Talk:Flynn effect/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Recent research has concluded the Flynn effect is not due to increase in intelligence but increase in ability to take tests."

With one reference, to journal that will be released in 2014, this seems a bit thin. Changed it to "Recent research indicates that the Flynn effect is not due to increase in intelligence but increase in ability to take tests." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BioTronic (talk • contribs) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Even that is undue weight, by Wikipedia sourcing policies. Wikipedia is to be based on reliable published secondary sources. I will edit accordingly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I see the editor who inserted that, who I suppose is new here because the editor is using an I.P account, is not yet aware that Wikipedia reliable source guidelines say "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." That's a common problem in most articles on human intelligence in Wikipedia. I try to help editors find reliable secondary sources by posting a Intelligence Citations bibliography in user space, which you or any other editor can use. The Wikipedia reliable source guidelines and especially the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources. IQ testing is often used as part of diagnostic assessment, so it's a good idea to source articles about the general topic of IQ testing up to the standards in the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine. The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed that this is undue, especially since it is a common view, also among intelligence researchers that intelligence as measured by tests IS the ability to take tests.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is out of date

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602896/41

The article does not cite this new issue of Intelligence, which is all about the Flynn Effect. It should cite that issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prmct (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's nice in a general way if Wikipedia takes into account the results of recent research, where useful and relevant, but in most cases there's no real pressure to do so immediately. In any case, that looks like at least ten separate articles... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Preferred sources for Wikipedia articles are reliable secondary sources, and on human intelligence especially medically reliable sources, so we should check to see what professionally edited secondary sources do about taking up the ideas from articles in that journal, which is mostly a journal of (often unreplicated) primary research studies. (I am a subscriber to the journal and a member of the publishing professional organization, so I am aware of those articles.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

When IQ is redefined

This article, as well as several others on Wikipedia (and elsewhere on the Internet), make the same mistake in assuming that IQ = intelligence. I'm aware that the abuse of the term IQ is a creeping lay definition problem. In this article it is highlighted because the writer discusses various nations and their relative IQs. And of course intelligence quotient is linked to the Wikipedia page giving the definition of IQ.

The Q part of IQ should be an indicator that IQ is a mathematical ratio of the subject's score to a datum score, which is normally the average for a culture or a nation. In a lay (nonprofessional) context this is not normally a problem, as intelligence is typically discussed within one's own culture where IQ bears a fixed relationship to intelligence.

Various nations can certainly have different levels of intelligence, where one number (if tests were ever to be agreed) would represent average national intelligence. IQ is the mathematical ratio of an individual's score relative to the national average which, by convention, is always normalized to 100. So the "national IQ" must be the average score of individuals in a country which is 100. It is only possible to have relative national IQs if you redefine the term IQ. So Nigeria can only be 80 relative to?

I'm sure this problem has been discussed elsewhere. I'm an engineer, not a psychologist, and I'm expecting this article to stand alone and make sense through the lens of other evidence-based disciplines and for a ratio to be used as a ratio (like dB). If the term IQ is used to express an absolute measure of intelligence (and is not a number relative to a normalized, local cultural value) then it should explicitly state this, as well as offering the source of the referred datum. As it is, this article is internally inconsistent in offering an outline definition for IQ and then promptly violating it:

"When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100... "

"...the Flynn effect continues in nations with lower average national IQs" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenif (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Kenif, the way test scores get normalized to 100 indeed sounds like something the article should explain, especially in relation to the comparisons between cohorts needed for the Flynn effect. Can you find a source about the Flynn effect that talks about this? (It is discussed a bit already in the section "Rise in IQ".) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Flynn has a number of thoughtful comments in his own writings about the habit of mainstream individual differences psychologists of taking "IQ" to be basically a synonym for "intelligence," and thus to use the term "intelligence" when writing about studies based on IQ testing. That usage is conventional and standard among psychologists, even though many psychologists also comment very thoughtfully on the lack of a 1 to 1 mapping between some aspects of human intelligence and scoring high on IQ tests. Flynn's writings and those of many authors who comment on the Flynn Effect also describe the process of norming IQ tests to set the standard score levels. The IQ classification article here on Wikipedia links to a lot of references on that topic, and includes a brief description of the process. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead in the environment

