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 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.
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)

This section also cites BlairGamsonThorneBaker2005 in support of the claim that the change is too rapid to have a genetic basis. However the referenced article simply asserts the same without providing reasoning or supporting references. A reference to an assertion is no better than a bare assertion. Suggest removing the offending sentence, unless support can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkturner80 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Group Differences[edit]

For some reason, peer-reviewed scientific research articles are not applicable in this section. I find this confusing, as they can be found throughout other sections of the article. Maybe someone can help clear this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publius Obsequium (talkcontribs) 22:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

All parts of all articles on Wikipedia are to be edited by the reliable sources guideline (as I mentioned to you on your user talk page), and there is a common defect on most Wikipedia articles that have some references, but have not yet reached good article status (such as this article) that they tend to include cherry-picked references to primary research articles rather than following the emphasis of major secondary sources on the article topic (practitioner handbooks and textbooks). The reliable sources guideline itself provides some discussion of differing kinds of sources ("Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere."), and the guideline on reliable sources for medicine-related articles goes into even more detail on distinctions among differing kinds of sources. (P.S. Don't forget to sign your comments on article talk pages.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 03:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Duly noted, I will try to find a secondary source such as a review article. Thanks. Publius Obsequium 20:15, 26 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Reduction of amount of lead in the blood of children[edit]

Here's an article which describes the increase in IQ, and the fall of crime rates 20 years later, associated with the reduction of lead in the blood of children. Scroll down for the graph "Did lead make you dumber?". (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that was why the Romans were so 'dumb', what with all them lead pipes what they got their water from, yet somehow managed to hold a state together for well over a 1000 years.
Seriously though, don't take this Flynn effect/IQ stuff too seriously. It is only sociology and therefore a pseudo-science. Most people don't even know that by its very definition an IQ test is meaningless beyond the age of around 18 and that each cohort has by definition to have an average IQ of 100. Comparing present cohorts with the past is also pretty meaningless.
E.g. the average Bedouin may have an IQ of 80, but if stuck in the desert I would declare him a genius who can produce water to keep himself alive. It's called experience. Just like passing (IQ) tests boils down to experience (oh and cultural bias). And can you imagine how pathetic our vocabularies would be considered by people from 200 years ago?
Purely anecdotally, I personally noticed a definite dumbing down of both the UK pure and applied mathematics A-level exams from 1980-1989 and challenge anyone to deny that trend. Oops [WP:NOR] violation...1812ahill (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)