The New York Times has an obituary for James Flynn, known for the so-called "Flynn effect." What's that? Roughly, over time, IQs in a society rise? But since intelligence, which is measured by IQ tests, is regarded as part of a person's biological endowment, how can that be? Flynn was prodded to do this research after having read a paper in which Arthur Jensen argued that IQ differences between Black and white Americans reflected genetic differences between the races.
These three paragraphs set out Flynn's work:
Like most researchers in his field, Dr. Jensen had assumed that intelligence was constant across generations, pointing to the relative stability of I.Q. tests over time as evidence. But Dr. Flynn noticed something that no one else had: Those tests were recalibrated every decade or so. When he looked at the raw, uncalibrated data over nearly 100 years, he found that I.Q. scores had gone up, dramatically.
“If you scored people 100 years ago against our norms, they would score a 70,” or borderline mentally disabled, he said later. “If you scored us against their norms, we would score 130” — borderline gifted.
Just as groundbreaking was his explanation for why. The rise was too fast to be genetic, nor could it be that our recent ancestors were less intelligent than we are. Rather, he argued, the last century has seen a revolution in abstract thinking, what he called “scientific spectacles,” brought on by the demands of a technologically robust industrial society. This new order, he maintained, required greater educational attainment and an ability to think in terms of symbols, analogies and complex logic — exactly what many I.Q. tests measure.
H/t Tyler Cowen.
