The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Thompson ArchiveBlogview
What Do IQ Researchers Really Think About the Flynn Effect?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Flynn effect boy-and-abacus

 

The Flynn Effect was originally noted by Rundquist (1936) and Lynn (1982) and then Flynn (1984). Credit should probably go to Runquist, but a happy compromise is to call it the FLynn effect, in honour of the two major researchers. The history has been described by Lynn, in part of a Special Issue on the Flynn Effect in 2013. All the chapters in that issue are summarised here:

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/editorial-intelligence-special-issue/

Far from ignoring the effect, psychometricians have been working to understand it, and in the three years since the special issue further advances have been made in tracking down possible causes. Most recently, the theory that the Flynn effect results in part from an increase in the use of abstract reference frames in solving cognitive problems has been supported. I heard Jim Flynn propose that in 2007 and thought it unlikely, but the Estonian results support his hunch.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/instantiation-and-abstraction

The most comprehensive recent summary is Pietschnig, J., & Voracek, M. (2015). One Century of Global IQ Gains: A Formal Meta-Analysis of the Flynn Effect (1909-2013) and can be found here:

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/105-years-of-flynn-effect-very-fluid

The effect is strongest for fluid intelligence, and least on crystallised intelligence, though that has gone up as well. The bad news is that the effect is reducing in size, and even reversing in some countries.

Now to expert opinion. Experts should know more, be brighter than average, and to have practiced their trade for longer. Few will reach that level, and fewer will excel.

To be considered an expert for this survey, experts had published articles in or after 2010 in journals on intelligence, cognitive abilities and student achievement. The journals included Intelligence, Cognitive Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, New Ideas in Psychology and Learning and Individual Differences. Notice of the study was also emailed to members of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), and posted to the web site for the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences (ISSID). ISIR and ISSID support intelligence research and host professional conferences with intelligence researchers. Finally, the study was announced at the 2013 ISIR conference in Melbourne, Australia.

Are such people expert enough? First, here is the paper and the link:

Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: The FLynn effect and the future of intelligence. Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle. Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 242–247

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZM2l2cThQY05neUU/view?usp=sharing

Experts on intelligence, cognitive ability and student achievement were surveyed for their opinions on the causes of the 20th century rise in intelligence test results called the FLynn effect, on the causes of a possible end of the FLynn effect and on the future development of IQ in different world regions. Ratings from N=75 experts attributed the secular IQ rise to better health and nutrition, more and better education and rising standards of living.

Genetic changes were seen as not important. A possible stagnation or retrograde of the FLynn effect was attributed to asymmetric fertility (genetic and socialization effects), migration, declines in education and the influence of media. Experts expected 21st century IQ increases in currently on average low-ability regions (+6 to +7 IQ points, in Latin America, Africa, India) and in East Asia (+7 IQ), but not in the West (a stagnation, below +1 IQ), with a small decline in the US (0.45 IQ). Similar results were obtained for all experts and experts on the FLynn effect itself (mean r=0.90 to 0.97; N=17). The results correlated strongly with and confirmed a recent meta-analysis on the causes of the FLynn effect (r = 0.65 to 0.71; Pietschnig & Voracek, 2015).

We received a total of 265 responses from May 2013 to March 2014, at which time the survey was closed. The response rate was 20% of all invitations. The present article focused on the three questions on FLynn effects, which were answered by 75 respondents.

Incidentally, some commentators have suggested the sample size of experts is too small. It is a pity that many avoid giving their opinions, despite the anonymity of the survey. That said, the sample is probably too big. To be a real expert is difficult. Publishing a few papers is not enough, though you still know more about the topic than most people. Although I have read some of the literature, and have published on the subject, and edited the special issue of Intelligence, in my eyes I am not an expert. One needs to publish more than that, and over a longer period. Perhaps 50 at most can claim to be expert, and that may be too many. These authors selected 17 whom they judged to be really expert, and that feels about right. Some samples are better when they are small. The survey closed in 2014 the authors quote the results and then compare them to Pietschnig and Voracek’s 2015 meta-analysis as a benchmark. For once, we can work out whether the experts are really expert.

Flynn effect expert opinion

The authors say: For example, secular declines have been found for mental speed, digit span backwards, the use of difficult words, and color acuity, all of which are related to intelligence (Madison, Woodley of Menie & Sänger, 2016; Woodley et al., 2013; Woodley of Menie & Fernandes, 2015; Woodley of Menie, Fernandes, Figueredo, & Meisenberg, 2015; Woodley of Menie & Fernandes, 2016).

Three decades ago, Flynn (1987) argued that genetic changes could not explain the massive IQ gains in the 20th century. Our expert survey supports Flynn’s view. Experts tended to attribute the FLynn effect not to genetic factors but to environmental factors such as better health, more and better school education, better nutrition, rising standards of living, better education in families and better educated parents. Health improvements were rated as the most important cause.

Why is the Flynn effect petering out, or even reversing in the West?

Flynn effect end

“Having more children” and migration seem to be the main causes. Education systems and mass media also come in for criticism. I am not sure about these.

Tempting fate, the authors pressed experts to guess what the future of intelligence would be for different regions of the world.

Flynn effect in 2100

Poor countries are predicted to keep raising their game, and their intellects, richer countries less so. The USA is the only country predicted to decline in ability, presumably because of mass migration. The real experts take an even more jaundiced view, and hold out little hope for The West. These predictions will be partly testable within one generation, so pin this table to your study notice board, and test for goodness of fit in 2040.

The authors conclude:

The strong correlations between our expert ratings and the results of Pietschnig and Voracek’s (2015) study confirm the validity of expert opinions. Such opinions can stimulate future research and help to approximate truth (Rindermann et al., 2016). (Our survey was conducted before Pietschnig and Voracek’s (2015) article, which could not have anticipated our results). Of course, majority is not verity and expert opinions are no guarantee of truth, but experts tend to be more accurate than laypeople. In this regard, the similar results between the FLynn experts and all other experts are noteworthy. Ratings from the two groups (FLynn experts vs. general experts) correlated at r= 0.91 for FLynn effect causes, r = 0.91 for FLynn end causes and r = 0.88 for the prediction of future development (on average r = 0.90). Compared to all (only general) experts, FLynn experts rated education more highly for the FLynn effect; rated dysgenic effects of asymmetric birth rates and migration more highly for the end of the FLynn effect; and were more pessimistic about future gains in intelligence in the 21st century, especially in the West.

The delightful paradox of the FLynn effect is that all deliberate policies to boost IQ have failed, and the only apparent IQ boost has been achieved inadvertently as an indirect consequence of improving general health and education. This is good news.

I have forgotten how I answered the survey. My own view at the moment is that the closer a mental task approaches the requirements of a ratio scale, with a non-arbitrary zero point, as explained by SS Stevens, the less it is affected by IQ inflation. There is no overall Flynn Effect on digit span and little on maths, though Digit Span forwards may have increased a little, and digit span backwards decreased a bit.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/digit-span-bombshell

Doing mental puzzles is a better-known activity than it used to be decades ago, so there is a familiarity with testing approaches, but I doubt that generalizes to new, real life problems. Tests are approximations, after all, and if they get to be too well known in their general approach the less they represent the shock of really new problems, which are the ultimate intelligence test. People are more willing to guess on tests. Earlier generations were more cautious. There is a small contribution because of increases in brain size. Although the experts give much emphasis about the positive effects of longer education for more people, I agree that there is convincing data in support of that effect, but am a bit unsure about the long-term magnitude of the effect.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/school/

So, a summary would be that the improvements in health and education that have been enjoyed by most people in the world over that last century have probably boosted their mental ability, but in richer countries the effect has levelled off, and in several it has gone down.

Keep watching the skies.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Flynn Effect, IQ 
    []
  1. D. K. says:

    Whence come the IQ scores? If we were talking about a truly randomized sample of the world’s twenty-something population, over the past ten decades, I would be as impressed as the sailors in the Royal Navy, back in the day. If, instead, we are talking, as I suspect, mostly about samples of impressed ten-year-old public-school students, then I would have alternative explanations to the dubious belief that most populations have gotten extraordinarily smarter, in real terms, over the past century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Triumph104
    Agree. I sure would like to know who is administering all of these IQ exams.

    Using standardized exams as a proxy for IQ, in the last 25 years Asian American verbal/reading scores on the SAT have caught up to whites. The Asiam American math score has always been higher. Filipino Americans now score the same as whites in math and verbal/reading, haviing previously underperformed in both areas. Despite billions being spent on the black-white achievement gap, no one ever discusses the complete closure of the Asian-white gap.

    On the 2015 TIMMS, the scores of black fourth graders was comparable to Croatia, Slovak Republic, New Zealand, and France. But the scores of black eight graders were comparable to Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Bahrain.

    https://nces.ed.gov/timss/timss2015/
    , @James Thompson
    As you will see from the meta-analysis, the IQs are drawn from a very broad range of sources. In the countries which still have national service, as in Sweden, there are almost birth cohort samples. In others there are national exam cohorts, particularly those that also do cognitive testing, and also general samples, clinical samples, and standardisation samples. One can have rising scores without anyone getting smarter, hence the need to distinguish between IQ inflation and real gains in ability.
    , @JADE
    the belief that any test can measure intelligence is supported by no one of any consequence.
    since at best only knowledge can be tested.
    does that mean that native american indians who could never impress a test..did not have intelligent members in their community?
    how about the autistic youth that is a math marvel..or can play the piano....without any training?
    no..there is NEVER a reason to be impressed by any test that claims or any person that claims..they can determine intelligence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jthompson/what-do-iq-researchers-really-think-about-the-flynn-effect/#comment-1706440
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. @D. K.
    Whence come the IQ scores? If we were talking about a truly randomized sample of the world's twenty-something population, over the past ten decades, I would be as impressed as the sailors in the Royal Navy, back in the day. If, instead, we are talking, as I suspect, mostly about samples of impressed ten-year-old public-school students, then I would have alternative explanations to the dubious belief that most populations have gotten extraordinarily smarter, in real terms, over the past century.

    Agree. I sure would like to know who is administering all of these IQ exams.

    Using standardized exams as a proxy for IQ, in the last 25 years Asian American verbal/reading scores on the SAT have caught up to whites. The Asiam American math score has always been higher. Filipino Americans now score the same as whites in math and verbal/reading, haviing previously underperformed in both areas. Despite billions being spent on the black-white achievement gap, no one ever discusses the complete closure of the Asian-white gap.

    On the 2015 TIMMS, the scores of black fourth graders was comparable to Croatia, Slovak Republic, New Zealand, and France. But the scores of black eight graders were comparable to Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Bahrain.

    https://nces.ed.gov/timss/timss2015/

    Read More
  3. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    What’s the deal with the expectation that Northeast Asians will raise their IQs by 7 points? It’s already high and aside from rural China they are fairly developed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Using standardized exams as a proxy for IQ, in the last 25 years Asian American verbal/reading scores on the SAT have caught up to whites. The Asiam American math score has always been higher.
     
    Language.
  4. People around the world don’t appear to be ”smarter” than their grandparents, period…

    ”Flynn” Effête also is part of leftist strategy to convince white gullible (err…) that it’s all ok, all ok…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Your second par only makes sense if the Flynn Effect is in reality non-existent and belief in it based entirely on made up evidence from psychologists who are virtually all leftists anxious for socialist policies in health, education and welfare to be adopted and consolidated, with no countervailing objective or non leftist research publications. Are you really willing to put your name to that and stake your credibility on it? If so you will no doubt be willing to name names and cite the most relevant research and conference papers.
  5. @D. K.
    Whence come the IQ scores? If we were talking about a truly randomized sample of the world's twenty-something population, over the past ten decades, I would be as impressed as the sailors in the Royal Navy, back in the day. If, instead, we are talking, as I suspect, mostly about samples of impressed ten-year-old public-school students, then I would have alternative explanations to the dubious belief that most populations have gotten extraordinarily smarter, in real terms, over the past century.

    As you will see from the meta-analysis, the IQs are drawn from a very broad range of sources. In the countries which still have national service, as in Sweden, there are almost birth cohort samples. In others there are national exam cohorts, particularly those that also do cognitive testing, and also general samples, clinical samples, and standardisation samples. One can have rising scores without anyone getting smarter, hence the need to distinguish between IQ inflation and real gains in ability.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    If you "have rising scores without anyone getting smarter," then your tests are not measuring native intelligence per se; they instead are measuring achievement on the task of taking such tests, however much native intelligence mediates that achievement. I assume that "national service, as in Sweden," is restricted to young adults, but those other descriptions of typical sources of IQ scores do not tell me the age distribution of the IQ test-takers that go into the overall pool from which the "FLynn Effect" has been derived. The IQ scores that really matter, to my mind, are those of people in their twenties, and preferably in their mid-twenties-- after physical maturation is complete, but before the aging process begins its insidious and nefarious influence on cognitive function.
    , @Sean
    Given that the less intelligent have been having more children for generations, and IQ has been increasing rather than falling, the Flynn effect (whatever it is) must be stronger than Thomson alows.
  6. JayMan says: • Website

    Most recently, the theory that the Flynn effect results in part from an increase in the use of abstract reference frames in solving cognitive problems has been supported. I heard Jim Flynn propose that in 2007 and thought it unlikely, but the Estonian results support his hunch.

    That is likely the primary cause.

    Welcome to the Unz Review, James!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    This seems like good opportunity to ask experts how it is that non verbal, non mathematical tests like the Ravens Progressive Matrices questions can reflect "an increase in the use of abstract reference frames"rather than just 1. more experience of taking tests;2. better health; 3. better nutrition. Is there a convincing or even plausible answer to that?
  7. JayMan says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    What's the deal with the expectation that Northeast Asians will raise their IQs by 7 points? It's already high and aside from rural China they are fairly developed.

    Using standardized exams as a proxy for IQ, in the last 25 years Asian American verbal/reading scores on the SAT have caught up to whites. The Asiam American math score has always been higher.

    Language.