Has no one considered the presence of lead in the environment as a possible cause? In the past petrol had lead in it, and lead paints were commonplace. Legislation has meant that the amount of lead in the environment, and hence breathed or taken in by children, has considerably reduced over recent decades. I recall that lead has very bad effects on children's intellectual development. 92.24.183.151 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

yes, lead in the environment is a well established environmental cause of intelligence depression in some populations. It cannot however account for the Flynn effect.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not? 2.97.212.234 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it is way too small. I think several researchers have mentioned it as a possibly small cause.Deleet (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board[1] of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal website has just been updated with the new articles for the latest edition of the journal, by eminent scholars on human intelligence. The current (second) issue includes an article by James R. Flynn, one of most recent publications. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the term, section (Jan. 13th 2014 edit conflict)

A person, WeijiBaikeBianji, undid my revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flynn_effect&oldid=590443456 because "Reverted good faith edits by Deleet (talk): We don't engage in speculation about terminology before the terminology appears in reliable secondary sources. (TW))". Apparently, taking issue with my final line which read "But perhaps now it will be called the Runquist effect.". This is fair and a mistake on my part. But it should not result in the entire contribution being deleted. He should have removed the last line only. I have now re-edited it and removed the last line and added another reference for the use of the term as I say (i.e. Flynn-Lynn). He should come here and discuss it if he thinks further changes are necessary. Deleet (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Prominently mentioning "Lynn-Flynn" on this point is POV-pushing. That's not what any of the reliable sources (basically, not what anybody but Lynn) says. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's false, WBB. For example, Bob Williams writes in his recent review[2] of research on the FE that "Some researchers choose to refer to the secular gain as the Lynn–Flynn effect, or use an uppercase FL (FLynn effect) for the obvious reason that they feel Lynn has been somewhat slighted by not including his name." It has long been known that other researchers observed the effect long before Flynn, but it was Flynn who showed that the effect was widespread and large and thus of great significance. This history should be discussed in the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's look to what the most widely used reliable secondary sources say about naming the phenomenon. (Hint: they call it the Flynn effect quite uniformly.) It is historically correct that several different researchers had published in various venues data observations that showed a secular increase in IQ scores, and Thorndike's observation about that related to Stanford-Binet scores made it into psychological testing textbooks quite early. (I have one of those at hand to cite on this point.) Indeed, the observation of secular score increases was noticed by historians writing about long-term trends in intelligence in whole societies in books published before Flynn's first major paper on the topic. (I have one of those books at hand to cite also.) So, yes, Flynn (who is aware of both of those channels of prior publication) would be the first to acknowledge that he was not the first to write about the fact of secular increases in IQ scores. But by the same prior publications, neither was Lynn. Which scholar is identified today as the scholar who did the most to put the issue on the radar screens of psychologists (alas, not Thorndike) is something that we can find out about by looking at the usual mainstream textbooks on psychology. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have had opportunity to review all the recent journal publications on the topic of this article, and reminding my fellow editors that generally Wikipedia is to be edited on the basis of reliable secondary sources, I should be in a position soon to do a top-to-bottom edit of this article based on the standard textbooks and practitioners' handbooks to establish historical context and due weight of various subtopics mentioned in the article. I look forward to seeing the next edits to article text along those lines and expect to edit some article sections from my own keyboard in the next few months. Let's all discuss here how to make the article better. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Consistency between versions of this article

The Polish version of the Flynn Effect:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efekt_Flynna

Has this graph:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efekt_Flynna#mediaviewer/Plik:Flynn_effect.png

Which used to be in the English version of the Flynn Effect. As a reader (not an expert) I liked that graph. It was clear and got a significant point across. If there is a reason not to include it anymore, then it should be taken out of all the Flynn Effect articles, no? If not, please put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.34.71.188 (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of text

Weji removed the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flynn_effect&oldid=prev&diff=622879385

Please reinstate. KVDP (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we would need a secondary source citing Woodley to assure that his argument is notable and considered relevant by other intelligence researchers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What reliable secondary source of the kind suggested by the Wikipedia content policy on reliable sources are you looking at in regard to this edit? I have suggested numerous reliable sources on this topic to other editors here on Wikipedia who follow these articles for years, and I invite you to look at those to gain perspective on how one primary research publication relates to the broader literature on this topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Reduction of amount of lead as an explaination?

