Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Flynn effect + incremental theory

Carol Dweck will be on NBC on Monday morning, 9/24, along with Brian Williams, David Brooks and others, for the NBC Education Nation Summit! We recommend recording it! More at: www.educationnation.com

Hope you enjoy it,

The Mindset Works team
www.mindsetworks.com



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444032404578006612858486012.html

^^article by flynn himself explaining the flynn effect at link

In the paper linked below, Mingroni states a few compelling criticisms of Flynn's explanations for the Flynn effect.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79914286/Resolving-the-IQ-Paradox-Heterosis-as-a-Cause-of-the-Flynn-Effect

Flynn's response seemed less than thorough:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2001/4/01iq/0401iq_critics_dickens.pdf

It's all very interesting. I wish I had more time to read up on it, but between work and 2 young children there's not much time left for anything else.

Yeah, I think that mostly what the Flynn effect actually shows is not human evolution (as Flynn more or less is claiming) but the fact that intelligence testing is always-- and HAS always-- tested for highly inaccurate proxies of what everyone considers "intellectual/cognitive capacity."

We don't really know how to measure the real deal. IQ tests measure something, all right. But that probably isn't the same thing.

After all, if one administered one type of test, it isn entirely possible that my Australian Shepherd could score much better on it than my daughter... just calling it an "intelligence/IQ" test doesn't mean that is what is actually being measured. Suppose that the test involved scent discrimination? Would that be fair or right? After all, it's a sensory processing and cognitive activity. LOL. The thing is, I can guarantee that the dog is better suited to that activity.

On the other hand, if it involved adding vectors...

Maybe we've just figured out how to ENRICH young children's learning environments better, and most of the people who are testing IQ are... um... self-selected and by extension, more concerned about maximizing cognitive potential?

Biology doesn't really allow for "evolution" over a couple of generations like that. Epigenetic explanations... possibly.

But given the shift in test questions, it seems to me that we do not really have an apples-to-apples comparison to start with. Earlier cohorts may not population-match with later ones, either.

Ok, the "we evolved" arguement was coming from the article linked in the second post.

"The tendency of a crossbred individual to show qualities superior to those of both parents requires three conditions: population shift away from random mating of individuals within a population, deviation from showing no tendency to choose partners with particular traits. This natural selection creates breeding true for the corresponding characteristics. This minimizes the varying of the genes passed to the offsprings."

I have to think that's not it too. In the first linked article Flynn attributes the generational growth to education, not genetics, raising the academic abilities (or potential) that an IQ test is built for. I thought he said we spend more time interacting with symbolic thought and that seeps into our conversations so the whole culture is becoming more intelligent according to the IQ tests. I think that's more likely. Then again maybe it does come from the self- selection and those who would test for a high IQ would also enrich their environment.

Also, who knew that the birth-order studies favoring the eldest were replaced by studies revealing no benefit or preference for birth order? It said so in the second link. It seems the outdated ones compared cross-family rather than birth order within the same family. (Second link). As an eldest I demand a recount. But since I have two kids I love equally I'll let science slide.

I missed the Carol Dweck interview. It was on Monday. I forgot to set the DVR. I had just got back from a weekend trip and I forgot about it. Bummer.

Then there's the entire concept that you can measure the capacity to do work, meaning that you're measuring the ability to deal with uncertainty.

http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/2011/03/29/the-power-of-mentoring-and-why-you-didnt-get-it/

I think this has something to do with intelligence.

I haven't read the particular article linked to above, but this is definitely a misinterpretation of Flynn's long term position on this. He's actually a lot closer to your view than to your interpretation of his. I think where you part is that he'd disagree with your assumption that there is a notion, unchanging and capable of proper independent definition, of "the real deal" that IQ tests are trying to measure.

Yes, the more nuanced view of Flynn's beliefs are that we are becoming more capable (as a species) of nuanced, non-concrete reasoning, through improved immersion learning and building upon generational gains in understanding complexity.

I disagree with him.

I also disagree that my daughter would necessarily compare favorably with someone born in 1900, provided that both of them were tested using the same tool.

As long as the latter cannot be done, then it seems to me that this is all speculation, but there is very little reason to think that today's scientists are, say, SMARTER than the Einsteins or Newtons of the past simply because we aer standing on the shoulders of giants in a metaphorical sense.

That, in my estimation, ignores the fact that we cannot ever know what those who came before us might have been capable of if it had been asked of them.

MAYBE the tools that we're using to measure intelligence are becoming skewed to favor higher scores.

That seems to me to be just as plausible an explanation. After all, average SAT scores are not rising. They are, in fact, FALLING. {shrug}

Yes, I do believe that there is an "it" of cognitive functioning/capacity that, ideally, is what is intended by the term "IQ" and that tests of it are mostly imperfect and measure proxies of that quality. Flynn and I may well disagree on that point.

I certainly think that it is possible to attenuate genetic potential there. I'm just not so sure that there are clear means of enhancing it notably.

I guess that's true. I just googled and the IQ test came around in 1911. I have still living relatives born in the early 1920's so it's less than a single lifetime.

I think you are describing different types of intellectual modes with basically fixed intellectual trajectories through life.

By looking at the early years, we're completely missing what happens in the actual adulthood of theses people with respect to productive capacity.

There isn't enough work on this subject to move beyond general theories.