    Read More
  8. D. K. says:
    @James Thompson
    As you will see from the meta-analysis, the IQs are drawn from a very broad range of sources. In the countries which still have national service, as in Sweden, there are almost birth cohort samples. In others there are national exam cohorts, particularly those that also do cognitive testing, and also general samples, clinical samples, and standardisation samples. One can have rising scores without anyone getting smarter, hence the need to distinguish between IQ inflation and real gains in ability.

    If you “have rising scores without anyone getting smarter,” then your tests are not measuring native intelligence per se; they instead are measuring achievement on the task of taking such tests, however much native intelligence mediates that achievement. I assume that “national service, as in Sweden,” is restricted to young adults, but those other descriptions of typical sources of IQ scores do not tell me the age distribution of the IQ test-takers that go into the overall pool from which the “FLynn Effect” has been derived. The IQ scores that really matter, to my mind, are those of people in their twenties, and preferably in their mid-twenties– after physical maturation is complete, but before the aging process begins its insidious and nefarious influence on cognitive function.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    As I recall the Swedish Million Man database is composed of roughly 20 year olds.
  9. Recall discussing this in my Behavior Genetics class back in 1984… It was a conundrum then,,, still relatively opaque

    Read More
  10. FKA Max says:

    but in richer countries the effect has levelled off, and in several it has gone down.

    This might be the explanation:

    Iodine Deficiency – An Old Epidemic Is Back
    The mineral is much more important that most realize
    Posted Aug 17, 2011

    [MORE]

    Until recently, about 25% of the iodine in the diet was from wheat, because iodine was used in the processing of flour. Now, however, a lot of flour in the U.S. is processed with a chemical cousin of iodine, bromide (potassium bromate), which helps makes flour doughier, rise higher, and gives the loaf a better appearance. But bromide is a double-edged sword: not only has it replaced iodine, it may block the activity of iodine. That’s also true for two more of iodine’s chemical cousins – chlorine and fluoride, both of which are common in drinking water. [...]

    Iodine deficiency isn’t only about our daily bread – it’s also about our daily salt. Most of the salt used in food processing isn’t iodized. And people are using less and less iodized table salt at home, because of the misguided medical advice (except in those with heart failure) to avoid salt. (People who eat more salt live longer: see Eat Less Salt – and Die?)

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/complementary-medicine/201108/iodine-deficiency-old-epidemic-is-back

    It is well known that micronutrient deficiencies change the development of intelligence. For instance, one study has found that iodine deficiency causes a fall, in average, of 12 IQ points in China.[37]

    Scientists James Feyrer, Dimitra Politi, and David N. Weil have found in the U.S. that the proliferation of iodized salt increased IQ by 15 points in some areas. Journalist Max Nisen has stated that, with this type of salt becoming popular, that “the aggregate effect has been extremely positive.”[38]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Nutrition

    A little OT, but it might be interesting to this discussion. I participated in the following discussion as commenter “Guest 101”:

    waffleironmarch
    said:

    September 1, 2016 at 11:14 pm

    Recent article ascribing increased intelligence to the level of blood supply to the brain rather than simply its overall size.

    http://m.phys.org/news/2016-08-smarter-brains-blood-thirsty.html

    https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/29/big-brained-black-billionaire/#comment-32962

    Guest 101
    said:

    September 2, 2016 at 8:45 am

    There was an interesting comment below the article you referenced: ”tinitus – Aug 31, 2016

    [”]Brain size has increased about 350% over human evolution, but we found that blood flow to the brain increased an amazing 600%[”]

    Actually what was observed was the increasing of the foramina carotid diameter. Carotid arteries are smaller in women [ http://m.phys.org/comments/391793277/

    Could the combination of a large brain and insufficient blood supply to it actually mean less brain power? Is the ratio between blood supply (carotid artery diameter) and brain size the true determinant of intelligence/brain power? Of course, a big brain plus sufficient blood supply (wide carotid artery diameter) would then likely mean very high intelligence/brain nerve cell connectivity/activity.

    Could especially women with large brains/heads, like Oprah, who lack the proper blood supply to power their large brains actually be the least cognitively competent?

    These findings from the study match with and confirm the findings and hypothesis I cited in my above comment on neural connectiveness and neural efficiency: ””We believe this is possibly related to the brain’s need to satisfy increasingly energetic connections between nerve cells that allowed the evolution of complex thinking and learning.”

    To allow our brain to be so intelligent, it must be constantly fed oxygen and nutrients from the blood.”

    Much food for thought.

    Thanks for sharing!

    https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/29/big-brained-black-billionaire/#comment-32976

    Read More
  11. res says:

    Thanks for the article, Dr. Thompson. Are there any analyses which try to separate out the Flynn effect for average and maximum (or smart fraction) IQs? The analogy I would use is average/maximum lifespan. Although average lifespan has increased phenomenally over the years (mostly due to better nutrition, public health measures, and medicine?) there has been little change in maximum lifespan.

    Another way of looking at this is how has the IQ distribution changed over time? (analogy being the mortality curve?) Is IQ becoming more normally distributed as environments have equalized?

    Is it reasonable to assume that historical elites would have had both superior environments and genetics? Because of a virtuous cycle between genetics and environment? (is it possible to ignore the occasional issues with royal/elite inbreeding?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Interesting question, and your analogy with average and maximum lifespan is apposite. I cannot answer it without some further reading, but I think you will need to look at ratio scores, not IQ scores, because those are re-standardized every 10 years, and thus lose the distributional quirks which would answer your question. By looking at reaction times, vocabulary scores calculated as word store totals, colour perception and so on Michael Woodley would have some indications, and it would fit with his theory that people are becoming more specialized in their mental abilities.
    Aasa Must at the University of Tartu has raw results from IQ tests over decades, together with some completion time data, so she and her husband would be another source of data.
    I will find out from them on your behalf.
    , @James Thompson
    Sorry, forgot about historical elites. Yes, we presume generally much better genetics and environments, inbreeding aside. Of course, they were selected for behaviours which might not be acceptable today, like murdering rivals. On the Gregory Clark hypothesis, they would most be bright, patient, and decisive.
  12. @D. K.
    If you "have rising scores without anyone getting smarter," then your tests are not measuring native intelligence per se; they instead are measuring achievement on the task of taking such tests, however much native intelligence mediates that achievement. I assume that "national service, as in Sweden," is restricted to young adults, but those other descriptions of typical sources of IQ scores do not tell me the age distribution of the IQ test-takers that go into the overall pool from which the "FLynn Effect" has been derived. The IQ scores that really matter, to my mind, are those of people in their twenties, and preferably in their mid-twenties-- after physical maturation is complete, but before the aging process begins its insidious and nefarious influence on cognitive function.

    As I recall the Swedish Million Man database is composed of roughly 20 year olds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Thanks! Does that data set, by itself, support the "FLynn Effect" to the same, or at least a similar, extent as the entire pool of IQ scores relied upon by Lynn, Flynn and more recent proponents of the reality of the phenomenon, though, Dr. Thompson?
  13. D. K. says:
    @James Thompson
    As I recall the Swedish Million Man database is composed of roughly 20 year olds.

    Thanks! Does that data set, by itself, support the “FLynn Effect” to the same, or at least a similar, extent as the entire pool of IQ scores relied upon by Lynn, Flynn and more recent proponents of the reality of the phenomenon, though, Dr. Thompson?

    Read More
    • Replies: @matt
    Flynn's 1987 paper relies largely on military data from countries with universal drafts. So these would be virtually all ~18 year old men in the country. The Dutch data is particularly good, and it shows some of the largest gains: ~20 points in 30 years.
  14. @res
    Thanks for the article, Dr. Thompson. Are there any analyses which try to separate out the Flynn effect for average and maximum (or smart fraction) IQs? The analogy I would use is average/maximum lifespan. Although average lifespan has increased phenomenally over the years (mostly due to better nutrition, public health measures, and medicine?) there has been little change in maximum lifespan.

    Another way of looking at this is how has the IQ distribution changed over time? (analogy being the mortality curve?) Is IQ becoming more normally distributed as environments have equalized?

    Is it reasonable to assume that historical elites would have had both superior environments and genetics? Because of a virtuous cycle between genetics and environment? (is it possible to ignore the occasional issues with royal/elite inbreeding?)

    Interesting question, and your analogy with average and maximum lifespan is apposite. I cannot answer it without some further reading, but I think you will need to look at ratio scores, not IQ scores, because those are re-standardized every 10 years, and thus lose the distributional quirks which would answer your question. By looking at reaction times, vocabulary scores calculated as word store totals, colour perception and so on Michael Woodley would have some indications, and it would fit with his theory that people are becoming more specialized in their mental abilities.
    Aasa Must at the University of Tartu has raw results from IQ tests over decades, together with some completion time data, so she and her husband would be another source of data.
    I will find out from them on your behalf.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    I will find out from them on your behalf.
     
    Thanks for this and your other responses!

    It seems like Galton's reaction time data would be a perfect source for looking at long term trends, but I've done web searches about it and there always seem to be issues about getting clean comparisons. Woodley's 2013 paper Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time is the best comparison I have seen. I find it hard to reconcile those results with the FLynn effect.

    Do you have any idea how representative Galton's RT sample was? I would expect his social/family circle to have been severely biased towards the smart side.
  15. @res
    Thanks for the article, Dr. Thompson. Are there any analyses which try to separate out the Flynn effect for average and maximum (or smart fraction) IQs? The analogy I would use is average/maximum lifespan. Although average lifespan has increased phenomenally over the years (mostly due to better nutrition, public health measures, and medicine?) there has been little change in maximum lifespan.

    Another way of looking at this is how has the IQ distribution changed over time? (analogy being the mortality curve?) Is IQ becoming more normally distributed as environments have equalized?

    Is it reasonable to assume that historical elites would have had both superior environments and genetics? Because of a virtuous cycle between genetics and environment? (is it possible to ignore the occasional issues with royal/elite inbreeding?)

    Sorry, forgot about historical elites. Yes, we presume generally much better genetics and environments, inbreeding aside. Of course, they were selected for behaviours which might not be acceptable today, like murdering rivals. On the Gregory Clark hypothesis, they would most be bright, patient, and decisive.

    Read More
  16. dearieme says:

    “It is a pity that many avoid giving their opinions, despite the anonymity of the survey.”

    Anonymity ain’t forever.

    Read More
  17. Just made my own FLynn predictions here: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-flynn-effect-to-2100/

    I think the psychometricians are far too optimistic on East Asia and Latin America, and too pessimistic on the US.

    Read More
  18. res says:
    @James Thompson
    Interesting question, and your analogy with average and maximum lifespan is apposite. I cannot answer it without some further reading, but I think you will need to look at ratio scores, not IQ scores, because those are re-standardized every 10 years, and thus lose the distributional quirks which would answer your question. By looking at reaction times, vocabulary scores calculated as word store totals, colour perception and so on Michael Woodley would have some indications, and it would fit with his theory that people are becoming more specialized in their mental abilities.
    Aasa Must at the University of Tartu has raw results from IQ tests over decades, together with some completion time data, so she and her husband would be another source of data.
    I will find out from them on your behalf.

    I will find out from them on your behalf.

    Thanks for this and your other responses!

    It seems like Galton’s reaction time data would be a perfect source for looking at long term trends, but I’ve done web searches about it and there always seem to be issues about getting clean comparisons. Woodley’s 2013 paper Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time is the best comparison I have seen. I find it hard to reconcile those results with the FLynn effect.

    Do you have any idea how representative Galton’s RT sample was? I would expect his social/family circle to have been severely biased towards the smart side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Participants were drawn from those visiting a national exhibition, and had reasonable social class representation. Woodley goes through this in his replies to criticisms of the sample.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/a-response-to-two-critical-commentaries
  19. @res

    I will find out from them on your behalf.
     
    Thanks for this and your other responses!

    It seems like Galton's reaction time data would be a perfect source for looking at long term trends, but I've done web searches about it and there always seem to be issues about getting clean comparisons. Woodley's 2013 paper Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time is the best comparison I have seen. I find it hard to reconcile those results with the FLynn effect.

    Do you have any idea how representative Galton's RT sample was? I would expect his social/family circle to have been severely biased towards the smart side.

    Participants were drawn from those visiting a national exhibition, and had reasonable social class representation. Woodley goes through this in his replies to criticisms of the sample.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/a-response-to-two-critical-commentaries

    Read More
  20. JackOH says:

    Thanks, Prof. Thompson, res, and all. Interested non-expert layman here, who’s sympathetic to intelligence research.

    “Experts should know more, be brighter than average, and to have practiced their trade for longer. Few will reach that level, and fewer will excel.” Thanks for that remark.:)

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Thanks, Prof. Thompson, res, and all…

    “Experts should know more, be brighter than average, and to have practiced their trade for longer. Few will reach that level, and fewer will excel.” Thanks for that remark.:)

     

    I would also like to thank you for that remark, for the article as a whole, and for this, "Perhaps 50 at most can claim to be expert, and that may be too many. These authors selected 17 whom they judged to be really expert, and that feels about right. "

    This article and the comments are a blessed relief from the usual UNZ “IQ” articles which can be summed up as “my IQ is bigger than yours, and it’s all due to my superior genetics, therefore I’m better and more deserving than you.”

    I have never had much interest in the subject until I started reading some of the wild comments and conclusions regarding IQ testing by people who obviously had no business saying much about it at all, especially the ones making wild generalizations that amount to “reasoning” such as this.: Group A has higher IQ scores than group B. I’m a member of group A, therefore I’m better than those in group B.

    I’m happy to see that people are stating that there are a lot of factors involved in measuring whatever it is they call intelligence such as “language,” an “increase in the use of abstract reference frames in solving cognitive problems,” and “If you ‘have rising scores without anyone getting smarter,’ then your tests are not measuring native intelligence per se; they instead are measuring achievement on the task of taking such tests, however much native intelligence mediates that achievement.”

    Perhaps you could comment on the validity, utility, and advisability of laymen extrapolating test performance variations between groups to making judgments on the relative “worth” of those groups.