Here is a study review that says that even tiny amounts of lead have an effect on cognition etc, and that lead levels have been declining: [[3]] The study was linked from a BBC article about lead and its hazards [[4]] 92.24.137.12 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just reading the same BBC article, which is quite interesting. Although the hypothesis that small doses of lead are dangerous is plausible, because it is certain that large doses of lead are dangerous, the better textbooks on trends in IQ actually don't conclude that changes in environmental lead levels have much to do with the Flynn effect. You are right, however, that this article needs some substantial updating, which should be based on sources that fit the criteria for Wikipedia articles on medical topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This does seem a valid and increasingly common explanation. Surely it should be included, even if with caveats. Fustbariclation (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not untill it appears in the literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Like this, you mean? Nevin, Rick (2012): Lead Poisoning and The Bell Curve Fustbariclation (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes if it someday gets published and people start citing it. It is a draft deposited in an online archive, not a published paper.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

BBC article on Flynn effect

We should cite this article as an example of reporting of Flynn effect in the press. Another important thing to take away from this article is that Richard Lynn's view on the Flynn effect is mainstream and correct since it is being given equal weight as compared to Flynn's own nurturist view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.22.153 (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an ok article as far as media reports go, but there are plenty of scholarly sources saying the same things with more detail, so I don't see a reason to use it here.--Victor Chmara (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Individual Gains are Similar to Social Gains

As every culture currently in existence seems to be (more or less) constantly attaining higher levels of knowledge, and consequently asking more informed and better questions, it would seem unusual to be surprised that these same principles hold for individuals as well. -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Adjustments Section

It is entirely unclear to me what this section has to do with the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.241.210 (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji: I appreciate the title change to something that better fits the contents of the section, but it still is unclear what, if anything, the Supreme Court's rulings on intellectual disability and the death penalty have to do with the Flynn effect. Neither of the two linked articles mention the effect by name or AFAICT by description. Looking through the article history it appears that this section was once had considerably more content but much of it were deleted. What's left doesn't make sense on its own -- the whole section should probably go. (Same person as previous from a different computer.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.172.142 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Reverse of Flynn effect in France

Dutton, Edward; Lynn, Richard (July 2015). "A negative Flynn Effect in France, 1999 to 2008–9". Intelligence. 51: 67–70. doi:doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.05.005. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help)

Evidence for they are biologically caused:

Woodley of Menie, Michael A.; Dunkel, Curtis S. (November 2015). "In France, are secular IQ losses biologically caused? A comment on Dutton and Lynn (2015)". Intelligence. 53: 81–85. doi:doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.009. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help)

--The Master (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Group Differences

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Organization

The proposed-explanations section needs splitting up and sorting of factoids by the hypothesis they support or undermine. http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml#what 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 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Reduction of amount of lead in the blood of children

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?". http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health 2.97.208.106 (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)

It looks like the article does not take in to account decreasing amounts of lead in the environment, making the "Flynn Effect" pretty much debunked. Numerous other environmental factors were mentioned including nutrition and better hygiene however leaded gasoline and paints being banned in Industrialized countries is widely discussed in extant science research as causing retardation and an inability to think "at full capacity levels." The extant article should mention this because demonstrably intelligence of the species is on the decline, it is only the reduction of lead that makes it appear intelligence is increasing, making the "Flynn Effect" research invalid. Damotclese (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Such as https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3598508/ A clinical study of the effects of lead poisoning on the intelligence and neurobehavioral abilities of children. Damotclese (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place to push a dysgenics agenda. A decrease in lead is wholly compatible with the Flynn effect. The Flynn effect is just the historical increase in IQ scores. No cause is pre-specified. For the record, I did a search and did not find any reliable sources discussing or proposing lead reduction as a cause of FE. Good idea to test. --Deleet (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flynn effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319031706/http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20020205.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20020205.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Environmental: don't overlook the obvious

