Comments on: The Flynn effect

By: MKHackensack

MKHackensack — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:28:44 +0000

Based on my study of Dennis Miller, and extrapolating to the general population, I’m forced to conclude that IQ’s are actually declining.

By: crystal

crystal — Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:55:16 +0000

What about tests that are [ostensibly] culturally-unbiased? Here, for example is an image-based test: http://www.geocities.com/brainforce2/

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:19:46 +0000

Trivia: those on the eugenics side of the IQ debate often refer to the Flynn effect as the Lynn-Flynn effect. [After the ludicrous Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster, who argues that dysgenics is a pending crisis through lowered IQ (while claiming credit for Flynn’s discovery of increasing IQ over time), and argued that exposure to Irish Gaelic lowered measured IQ’s in the Republic of Ireland relative to the UK (this was before he discovered the Pioneer Institute’s gravy train, BTW, and was going on his good Ulsterman prejudices).]

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:44:36 +0000

Oh, and on the matter of “race”, I agree wholehearedly. It’s a terribly misleading term and should be fought wherever it appears. However, I was arguing for some sort of validity to “race” because since the word is still useful to many people, it necessarily is valid in some sense. To successfully argue that people forgo that usage requires recognition of this—otherwise they won’t listen at all. So, my strategy is to aknowledge what “race” actually does mean, and then guide them toward an alternate word on the basis of demonstrating that it doesn’t mean some other things that it is commonly supposed to mean and is thus misleading. My experience is that if you just start off with “race has no scientific basis”, the majority of people will tune you out since they will believe you are contradicting manifest reality—they will believe you are asserting the word is entirely without meaning, which it clearly is not.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:39:21 +0000

“There you go – it’s probably more of an American thing, isn’t it? Or “Anglo” at large, maybe. Probably because that’s where the idea of IQ was developed (if I’m not wrong?).“mc

You’re right. That’s why I have specified “American” several times in this context. The more you take this IQ thing away from that context, the less reliable it is, I’d wager. But I still assert that some kind of test that measures what other people evaluate as “smart” is possible. But it will be normalized to that common notion of “smart” which quite emphatically may be far, far from some sort of universal quantification of intelligence that it might be thought to be. So, I suppose I’m repeating myself. :) I think it’s relevant and measureable, but I’m quite agnostic on what “it” is. The only thing I’m pretty sure of is that it’s almost certainly not what we conventionally think “it” is. And while it may have a great deal of meaning within a certain context, that context may be far narrower than we expect.

By: mc

mc — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:12:37 +0000

Correction: when I wrote “My objections are not based on some idea of equality or absence of differences” – I meant, I don’t deny there are differences in intelligence and smartness among different individuals, obviously, just like I don’t deny there are differences that can be conveniently identified as “racial”, or better, ethnic (which I believe is a more complete and at the same time accurate concept). So the phrase should have been “My objections are not based on some idea of equality as absence of differences”. (Which wouldn’t be a proper idea of equality…) Obviously the recognition of evident (ie. physical aspect – or even gender, say) or even less evident or instantly identifiable differences (ie. intelligence) doesn’t deny equality in the “right” sense of the term, ie. being equal as humans, having equal rights, etc.. Just in case my previous wording was a bit ambiguous…!

