>James Flynn has discovered that raw performance on IQ tests is
>increasing about 4-6 pts per decade. This may not seem like
>much, but appreciate the substantial long-term effects:
>(a) take a person who scored 100 (average) on an IQ test in
>1920, put them in a time machine, and have them take the test
>today: They would score about 60-65 (borderline mentally retarded).
>(b) take a person who scores average on an IQ test today, put
>them in a time machine, and have them take the 1920 test: They
>would score about 135-140 (near genius level!).
All this shows is that over time people are getting better at taking intelligence tests. People may be getting more intelligent over time but I don't see this finding supporting that conclusion.
>Exactly why academic skills are increasing so dramatically is
>being still being debated and studied; however, this increase
>is well documented.
Taking IQ tests is an academic skill i.e., of marginal utility in most employment situations, where highly developed skills (like welding or operating heavy machinery may be needed, or the ability to do repetitive tasks without error is valued. Nothing much to with IQ tests as far as I can tell.
>It exasperates me that so many people
>pay attention to sloppy anecdotal reasoning
>about "students nowadays" and ignore the
>diligent scientific research on this topic.
I don't buy this argument either, although my friends in academe argue vociferously otherwise. Then I remind them what we were like as undergrads.
Intelligence is like other elements of behavior, barring a catastrophic change it evolves slowly over time, change in mean IQ scores over the last 100 years are measuring improved skill at taking IQ tests (ie, what's getting taught in academe) and manifesting statistical artifacts, nothing more.
PC
N Paul Childs 5967-157 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5Y 2P3
e-fax 413-683-9725 _______________________________________________________ 'Gee thanks, your validation means oh, so much to me'.
-Art 'Bones' MacDesalavo