The Flynn effect was discovered when the IQ of U.S. Armed Services inductees jumped 15 points between WWI and WWII. That cohort would have been the first generation to grow up in the truly modern world. The changes were sudden and dramatic: reduction in malnutrition, electricity, automobiles, trucks and tractors, purified drinking water supply, sewage treatment, knowledge of vitamins, iodized salt[5], Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Meat packing plants were unsanitary and contaminated with rotten meat which was disguised (sausage or pressed meat) and sold. Flies were everywhere and were attracted in huge swarms by the omnipresent horse manure. Prescriptions were not required to buy medicines, many of which were untested and contained toxic substances, including mercury. It was also legal to buy all types of drugs, including cocaine, marijuana, morphine and opium. Children drank alcohol (remember 10 year old Charles Dickens as David Copperfield) and drunkenness of workers was common. Lead pipes were in widespread use in the water supply system and in homes, and lead soldered food cans were being used, and for some foods, such as sardines, continued to be used for decades (until 1995 in the U.S.), and are still used today in some countries. Phmoreno (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A little follow up highlights the effect of iodized salt.Phmoreno (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sentences in the intro doesn't make sense

I think these two sentences were meant to be combined, but I'm not sure what exactly was intended:

"For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a study published in the year 2000 found that subjects born over a 100-year period were compared in Des Moines, United States, and separately in Dumfries, Scotland. Improvements were remarkably consistent across the whole period, in both countries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.186 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Negative Flynn Effect

@Everymorning: Thank you for your valuable addition. Would you be willing to briefly summarize the following review, too?

Edward Dutton, Dimitri van der Linden, Richard Lynn (2016). "The negative Flynn Effect: A systematic literature review". Intelligence. 59: 163–169. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2016.10.002. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

--Leyo 15:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Eugenics

The United States (and most of the rest of the developed world) underwent massive eugenics programs starting in the 1900s (the effects of which would obviously be seen an average of 30 years later, which is a perfect correlation in time and a perfect correlation of expected outcome) including the forced sterilization of people in mental institutions, some of which only ceased after 1970 or later. The fact that this is not mentioned anywhere in the article is a stunning omission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.67.229 (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Elimination of Leaded Gasoline?

This is not mentioned as a reason in this article but elsewhere the phasing out of leaded gasoline has been suggested as a factor in the lowering of crime rates. Even prior to leaded gasoline, lead was used in paint and even cosmetics. Perhaps limiting exposure to lead and other toxic elements/compounds is part of the Flynn Effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.99.86 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think Rick Nevin proposed elimination of lead as a major factor in this. Especially interesting is that in twin adoption studies, lead influences babies before birth and especially strongly when they are crawling around, so before they are adopted. This perhaps makes IQ heritability seem more strong than it actually is. A podcast talking about this: RS 224 - Rick Nevin on "The long-term effects of lead on crime" Book by Rick Nevin: Lucifer Curves: The Legacy of Lead Poisoning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.60.112.165 (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

possible end of progression

[6] Just saw this, about the issue described in that section. Don't know if the link is useful to the article, so leaving it here. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

--Genealogisticus (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)== Relevant study ==

This study from Iceland https://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/E727 is highly relevant as evidence for a decline in genotypic intelligence, contradicting the Bratsberg study and lending credibility to the otherwise questionable Lynn. It has triple the citations of the Bratsberg study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genealogisticus (talk • contribs) 11:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Average scores?

“For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a study published in the year 2009 found that British children's average scores rose by 14 IQ points from 1942 to 2008”

Since the average is defined as 100, how is this possible? What am I missing? Does this not need clarifying?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Rindermann source

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)

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)

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.

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)

New stuff goes to the bottom. Moved the section.