    Thanks also to those commenters whose quotes I used.
  21. Sunbeam says:

    “Most recently, the theory that the Flynn effect results in part from an increase in the use of abstract reference frames in solving cognitive problems has been supported.”

    This little sentence has so much embedded in it.

    So is every last problem in the world amenable to “abstract reference frames?”

    Or has the current environment simply quit punishing this trait, as opposed to the past?

    You don’t get anything for free. In my experience we have a generation of “new men” who are incapable of finding their way from point A to point B without help. It’s really eerie. I’ve been around 20 somethings that literally cannot remember how to get to a place they’ve been to five times before. Or how to search around and find shortcuts for a place they’ve lived at for a while.

    And then there is the matter of being able to do relatively simple things like change a tire or simple carpentry.

    Dunno maybe this is a sea change and what was once important no longer matters at all. But to me at least the current trend definitely has some liabilities – if conditions changed of course, as they are always doing.

    Read More
  22. Sean says:
    @James Thompson
    As you will see from the meta-analysis, the IQs are drawn from a very broad range of sources. In the countries which still have national service, as in Sweden, there are almost birth cohort samples. In others there are national exam cohorts, particularly those that also do cognitive testing, and also general samples, clinical samples, and standardisation samples. One can have rising scores without anyone getting smarter, hence the need to distinguish between IQ inflation and real gains in ability.

    Given that the less intelligent have been having more children for generations, and IQ has been increasing rather than falling, the Flynn effect (whatever it is) must be stronger than Thomson alows.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Increased fertility of poorer and less able parents probably not the case prior to 1870. See "A Farewell to Alms" by Gregory Clark.
  23. OutWest says:

    Taking an isolated fact perhaps out of context, the new human brain is said to include many circuits and capacities that are preserved only by use or otherwise lost to wastage. This would suggest an incipient capacity for substantial growth in any human though of course there is still a broad distribution of maximum achievement. But such mechanisms would seem to support a Flynn effect result as a function of greater stimulation.

    Read More
  24. @Sean
    Given that the less intelligent have been having more children for generations, and IQ has been increasing rather than falling, the Flynn effect (whatever it is) must be stronger than Thomson alows.

    Increased fertility of poorer and less able parents probably not the case prior to 1870. See “A Farewell to Alms” by Gregory Clark.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    http://www.ulsterinstitute.org/preview/DYSGENICS_chapter1.pdf

    Fisher followed Galton in believing that social mobility over the course of centuries had led to the disproportionate concentration of the genes for high intelligence and strong work motivation in the professional class, and that, as a consequence, the low fertility of the
    professional class must entail genetic deterioration of the population in respect of these qualities. Fisher also followed and elaborated on Galton in his explanation for the inverse relationship between socioeconomic status and fertility: This was that intelligent and well-motivated young men rise in the social hierarchy and tend to marry heiresses as a way of consolidating their social position. Heiresses tend to come from relatively infertile stocks, because if the stocks had high fertility these women would have had brothers and would not be heiresses. The effect of this was that able men tended to marry infertile women, and so had few children. He cited data in support of his contention that fertility does have some heritability.
    Fisher proposed that this process has frequently occurred in the history of civilizations and explained their decay, and he instanced classical Greece, Rome and Islam as examples. He proposed a universal sociological law asserting that advanced civilizations are characterized by dysgenic fertility, and that this leads to genetic deterioration and ultimately to the decay of civilization. The Galton-Fisher theory of the causes of dysgenic fertility is rather implausible for several reasons. First, it is doubtful whether such an important fitness characteristic as fertility has any significant heritability because individuals who carried the genes for low
    fertility would have left fewer descendants, and these genes would have been eliminated. Second, even if fertility does have some heritability, it is questionable whether many able young men are sufficiently calculating to seek out and marry heiresses.
     

    The Darwin Galton family tree is usually seen in the light of consanguinity https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201002/identical-genetically-different-and-why-you-can-thank-your-mother

    But Darwin had time to cognate on evolution because he had the Wedgwood money from Joshua Wedgwood, who had kick started his career when he married a third cousin who was a substantial heiress.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    Dr T - this seems a good opportunity to ask for an explanation (or where to find it) of the applied mathematics (for calculated predictions in particular) of Total Fertility Rate and, especially, adjustments to be made for actual age of child bearing. (It strikes me that the comparison of Nigeria's TFF of 5.5 with Italy's 1.4 greatly understates the obvious consequence for the two continents - or at least overstates the time scale).

    Your help in spreaàding practical numeracy on demography would be gratefully welcomed.

  25. Sean says:
    @James Thompson
    Increased fertility of poorer and less able parents probably not the case prior to 1870. See "A Farewell to Alms" by Gregory Clark.

    http://www.ulsterinstitute.org/preview/DYSGENICS_chapter1.pdf

    Fisher followed Galton in believing that social mobility over the course of centuries had led to the disproportionate concentration of the genes for high intelligence and strong work motivation in the professional class, and that, as a consequence, the low fertility of the
    professional class must entail genetic deterioration of the population in respect of these qualities. Fisher also followed and elaborated on Galton in his explanation for the inverse relationship between socioeconomic status and fertility: This was that intelligent and well-motivated young men rise in the social hierarchy and tend to marry heiresses as a way of consolidating their social position. Heiresses tend to come from relatively infertile stocks, because if the stocks had high fertility these women would have had brothers and would not be heiresses. The effect of this was that able men tended to marry infertile women, and so had few children. He cited data in support of his contention that fertility does have some heritability.
    Fisher proposed that this process has frequently occurred in the history of civilizations and explained their decay, and he instanced classical Greece, Rome and Islam as examples. He proposed a universal sociological law asserting that advanced civilizations are characterized by dysgenic fertility, and that this leads to genetic deterioration and ultimately to the decay of civilization. The Galton-Fisher theory of the causes of dysgenic fertility is rather implausible for several reasons. First, it is doubtful whether such an important fitness characteristic as fertility has any significant heritability because individuals who carried the genes for low
    fertility would have left fewer descendants, and these genes would have been eliminated. Second, even if fertility does have some heritability, it is questionable whether many able young men are sufficiently calculating to seek out and marry heiresses.

    The Darwin Galton family tree is usually seen in the light of consanguinity https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201002/identical-genetically-different-and-why-you-can-thank-your-mother

    But Darwin had time to cognate on evolution because he had the Wedgwood money from Joshua Wedgwood, who had kick started his career when he married a third cousin who was a substantial heiress.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    Interesting.

    What tells me is that if a male wanted to game the system, practice personal eugenics or whatever, he should find the smartest woman he can - assuming he wants to have intelligent sons (with the daughter being a crapshoot depending on his own genetics).

    But has that ever been a thing? If it is useful, shouldn't this be a kind of observed behavior somewhere, at some time?

    Instead the book on men is they go for anything even plausibly female, as opposed to women who were historically more picky. Not that isn't good for women, it's just that it seems men have never found intelligence attractive in a woman for the most part.

    I know you can formulate a model showing some advantage to passing on genes via male promiscuity. But there are advantages to being discerning as well.

    So when has this ever been the case? Seems like the possible rewards of say a 10 point IQ advantage would have been noticed, and at least some people would have taken this path.

    (Just guessing you could get a 10 point swing from picking a smart mother, as opposed to a ditzy airhead.)
  26. Sunbeam says:
    @Sean

    http://www.ulsterinstitute.org/preview/DYSGENICS_chapter1.pdf

    Fisher followed Galton in believing that social mobility over the course of centuries had led to the disproportionate concentration of the genes for high intelligence and strong work motivation in the professional class, and that, as a consequence, the low fertility of the
    professional class must entail genetic deterioration of the population in respect of these qualities. Fisher also followed and elaborated on Galton in his explanation for the inverse relationship between socioeconomic status and fertility: This was that intelligent and well-motivated young men rise in the social hierarchy and tend to marry heiresses as a way of consolidating their social position. Heiresses tend to come from relatively infertile stocks, because if the stocks had high fertility these women would have had brothers and would not be heiresses. The effect of this was that able men tended to marry infertile women, and so had few children. He cited data in support of his contention that fertility does have some heritability.
    Fisher proposed that this process has frequently occurred in the history of civilizations and explained their decay, and he instanced classical Greece, Rome and Islam as examples. He proposed a universal sociological law asserting that advanced civilizations are characterized by dysgenic fertility, and that this leads to genetic deterioration and ultimately to the decay of civilization. The Galton-Fisher theory of the causes of dysgenic fertility is rather implausible for several reasons. First, it is doubtful whether such an important fitness characteristic as fertility has any significant heritability because individuals who carried the genes for low
    fertility would have left fewer descendants, and these genes would have been eliminated. Second, even if fertility does have some heritability, it is questionable whether many able young men are sufficiently calculating to seek out and marry heiresses.
     

    The Darwin Galton family tree is usually seen in the light of consanguinity https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201002/identical-genetically-different-and-why-you-can-thank-your-mother

    But Darwin had time to cognate on evolution because he had the Wedgwood money from Joshua Wedgwood, who had kick started his career when he married a third cousin who was a substantial heiress.

    Interesting.

    What tells me is that if a male wanted to game the system, practice personal eugenics or whatever, he should find the smartest woman he can – assuming he wants to have intelligent sons (with the daughter being a crapshoot depending on his own genetics).

    But has that ever been a thing? If it is useful, shouldn’t this be a kind of observed behavior somewhere, at some time?

    Instead the book on men is they go for anything even plausibly female, as opposed to women who were historically more picky. Not that isn’t good for women, it’s just that it seems men have never found intelligence attractive in a woman for the most part.

    I know you can formulate a model showing some advantage to passing on genes via male promiscuity. But there are advantages to being discerning as well.

    So when has this ever been the case? Seems like the possible rewards of say a 10 point IQ advantage would have been noticed, and at least some people would have taken this path.

    (Just guessing you could get a 10 point swing from picking a smart mother, as opposed to a ditzy airhead.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobRich
    "But has that ever been a thing? If it is useful, shouldn’t this be a kind of observed behavior somewhere, at some time?

    Instead the book on men is they go for anything even plausibly female, as opposed to women who were historically more picky."

    No. In the US the college system has always been to a fair degree about men finding suitably smart wives and vice-versa--the so-called MRS degree.



    Don't confuse pleasurable with marriageable.
  27. Sean says:

    What tells me is that if a male wanted to game the system, practice personal eugenics or whatever, he should find the smartest woman he can – assuming he wants to have intelligent sons (with the daughter being a crapshoot depending on his own genetics).

    It’s probably counter productive to choose a woman that way. I think Prof Badcock’s contention is that there must be male/female toggling of the form genetic intelligence takes in the sexes, and in women genetic intelligence tends to appears as what he dubs ” mentalistic” type of intelligence, an intuitive social cognition found in women with nice asses. It has bearing on the Flynn effect, because men who have a choice choosing women because they have a fantastic ass ( it was always been more or less accepted that a man could marry a low class but beautiful woman) does not seem to have had an ill effect on the children’s IQ.https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201308/reading-the-mind-in-waisthip-ratios-paradox-resolved

    Certainly exceptionally intelligent couples meeting at university or silicon valley would raise the generally accepted type of intelligence, but Badcock says that type of associative mating risks autism. He posits the existence of mentalistic savants, with an gift for understanding and directing others thoughts. I think you can guess who I am talking about when I mention there is someone in the US underestimated by everyone, but who used what have been proven to be immensely powerful social skills to astound the world. And he goes for the nice ass every time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    I think you can guess who I am talking about when I mention there is someone in the US underestimated by everyone, but who used what have been proven to be immensely powerful social skills to astound the world.
     
    Wasn't Trump's social skills what won the election. He went where no Republican wanted to go - a long border wall, support for the Detroit bailout, an expansion of Social Security benefits and trade barriers. Even so, he won a minority of the popular vote - 2.7m fewer than Hillary. For comparison, GWB had 0.5m fewer votes than Gore and 3m more votes than Kerry.
    , @sir mixalot

    in women genetic intelligence tends to appears as what he dubs ” mentalistic” type of intelligence, an intuitive social cognition found in women with nice asses.
     
    Human female hip fat appears to be a privileged store for omega-3 fatty acids necessary for infant brain development. Sexy hips = smarter babies.
    http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/whrlassekgaulin2008.pdf

    Interestingly, Asian cultures -- whose women are not notably "hippy" (at least by this hourglass-loving white guy's standards) -- are noted for giving lots of eggs and fish to their women during pregnancy. Culture compensating for biology?

  28. matt says:
    @D. K.
    Thanks! Does that data set, by itself, support the "FLynn Effect" to the same, or at least a similar, extent as the entire pool of IQ scores relied upon by Lynn, Flynn and more recent proponents of the reality of the phenomenon, though, Dr. Thompson?

    Flynn’s 1987 paper relies largely on military data from countries with universal drafts. So these would be virtually all ~18 year old men in the country. The Dutch data is particularly good, and it shows some of the largest gains: ~20 points in 30 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Perhaps as college attendance rates have massively increased over the last 100 years, teenagers have devoted more attention to their studies?
  29. anon says: • Disclaimer

    If IQ is normalized to UK then if Britain has been going backwards – due to immigration and iodine deficiency – then couldn’t that create an apparent Flynn effect?

    (Britain used to get lots of iodine via milk but I wonder if that is still true, reasons:
    - less milk drunk cos fat fad
    - lower fat milk drunk cos fat fad (if the iodine is concentrated in the fat?)
    - increased use of clover to feed cattle (blocks iodine transfer to milk for some reason)
    - new non-iodine teat disinfectant dips
    - EU reduced amount of iodine that could be added
    etc)

    I tested myself recently and was surprised i was deficient despite drinking 2-4 pints of milk a day so i think something is up.

    (Noticeable effect on metabolism since dosing up so I’m wondering if it’s connected to the obesity epidemic also?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    2nd point on this

    I've noticed I'm more alert and on the ball since dosing up on iodine which makes me wonder about your reaction time thing.