By: mc

mc — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:03:04 +0000

keith mc ellis: It seems to me that since the gestalt quality “smartness” is commonly perceived—and even more recognized in its extreme absence—that we don’t have to throw the entire concept overboard. It probably means something. Yes, of course. But smartness (or intelligence – and that’s already two different ideas) is not an IQ test. Is not measured by it cos it’s something much more diversified, and can contain a lot more things. Someone could have performed badly or not particularly well in an IQ test, and still, they could be very smart in every common meaning of the word. “Race” does mean something in the contemporary world Yes, I understand what you mean there, but when I think of what a certain group has in common, and what differentiates it from another, I think of a lot more than physical traits or common ancestors. To be honest, most of the time, I don’t hear often, and wouldn’t expect to hear often, the word “race” used seriously and literally today, apart from within a racist context. Probably for statistical purposes, that may be still a useful classification in some areas – but even when it’s used so neutrally, even when I do understand the context in which it’s used neutrally, well… to me at least, all the implications of the concept of “race”, from the most “neutral” to the most charged ones, are all in there, in that word, they’re bundled in it. They can’t be escaped. The first things it calls to mind are not pleasant or neutral at all. In the context of black Americans, “race” actually comes relatively close to meaning what people suppose it means. Yes, in a sense, but it’s a specific context, and a specific history, it’s not exactly the same elsewhere. And it has to do with other factors. Plus, origins or ethnic identity is not “race”. In other words, I do accept that it can be used neutrally as a synonym for that, but I think it shouldn’t. A difference between groups with different origins, some different recognisable physical traits, and, as is the case, maybe even culture or language etc., does exist, that’s why it’s perceived, so we shouldn’t dismiss it – but I’m more familiar with it being described as “ethnic”, than a “racial” difference. “Race” has always been used soo arbitrarily since the start, it’s a joke. Thus, forensic scientists can make accurate generalizations about “negroid” skeletal features; and a connection can be made between race and a genetic condition such as sickle-cell anemia. Which misleads a lot of people into believing that the apparent accuracy of race=genotype within the context of American racial distinctions validates it in all population contexts. Which of course is a mistake and is not the case. Exactly… That’s why perhaps another word should be used, not just for the sake of language, not for “correctness”, but because that term is so loaded, it’s impossible (I think) to separate it from its negative connotations and its inherent arbitrariness and vagueness. You can see where I’m going in comparing the IQ debate to the race debate. Yes, I understand. I do have a problem with both concepts because of their arbitrary nature, still, I’m more inclined to accept the specific usefulness of the IQ tests to specific purposes, than even the most specific use of the term “race”… My objections are not based on some idea of equality or absence of differences. It’s that those differences – of “smartness” and intelligence, or of ethnic origins and background and culture etc. – are a lot more diversified. “IQ” is an attempt to measure what in American society is perceived as general “smartness”. There you go – it’s probably more of an American thing, isn’t it? Or “Anglo” at large, maybe. Probably because that’s where the idea of IQ was developed (if I’m not wrong?). I don’t get the idea there’s the same level of interest or focus on IQ tests elsewhere.

By: mc

mc — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:45:39 +0000

PS - msg: I hadn’t read the last comments yet, ok, I get it and I think you’re absolutely right when you say “This “received wisdom” on the other hand, that anything before the middle 19th century was ignorant superstition at best is pure bunk“. There’s not always such a received widsom though, consider that “main” religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hunduism and Buddhism are all from way back before the 19th century. (And perhaps could do with a little updating in certain areas…) But what I mean is, regardless of what we each think of religions in general or specific religions, they are still a part of public life, and not often dismissed as mere superstition. Anyway that’s a whole other field to me, when you brought up the contrast with “indigenous” living I was thinking essentially of the practical aspects and impact of modern technology, not systems of belief, social organization, traditions, arts, etc. I don’t think we can measure any “collective intelligence”, much less by relying on those aspects. I think it’s more useful to try and understand the innner workings of any society at any place and time in history, than put it up against some supposed model. So if what you meant is that technological advancement is not enough to “advance” intelligence, I agree there. If you meant something else, well, then I’m too dumb to get it :)