If you can find reliable sources saying that lead pipes may be responsible, add it. If you can't find any, there you have the reason why it is not mentioned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems the Flynn effect preceded lead removal. We can only conclude that higher intelligence led to lead removal. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"Health" in lead

While there is much evidence for a link between general health and IQ scores, that the "Flynn effect" is often mentioned in this context, with a fair part of the article dedicated to that (most subsections of "Proposed explanations" are relevant), the lead should probably at least have a mention of health... —PaleoNeonate – 05:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Morphic resonance

Could this article please point out that the Flynn effect has been interpreted by Rupert Sheldrake as evidence for his theory of morphic resonance? Sheldrake has given a talk on morphic resonance in which he mentions the Flynn effect, a talk marking forty years since the publication of his book "A New Science of Life", which is available online at sheldrake.org/morphic-resonance/videos). YTKJ (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake is a truly lovely human being, but unfortunately his ideas, including "morphic resonance", are pseudoscientific. Per WP:PROFRINGE his views on scientific concepts like the Flynn effect cannot be included unless reliable WP:SECONDARY sources are provided which make a compelling case that discussing them adds encyclopedic value. I hope that makes sense. Generalrelative (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, WP:UNDUE per WP:MNA (this is about mainstream psychology) and WP:FRINGE, maybe more relevant in his own WP:BLP article if secondary independent sources mention it. —PaleoNeonate – 06:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Self-Evident Literacy & Numeracy have a positive effect

I do not understand how this finding could 'surprise' anyone. Why would it not be self-evident, and entirely predictable, axiomatic even, that improved literacy [and numeracy to a lesser extent] will inexorably lead to higher intelligence, with reference to lesser literacy in the past? Higher intelligence quotient scores, at least, in any case, if not actually higher intelligence. When language is a bedrock [the bedrock?] of human intelligence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Smartphone

Smartphones allow people to walk around with miniature computers in their hands. Thus, they have made people smarter.[Do Our Smartphones Make Us Smarter?: Weinberg College - Northwestern University 2601:C4:C300:A210:1007:83AB:D4EF:469 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page. I see that the edit was not meant to be a joke, as I surmised in my edit summary when reverting. However, I do not believe that this bit of speculation is WP:DUE for inclusion, nor is the source you linked an especially solid WP:RS. Further, we do not use "See also" sections in this way, i.e. dropping in apparently unrelated items where context would be necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Fringe theories tag: Inclusion of references written by Richard Lynn

As per the Richard Lynn biography article, specifically content in article about reverse Flynn effect and dysgenics. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Earl B. Hunt noted that research on family size effects on IQ, specifically children raised in smaller families having higher IQs than children raised in larger families, had been empirically established (though not its cause). (Hunt 2011 pp. 291–295) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear which theories this is referring to. The references to Lynn in the article are sparse and not particularly fringe. An argument could be made for tagging the nutrition section, but not the entire article. Removed. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It was clear if you read carefully. The article had cited Lynn's recent work credulously, including collaborations with Edward Dutton. I've removed them. Our mention of Lynn's 1982 publication in Nature, which simply states that he found gains in IQ among the population of Japan, is fine and should remain. The rest was WP:PROFRINGE. Generalrelative (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Generalrelative. I’m very grateful to editors such as yourself who graciously take time out of your day to review references and content about topics like this. I’ve restored the fringe theories tag per a the subsequent talk page section. Would you mind taking a look at the J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen references that have been included in the Intelligence subsection? It is unclear to me why they are included there at all given the Wikipedia articles about both. — CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Fringe theories tag: Inclusion of references written by J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen

Given the Wikipedia articles about J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen. — CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd be okay with putting this in any sections where Jensen or Rushton are cited uncritically, but it doesn't need to be in the article header. Generalrelative (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I went and added the section tag. Feel free to edit the "Intelligence" section to bring it into line with NPOV, which would of course be preferable to leaving a tag in place. Generalrelative (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but have you bothered to read Rushton's article? His conclusion is:

"Heritable g is at the core of the debate over how much the mean Black–White gap in IQ and school achievement is due to the genes rather than to the environment, and therefore, how much it can be expected to narrow. While g and genetic estimates correlate significantly positively with Black–White differences 0.61 and 0.48 (P b 0.001), they correlate significantly negatively (or not at all) with the secular gains (r = −0.33; P b 0.001) and 0.13 (ns). Similarly, g loadings and heritabilities from the items of the Raven Matrices correlate significantly positively with each other and with Black–White differences (mean r = 0.74, P b 0.01). Although the secular gains are on g-loaded tests (such as the Wechsler), they are negatively correlated with the most g-loaded components of those tests. Tests lose their g loadedness over time as the result of training, retesting, and familiarity"

I can translate it for you if you don't understand it. Rushton concluded that, whereas Blacks demonstrate much lower results than Whites, they improve much faster, which means that tests reflect not inborn general intelligence, but a degree of overall training. That is completely in agreement with the general idea of this article.