    Any way to get someone to test whether the reaction time of people with iodine deficiency goes up after they're dosed up?
  30. @JackOH
    Thanks, Prof. Thompson, res, and all. Interested non-expert layman here, who's sympathetic to intelligence research.

    "Experts should know more, be brighter than average, and to have practiced their trade for longer. Few will reach that level, and fewer will excel." Thanks for that remark.:)

    Thanks, Prof. Thompson, res, and all…

    “Experts should know more, be brighter than average, and to have practiced their trade for longer. Few will reach that level, and fewer will excel.” Thanks for that remark.:)

    I would also like to thank you for that remark, for the article as a whole, and for this, “Perhaps 50 at most can claim to be expert, and that may be too many. These authors selected 17 whom they judged to be really expert, and that feels about right. ”

    This article and the comments are a blessed relief from the usual UNZ “IQ” articles which can be summed up as “my IQ is bigger than yours, and it’s all due to my superior genetics, therefore I’m better and more deserving than you.”

    I have never had much interest in the subject until I started reading some of the wild comments and conclusions regarding IQ testing by people who obviously had no business saying much about it at all, especially the ones making wild generalizations that amount to “reasoning” such as this.: Group A has higher IQ scores than group B. I’m a member of group A, therefore I’m better than those in group B.

    I’m happy to see that people are stating that there are a lot of factors involved in measuring whatever it is they call intelligence such as “language,” an “increase in the use of abstract reference frames in solving cognitive problems,” and “If you ‘have rising scores without anyone getting smarter,’ then your tests are not measuring native intelligence per se; they instead are measuring achievement on the task of taking such tests, however much native intelligence mediates that achievement.”

    Perhaps you could comment on the validity, utility, and advisability of laymen extrapolating test performance variations between groups to making judgments on the relative “worth” of those groups.

    Thanks also to those commenters whose quotes I used.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Thanks, jacque sheete. I was thinking of how Prof. Thompson's careful remark regarding academic expertise contrasts with the preening, self-regarding behavior of some academic popinjays who teach at my local Podunk Tech. They seem to have forgotten their academic expertise lies within their dissertation, their current research interests within their academic specialty, and the specific milieu of their teaching experience. I've let myself be conned by at least two academic gamesmen whose bad case of "expertise creep" had them rambling on way outside of their skill set, and neither the weak provost nor the trustees had the nerve to shut them down. Live and learn.

    Like you, I'm having trouble with the "advisability of laymen extrapolating test performance variations between groups to making judgments on the relative 'worth' of those groups." Right now I think intelligence testing as we currently have it may offer secondary arguments for cutting back on costly remedial education that exists mostly for political purposes.

    "Group A has higher IQ scores than group B. I’m a member of group A, therefore I’m better than those in group B." I'm seeing that line of thought, too, in a few comments under IQ-related articles. I don't get it. If you're better, then what's the problem?

    Best wishes to you for the New Year.

  31. And the deepest of “thank yous” to Mr. Unz for this site, for allowing us to comment, and for publishing some worthwhile articles on this subject and many others as well.

    Happy New Year to all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Ditto!!

    Unz allows opinions which are usually censored.

    Cheers.
  32. snorlax says:
    @matt
    Flynn's 1987 paper relies largely on military data from countries with universal drafts. So these would be virtually all ~18 year old men in the country. The Dutch data is particularly good, and it shows some of the largest gains: ~20 points in 30 years.

    Perhaps as college attendance rates have massively increased over the last 100 years, teenagers have devoted more attention to their studies?

    Read More
  33. n230099 says:

    “The USA is the only country predicted to decline in ability, presumably because of mass migration. “

    In other places phoney wars are being used to cause ‘refugee’ crises to produce the migrations needed to ‘level’ the field.

    Read More
  34. @Santoculto
    People around the world don't appear to be ''smarter'' than their grandparents, period...

    ''Flynn'' Effête also is part of leftist strategy to convince white gullible (err...) that it's all ok, all ok...

    Your second par only makes sense if the Flynn Effect is in reality non-existent and belief in it based entirely on made up evidence from psychologists who are virtually all leftists anxious for socialist policies in health, education and welfare to be adopted and consolidated, with no countervailing objective or non leftist research publications. Are you really willing to put your name to that and stake your credibility on it? If so you will no doubt be willing to name names and cite the most relevant research and conference papers.

    Read More
  35. @JayMan

    Most recently, the theory that the Flynn effect results in part from an increase in the use of abstract reference frames in solving cognitive problems has been supported. I heard Jim Flynn propose that in 2007 and thought it unlikely, but the Estonian results support his hunch.
     
    That is likely the primary cause.

    Welcome to the Unz Review, James!

    This seems like good opportunity to ask experts how it is that non verbal, non mathematical tests like the Ravens Progressive Matrices questions can reflect “an increase in the use of abstract reference frames”rather than just 1. more experience of taking tests;2. better health; 3. better nutrition. Is there a convincing or even plausible answer to that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The Raven progressive matrices were developed in a desperate attempt by liberals to create a test that would be biased in favor of blacks.
    The idea was that the Stanford Benetton and Wischler tests were language based and thus biased against blacks.

    So a non language, completely visual test, the Raven Matrix test was developed to help blacks and hopefully not be helpful to Whites.

    It didn't work. The results were the same.

    As part of a college class in some liberalology nonsense I took the Raven progressive matrix test.
    That test is extremely biased in favor of artistic, visually conscious people such as myself.
    I can't see that it tests anything other than visual consciousness.

  36. From what I, an “outsider,” with little interest in the arcana of IQ research, can gather, it seems that Flynn himself at one time felt that IQ tests didn’t really measure “intelligence” per se, but he’s since changed that view.

    Since I have my hands full with other interests, could anyone here be so kind as to indulge me with insights on what the current respectable thinking is vis a vis what the tests are actually measuring?

    Please keep it simple. I have the IQ of an ice cube, the knowledge of a gnat and the time surplus of a monkey herder! ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred

    Since I have my hands full with other interests, could anyone here be so kind as to indulge me with insights on what the current respectable thinking is vis a vis what the tests are actually measuring?
     
    Not that I believe all neuroscientists (one of whom I am not) would agree, but the ability of different parts of the brain to communicate seems important. I have seen Dr. Thompson express that line of thought, IIRC.

    Short article:

    https://www.wired.com/2015/10/scientists-can-now-predict-intelligence-brain-activity/

    Other research has found some correlation with the size of certain regions.
  37. JackOH says:
    @jacques sheete

    Thanks, Prof. Thompson, res, and all…

    “Experts should know more, be brighter than average, and to have practiced their trade for longer. Few will reach that level, and fewer will excel.” Thanks for that remark.:)

     

    I would also like to thank you for that remark, for the article as a whole, and for this, "Perhaps 50 at most can claim to be expert, and that may be too many. These authors selected 17 whom they judged to be really expert, and that feels about right. "

    This article and the comments are a blessed relief from the usual UNZ “IQ” articles which can be summed up as “my IQ is bigger than yours, and it’s all due to my superior genetics, therefore I’m better and more deserving than you.”

    I have never had much interest in the subject until I started reading some of the wild comments and conclusions regarding IQ testing by people who obviously had no business saying much about it at all, especially the ones making wild generalizations that amount to “reasoning” such as this.: Group A has higher IQ scores than group B. I’m a member of group A, therefore I’m better than those in group B.

    I’m happy to see that people are stating that there are a lot of factors involved in measuring whatever it is they call intelligence such as “language,” an “increase in the use of abstract reference frames in solving cognitive problems,” and “If you ‘have rising scores without anyone getting smarter,’ then your tests are not measuring native intelligence per se; they instead are measuring achievement on the task of taking such tests, however much native intelligence mediates that achievement.”

    Perhaps you could comment on the validity, utility, and advisability of laymen extrapolating test performance variations between groups to making judgments on the relative “worth” of those groups.

    Thanks also to those commenters whose quotes I used.

    Thanks, jacque sheete. I was thinking of how Prof. Thompson’s careful remark regarding academic expertise contrasts with the preening, self-regarding behavior of some academic popinjays who teach at my local Podunk Tech. They seem to have forgotten their academic expertise lies within their dissertation, their current research interests within their academic specialty, and the specific milieu of their teaching experience. I’ve let myself be conned by at least two academic gamesmen whose bad case of “expertise creep” had them rambling on way outside of their skill set, and neither the weak provost nor the trustees had the nerve to shut them down. Live and learn.

    Like you, I’m having trouble with the “advisability of laymen extrapolating test performance variations between groups to making judgments on the relative ‘worth’ of those groups.” Right now I think intelligence testing as we currently have it may offer secondary arguments for cutting back on costly remedial education that exists mostly for political purposes.

    “Group A has higher IQ scores than group B. I’m a member of group A, therefore I’m better than those in group B.” I’m seeing that line of thought, too, in a few comments under IQ-related articles. I don’t get it. If you’re better, then what’s the problem?

    Best wishes to you for the New Year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Ah, bless you good sir!

    And thanks for this...

    Right now I think intelligence testing as we currently have it may offer secondary arguments for cutting back on costly remedial education that exists mostly for political purposes.
     

    That's often what it all too frequently comes down to. Cui bono, folla de dolla...

    This field is still, not surprisingly, apparently fertile for flim-flam, and that probably accounts, in large degree, for the surprisingly virulent defense of it which is often as hostile as it is vocal.

  38. @JackOH
    Thanks, jacque sheete. I was thinking of how Prof. Thompson's careful remark regarding academic expertise contrasts with the preening, self-regarding behavior of some academic popinjays who teach at my local Podunk Tech. They seem to have forgotten their academic expertise lies within their dissertation, their current research interests within their academic specialty, and the specific milieu of their teaching experience. I've let myself be conned by at least two academic gamesmen whose bad case of "expertise creep" had them rambling on way outside of their skill set, and neither the weak provost nor the trustees had the nerve to shut them down. Live and learn.

    Like you, I'm having trouble with the "advisability of laymen extrapolating test performance variations between groups to making judgments on the relative 'worth' of those groups." Right now I think intelligence testing as we currently have it may offer secondary arguments for cutting back on costly remedial education that exists mostly for political purposes.

    "Group A has higher IQ scores than group B. I’m a member of group A, therefore I’m better than those in group B." I'm seeing that line of thought, too, in a few comments under IQ-related articles. I don't get it. If you're better, then what's the problem?

    Best wishes to you for the New Year.

    Ah, bless you good sir!

    And thanks for this…

    Right now I think intelligence testing as we currently have it may offer secondary arguments for cutting back on costly remedial education that exists mostly for political purposes.

    That’s often what it all too frequently comes down to. Cui bono, folla de dolla…

    This field is still, not surprisingly, apparently fertile for flim-flam, and that probably accounts, in large degree, for the surprisingly virulent defense of it which is often as hostile as it is vocal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    js, I think it's possible to separate questions of the existence and measurability of the critter called intelligence, and questions about intelligence's connections to civic or political virtue. Some folks seem to have jumped the gun and equated high intelligence with high political virtue by assumption. I think "dfordoom" and others have noted that that assumption could lead us to some pretty strange political byways that actually reinforce existing policies of redistribution. What's that old saw about not asking for what you want because you may actually get it?)

    Again, I'm just a layman and casual reader, so I'm okay with trying to let Prof. Thompson's good articles and links do the talking.
  39. Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    This seems like good opportunity to ask experts how it is that non verbal, non mathematical tests like the Ravens Progressive Matrices questions can reflect "an increase in the use of abstract reference frames"rather than just 1. more experience of taking tests;2. better health; 3. better nutrition. Is there a convincing or even plausible answer to that?

    The Raven progressive matrices were developed in a desperate attempt by liberals to create a test that would be biased in favor of blacks.
    The idea was that the Stanford Benetton and Wischler tests were language based and thus biased against blacks.

    So a non language, completely visual test, the Raven Matrix test was developed to help blacks and hopefully not be helpful to Whites.

    It didn’t work. The results were the same.

    As part of a college class in some liberalology nonsense I took the Raven progressive matrix test.
    That test is extremely biased in favor of artistic, visually conscious people such as myself.
    I can’t see that it tests anything other than visual consciousness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Not so. Developed by John Raven as a test likely to be of use in all cultures, and with one of the most extensive databases of any group intelligence tests. Its creation was nothing to do with black/white group differences.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's_Progressive_Matrices
    , @RaceRealist88
    "The Raven progressive matrices were developed in a desperate attempt by liberals to create a test that would be biased in favor of blacks."

    I think you're confusing Raven’s with the B.I.T.C.H. IQ test.

    "Alley Apple is”

    “”I know you, shame” means”

    “Main Squeeze means”

    “A “handkerchief head” is"
     
    http://www.susanohanian.org/show_commentary.php?id=170

    http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED070799.pdf
  40. @jacques sheete
    From what I, an “outsider,” with little interest in the arcana of IQ research, can gather, it seems that Flynn himself at one time felt that IQ tests didn’t really measure “intelligence” per se, but he’s since changed that view.

    Since I have my hands full with other interests, could anyone here be so kind as to indulge me with insights on what the current respectable thinking is vis a vis what the tests are actually measuring?

    Please keep it simple. I have the IQ of an ice cube, the knowledge of a gnat and the time surplus of a monkey herder! ;)

    Since I have my hands full with other interests, could anyone here be so kind as to indulge me with insights on what the current respectable thinking is vis a vis what the tests are actually measuring?

    Not that I believe all neuroscientists (one of whom I am not) would agree, but the ability of different parts of the brain to communicate seems important. I have seen Dr. Thompson express that line of thought, IIRC.

    Short article:

    https://www.wired.com/2015/10/scientists-can-now-predict-intelligence-brain-activity/

    Other research has found some correlation with the size of certain regions.

    Read More
  41. Wally says:
    @jacques sheete
    And the deepest of "thank yous" to Mr. Unz for this site, for allowing us to comment, and for publishing some worthwhile articles on this subject and many others as well.

    Happy New Year to all.

    Ditto!!

    Unz allows opinions which are usually censored.

