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.
