4 ms·
The first two comments here make me wonder how many people will read the submission through to the end. Please do. This is one of the most clear online presenta
by tokenadult 12y ago
The first two comments here make me wonder how many people will read the submission through to the end. Please do. This is one of the most clear online presentations of what the Flynn effect is all about. (By contrast, the Wikipedia article is still TERRIBLE.) Contrary to what the second comment posted says, Flynn is a very highly regarded researcher on psychology. Arthur Jensen wrote in 1987, in his festschrift Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy "Now and then I am asked by colleagues, students, and journalists: who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind. His book, Race, IQ and Jensen (1980), is a distinguished contribution to the literature on this topic, and, among the critiques I have seen of my position, is virtually in a class by itself for objectivity, thoroughness, and scholarly integrity." And Charles Murray, surviving author of The Bell Curve, wrote in his back cover description of Flynn's 2007 book What Is Intelligence? "This book is a gold mine of pointers to interesting work, much of which was new to me. All of us who wrestle with the extraordinarily difficult questions about intelligence that Flynn discusses are in his debt."
Not everyone knows yet that IQ test scores have been rising steadily around the world throughout the century when IQ tests have been in common use in the developed world. Further gains in IQ are expected in most developing countries, although some developed countries (notably, those in Scandinavia) may be seeing the end of this trend. This phenomenon of IQ test scores rising over time ("secular increase in intelligence," from the point of view of psychologists) is these days called "the Flynn effect" since Herrnstein and Murray referred to it that way in the 1994 book The Bell Curve. That terminology has become mainstream because Flynn was the researcher who did the most to raise awareness of the phenomenon and confirm it across data sets from all over the world. Flynn had some important publications in the flagship psychology research journal in the United States, Psychological Bulletin,[1] that are widely cited to this day. The 2006 lecture text linked here is Flynn discussing the implications of the rise of IQ scores, what they mean for the definition of human intelligence and what societal changes we can expect to go along with rising IQ.
AFTER EDIT: I don't fully agree with Flynn's political opinions, but he expresses them very thoughtfully, while introducing a lot of interesting data I don't see often mentioned in other books on social policy, in his book Where Have All the Liberals Gone?[2] I liked that book a lot better and learned more from it than I expected to.
[1] Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological bulletin, 95(1), 29.
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn1984b.pdf http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn1984b.pd...
Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological bulletin, 101(2), 171.
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn1987.pdf http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn1987.pdf
[2] http://www.cambridge.org/tn/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/american-government-politics-and-policy/where-have-all-liberals-gone-race-class-and-ideals-america http://www.cambridge.org/tn/academic/subjects/politics-inter...
- api 12y agoThe best simple explanations I've heard for the Flynn effect are better nutrition and outbreeding. The world today is seeing a historically unprecedented degree of migration and genetic mixing, which typically produces stronger not weaker offspring in various ways (on average). It's one way the Nazis were utterly wrong. Their program of Aryan purity would likely have produced a master race of inbred knuckle-dragging ubermenschen.
- danielweber 12y agoOnce you exclude the nasty effects of inbreeding, what's the evidence that mixing leads to healthier offspring?
- api 12y agoIt's actually a very complex subject. Start with things like outbreeding, heterozygote dominance, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcrossing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcrossing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis There are of course counter-cases. Nothing in biology is totalistic or absolute, including this sentence. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression Yet most of the evidence I've seen e.g. in immunology (which doesn't suffer from the PC bias against studying it like IQ) suggests that on average outbreeding tends to boost fitness to some extent. More distant crosses tend to have healthier immune systems... again on average. To a great extent outbreeding is the entire point of sexual reproduction-- to use mating assortment to decrease the likelihood of being stuck with lower-fitness genes that keep repeating in the same lineage. If it didn't work that way we'd probably all reproduce by budding. Edit: wacko left-field hypothesis: what if the immune system boosting effects of outbreeding have helped the human race avoid a global super-plague brought on by unprecedented degrees of mobility? In other words-- what if the genetic effects of all that mobility have counter-balanced the immunological risks?
- aswanson 12y agoThat's kind of like asking what's the evidence that smoking leads to cancer. Genetics works probabalistically; the chance that a deleterious mutation gets expressed increases for each generation of closed breeders.