The curious "phenomenon" of incrementally
increasing IQ first circulated in 1984, following a study in that year by James
R. Flynn, purporting to show that citizens in advanced nations like
the U.S. have experienced massive IQ gains over time. (The term itself
was coined by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray,
authors of The Bell Curve ).
Using the Raven’s version scored against today’s
norms (a key point to which I will return) our ancestors in 1910 would have an
average IQ of 70, or about moron level. By comparison, our mean IQ today – that
is, disclosed within the ‘hump’ portion of a Gaussian distribution – would
range from 130 to 150 depending on the test. Now, for reference, 130-132 basically
gets you into Mensa (accepting the top 2% of IQs) and 150 marks you as a
“genius”. Are we all geniuses on our way to becoming Über-Geniuses? I don’t think so, for a number of reasons.
First and most importantly, neither the ranks of Mensa or Intertel have increased significantly. Select a random sample of
the populace, say 10,000 – and dispatch them to sit the Mensa and Intertel IQ
tests and only 2% and 1%, respectively, will get through, as has been the
case for decades. Ditto for the ever receding proportions in the Über IQ
societies such as 'The Poetic Genius Society’. (If you believe seriously that
you measure up to the standards of the latter, google 'Mega Test' and try to
take it to qualify!)
This means, again, that under current norms of
IQ testing, geniuses will still be geniuses, Mensa high IQ types will remain in
the upper 2%, morons will remain morons, and average (IQ = 100) types will
remain stuck in the middle of the Gaussian ‘hump’. Hence, under the ‘Flynn
Effect’, one can only regard oneself as some kind of daunting high IQ type
relative to the (IQ-testing) norms of one’s ancestors, say your Great Grandpa
or Great Grandma – alive in 1910.
Second, we know IQ changes or can change over
time. (See top lower graphic) Indeed, a teen’s IQ can rise or fall as much as 20 points in just a few
years. This can be traced to environmental conditions, internal brain
changes or both. If true, it means IQ is not a stable quantity or entity but
can fluctuate. If it can do so (and some studies disclose it can in adults as
well!) it means ‘Flynn Effect’ -type conclusions come with lots of provisos and
qualifications. These variations also imply the standard deviations (and
standard errors) will be significant, so the question then is whether these
will be large enough to wipe out any abiding significance.
There is some truth also in the claim that the Flynn Effect shows that
education in the modern world “has changed the human mind itself”. The very act
of Googling, for example, enables a rapid assimilation of information,
knowledge unthinkable ca. 1910 or even 1960. The use of computer number
crunching, solving software – like my Mathcad 14 program – would have appeared
like ‘magic’ to my 1962-63 high school self, still working with a Mannheim
slide rule. Indeed, the first time symbolically solving an integral using
Mathcad – say in front of a math prof from Loyola in 1964, might have enticed
him to speculate about “demonic influence”!
Then there is the wide array of Youtube
physics experiments, chemistry experiments etc. that can be instantly
downloaded, not to mention the raft of high level abstract courses from Yale and MIT and other learning centers, e.g..
GianCarlo Ghirardi - GRW collapse models - YouTube
These comprehensive visual learning vehicles would confer an immediate advantage over any guy from 1910 stuck with ordinary text books and hardly any dynamic interplay or control over learning rate. This advantage would also be reflected in abstract tests, say like the Raven's or Stanford-Binet.
Add to that the spate of video –computer
simulated games. For example, older adults have actually managed to enhance
their fluid intelligence merely by playing computer chess, say at grandmaster level, and the game of 'GO' - widely available to download on any laptop.
Back in the early 20th century, however, my
great grandpa wasn’t worried about such things nor did they matter. Life then
pivoted not so much on 'book learnin' but on the practical issues of how
to make enough profit for a given crop acreage – and given enough livestock –
to last through the winter and into the next year.
Somehow, I doubt the average home grown genius today or
computer game wunderkind – if suddenly transported back to 1910 and a
fifty-acre farm in rural Arkansas with 1,000 hogs and 500 cows, along with
assorted crops- would know how to translate those assets into livable profit to
last a year or more. It would be one time-travel experiment I'd really be
curious to perform.
But imagining ourselves as rapidly
becoming Über-Geniuses is the sort of mistake we make, in assessing
something as subtle as intelligence, especially when we try to compare chalk
and cheese. And abundant in the U.S.? When I scan the American landscape I still behold too few citizens with I.Q. high enough to even resist the siren songs sung by the Reepo stooges (like Desantis) about "woke-ism" or "critical race theory" or any of the other useful dog whistles to get people to vote against their own interests.
By contrast a high IQ Mensa poster on the NY Times cleared the air after a barrage of negative anti-Biden comments:
"Biden is politically courageous and a Godsend. If Americans knew what I know and voted in their self-interests Biden should command 80% of the popular vote. Age Plus Experience equals Wisdom.”
But alas, Mensa level IQs (132-35) are too few, applicable only to the top 2 % in the nation. Meanwhile, the final evidence that national mean IQ is actually regressing are the recent polls showing 51% believe Donald Trump has amassed more accomplishments than Joe Biden (41%). And also a majority (58%) awarding the GOP with more savvy and grasp of the economy than Biden and the Dems - even as these Trump cult misfits plan another shutdown to crater the nation's credit, e.g.
As one Quora expert put it in a response to the question (of estimate current avg. national I.Q.)
"Somewhere between 90 and 95 but if Trump is elected again next year, definitely in the low 80s."
See Also:
No comments:
Post a Comment