    Cheers.

    Read More
  42. @Alden
    The Raven progressive matrices were developed in a desperate attempt by liberals to create a test that would be biased in favor of blacks.
    The idea was that the Stanford Benetton and Wischler tests were language based and thus biased against blacks.

    So a non language, completely visual test, the Raven Matrix test was developed to help blacks and hopefully not be helpful to Whites.

    It didn't work. The results were the same.

    As part of a college class in some liberalology nonsense I took the Raven progressive matrix test.
    That test is extremely biased in favor of artistic, visually conscious people such as myself.
    I can't see that it tests anything other than visual consciousness.

    Not so. Developed by John Raven as a test likely to be of use in all cultures, and with one of the most extensive databases of any group intelligence tests. Its creation was nothing to do with black/white group differences.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven’s_Progressive_Matrices

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Dr T - what's the expert thinking today on the difference between what I read about in a Pelican book decades ago as "convergent" and "divergent" intelligence?

    As I found myself with a reputation for originality (not applied in the arts) or occasionally making things too complicated for those whose arguments I sought to undermine or dissect, and I clearly was high on divergent thinking such as listing words promoted by an original starter word or finding new solutions to e.g. tax problems I began to be interested in the interaction of these two (? only two) types or aspects of intelligence.

    Did they interfere with each other? For example, as a new graduate going into the work force I did a rapid reading course and blitzed the final test for speed and comprehension. But it never became the way I read. I tend to notice ambiguities, inconsistencies with what has previously been said or some other authority has written, spelling mistakes, logocal errors etc. and that slows me down.

    Could it be that someone blessed with what might be called high convergent and divergent intelligence needs in order to maximise potential achievement additional and extraordinary attention to discipline by self or mentors - or maybe the ability to get by on very little sleep? (I wonder if low divergency correlates with being able to get by satisfactorily on little sleep???).
  43. @Alden
    The Raven progressive matrices were developed in a desperate attempt by liberals to create a test that would be biased in favor of blacks.
    The idea was that the Stanford Benetton and Wischler tests were language based and thus biased against blacks.

    So a non language, completely visual test, the Raven Matrix test was developed to help blacks and hopefully not be helpful to Whites.

    It didn't work. The results were the same.

    As part of a college class in some liberalology nonsense I took the Raven progressive matrix test.
    That test is extremely biased in favor of artistic, visually conscious people such as myself.
    I can't see that it tests anything other than visual consciousness.

    “The Raven progressive matrices were developed in a desperate attempt by liberals to create a test that would be biased in favor of blacks.”

    I think you’re confusing Raven’s with the B.I.T.C.H. IQ test.

    “Alley Apple is”

    “”I know you, shame” means”

    “Main Squeeze means”

    “A “handkerchief head” is”

    http://www.susanohanian.org/show_commentary.php?id=170

    http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED070799.pdf

    Read More
  44. @Sean

    What tells me is that if a male wanted to game the system, practice personal eugenics or whatever, he should find the smartest woman he can – assuming he wants to have intelligent sons (with the daughter being a crapshoot depending on his own genetics).

     

    It's probably counter productive to choose a woman that way. I think Prof Badcock's contention is that there must be male/female toggling of the form genetic intelligence takes in the sexes, and in women genetic intelligence tends to appears as what he dubs " mentalistic" type of intelligence, an intuitive social cognition found in women with nice asses. It has bearing on the Flynn effect, because men who have a choice choosing women because they have a fantastic ass ( it was always been more or less accepted that a man could marry a low class but beautiful woman) does not seem to have had an ill effect on the children's IQ.https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201308/reading-the-mind-in-waisthip-ratios-paradox-resolved

    Certainly exceptionally intelligent couples meeting at university or silicon valley would raise the generally accepted type of intelligence, but Badcock says that type of associative mating risks autism. He posits the existence of mentalistic savants, with an gift for understanding and directing others thoughts. I think you can guess who I am talking about when I mention there is someone in the US underestimated by everyone, but who used what have been proven to be immensely powerful social skills to astound the world. And he goes for the nice ass every time.

    I think you can guess who I am talking about when I mention there is someone in the US underestimated by everyone, but who used what have been proven to be immensely powerful social skills to astound the world.

    Wasn’t Trump’s social skills what won the election. He went where no Republican wanted to go – a long border wall, support for the Detroit bailout, an expansion of Social Security benefits and trade barriers. Even so, he won a minority of the popular vote – 2.7m fewer than Hillary. For comparison, GWB had 0.5m fewer votes than Gore and 3m more votes than Kerry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Not so fast.

    Popular vote total outside California alone:
    Trump: 58,474,401
    Clinton: 57,064,530

    And consider how many illegals certainly voted in CA "sanctuary cities" and elsewhere.
    In CA & other states one can vote with just a drivers license, illegals are predictably encouraged to get drivers licenses.

    Plus: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/12/16/20161218_trump1_0.jpg

    http://i0.wp.com/shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/hillary_archielago_12-18-16-1.jpeg?resize=560%2C333

    see: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/mac-slavo/turns-ugly/

    Veterans voted in record numbers for Trump.

    The tip of a very big iceberg:
    No wonder they didn't want to do a recount in all the states.

    Evidence of Detroit Voter Fraud, Too Many Votes in 37% of Precincts
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/14/report-evidence-of-detroit-voter-fraud-too-many-votes-in-37-of-precincts/

    Michigan Recount Exposes Clinton Electoral Fraud: Half of Detroit Votes Show Signs of Tampering
    Votes in Hillary-heavy Detroit may have been counted up to 6 times
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/no_author/hillarys-electoral-fraud/


    Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens
    http://www.infowars.com/report-three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/
    , @Sean

    He went where no Republican wanted to go
     
    They didn't, but only because they didn't think it was possible to win via such a route, and they were right.

    You however, are seriously suggesting that Trump is a digitally raping clown who almost managed to lose the overdetermined victory awaiting anyone running on "long border wall, support for the Detroit bailout, an expansion of Social Security benefits and trade barriers."

    The only reason Trump is president is because he is him, no-one else could have done it. His skills are as difficult to define as to counter, but they certainly include a mysterious ability to reset popular opinion. Trump was creating the consensus for his policies as he ran. The proof of that is he never possessed a large lead, but rather came from behind to squeak in.

    And by the way, he may have supported the bailout, but now he is engaged in a series of shakedowns of the auto corporations (Japanese and American).

  45. JackOH says:
    @jacques sheete
    Ah, bless you good sir!

    And thanks for this...

    Right now I think intelligence testing as we currently have it may offer secondary arguments for cutting back on costly remedial education that exists mostly for political purposes.
     

    That's often what it all too frequently comes down to. Cui bono, folla de dolla...

    This field is still, not surprisingly, apparently fertile for flim-flam, and that probably accounts, in large degree, for the surprisingly virulent defense of it which is often as hostile as it is vocal.

    js, I think it’s possible to separate questions of the existence and measurability of the critter called intelligence, and questions about intelligence’s connections to civic or political virtue. Some folks seem to have jumped the gun and equated high intelligence with high political virtue by assumption. I think “dfordoom” and others have noted that that assumption could lead us to some pretty strange political byways that actually reinforce existing policies of redistribution. What’s that old saw about not asking for what you want because you may actually get it?)

    Again, I’m just a layman and casual reader, so I’m okay with trying to let Prof. Thompson’s good articles and links do the talking.

    Read More
  46. @James Thompson
    Increased fertility of poorer and less able parents probably not the case prior to 1870. See "A Farewell to Alms" by Gregory Clark.

    Dr T – this seems a good opportunity to ask for an explanation (or where to find it) of the applied mathematics (for calculated predictions in particular) of Total Fertility Rate and, especially, adjustments to be made for actual age of child bearing. (It strikes me that the comparison of Nigeria’s TFF of 5.5 with Italy’s 1.4 greatly understates the obvious consequence for the two continents – or at least overstates the time scale).

    Your help in spreaàding practical numeracy on demography would be gratefully welcomed.

    Read More
  47. @James Thompson
    Not so. Developed by John Raven as a test likely to be of use in all cultures, and with one of the most extensive databases of any group intelligence tests. Its creation was nothing to do with black/white group differences.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's_Progressive_Matrices

    Dr T – what’s the expert thinking today on the difference between what I read about in a Pelican book decades ago as “convergent” and “divergent” intelligence?

    As I found myself with a reputation for originality (not applied in the arts) or occasionally making things too complicated for those whose arguments I sought to undermine or dissect, and I clearly was high on divergent thinking such as listing words promoted by an original starter word or finding new solutions to e.g. tax problems I began to be interested in the interaction of these two (? only two) types or aspects of intelligence.

    Did they interfere with each other? For example, as a new graduate going into the work force I did a rapid reading course and blitzed the final test for speed and comprehension. But it never became the way I read. I tend to notice ambiguities, inconsistencies with what has previously been said or some other authority has written, spelling mistakes, logocal errors etc. and that slows me down.

    Could it be that someone blessed with what might be called high convergent and divergent intelligence needs in order to maximise potential achievement additional and extraordinary attention to discipline by self or mentors – or maybe the ability to get by on very little sleep? (I wonder if low divergency correlates with being able to get by satisfactorily on little sleep???).

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Ah, memory lane. Whatever happened to convergent and divergent thinking? The terms were very clever, but seem to have dropped from use. The current usage seems to be "analytical" versus "creative". Is there really a difference? Creativity researcher Rex Jung has begun to doubt it. For a potentially creative idea to be really creative intelligence is usually required. Put his name in my search bar. Here is my first post about him

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/heave-half-brick-at-creativity
  48. Off topic, but: could someone (Ron Unz?) enable full-text summaries in the RSS feeds for both Thompson’s and JayMan’s posts?

    [The RSS Feeds seem to be working fine. Are you sure you're using the correct /xfeed/ ones, linked on the pages of those particular authors? Namely:

    http://www.unz.com/xfeed/rss/author/james-thompson/

    http://www.unz.com/xfeed/rss/author/jayman/ ]

    Read More
  49. This Flynn cat may not be so bad…

    He says that a person can learn more from reading great works of literature than they can from going to university.

    “People often ask me how to raise the IQ of their children. I tell them to not aim for anything so trivial”.

    https://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/book-learning

    I long ago arrived at the same conclusion after being perpetually exasperated by collitch edjykated morons. In my experience they vastly outnumber the unschooled ones both absolutely and relatively.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "collitch edjykated morons" - Solzhenitsyn dealt with this issue and came up with Russian word for them: Obrazovanshchina

    "Obrazovanshchina (, "educationdom", "educaties", "smatterers") is a Russian ironical, derogatory term for a category of people with superficial education without higher ethics of an educated person. The term was introduced by Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a criticism of the transformation of the Russian intelligentsia, which, in his opinion had lost high ethical values, in his 1974 essay Obrazovanshchina (translated as The Smatterers). The essay and the term caused criticism from liberal intelligentsia, such as a long-time Solzhenitsyn's opponent Grigory Pomerants and , and was among the reasons of the bitter contention between Solzhenitsyn and the Russian "third wave" of emigration (of dissidents).

    In Poland, a country which shares the concept of "intelligentsia" with Russia, a similar term, wykształciuchy is used.

    Solzhenitsyn defines obrazovanshchina as the category of people who self-refer to themselves as "intelligentsia" solely on the basis of having a higher than middle education. Solzhenitsyn explains the selection of the term by reference to Vladimir Dahl's dictionary, which distinguished the terms образовать (to educate) and просвещать (to enlighten), the former concept having a superficial character, "external gloss"."

    He meant that these people are not intellectuals, they are just merely educated.
  50. Wally says:
    @Johann Ricke

    I think you can guess who I am talking about when I mention there is someone in the US underestimated by everyone, but who used what have been proven to be immensely powerful social skills to astound the world.
     
    Wasn't Trump's social skills what won the election. He went where no Republican wanted to go - a long border wall, support for the Detroit bailout, an expansion of Social Security benefits and trade barriers. Even so, he won a minority of the popular vote - 2.7m fewer than Hillary. For comparison, GWB had 0.5m fewer votes than Gore and 3m more votes than Kerry.

    Not so fast.

    Popular vote total outside California alone:
    Trump: 58,474,401
    Clinton: 57,064,530

    And consider how many illegals certainly voted in CA “sanctuary cities” and elsewhere.
    In CA & other states one can vote with just a drivers license, illegals are predictably encouraged to get drivers licenses.

    Plus: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

    [MORE]

    http://i0.wp.com/shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/hillary_archielago_12-18-16-1.jpeg?resize=560%2C333

    see: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/mac-slavo/turns-ugly/

    Veterans voted in record numbers for Trump.

    The tip of a very big iceberg:
    No wonder they didn’t want to do a recount in all the states.

    Evidence of Detroit Voter Fraud, Too Many Votes in 37% of Precincts

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/14/report-evidence-of-detroit-voter-fraud-too-many-votes-in-37-of-precincts/

    Michigan Recount Exposes Clinton Electoral Fraud: Half of Detroit Votes Show Signs of Tampering
    Votes in Hillary-heavy Detroit may have been counted up to 6 times

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/no_author/hillarys-electoral-fraud/

    Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens

    http://www.infowars.com/report-three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "In CA & other states one can vote with just a drivers license, illegals are predictably encouraged to get drivers licenses."

    And how do people get on the voter rolls in the first place? They have to register, don't they? And you need a birth certificate for that. That's why the idea of illegals voting is a myth.
    , @Johann Ricke

    There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.
     
    This claim simply did not pass the smell test, so I did a quick search. This is what the people at snopes (yes - they're liberal, but their numbers can be checked) had to say:

    Even if you count only 17 states (Breitbart's ten and an additional seven), Clinton won 164 counties in those 17. Even without accounting for the other 33 states, the claim that Trump won all but 57 of America's 3,141 counties appeared to be completely untrue.
     
  51. @Sean

    What tells me is that if a male wanted to game the system, practice personal eugenics or whatever, he should find the smartest woman he can – assuming he wants to have intelligent sons (with the daughter being a crapshoot depending on his own genetics).

