Talk:Flynn effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Could it be that more and more people are getting training in doing in doing IQ tests? I read somewhere that there is a noticeable increase in the result from the 1st test you take to the 3rd one. Probably you learn to think like the test or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:44, 14 May 2004

I think that is true, people are learning the way of the tests. Once I came across the following question. Which one is the odd one out: Train, Plane, Steamboat, Car, Bus. Ok, Trains can only move on tracks, Planes can move in 3 dimensions, steamboats move in water, cars are small and buses have commercials all over them. So which one is it? In the end it was the car, but with no explanation. But after a few of these you can probably figure out what the test writers were thinking. I guess people are figuring out the mindset of the people who made the tests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:54, 16 May 2004
Remember, this is not an effect of the same people retaking the test, but changes in the average scores in a population across generations. I.E. If the 18 year olds averaged 100 on a test in 1948, the 18 year olds now might average 128 on the same test. Now perhaps we are all exposed to more testing, but remember, this effect has occured dramatically in even the last 20 years. Has the average persons exposure to standardized IQ tests changed that much since 1985? It's a puzzle... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:27, 27 April 2005
On the question above, I think it'd be the car, because it is the only one that you yourself are in control of. I don't know about exposure to IQ tests (I think I've taken two or so...) but standardized testing itself has exploded, with many students taking multiple AP, SAT I/II, ACT and even graduation tests in only four years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnegar (talkcontribs) 23:40, 24 January 2007
This, to me, is the greatest weakness of any IQ test which includes this sort of question. As a mathematician will tell you, there are an infinite number of ways to describe any finite series. More broadly, questions along the lines of "which doesn't belong," or "which is the next in the sequence," unless they are so simple as to be nondeterminitive, don't have "right" answers. Even the "best" answer is often considerably more subjective than the author of the test may think it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:08, 8 July 2007

Original research ?[edit]

I don't know if it has been emphasized by some scientist(s) but IMO :

- the expense in education in many third-world countries were considerable (I have no serious datas yet),

- the progress in communications is simply incredible : It's not a secret on Wikipedia that I spent some time in Burkina Faso around 1986. In 14 month I could phone my mother once! Just click on to verify that the volume of information you can exchange has increased. --Ericd 20:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


The proposed-explanations section needs splitting up and sorting of factoids by the hypothesis they support or undermine. is an example of how there should be multiple subsections. As it is, the section is a wall of text which doesn't even offer an itemized list or summary. (Also, it would be good if the French diagram were translated into English.) --Gwern (contribs) 03:02 1 April 2010 (GMT)

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal[edit]

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board[1] of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal website has just been updated with the new articles for the latest edition of the journal, by eminent scholars on human intelligence. The current (second) issue includes an article by James R. Flynn, one of most recent publications. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the term, section (Jan. 13th 2014 edit conflict)[edit]

A person, WeijiBaikeBianji, undid my revision: because "Reverted good faith edits by Deleet (talk): We don't engage in speculation about terminology before the terminology appears in reliable secondary sources. (TW))". Apparently, taking issue with my final line which read "But perhaps now it will be called the Runquist effect.". This is fair and a mistake on my part. But it should not result in the entire contribution being deleted. He should have removed the last line only. I have now re-edited it and removed the last line and added another reference for the use of the term as I say (i.e. Flynn-Lynn). He should come here and discuss it if he thinks further changes are necessary. Deleet (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Prominently mentioning "Lynn-Flynn" on this point is POV-pushing. That's not what any of the reliable sources (basically, not what anybody but Lynn) says. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That's false, WBB. For example, Bob Williams writes in his recent review[2] of research on the FE that "Some researchers choose to refer to the secular gain as the Lynn–Flynn effect, or use an uppercase FL (FLynn effect) for the obvious reason that they feel Lynn has been somewhat slighted by not including his name." It has long been known that other researchers observed the effect long before Flynn, but it was Flynn who showed that the effect was widespread and large and thus of great significance. This history should be discussed in the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's look to what the most widely used reliable secondary sources say about naming the phenomenon. (Hint: they call it the Flynn effect quite uniformly.) It is historically correct that several different researchers had published in various venues data observations that showed a secular increase in IQ scores, and Thorndike's observation about that related to Stanford-Binet scores made it into psychological testing textbooks quite early. (I have one of those at hand to cite on this point.) Indeed, the observation of secular score increases was noticed by historians writing about long-term trends in intelligence in whole societies in books published before Flynn's first major paper on the topic. (I have one of those books at hand to cite also.) So, yes, Flynn (who is aware of both of those channels of prior publication) would be the first to acknowledge that he was not the first to write about the fact of secular increases in IQ scores. But by the same prior publications, neither was Lynn. Which scholar is identified today as the scholar who did the most to put the issue on the radar screens of psychologists (alas, not Thorndike) is something that we can find out about by looking at the usual mainstream textbooks on psychology. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I have had opportunity to review all the recent journal publications on the topic of this article, and reminding my fellow editors that generally Wikipedia is to be edited on the basis of reliable secondary sources, I should be in a position soon to do a top-to-bottom edit of this article based on the standard textbooks and practitioners' handbooks to establish historical context and due weight of various subtopics mentioned in the article. I look forward to seeing the next edits to article text along those lines and expect to edit some article sections from my own keyboard in the next few months. Let's all discuss here how to make the article better. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead in the environment[edit]

Has no one considered the presence of lead in the environment as a possible cause? In the past petrol had lead in it, and lead paints were commonplace. Legislation has meant that the amount of lead in the environment, and hence breathed or taken in by children, has considerably reduced over recent decades. I recall that lead has very bad effects on children's intellectual development. (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

yes, lead in the environment is a well established environmental cause of intelligence depression in some populations. It cannot however account for the Flynn effect.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Why not? (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Because it is way too small. I think several researchers have mentioned it as a possibly small cause.Deleet (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Consistency between versions of this article[edit]

The Polish version of the Flynn Effect:

Has this graph:

Which used to be in the English version of the Flynn Effect. As a reader (not an expert) I liked that graph. It was clear and got a significant point across. If there is a reason not to include it anymore, then it should be taken out of all the Flynn Effect articles, no? If not, please put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of text[edit]

Weji removed the following:

Please reinstate. KVDP (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we would need a secondary source citing Woodley to assure that his argument is notable and considered relevant by other intelligence researchers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
What reliable secondary source of the kind suggested by the Wikipedia content policy on reliable sources are you looking at in regard to this edit? I have suggested numerous reliable sources on this topic to other editors here on Wikipedia who follow these articles for years, and I invite you to look at those to gain perspective on how one primary research publication relates to the broader literature on this topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)