James R. Flynn, a Professor Emeritus from the University of Otago New Zealand, came to learn about massive gains in IQ over time during his career, after obtaining a large number of IQ datasets. In every western country where IQ tests have been administered since the early 20th century scores on these tests increased by over 30+ points. It is like we all became a lot smarter since our parents’ generation, and our parents became smarter than our parents parents, a phenomenon now named the Flynn effect.
Summary: To comprehend the cause of the effect the book deals with the nature of IQ tests in the first two chapters. IQ tests measure over 10 different abilities (information, Arithmetic, Vocabulary, Comprehension, Picture Completion, Block Design, Object Assembly, Coding, Picture Arrangement, and Similarities), which are weighted to come to a general intelligence score. A key assumption is that a general intelligence factor (g) can be measured when translating these abilities into one number. In other words the assumption is that people who score well on a few abilities typically also score high on others, which is generally true. We can think of groups with a high skill deviation, however, such as savants. Interestingly, large IQ gains over time appear in some abilities, but are absent in others. In the US gains since the 1950s have been the highest on raven’s progressive matrices, and the similarities subtest (over 20 points increase), but lowest on information, arithmetic and vocabulary (less than 5 point increase), as shown in figure 1 below.
In his book Flynn divulges into the nature of these changes and sees minor reasons in increasing sophistication of test takers (prior experience with the test), having more experience with puzzle solving in general, . The biggest reason that overshadows all in his view are a change from what he calls “pre” to “post” scientific reasoning swooping across societies over the span of a century. “I think that I have made a strong case that IQ gains show an enhanced real-world capacity to view the world through scientific spectacles. I believe I can show that this has enormous potential to alter human cognition… IQ gains also show that we can attack abstract and visual-symbolic promblems more successfully and that we are better at on-the-spot problem solving on tasks removed from concrete reality. (Flynn. 2007 p. 43)” Key to this is the ability to see objects in reality as abstract categories, such that we can group items together based on commonalities. Examples are abundant, like the abstract grouping cleaning agents under which we can file ammonia, trisodium phosphate, acetic acid, sodium bicarbonate, chlorine compounds, forms of alcohol etc. Some of these compounds at the same time like acetic acid (vinegar) can also be grouped into cooking agents or drinks. Or the grouping of mammals, distinguished by hair, a four chamber heart, and a neocortex, among other aspects. Flynn doesn’t do justice in my view on the relationship to which this form of abstract thinking has affected IQ. I can think of two possible linkages, the act of abstract grouping itself which enables us to make relative judgements between groups, and the consequence of abstract grouping which allows for faster build-up of knowledge.
After explaining the rationale behind the “Flynn effect” Flynn dives deeper into his reasoning on a new theory of intelligence in chapter 3. To move from an inductive (the intelligence test show that a person is intelligent) to a more deductive approach where based on a general theory we can explain why someone is more intelligent than others. For this purpose he sums what I would call “ingredients of intelligence”, comprising according to Flynn of:
• Mental acuity, the ability to provide on-the-spot solutions to problems we have never encountered before, not solvable by mechanical application of a learned method.
• Habits of mind, the ability to detach logic and the hypothetical from the concrete to solve a range of puzzles/problems by changing thinking habits (Flynn mentions crossword puzzles an example).
• Attitudes, the drive of a person to learn a taxonomy of science or to take abstract problem solving seriously.
• Knowledge and information, the more knowledge you have the more problems you can attack.
• Speed of information processing, enabling both more enhanced and quicker problem solving.
• Memory, to access information and knowledge.