     

    It's probably counter productive to choose a woman that way. I think Prof Badcock's contention is that there must be male/female toggling of the form genetic intelligence takes in the sexes, and in women genetic intelligence tends to appears as what he dubs " mentalistic" type of intelligence, an intuitive social cognition found in women with nice asses. It has bearing on the Flynn effect, because men who have a choice choosing women because they have a fantastic ass ( it was always been more or less accepted that a man could marry a low class but beautiful woman) does not seem to have had an ill effect on the children's IQ.https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201308/reading-the-mind-in-waisthip-ratios-paradox-resolved

    Certainly exceptionally intelligent couples meeting at university or silicon valley would raise the generally accepted type of intelligence, but Badcock says that type of associative mating risks autism. He posits the existence of mentalistic savants, with an gift for understanding and directing others thoughts. I think you can guess who I am talking about when I mention there is someone in the US underestimated by everyone, but who used what have been proven to be immensely powerful social skills to astound the world. And he goes for the nice ass every time.

    in women genetic intelligence tends to appears as what he dubs ” mentalistic” type of intelligence, an intuitive social cognition found in women with nice asses.

    Human female hip fat appears to be a privileged store for omega-3 fatty acids necessary for infant brain development. Sexy hips = smarter babies.

    http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/whrlassekgaulin2008.pdf

    Interestingly, Asian cultures — whose women are not notably “hippy” (at least by this hourglass-loving white guy’s standards) — are noted for giving lots of eggs and fish to their women during pregnancy. Culture compensating for biology?

    Read More
  52. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon
    If IQ is normalized to UK then if Britain has been going backwards - due to immigration and iodine deficiency - then couldn't that create an apparent Flynn effect?

    (Britain used to get lots of iodine via milk but I wonder if that is still true, reasons:
    - less milk drunk cos fat fad
    - lower fat milk drunk cos fat fad (if the iodine is concentrated in the fat?)
    - increased use of clover to feed cattle (blocks iodine transfer to milk for some reason)
    - new non-iodine teat disinfectant dips
    - EU reduced amount of iodine that could be added
    etc)

    I tested myself recently and was surprised i was deficient despite drinking 2-4 pints of milk a day so i think something is up.

    (Noticeable effect on metabolism since dosing up so I'm wondering if it's connected to the obesity epidemic also?)

    2nd point on this

    I’ve noticed I’m more alert and on the ball since dosing up on iodine which makes me wonder about your reaction time thing.

    Any way to get someone to test whether the reaction time of people with iodine deficiency goes up after they’re dosed up?

    Read More
  53. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Not so fast.

    Popular vote total outside California alone:
    Trump: 58,474,401
    Clinton: 57,064,530

    And consider how many illegals certainly voted in CA "sanctuary cities" and elsewhere.
    In CA & other states one can vote with just a drivers license, illegals are predictably encouraged to get drivers licenses.

    Plus: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/12/16/20161218_trump1_0.jpg

    http://i0.wp.com/shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/hillary_archielago_12-18-16-1.jpeg?resize=560%2C333

    see: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/mac-slavo/turns-ugly/

    Veterans voted in record numbers for Trump.

    The tip of a very big iceberg:
    No wonder they didn't want to do a recount in all the states.

    Evidence of Detroit Voter Fraud, Too Many Votes in 37% of Precincts
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/14/report-evidence-of-detroit-voter-fraud-too-many-votes-in-37-of-precincts/

    Michigan Recount Exposes Clinton Electoral Fraud: Half of Detroit Votes Show Signs of Tampering
    Votes in Hillary-heavy Detroit may have been counted up to 6 times
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/no_author/hillarys-electoral-fraud/


    Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens
    http://www.infowars.com/report-three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

    “In CA & other states one can vote with just a drivers license, illegals are predictably encouraged to get drivers licenses.”

    And how do people get on the voter rolls in the first place? They have to register, don’t they? And you need a birth certificate for that. That’s why the idea of illegals voting is a myth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    And how do people get on the voter rolls in the first place? They have to register, don’t they? And you need a birth certificate for that.
     
    (emphasis mine)

    Really? What about states where you can register with a drivers license (and those which allow drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, such as CA which was mentioned)? If you'd like real information rather than your overly simplistic and wrong "And you need a birth certificate for that" you can look up individual state voting id requirements here:
    https://www.usvotefoundation.org/vote/sviddomestic.htm

    At this point I think the illegal immigrant voting furor is mostly a red herring with the more likely problem being legal permanent residents (but non-citizens) voting. Here are some anecdotes about permanent residents accidentally registering to vote: http://www.immihelp.com/forum/showthread.php/163789-Permanent-Resident-Registered-to-Vote

    To give an idea of numbers, in 2013 the lawful permanent resident (LPR) population was estimated at 13.1 million per https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/population-estimates/LPR (interesting that there are no stats newer than 2013).

    But this is far off topic for this thread so I probably should not go on any more. Just felt the need to correct a blatant falsehood.

  54. res says:
    @Anon
    "In CA & other states one can vote with just a drivers license, illegals are predictably encouraged to get drivers licenses."

    And how do people get on the voter rolls in the first place? They have to register, don't they? And you need a birth certificate for that. That's why the idea of illegals voting is a myth.

    And how do people get on the voter rolls in the first place? They have to register, don’t they? And you need a birth certificate for that.

    (emphasis mine)

    Really? What about states where you can register with a drivers license (and those which allow drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, such as CA which was mentioned)? If you’d like real information rather than your overly simplistic and wrong “And you need a birth certificate for that” you can look up individual state voting id requirements here:

    https://www.usvotefoundation.org/vote/sviddomestic.htm

    At this point I think the illegal immigrant voting furor is mostly a red herring with the more likely problem being legal permanent residents (but non-citizens) voting. Here are some anecdotes about permanent residents accidentally registering to vote: http://www.immihelp.com/forum/showthread.php/163789-Permanent-Resident-Registered-to-Vote

    To give an idea of numbers, in 2013 the lawful permanent resident (LPR) population was estimated at 13.1 million per https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/population-estimates/LPR (interesting that there are no stats newer than 2013).

    But this is far off topic for this thread so I probably should not go on any more. Just felt the need to correct a blatant falsehood.

    Read More
  55. This is great. At least I was partially right :P I had no idea IQ avg can decline besides the normal data error range.

    Read More
  56. utu says:
    @jacques sheete
    This Flynn cat may not be so bad...


    He says that a person can learn more from reading great works of literature than they can from going to university.


    "People often ask me how to raise the IQ of their children. I tell them to not aim for anything so trivial".

    https://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/book-learning

     

    I long ago arrived at the same conclusion after being perpetually exasperated by collitch edjykated morons. In my experience they vastly outnumber the unschooled ones both absolutely and relatively.

    “collitch edjykated morons” – Solzhenitsyn dealt with this issue and came up with Russian word for them: Obrazovanshchina

    “Obrazovanshchina (, “educationdom”, “educaties”, “smatterers”) is a Russian ironical, derogatory term for a category of people with superficial education without higher ethics of an educated person. The term was introduced by Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a criticism of the transformation of the Russian intelligentsia, which, in his opinion had lost high ethical values, in his 1974 essay Obrazovanshchina (translated as The Smatterers). The essay and the term caused criticism from liberal intelligentsia, such as a long-time Solzhenitsyn’s opponent Grigory Pomerants and , and was among the reasons of the bitter contention between Solzhenitsyn and the Russian “third wave” of emigration (of dissidents).

    In Poland, a country which shares the concept of “intelligentsia” with Russia, a similar term, wykształciuchy is used.

    Solzhenitsyn defines obrazovanshchina as the category of people who self-refer to themselves as “intelligentsia” solely on the basis of having a higher than middle education. Solzhenitsyn explains the selection of the term by reference to Vladimir Dahl’s dictionary, which distinguished the terms образовать (to educate) and просвещать (to enlighten), the former concept having a superficial character, “external gloss”.”

    He meant that these people are not intellectuals, they are just merely educated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Thanks for that.

    The type drives me crazy and even though Zeus himself advised that "indignation is superfluous," (TIMON THE MISANTHROPE), I wanna smack 'em.


    Solzhenitsyn explains the selection of the term by reference to Vladimir Dahl’s dictionary, which distinguished the terms образовать (to educate) and просвещать (to enlighten), the former concept having a superficial character, “external gloss”.”

    He meant that these people are not intellectuals, they are just merely educated.
     

    I agree and although I've read a fair bit of Solzhenitsyn, I missed that, so double thanks for pointing it out. My own distinction is between true education and mere schooling or training, but the idea is the same.

    I've posted this before but in case you didn't see it, here it is again. Enjoy and thanks again.


    As a 16 year old, with 2 years of formal schooling ending at the age of 10, Benjamin Franklin wrote this. Note the date:


    I reflected in my Mind on the extream Folly of those Parents, who, blind to their Childrens Dulness, and insensible of the Solidity of their Skulls, because they think their Purses can afford it, will needs send them to the Temple of Learning, where, for want of a suitable Genius, they learn little more than how to carry themselves handsomely, and enter a Room genteely, (which might as well be acquir'd at a Dancing-School,) and from whence they return, after Abundance of Trouble and Charge, as great Blockheads as ever, only more proud and self-conceited.

    I related my Dream with all its Particulars [to a friend], and he, without much Study, presently interpreted it, assuring me, That it was a lively Representation of HARVARD COLLEGE, Etcetera.

    I remain, Sir,
    Your Humble Servant,
    SILENCE DOGOOD.

    The New-England Courant, May 14, 1722
     

    , @JackOH
    Agree with you and jacques sheete there are useful distinctions to be made between "schooling", "education", "learning", and so on.

    "Character", I think, was, and maybe still is by a few geezer types, believed to be something that could be usefully taught by the study of history and literature. The idea was to see how other people behaved under the specific pressures of their time and place, and to learn from their examples.

    FWIW-Maybe a decade ago I was so distressed by the unscrupulous behavior at my local Podunk Tech that I quietly began asking people with good knowledge of higher education: "Am I going nuts? There seems to be a lot of criminal and civil misconduct going on here!" I meant embezzlement, false statements under oath, "dirty tricks" harassment of faculty and staff who'd fallen out of favor, plagiarism, crony-and-patronage no-show hiring of staffers, the abuse of campus police to shadow those out of favor, and on and on. I was told repeatedly: "Yeah, it's like this at every college, but here it's pretty bad." Make of that what you will. Live and learn.

  57. @utu
    "collitch edjykated morons" - Solzhenitsyn dealt with this issue and came up with Russian word for them: Obrazovanshchina

    "Obrazovanshchina (, "educationdom", "educaties", "smatterers") is a Russian ironical, derogatory term for a category of people with superficial education without higher ethics of an educated person. The term was introduced by Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a criticism of the transformation of the Russian intelligentsia, which, in his opinion had lost high ethical values, in his 1974 essay Obrazovanshchina (translated as The Smatterers). The essay and the term caused criticism from liberal intelligentsia, such as a long-time Solzhenitsyn's opponent Grigory Pomerants and , and was among the reasons of the bitter contention between Solzhenitsyn and the Russian "third wave" of emigration (of dissidents).

    In Poland, a country which shares the concept of "intelligentsia" with Russia, a similar term, wykształciuchy is used.

    Solzhenitsyn defines obrazovanshchina as the category of people who self-refer to themselves as "intelligentsia" solely on the basis of having a higher than middle education. Solzhenitsyn explains the selection of the term by reference to Vladimir Dahl's dictionary, which distinguished the terms образовать (to educate) and просвещать (to enlighten), the former concept having a superficial character, "external gloss"."

    He meant that these people are not intellectuals, they are just merely educated.

    Thanks for that.

    The type drives me crazy and even though Zeus himself advised that “indignation is superfluous,” (TIMON THE MISANTHROPE), I wanna smack ‘em.

    Solzhenitsyn explains the selection of the term by reference to Vladimir Dahl’s dictionary, which distinguished the terms образовать (to educate) and просвещать (to enlighten), the former concept having a superficial character, “external gloss”.”

    He meant that these people are not intellectuals, they are just merely educated.

    I agree and although I’ve read a fair bit of Solzhenitsyn, I missed that, so double thanks for pointing it out. My own distinction is between true education and mere schooling or training, but the idea is the same.

    I’ve posted this before but in case you didn’t see it, here it is again. Enjoy and thanks again.

    As a 16 year old, with 2 years of formal schooling ending at the age of 10, Benjamin Franklin wrote this. Note the date:

    I reflected in my Mind on the extream Folly of those Parents, who, blind to their Childrens Dulness, and insensible of the Solidity of their Skulls, because they think their Purses can afford it, will needs send them to the Temple of Learning, where, for want of a suitable Genius, they learn little more than how to carry themselves handsomely, and enter a Room genteely, (which might as well be acquir’d at a Dancing-School,) and from whence they return, after Abundance of Trouble and Charge, as great Blockheads as ever, only more proud and self-conceited.

    I related my Dream with all its Particulars [to a friend], and he, without much Study, presently interpreted it, assuring me, That it was a lively Representation of HARVARD COLLEGE, Etcetera.

    I remain, Sir,
    Your Humble Servant,
    SILENCE DOGOOD.

    The New-England Courant, May 14, 1722

    Read More
  58. @Wally
    Not so fast.

    Popular vote total outside California alone:
    Trump: 58,474,401
    Clinton: 57,064,530

    And consider how many illegals certainly voted in CA "sanctuary cities" and elsewhere.
    In CA & other states one can vote with just a drivers license, illegals are predictably encouraged to get drivers licenses.

    Plus: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/12/16/20161218_trump1_0.jpg

    http://i0.wp.com/shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/hillary_archielago_12-18-16-1.jpeg?resize=560%2C333

    see: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/mac-slavo/turns-ugly/

    Veterans voted in record numbers for Trump.

    The tip of a very big iceberg:
    No wonder they didn't want to do a recount in all the states.