What exactly is "fringe" in this theory? Do you really find the statement that, in the past, Blacks showed a significantly lower results in IQ tests, that the White-Black gap has significantly narrowed since then, and it is quite likely that it will disappear in close future? Do you seriously disagree that the Black-White gap is most likely not due to the actual difference in inherited intelligence, but is a result of some flaw in the test procedure? Please, explain.

In addition, the Rushton's article was cited 92 times, and I checked briefly some of the works that cites it. Thus, this publication says that "public controversy has continued with debates over intelligence research by Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, Philippe Rushton, Helmuth Nyborg, Richard Lynn, and many others (e.g., Gould, 1981; Nyborg, 2003).", however, fringe theories are not a subject of public controversy. Flat Earth is not a subject of public controversy, it is a subject of interest of a small group of freaks.

Furthermore, Rindermann cites the Rushton's finding without any criticism. It says:

"It is worth noting that gaps on achievement and IQ tests have been narrowing over the last few decades. For example, the gap between US White and Black students in NAEP was around 16 IQ points (favoring Whites) in the early 1970s and declined to 10 IQ points in the late 1980s (Rindermann & Thompson, 2013; Rushton & Jensen, 2010, their Fig. 3)."

Another article from this list [7] also cited Rushton without any criticism. I haven't checked all of them (do it if you want), I just picked two articles randomly, but it seems clear that the work that is being cited so many times without a clear and unanimous criticism is not fringe.

I have no idea what the article about Rushton says (and I am not going to dive into that), but Wikipedia is not a RS, per our own policy.

Please, provide any reasonable arguments, in support for the template, otherwise I am going to remove it in close future. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy to remove the template, provided that the paragraph is brought into compliance with WP:FRIND. The issue is not so much your unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia article on Rushton as with your unfamiliarity with the general state of scholarship on this topic (so please can the "I can translate it if you don't understand it" nonsense). You also happen to be wrong about what Rushton is arguing, though this is immaterial really: he's saying that tests which are more g-loaded show less improvement over time –– i.e. the more the tests are testing for "real intelligence" the more the Black-White gap is seen to be enduring and therefore likely due to genetic as opposed to environmental factors –– a finding which Flynn himself later showed to be false. If you want to know why Rushton is considered fringe when commenting on matters related to race and intelligence, and specifically with regard to the question of whether group-level differences in IQ test performance have a genetic basis, you really need to at the very least read through last year's WP:SNOW-closed RfC on the matter: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#On Consensus About Heritability of IQ. Rindermann, Murray, Lynn etc. are part of a walled garden whose work is considered fringe by essentially all mainstream geneticists, who are the relevant experts on heritability. Again, read through the RfC for sources. This is not the place for it to be relitigated. Generalrelative (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

My "I can translate it if you don't understand it" was addressed not to you. I was somewhat irritated that no rational arguments were proposed in the original post except Rushton's personality.

The hereditability of intelligence is a quite separate issue. I don't see how the works by Rushton that is cited in this section supports the idea that the Black-White difference in IQ score is due to genetics. I would say it says quite the opposite. Do you mean I am wrong? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for getting miffed about it. But yes, I do think that your translation above is incorrect. Rushton is here arguing that the more a test is g-loaded (which is his way of saying "testing for real intelligence") the more the Black-White gap can be shown to be enduring and therefore likely due to genetic as opposed to environmental factors. This is referred to as Spearman's Hypothesis, and Rushton is criticizing Flynn on the basis of work which he believes verifies this hypothesis. Which is entirely consistent with his life-long goal of proving Black intellectual inferiority. That's not just my opinion; it's how reliable secondary sources universally describe his project. Sure, he had a terrible personality, but he was also a terrible scientist. Generalrelative (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, yes. You are right. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above I've removed the citations to Rushton and Jensen. These white supremacist sources have no place on Wikipedia. Sovkhozniki (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)