By: mc

mc — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:55:59 +0000

msg: well, now it’s even less clear than before! :D “So, yes, there are no races. But there is racism.” Yes. So…? I kind of get what you mean when you say “it’s real and it isn’t at the same time”. But… I wasn’t touching on the ways the idea of “race” has been used for political, ideological, social ends. It’s the concept itself, that was born as completely arbitrary and has been discredited, not just for the aberrations it brought about, but for its nature. Like Keith said, basically. OF course classifications can be useful, but I don’t think “racial groups” is the right definition either. Maybe “ethnic groups” is more correct, because that includes everything from culture to religion to traditions to origins to language and nationality and all that combined is what makes up a “people”. I belong to a group as long as I can say “people of my kind”, but it’s not a biological thing. It can be in part, but it’s mostly a cultural thing. You’re right, the individual comes before a group. Then, I can identify more or less strongly with my ethnic background, whether or not I have the physical signs that show it, whether I look African, Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, whatever. It depends on every individual, as well as the society they live in, how much they take their ethnic identity to be relevant. But the “border” there cannot be race cos it’s an absurd concept. Take the classic “white Caucasian” definition. It’s supposed to include everyone from Norwegians to Spanish, and it doesn’t take much to see there’s a whole lot of differences not just in physical traits but in culture, mentality, language, nationality, between a Norwegian and a Spanish person. If I’m Spanish, I’m Spanish. I’m not “white Caucasian” even if my skin is “white”. We might as well classify people by the color of their hair or eyes, which is at least something more precise than “race”. “Race” is not an identity. It’s too restrictive and too broad at the same time. It’s superficial, it focuses only on physical traits and does a horrible job of simplifying differences too. I’m not really sure what you mean by the example of Condoleeza Rice in the White House… You say, “She is a black woman, yet she obviously isn’t as well.” Yes, but again, I don’t get the conclusion there? If I’m black, of course it does matter, to me, to everyone else, up to a degree, it just shouldn’t matter more than being Spanish or Norwegian or Brazilian, ie. it shouldn’t be a definition of a “border”. Even if being black in the US has a specific history it doesn’t have elsewhere, not in the same way, so it’s also a cultural or ethnic identity. But if you speak the same language, you’re the same people – that to me is the “classification”. I’m not American, so to me Rice is first of all an American. That’s the difference. I don’t quite understand your parallen with the instance of gays and transexuals, as far as I know, that’s the chosen grouping for most gay rights organization, to bundle gay-lesbian-bi-trans those together for advocacy purposes, and clearly there’s a common interests there plus we’re talking sexual preferences here so it’s entirely another field. It gets confusing to mix that in here… Re: your insistence on “indigenous living” – well, how is your definition of people “who had a wisdom we’ve never been allowed to even hear about; who were capable of evaluating technology from a much wider perspective than exclusively immediate advantage” not romanticised? And mind you, me saying that does not mean what you inferred, ie. that my “position of response is from within the safety of triumphantly successful western technology” and that to me “it must seem inevitable and inarguably better“. I don’t see a “better vs. worse” paradigm there in some absolute moral sense. It’s a practical difference. it’s you who brought up “indigenous living” as opposed to modern technological society, I’m just trying (hard) to understand what’s your point there. I’m not dismissing a style of living – chosen or not, past or present – that may be radically different from the western, wealthy, industrial, capitalist one (call it how you like). To me, “technologically advanced” simply means we can use electric cookers instead of fire to cook an egg, cars instead of horses, and planes instead of… nothing. It’s not a “triumph”, I don’t see it under any ideological tint, it’s just how things evolved in human history. It doesn’t necessarily means it’s worse or better in some abstract, absolute sense. It’s more comfortable, but worse or better in some “moral” sense, who can say that? You’re the one saying from a moral point of view, living in a “post-disaster-like” setting like you said, is worthier, brings more wisdom, etc.. But I think you’re wrong on the assumption on the process of technological choices – when you say: “Having to have proof of negative outcome in order to accurately decide whether to adopt some new tool or weapon is dysfunctional. It’s an open invitation to complete destruction. The moral version of that principle is that anything that isn’t provably wrong is automatically all right. That’s horseshit, pure and simple.” Well, you don’t think that the first human uses of fire worked the very same way? Humans had to see what fire did, and get the proof of negative outcome, to understand how it could work to a positive outcome. They had to see it burned things, before they used it to cook, no? Ditto for man-made tools. Someone had to discover a rock or a pointed object could kill living beings, before they used it to hunt, and make war – and before they improved existing objects and went from sticks and stones to spears and arrows. It is totally functional! you can’t use something til you know its negative effects. as kids we learn at an early age that putting your fingers on the cooker or in boiling water is not a clever thing to do because it hurts. That’s how we learn to use things properly. The basic workings of the human mind are the very same, the basic needs are the same, now the fact we have a lot more superfluous or induced needs is another matter. I can live without the mobile phone, even if, in a urban environment, it has become as useful as a car – but whether I live in the city or in a virgin forest, I can’t live without food or water, just like 30 thousand years ago… If I was shipwrecked on a desert island, survival would be my first concern. Of course, if I also had a mobile, I could also call rescuers instantly and not have to worry about food :) Which, whatever kind of moral judgement you want to give about it, is indisputably an advantage. Just like being able to survive diseases that were deadly only 300 hundred years ago is. Purely on a practical level, which is, after all, what drove technological progress, at least at its core (its aberrations being another topic entirely). So I really don’t get what you’re driving at there. And, erm, now I also lost track of why we’re discussing this and where it’s supposed to connect to the original topic…