    Evidence of Detroit Voter Fraud, Too Many Votes in 37% of Precincts
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/14/report-evidence-of-detroit-voter-fraud-too-many-votes-in-37-of-precincts/

    Michigan Recount Exposes Clinton Electoral Fraud: Half of Detroit Votes Show Signs of Tampering
    Votes in Hillary-heavy Detroit may have been counted up to 6 times
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/no_author/hillarys-electoral-fraud/


    Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens
    http://www.infowars.com/report-three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

    There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

    This claim simply did not pass the smell test, so I did a quick search. This is what the people at snopes (yes – they’re liberal, but their numbers can be checked) had to say:

    Even if you count only 17 states (Breitbart’s ten and an additional seven), Clinton won 164 counties in those 17. Even without accounting for the other 33 states, the claim that Trump won all but 57 of America’s 3,141 counties appeared to be completely untrue.

    Read More
  59. JackOH says:
    @utu
    "collitch edjykated morons" - Solzhenitsyn dealt with this issue and came up with Russian word for them: Obrazovanshchina

    "Obrazovanshchina (, "educationdom", "educaties", "smatterers") is a Russian ironical, derogatory term for a category of people with superficial education without higher ethics of an educated person. The term was introduced by Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a criticism of the transformation of the Russian intelligentsia, which, in his opinion had lost high ethical values, in his 1974 essay Obrazovanshchina (translated as The Smatterers). The essay and the term caused criticism from liberal intelligentsia, such as a long-time Solzhenitsyn's opponent Grigory Pomerants and , and was among the reasons of the bitter contention between Solzhenitsyn and the Russian "third wave" of emigration (of dissidents).

    In Poland, a country which shares the concept of "intelligentsia" with Russia, a similar term, wykształciuchy is used.

    Solzhenitsyn defines obrazovanshchina as the category of people who self-refer to themselves as "intelligentsia" solely on the basis of having a higher than middle education. Solzhenitsyn explains the selection of the term by reference to Vladimir Dahl's dictionary, which distinguished the terms образовать (to educate) and просвещать (to enlighten), the former concept having a superficial character, "external gloss"."

    He meant that these people are not intellectuals, they are just merely educated.

    Agree with you and jacques sheete there are useful distinctions to be made between “schooling”, “education”, “learning”, and so on.

    “Character”, I think, was, and maybe still is by a few geezer types, believed to be something that could be usefully taught by the study of history and literature. The idea was to see how other people behaved under the specific pressures of their time and place, and to learn from their examples.

    FWIW-Maybe a decade ago I was so distressed by the unscrupulous behavior at my local Podunk Tech that I quietly began asking people with good knowledge of higher education: “Am I going nuts? There seems to be a lot of criminal and civil misconduct going on here!” I meant embezzlement, false statements under oath, “dirty tricks” harassment of faculty and staff who’d fallen out of favor, plagiarism, crony-and-patronage no-show hiring of staffers, the abuse of campus police to shadow those out of favor, and on and on. I was told repeatedly: “Yeah, it’s like this at every college, but here it’s pretty bad.” Make of that what you will. Live and learn.

    Read More
  60. @Wizard of Oz
    Dr T - what's the expert thinking today on the difference between what I read about in a Pelican book decades ago as "convergent" and "divergent" intelligence?

    As I found myself with a reputation for originality (not applied in the arts) or occasionally making things too complicated for those whose arguments I sought to undermine or dissect, and I clearly was high on divergent thinking such as listing words promoted by an original starter word or finding new solutions to e.g. tax problems I began to be interested in the interaction of these two (? only two) types or aspects of intelligence.

    Did they interfere with each other? For example, as a new graduate going into the work force I did a rapid reading course and blitzed the final test for speed and comprehension. But it never became the way I read. I tend to notice ambiguities, inconsistencies with what has previously been said or some other authority has written, spelling mistakes, logocal errors etc. and that slows me down.

    Could it be that someone blessed with what might be called high convergent and divergent intelligence needs in order to maximise potential achievement additional and extraordinary attention to discipline by self or mentors - or maybe the ability to get by on very little sleep? (I wonder if low divergency correlates with being able to get by satisfactorily on little sleep???).

    Ah, memory lane. Whatever happened to convergent and divergent thinking? The terms were very clever, but seem to have dropped from use. The current usage seems to be “analytical” versus “creative”. Is there really a difference? Creativity researcher Rex Jung has begun to doubt it. For a potentially creative idea to be really creative intelligence is usually required. Put his name in my search bar. Here is my first post about him

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/heave-half-brick-at-creativity

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you for that. I shall read it tboroughly with interest. Another updating from my early days of wide miscellaneous reading would be desirable and you might kindly point me in the right direction. All my junior blood relatives who have so far taken scholarship exams, including a couple whose advanced placement or "academic scholar" (10 A*s at GCSE) status might be counted have won scholarships; but one's mother has been told that the 17 year old has poor working memory. She gets starring parts in plays and musical comedy and is elected to offices by popular vote of her peers and, apart from a relative distaste for mathematics (the A* required a bit of hard work) but as the daunting prospect of getting into a top university was being faced the "poor working memory" verdict was reported. As it is hard to think of any with a genetic connection of whom I would expect that to be true [... er, well... perhaps some idiosyncrasies can be connected :-) ] I am wondering about the genetics, physiology/neurology and psychology of that????
  61. res says:

    Speaking of creativity, what do people here think of Eysenck’s theory of creativity being related to his concept of psychoticism?

    I searched the blog and saw a number of references to Eysenck. This one was particularly interesting, but did not cover this issue even though it was the only hit for “psychoticism”:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/in-what-way-are-eysenck-and-gottfredson

    Speaking of that post, there was an interesting question from Rolfe (and a response from Bruce Charlton) in the comments there:

    One of the most curious dead ends in psychology is Eysenck’s cortical arousal theory of introversion and extroversion–essentially that extroverts have higher thresholds of arousal so have to make a nuisance of themselves at parties or take up base jumping just to feel normal. It seems such a promising idea, but it went nowhere. Thoughts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Ah, what a marvellous consumer of time UR can be when I should be getting ready for my accountant (she tells her IQ was measured at 156 so I try to stay alert. Why did she become an accountant you ask? Because what she was already good at couldn't guarantee Australian residence). I nailed my colours to the mast irretrievably by giving a less than secret lunch party for Eysenck and Jensen when they visited Oz to give the Theodore Fink Memorial Lectures in Educational Psychology. Cue: teaching introverts and extraverts differently as I heard from E ploughing on over the protesters' din by sitting in the front row. Art J had simply been shouted down. My "colours" of course were those of someone who publicly defended them against the stupid racism charges of assorted academics and, come to think of it , a now Senator -by quirk of our electoral system - who, as broadcaster, was on the wrong end of a defamation action by me which cost his radio station money. Oh what fun...
    , @James Thompson
    That was still in vogue when I was in Eysenck's department, but I recall that the data simply went against it, so it was dropped. Plausible idea, but not substantiated, at that time at least.
  62. RobRich says: • Website
    @Sunbeam
    Interesting.

    What tells me is that if a male wanted to game the system, practice personal eugenics or whatever, he should find the smartest woman he can - assuming he wants to have intelligent sons (with the daughter being a crapshoot depending on his own genetics).

    But has that ever been a thing? If it is useful, shouldn't this be a kind of observed behavior somewhere, at some time?

    Instead the book on men is they go for anything even plausibly female, as opposed to women who were historically more picky. Not that isn't good for women, it's just that it seems men have never found intelligence attractive in a woman for the most part.

    I know you can formulate a model showing some advantage to passing on genes via male promiscuity. But there are advantages to being discerning as well.

    So when has this ever been the case? Seems like the possible rewards of say a 10 point IQ advantage would have been noticed, and at least some people would have taken this path.

    (Just guessing you could get a 10 point swing from picking a smart mother, as opposed to a ditzy airhead.)

    “But has that ever been a thing? If it is useful, shouldn’t this be a kind of observed behavior somewhere, at some time?

    Instead the book on men is they go for anything even plausibly female, as opposed to women who were historically more picky.”

    No. In the US the college system has always been to a fair degree about men finding suitably smart wives and vice-versa–the so-called MRS degree.

    Don’t confuse pleasurable with marriageable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Maybe? I understand the concept, but I'm a little dubious to its actual application.

    I married a woman myself with significantly less education, and going through some of my friends, all which technically would be in the upper middle class as myself, that trend tends to vaguely hold.

    There are exceptions, I mean, but its sufficiently rare to challenge it as a trend empirically. Most of the exceptions fall into "childless couples" or which have delayed having children long enough to begin to court genetic issues in offspring.

  63. @James Thompson
    Ah, memory lane. Whatever happened to convergent and divergent thinking? The terms were very clever, but seem to have dropped from use. The current usage seems to be "analytical" versus "creative". Is there really a difference? Creativity researcher Rex Jung has begun to doubt it. For a potentially creative idea to be really creative intelligence is usually required. Put his name in my search bar. Here is my first post about him

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/heave-half-brick-at-creativity

    Thank you for that. I shall read it tboroughly with interest. Another updating from my early days of wide miscellaneous reading would be desirable and you might kindly point me in the right direction. All my junior blood relatives who have so far taken scholarship exams, including a couple whose advanced placement or “academic scholar” (10 A*s at GCSE) status might be counted have won scholarships; but one’s mother has been told that the 17 year old has poor working memory. She gets starring parts in plays and musical comedy and is elected to offices by popular vote of her peers and, apart from a relative distaste for mathematics (the A* required a bit of hard work) but as the daunting prospect of getting into a top university was being faced the “poor working memory” verdict was reported. As it is hard to think of any with a genetic connection of whom I would expect that to be true [... er, well... perhaps some idiosyncrasies can be connected :-) ] I am wondering about the genetics, physiology/neurology and psychology of that????

    Read More
  64. @RobRich
    "But has that ever been a thing? If it is useful, shouldn’t this be a kind of observed behavior somewhere, at some time?

    Instead the book on men is they go for anything even plausibly female, as opposed to women who were historically more picky."

    No. In the US the college system has always been to a fair degree about men finding suitably smart wives and vice-versa--the so-called MRS degree.



    Don't confuse pleasurable with marriageable.

    Maybe? I understand the concept, but I’m a little dubious to its actual application.

    I married a woman myself with significantly less education, and going through some of my friends, all which technically would be in the upper middle class as myself, that trend tends to vaguely hold.

    There are exceptions, I mean, but its sufficiently rare to challenge it as a trend empirically. Most of the exceptions fall into “childless couples” or which have delayed having children long enough to begin to court genetic issues in offspring.

    Read More
  65. @res
    Speaking of creativity, what do people here think of Eysenck's theory of creativity being related to his concept of psychoticism?

    I searched the blog and saw a number of references to Eysenck. This one was particularly interesting, but did not cover this issue even though it was the only hit for "psychoticism":
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/in-what-way-are-eysenck-and-gottfredson

    Speaking of that post, there was an interesting question from Rolfe (and a response from Bruce Charlton) in the comments there:

    One of the most curious dead ends in psychology is Eysenck's cortical arousal theory of introversion and extroversion–essentially that extroverts have higher thresholds of arousal so have to make a nuisance of themselves at parties or take up base jumping just to feel normal. It seems such a promising idea, but it went nowhere. Thoughts?
     

    Ah, what a marvellous consumer of time UR can be when I should be getting ready for my accountant (she tells her IQ was measured at 156 so I try to stay alert. Why did she become an accountant you ask? Because what she was already good at couldn’t guarantee Australian residence). I nailed my colours to the mast irretrievably by giving a less than secret lunch party for Eysenck and Jensen when they visited Oz to give the Theodore Fink Memorial Lectures in Educational Psychology. Cue: teaching introverts and extraverts differently as I heard from E ploughing on over the protesters’ din by sitting in the front row. Art J had simply been shouted down. My “colours” of course were those of someone who publicly defended them against the stupid racism charges of assorted academics and, come to think of it , a now Senator -by quirk of our electoral system – who, as broadcaster, was on the wrong end of a defamation action by me which cost his radio station money. Oh what fun…

    Read More
  66. JackOH says:

    Many thanks to Prof. Thompson and commenters.

    Are there any links that discuss the arguments against research into intelligence, motives of the opponents, and so on? (FWIW-I’m very sympathetic to intelligence research, and find nothing “Auschwitzian” or racist about it. Also, I think political decisions based on intelligence research are conceptually severable from the research itself.) Can anyone point to an article(s) that argues intelligence research is bad?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Not exactly intelligence research, but close enough. The Atlantic always delivers.

    Scientists and commentators merely need to exercise some self-restraint, instead of gleefully disabusing people of the illusions that undergird all they hold dear. Most scientists “don’t realize what effect these ideas can have,” Smilansky told me. “Promoting determinism is complacent and dangerous.”
     
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/
    , @James Thompson
    Sure. Here is the argument
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/psychological-predictions-eric/
  67. @JackOH
    Many thanks to Prof. Thompson and commenters.

    Are there any links that discuss the arguments against research into intelligence, motives of the opponents, and so on? (FWIW-I'm very sympathetic to intelligence research, and find nothing "Auschwitzian" or racist about it. Also, I think political decisions based on intelligence research are conceptually severable from the research itself.) Can anyone point to an article(s) that argues intelligence research is bad?

    Not exactly intelligence research, but close enough. The Atlantic always delivers.

    Scientists and commentators merely need to exercise some self-restraint, instead of gleefully disabusing people of the illusions that undergird all they hold dear. Most scientists “don’t realize what effect these ideas can have,” Smilansky told me. “Promoting determinism is complacent and dangerous.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/

    Read More
  68. @JackOH
    Many thanks to Prof. Thompson and commenters.

    Are there any links that discuss the arguments against research into intelligence, motives of the opponents, and so on? (FWIW-I'm very sympathetic to intelligence research, and find nothing "Auschwitzian" or racist about it. Also, I think political decisions based on intelligence research are conceptually severable from the research itself.) Can anyone point to an article(s) that argues intelligence research is bad?
    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Thanks, Daniel Chieh and Prof. Thompson.

