|The article Flynn effect, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Training
- 2 Original research ?
- 3 Organization
- 4 Abortion
- 5 "Recent research has concluded the Flynn effect is not due to increase in intelligence but increase in ability to take tests."
- 6 Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal
- 7 This article is out of date
- 8 When IQ is redefined
- 9 Origin of the term, section (Jan. 13th 2014 edit conflict)
- 10 Lead in the environment
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 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 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 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 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 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 July 2007
Original research ?
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 http://www.cenatrin.bf/ 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. http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml#what 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)
Ctrl-f for "abortion" on both the article and talk page yielded nothing. Hmmm. Is there any reason why "increases mainly among the less able" could not be "decreases (of percentage of the population birthed) of the less able"?
"Recent research has concluded the Flynn effect is not due to increase in intelligence but increase in ability to take tests."
With one reference, to journal that will be released in 2014, this seems a bit thin. Changed it to "Recent research indicates that the Flynn effect is not due to increase in intelligence but increase in ability to take tests." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BioTronic (talk • contribs) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Even that is undue weight, by Wikipedia sourcing policies. Wikipedia is to be based on reliable published secondary sources. I will edit accordingly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I see the editor who inserted that, who I suppose is new here because the editor is using an I.P account, is not yet aware that Wikipedia reliable source guidelines say "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." That's a common problem in most articles on human intelligence in Wikipedia. I try to help editors find reliable secondary sources by posting a Intelligence Citations bibliography in user space, which you or any other editor can use. The Wikipedia reliable source guidelines and especially the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources. IQ testing is often used as part of diagnostic assessment, so it's a good idea to source articles about the general topic of IQ testing up to the standards in the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine. The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."
Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.
- Agreed that this is undue, especially since it is a common view, also among intelligence researchers that intelligence as measured by tests IS the ability to take tests.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal
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 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)
This article is out of date
The article does not cite this new issue of Intelligence, which is all about the Flynn Effect. It should cite that issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prmct (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's nice in a general way if Wikipedia takes into account the results of recent research, where useful and relevant, but in most cases there's no real pressure to do so immediately. In any case, that looks like at least ten separate articles... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Preferred sources for Wikipedia articles are reliable secondary sources, and on human intelligence especially medically reliable sources, so we should check to see what professionally edited secondary sources do about taking up the ideas from articles in that journal, which is mostly a journal of (often unreplicated) primary research studies. (I am a subscriber to the journal and a member of the publishing professional organization, so I am aware of those articles.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
When IQ is redefined
This article, as well as several others on Wikipedia (and elsewhere on the Internet), make the same mistake in assuming that IQ = intelligence. I'm aware that the abuse of the term IQ is a creeping lay definition problem. In this article it is highlighted because the writer discusses various nations and their relative IQs. And of course intelligence quotient is linked to the Wikipedia page giving the definition of IQ.
The Q part of IQ should be an indicator that IQ is a mathematical ratio of the subject's score to a datum score, which is normally the average for a culture or a nation. In a lay (nonprofessional) context this is not normally a problem, as intelligence is typically discussed within one's own culture where IQ bears a fixed relationship to intelligence.
Various nations can certainly have different levels of intelligence, where one number (if tests were ever to be agreed) would represent average national intelligence. IQ is the mathematical ratio of an individual's score relative to the national average which, by convention, is always normalized to 100. So the "national IQ" must be the average score of individuals in a country which is 100. It is only possible to have relative national IQs if you redefine the term IQ. So Nigeria can only be 80 relative to?
I'm sure this problem has been discussed elsewhere. I'm an engineer, not a psychologist, and I'm expecting this article to stand alone and make sense through the lens of other evidence-based disciplines and for a ratio to be used as a ratio (like dB). If the term IQ is used to express an absolute measure of intelligence (and is not a number relative to a normalized, local cultural value) then it should explicitly state this, as well as offering the source of the referred datum. As it is, this article is internally inconsistent in offering an outline definition for IQ and then promptly violating it:
"When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100... "
- Kenif, the way test scores get normalized to 100 indeed sounds like something the article should explain, especially in relation to the comparisons between cohorts needed for the Flynn effect. Can you find a source about the Flynn effect that talks about this? (It is discussed a bit already in the section "Rise in IQ".) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Flynn has a number of thoughtful comments in his own writings about the habit of mainstream individual differences psychologists of taking "IQ" to be basically a synonym for "intelligence," and thus to use the term "intelligence" when writing about studies based on IQ testing. That usage is conventional and standard among psychologists, even though many psychologists also comment very thoughtfully on the lack of a 1 to 1 mapping between some aspects of human intelligence and scoring high on IQ tests. Flynn's writings and those of many authors who comment on the Flynn Effect also describe the process of norming IQ tests to set the standard score levels. The IQ classification article here on Wikipedia links to a lot of references on that topic, and includes a brief description of the process. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Origin of the term, section (Jan. 13th 2014 edit conflict)
A person, WeijiBaikeBianji, undid my revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flynn_effect&oldid=590443456 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 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)
Lead in the environment
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. 188.8.131.52 (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)