditions, would also be up to today's standards of intelligence.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        The Flynn effect is a very complex topic, so I don’t want to get too deeply into details here, but considering the totality of evidence, it is unlikely that nutrition and living conditions have much to do with it. Here is one piece of evidence against it: for upper half of Americans (in terms of economic prosperity), the improvements in nutrition and material living condition have, to a first approximation, maxed out by 1960 at the latest. The wealthier half of Americans in 1960 had no lack of food, neither in terms of quality or quantity, and things have not got significantly better since then (if anything, you could argue that the diets today are less healthy now). Certainly, they ate much better than even the wealthiest people did back before 1700, and had much better material conditions of existence. However, the Flynn effect gains kept steadily growing decade after decade, until 2010 or so.
xyzzyz 5y ago
Flynn effect gains in IQ scores are hollow. They, by and large, do not correspond to real gains in what people understand as intelligence. This is because they do not act on g. It is more useful to think of them as measurement error, as if yardsticks we used to measure length we’re getting shorter generation by generation: we’d observe then things getting apparently longer, but this elongation effect wouldn’t be real. We have known all of this for more than 2 decades now. This thread is full of people saying completely inane things about psychometric and intelligence research. I don’t blame them: the field itself is very technical, and at the same time there are plenty of people who don’t like its findings, and then misrepresent them (often deliberately) to the general public. For one thing, if you want to talk about anything related to IQ tests, but have no idea what the g factor is, please note that you are missing the absolute basics of the field, and you’ll be completely hopelessly confused by some easy to explain and understand facts.

ummonk 5y ago

The specific book linked in the grandparent’s post seems to be some silly pop science claim that human intelligence peaked a few thousand years ago when most humans were hunter gatherers, and subsequently declined. I believe you’re talking about the Flynn effect of rising IQs in the past several decades, which might have actually leveled off recently (or even reversed slightly) in developed countries.

ALittleLight 5y ago

This doesn't really make sense as a long term trend though. If I recall correctly the Flynn Effect is something like 3 points a decade, so people born ten decades were retarded by today's standards? If you look at older literature or school tests from the 19th century or similar it doesn't seem like people one hundred years ago were dumber than modern humans.

SamPatt 5y ago
Consider that the survivorship bias might be in play here. The writings / workbooks you see may have been from / for the brighter students, whereas the average may not have much work which remains today.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  It's not just the writings or workbooks that exist, but also the things that people read. For example, in his day, Mark Twain was a massively popular author. Were retarded people (projecting the Flynn Effect backwards) enjoying great literature? Seems implausible to me. If the average intellect at the time were relatively much reduced compared to the modern intellect I would expect the public to prefer simpler literature.
  - garbagetime 5y ago
    What do studies say about the Flynn Effect when it comes to the upper classes? My guess is that the upper classes have always had a decent diet and good living conditions. So, if improvements in those things are what is driving the Flynn effect, the upper classes were probably always just about as intelligent as the average person today. And, in all classes, at least a portion of people, who happened to have decent living conditions, would also be up to today's standards of intelligence.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      The Flynn effect is a very complex topic, so I don’t want to get too deeply into details here, but considering the totality of evidence, it is unlikely that nutrition and living conditions have much to do with it. Here is one piece of evidence against it: for upper half of Americans (in terms of economic prosperity), the improvements in nutrition and material living condition have, to a first approximation, maxed out by 1960 at the latest. The wealthier half of Americans in 1960 had no lack of food, neither in terms of quality or quantity, and things have not got significantly better since then (if anything, you could argue that the diets today are less healthy now). Certainly, they ate much better than even the wealthiest people did back before 1700, and had much better material conditions of existence. However, the Flynn effect gains kept steadily growing decade after decade, until 2010 or so.

xyzzyz 5y ago

Flynn effect gains in IQ scores are hollow. They, by and large, do not correspond to real gains in what people understand as intelligence. This is because they do not act on g. It is more useful to think of them as measurement error, as if yardsticks we used to measure length we’re getting shorter generation by generation: we’d observe then things getting apparently longer, but this elongation effect wouldn’t be real. We have known all of this for more than 2 decades now. This thread is full of people saying completely inane things about psychometric and intelligence research. I don’t blame them: the field itself is very technical, and at the same time there are plenty of people who don’t like its findings, and then misrepresent them (often deliberately) to the general public. For one thing, if you want to talk about anything related to IQ tests, but have no idea what the g factor is, please note that you are missing the absolute basics of the field, and you’ll be completely hopelessly confused by some easy to explain and understand facts.