    Allow me a brief opinion from this non-expert layman, a casual reader of the subject. I recall the media dust-ups over Shockley, Jensen, and Rushton. Rushton, I remember very clearly, was browbeaten on a nationwide American talk show while the host stood by.

    The opponents of intelligence research seem to be denying the opportunity to understand our world a bit better, and, perhaps, to better our politics. They also seem to have made of intelligence something of a political idol, which I don't see much of among the temperate, nuanced comments made by very bright people on these pages.

    Also, I think, opponents of intelligence research seem unaware that many people use imperfect proxies for intelligence in their everyday affairs as a guide to decision-making. Wouldn't it make more sense if they cared about the just treatment of people to have a robust understanding of intelligence, and to know what intelligence is not?

    Thanks again.

  69. JackOH says:
    @James Thompson
    Sure. Here is the argument
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/psychological-predictions-eric/

    Thanks, Daniel Chieh and Prof. Thompson.

    Allow me a brief opinion from this non-expert layman, a casual reader of the subject. I recall the media dust-ups over Shockley, Jensen, and Rushton. Rushton, I remember very clearly, was browbeaten on a nationwide American talk show while the host stood by.

    The opponents of intelligence research seem to be denying the opportunity to understand our world a bit better, and, perhaps, to better our politics. They also seem to have made of intelligence something of a political idol, which I don’t see much of among the temperate, nuanced comments made by very bright people on these pages.

    Also, I think, opponents of intelligence research seem unaware that many people use imperfect proxies for intelligence in their everyday affairs as a guide to decision-making. Wouldn’t it make more sense if they cared about the just treatment of people to have a robust understanding of intelligence, and to know what intelligence is not?

    Thanks again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    It would be excellent if everyone took a balanced view about everything. IQ raises lots of hackles, and at one stage at an ISIR conference I suggested we drop the term completely. "Ability" might be less contentious. You are right that many people who argue against IQ in public use intelligence proxies in real life. I used to get audiences to judge the intelligence of George W Bush. These university audiences had great fun judging he was a fool, which he was not, but the point I made to them was that, faced with his picture, they had no problems pronouncing on the concept of intelligence. They knew what it was, and felt that he lacked it. Sometimes, with more time, I explained that they were making their judgments on the basis of perceived verbal fluency. Nothing wrong with that measure, but it does not completely cover a person's abilities.
  70. @JackOH
    Thanks, Daniel Chieh and Prof. Thompson.

    Allow me a brief opinion from this non-expert layman, a casual reader of the subject. I recall the media dust-ups over Shockley, Jensen, and Rushton. Rushton, I remember very clearly, was browbeaten on a nationwide American talk show while the host stood by.

    The opponents of intelligence research seem to be denying the opportunity to understand our world a bit better, and, perhaps, to better our politics. They also seem to have made of intelligence something of a political idol, which I don't see much of among the temperate, nuanced comments made by very bright people on these pages.

    Also, I think, opponents of intelligence research seem unaware that many people use imperfect proxies for intelligence in their everyday affairs as a guide to decision-making. Wouldn't it make more sense if they cared about the just treatment of people to have a robust understanding of intelligence, and to know what intelligence is not?

    Thanks again.

    It would be excellent if everyone took a balanced view about everything. IQ raises lots of hackles, and at one stage at an ISIR conference I suggested we drop the term completely. “Ability” might be less contentious. You are right that many people who argue against IQ in public use intelligence proxies in real life. I used to get audiences to judge the intelligence of George W Bush. These university audiences had great fun judging he was a fool, which he was not, but the point I made to them was that, faced with his picture, they had no problems pronouncing on the concept of intelligence. They knew what it was, and felt that he lacked it. Sometimes, with more time, I explained that they were making their judgments on the basis of perceived verbal fluency. Nothing wrong with that measure, but it does not completely cover a person’s abilities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Thanks, Prof. Thompson. I hope that you or colleagues in your circle consider a good invitation to speak in the States. By "good invitation" I mean engagements that will give your thinking some breathing room.

    FWIW-I've already mentioned in passing some of my own attitude toward intelligence research. Very sympathetic, with reservations about political applicability. Where, I think, good intelligence research may be most readily applicable in a political sense in the States is to better deploy moneys used for education. In a nutshell, moneys used to fund vast educational social engineering experiments are running out.

    (In my state, Ohio, I think the funding formula for state aid to higher education has gone from "per matriculant" to the stingier "per graduate", and soon it's expected to be "per graduate employed", or "per graduate employed in an area requiring college".) Other opinions will likely vary on the ready applicability of good intelligence research.
  71. JackOH says:
    @James Thompson
    It would be excellent if everyone took a balanced view about everything. IQ raises lots of hackles, and at one stage at an ISIR conference I suggested we drop the term completely. "Ability" might be less contentious. You are right that many people who argue against IQ in public use intelligence proxies in real life. I used to get audiences to judge the intelligence of George W Bush. These university audiences had great fun judging he was a fool, which he was not, but the point I made to them was that, faced with his picture, they had no problems pronouncing on the concept of intelligence. They knew what it was, and felt that he lacked it. Sometimes, with more time, I explained that they were making their judgments on the basis of perceived verbal fluency. Nothing wrong with that measure, but it does not completely cover a person's abilities.

    Thanks, Prof. Thompson. I hope that you or colleagues in your circle consider a good invitation to speak in the States. By “good invitation” I mean engagements that will give your thinking some breathing room.

    FWIW-I’ve already mentioned in passing some of my own attitude toward intelligence research. Very sympathetic, with reservations about political applicability. Where, I think, good intelligence research may be most readily applicable in a political sense in the States is to better deploy moneys used for education. In a nutshell, moneys used to fund vast educational social engineering experiments are running out.

    (In my state, Ohio, I think the funding formula for state aid to higher education has gone from “per matriculant” to the stingier “per graduate”, and soon it’s expected to be “per graduate employed”, or “per graduate employed in an area requiring college”.) Other opinions will likely vary on the ready applicability of good intelligence research.

    Read More
  72. JADE says:
    @D. K.
    Whence come the IQ scores? If we were talking about a truly randomized sample of the world's twenty-something population, over the past ten decades, I would be as impressed as the sailors in the Royal Navy, back in the day. If, instead, we are talking, as I suspect, mostly about samples of impressed ten-year-old public-school students, then I would have alternative explanations to the dubious belief that most populations have gotten extraordinarily smarter, in real terms, over the past century.

    the belief that any test can measure intelligence is supported by no one of any consequence.
    since at best only knowledge can be tested.
    does that mean that native american indians who could never impress a test..did not have intelligent members in their community?
    how about the autistic youth that is a math marvel..or can play the piano….without any training?
    no..there is NEVER a reason to be impressed by any test that claims or any person that claims..they can determine intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    If you are interested in intelligence testing, but only if you are interested, here are possible starting points

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-all-that-matters-stuart

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-in-2000-words
  73. @JADE
    the belief that any test can measure intelligence is supported by no one of any consequence.
    since at best only knowledge can be tested.
    does that mean that native american indians who could never impress a test..did not have intelligent members in their community?
    how about the autistic youth that is a math marvel..or can play the piano....without any training?
    no..there is NEVER a reason to be impressed by any test that claims or any person that claims..they can determine intelligence.

    If you are interested in intelligence testing, but only if you are interested, here are possible starting points

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-all-that-matters-stuart

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-in-2000-words

    Read More
  74. Sean says:
    @Johann Ricke

    I think you can guess who I am talking about when I mention there is someone in the US underestimated by everyone, but who used what have been proven to be immensely powerful social skills to astound the world.
     
    Wasn't Trump's social skills what won the election. He went where no Republican wanted to go - a long border wall, support for the Detroit bailout, an expansion of Social Security benefits and trade barriers. Even so, he won a minority of the popular vote - 2.7m fewer than Hillary. For comparison, GWB had 0.5m fewer votes than Gore and 3m more votes than Kerry.

    He went where no Republican wanted to go

    They didn’t, but only because they didn’t think it was possible to win via such a route, and they were right.

    You however, are seriously suggesting that Trump is a digitally raping clown who almost managed to lose the overdetermined victory awaiting anyone running on “long border wall, support for the Detroit bailout, an expansion of Social Security benefits and trade barriers.”

    The only reason Trump is president is because he is him, no-one else could have done it. His skills are as difficult to define as to counter, but they certainly include a mysterious ability to reset popular opinion. Trump was creating the consensus for his policies as he ran. The proof of that is he never possessed a large lead, but rather came from behind to squeak in.

    And by the way, he may have supported the bailout, but now he is engaged in a series of shakedowns of the auto corporations (Japanese and American).

    Read More
  75. @res
    Speaking of creativity, what do people here think of Eysenck's theory of creativity being related to his concept of psychoticism?

    I searched the blog and saw a number of references to Eysenck. This one was particularly interesting, but did not cover this issue even though it was the only hit for "psychoticism":
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/in-what-way-are-eysenck-and-gottfredson

    Speaking of that post, there was an interesting question from Rolfe (and a response from Bruce Charlton) in the comments there:

    One of the most curious dead ends in psychology is Eysenck's cortical arousal theory of introversion and extroversion–essentially that extroverts have higher thresholds of arousal so have to make a nuisance of themselves at parties or take up base jumping just to feel normal. It seems such a promising idea, but it went nowhere. Thoughts?
     

    That was still in vogue when I was in Eysenck’s department, but I recall that the data simply went against it, so it was dropped. Plausible idea, but not substantiated, at that time at least.

    Read More
  76. headrick says:

    Obrazovanshchina- hmmm .Being an intellectual is defined by the observers personal reference mostly I think. Being educated but still a fool accusation might simply mean the the accused subject refuses to join the appropriate cliques. Very slippery slope indeed. Global warming skepticism , feminism etc might be litmus tests by some for being an educated fool because they refuse to belong the “intellectual” club position on these matters. Maybe I don’t appreciate the subtle aspects of it, but lost of knee jerk skeptics are just basically loners who don’t seek the approbation of their clan. Maybe so. I would like to know more about the application of the term. – seems on the surface like just another pie to toss in the face of an opponent. I had an aunt- proud member of the association of university women, and was fond of the “they say—” argument. Being a self described intellectual I guess. Comes down to who has hijacked the intellectual clique and imposed their preferred belief system, and you must kiss the ring to be considered a member. NO thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Being educated but still a fool accusation might simply mean the the accused subject refuses to join the appropriate cliques."

    It is the opposite. Obrazovanshchina members know which cliques (for reputation, benefits and profits) to join. Once they join them they toe the party line and stop evaluating on their own. They do not have to think. They just read daily, say the NYT, and get the idea what is right or is wrong for today, what to be for and what to be against. In other words they do not need to think anymore and still be right in their mind. But it is all about being in the clique that bestows the benefits. Not only material ones but also moral, like to be considered a good person. A true intellectual tries to think things through before making up his mind. And if his conclusion leads him to be against the clique position he must be ready to suffer the consequences. Then it becomes the issue of character. The worst part about obrazovanshchina is that they think they think. They are not aware they do not think. In the clique there are cynical and crafty operators, the careerists who know exactly what they are doing and what is going on but they do not care because this is not their prerogative. Their careers are. They are not the true obrazovanshchina.
  77. utu says:
    @headrick
    Obrazovanshchina- hmmm .Being an intellectual is defined by the observers personal reference mostly I think. Being educated but still a fool accusation might simply mean the the accused subject refuses to join the appropriate cliques. Very slippery slope indeed. Global warming skepticism , feminism etc might be litmus tests by some for being an educated fool because they refuse to belong the "intellectual" club position on these matters. Maybe I don't appreciate the subtle aspects of it, but lost of knee jerk skeptics are just basically loners who don't seek the approbation of their clan. Maybe so. I would like to know more about the application of the term. - seems on the surface like just another pie to toss in the face of an opponent. I had an aunt- proud member of the association of university women, and was fond of the "they say---" argument. Being a self described intellectual I guess. Comes down to who has hijacked the intellectual clique and imposed their preferred belief system, and you must kiss the ring to be considered a member. NO thanks.

    “Being educated but still a fool accusation might simply mean the the accused subject refuses to join the appropriate cliques.”

    It is the opposite. Obrazovanshchina members know which cliques (for reputation, benefits and profits) to join. Once they join them they toe the party line and stop evaluating on their own. They do not have to think. They just read daily, say the NYT, and get the idea what is right or is wrong for today, what to be for and what to be against. In other words they do not need to think anymore and still be right in their mind. But it is all about being in the clique that bestows the benefits. Not only material ones but also moral, like to be considered a good person. A true intellectual tries to think things through before making up his mind. And if his conclusion leads him to be against the clique position he must be ready to suffer the consequences. Then it becomes the issue of character. The worst part about obrazovanshchina is that they think they think. They are not aware they do not think. In the clique there are cynical and crafty operators, the careerists who know exactly what they are doing and what is going on but they do not care because this is not their prerogative. Their careers are. They are not the true obrazovanshchina.

    Read More
  78. headrick says:
    @utu
    "Being educated but still a fool accusation might simply mean the the accused subject refuses to join the appropriate cliques."

    It is the opposite. Obrazovanshchina members know which cliques (for reputation, benefits and profits) to join. Once they join them they toe the party line and stop evaluating on their own. They do not have to think. They just read daily, say the NYT, and get the idea what is right or is wrong for today, what to be for and what to be against. In other words they do not need to think anymore and still be right in their mind. But it is all about being in the clique that bestows the benefits. Not only material ones but also moral, like to be considered a good person. A true intellectual tries to think things through before making up his mind. And if his conclusion leads him to be against the clique position he must be ready to suffer the consequences. Then it becomes the issue of character. The worst part about obrazovanshchina is that they think they think. They are not aware they do not think. In the clique there are cynical and crafty operators, the careerists who know exactly what they are doing and what is going on but they do not care because this is not their prerogative. Their careers are. They are not the true obrazovanshchina.

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS