Talk:Flynn effect

Psychology C‑class High‑importance

	Psychology portal 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

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:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Medicine B‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Training

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 80.224.96.198 (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 213.39.143.47 (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 65.34.133.19 (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 71.194.183.199 (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)

Lead pipes?

I'm surprised that there is no contribution from the gradual elimination of lead pipes in the water supplies. Obviously, this would be OK, so we can't write about it...is there perhaps a source showing that this is NOT the cause?

Given the link between lead levels and IQ...and the undoubted fact that we're eliminating lead pipes - how can this not be a part of the discussion?

SteveBaker (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Rindermann source

CLOSED

I'm closing this discussion as an evident topic ban violation by IP. If anyone who is not banned from "Race and intelligence" topics would like to discuss this content, please start a new section. Generalrelative (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Rindermann paper that just got removed does not have anything to do with race; it's only about generational effects on intelligence. It also was published in a different journal from the paper that was discussed here, in Personality and individual differences as opposed to Frontiers in psychology. Is the assumption here that papers by Rindermann (and perhaps also Rushton, Lynn, and te Nijenhuis, who are also cited in this article) aren't reliable sources even when they write about general human intelligence topics, such as the Flynn effect? 2600:1004:B156:7169:2C73:E9DD:5034:A6B5 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, you're right that it is a different survey. But no, none of Rindermans's surveys of "expert opinion" are methodologically sound. I would argue that none of them are reliable sources for what they claim to report on, i.e. expert opinion. So per WP:ONUS we'll need to establish a clear consensus that this material belongs in the article before it can be re-added. Generalrelative (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.