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:52:03 +0000

mc: fair enough. My position on this, as it is on many things, is that when we say someone is “smart” we’re saying something meaningful, but very likely not meaningful in the way that we expect. That may sound like I’m splitting the difference, but what I’m really trying to do is be both accurate and precise. It seems to me that since the gestalt quality “smartness” is commonly perceived—and even more recognized in its extreme absence—that we don’t have to throw the entire concept overboard. It probably means something. Really, this is very much like the debate about “race”. People like msg are put off by blanket denials of the validity of “race”, and rightly so. “Race” does mean something in the contemporary world; and, at the risk of repeating myself, it means what it means. However, it doesn’t mean what people explicitly claim that it means. That is, it doesn’t correspond to genotype. Furthermore, it just so happens that the overwhelming majority of black Americans share a few common ancestors, and thus they are, in fact, genotypically distinct. In the context of black Americans, “race” actually comes relatively close to meaning what people suppose it means. Thus, forensic scientists can make accurate generalizations about “negroid” skeletal features; and a connection can be made between race and a genetic condition such as sickle-cell anemia. Which misleads a lot of people into believing that the apparent accuracy of race=genotype within the context of American racial distinctions validates it in all population contexts. Which of course is a mistake and is not the case. You can see where I’m going in comparing the IQ debate to the race debate. “IQ” is an attempt to measure what in American society is perceived as general “smartness”. No doubt said intelligence is far more specialized than is supposed; but within this narrow context it may mean closer to what people suppose it means than you are willing to admit. That is, it well may reasonably accurately measure what is commonly perceived as “smartness”, yet it also may be the case that “smartness” simply doesn’t mean what we commonly suppose it means. And yet, it means something. It’s quite useful to say, “She’s a really, really smart person.” It will continue to be useful to say that.

By: mc

mc — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:53:38 +0000

keith: you’re right, I was overstating the case against the IQ tests. I have an aversion to that kind of thing when taken too seriously, especially if it’s connected to the whole “race” debate. I do agree that they measure some specific skills, yes, that may be very relevant to certain academic/teaching purposes. My point is, those skills, and even academic and school results overall, are not enough to “define” one’s intelligence. I take intelligence to mean a lot more than those skills that can make you successful in an IQ test and/or in school and university. In life, “success” means something very different than scores. Emotional intelligence, adaptation skills, communication abilities, sociability, character etc. those are undefinable gifts that are a lot more precious. Which I guess is what everyone here was implying already so, nothing shockingly original for me to say :)

By: msg

msg — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:25:08 +0000

If you can find the courage necessary to actually take a stand yourself, which is to say, to speak from your own convictions, if you have any, as opposed to parasitically attaching rhetoric to what I’ve said in earnest, please do so. I’ll tear you a brand new asshole. On any subject you want.

By: mg

mg — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:59:15 +0000

Though semantics aside I’ll say firmly that it existed And you say this without ever having heard about it? The idea that until a few thousand years ago we were nothing but a bunch of incompetent grunting morons is ludicrous Is it? Some of us are still exactly that. It is only logical to conclude that without books and enlightening blogs like CT, the condition would be far more prevalent. As long as you keep the debate firmly in urban environments you’ll win. Take it into the jungle for a month or so and you might not feel so smug about it. Since neither of us is likely posting from the jungle, I take it that you can't win?

By: msg

msg — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:03:18 +0000

I’m talking about it. I didn’t say specifically I knew about it. Though semantics aside I’ll say firmly that it existed. This “received wisdom” on the other hand, that anything before the middle 19th century was ignorant superstition at best is pure bunk. The timeline says we existed in our present form, as a species, for what? a hundred thousand years? more? not less. The idea that until a few thousand years ago we were nothing but a bunch of incompetent grunting morons is ludicrous. That same vicious desperation is behind all the nonsense about indigenous people. It’s still hard for a lot of intelligent people to work with the idea of complex moral and ethical systems being in place in pre-Columbian America. As long as you keep the debate firmly in urban environments you’ll win. Take it into the jungle for a month or so and you might not feel so smug about it.

By: mg

mg — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:38:57 +0000

msg: I’m talking about people who had a wisdom we’ve never been allowed to even hear about Excuse me, but how do you know anything about that wisdom without being allowed to even hear about it?