Flynn dives into how intelligence tests can be linked to insights in brain physiology, posing two hypotheses: “a) We will see a meaningful pattern in the correlations between performance on heavily general intelligence factor loaded tests (like Raven’s) and performance on elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs), b) since performances on ECTs are indicators of the quality of brain processes, this will lead to physiological insights. (Flynn 2007, p. 69)”, but comes out inconclusive in both cases to falsify/verify the hypotheses sufficiently. One problem here being the lack of existence of general accepted measurements of ECT such as how to measure mental speed (reaction times to press a button, inspection time on visual awareness, brain electrical responses to stimuli). He cites Nettelbeck (1998) who found that performances on reaction time and inspection time improve only up to age of 11 to 14, while mental ability continues to develop long after. He also dives into what intelligence tests tell about the brain, where “Social trends show that various cognitive skills are largely functionally independent of one another therefore, the same must be true on the psychological level. If one neural area was developed in precisely the same way both when we do arithmetical reasoning exercise and when we do a Raven’s exercise, then progress on one would entail progress on the other. (Flynn 2007, p. 65)”
In chapter four the book dives into more concrete ground looking at how several aspects can be tested to disentangle effects of BIDS (brain, individual differences, and social trends) on intelligence within what is referred to as the “Dickens/Flynn” model of intelligence. In this context three testable aspects are mentioned which are:
• The individual multiplier, by using the individual multiplier, the model shows how, at a given time, a small genetic advantage on the part of an individual captures environmental forces…therefore the Dickens/Flynn mdel alters the balance between the potency of genes and environment in favour of environment (in conventional models).
• Environmental decay, as indicated, environmental quality must be maintained throughout life history, which is to say that current environment swamps previous environments and that the latter quickly become weaker as they recede into the past… therefore any research design that can assess whether the effects of environment are transitory or persistent will test the Dickens/Flynn model.
• The social multiplier, by using the social multiplier, the model shows how environment can have an immense cumulative impact on IQ over time. Really how feedback loops take an environmental event that boosts the average IQ and make the rising average IQ a potent force in its own right….therefore any research design that can assess whether high IQ in one sector of society spills over to boost IQ among others, rather than remaining compartmentalized will test the Dickens/Flynn model.
The idea in case of the individual multiplier is that there is “environmental matching” from having on average higher intelligence to the activities we pursue, resulting in higher IQ on average. The effect is not taken into account in “conventional models” (not referenced in the book or I missed something) that assume 75% of IQ can be explained by heritability and 25% by environmental variance. According to Flynn and Dickens the effect of heritability is 45% in total, of which perhaps 1/5th due to environmental matching, such that the direct effect of genes on IQ accounts for only 36 percent of IQ variance, and 64 percent due to indirect effects of genes plus environmental differences uncorrelated with genes. However, as indicated in the book these figures are an indication in the absence of detailed measurements of environmental indicators affecting IQ.
The effect of social multipliers relates to the environment in which we live as a group effect. If we live in a university city it should have an overall aggregate effect on IQ locally, which would likely spill-over to the residents of that city. Problematic in testing are confounding effects, “such as high-IQ school districts having more qualified teachers and so forth. (Flynn 2007, p. 95.)”. Another social multiplier effect is between generations, where children with larger IQ have an effect on their parents in stimulating intellectual curiosity, their older siblings, and their teachers. After elaborating on the conceptual ideas behind the “Dickens/Flynn” model, the book dives into a number of sub-topics related to intelligence. Including a highly rewarding chapter on why it took so long for Flynn and his colleagues to come to the “Flynn” effect results, a chapter of not updating intelligence test scores on considering the mental state of death-row victims, and some thoughts on what if the IQ gains we have seen are now over?, and short musings on the IQ of our ancestors.
The chapter on IQ gains are over introduces ideas on “critical acumen” in reasoning and wisdom, as separate areas that cannot be measured by IQ gains. The interesting concept of shorthand abstractions (SHA) is introduced to measure “critical acumen”, which are abstractions with peculiar analytical significance. The point here is that their commonality in language has helped to build “critical acumen” to judge and in that judgment aid to tackle problems. Some key examples mentioned are i) market, ii) percentage, iii) natural selection, iv) control group, v) random sample, vi) naturalistic fallacy, vii) placebo. However, only a few of these are common I think with many being the domain of people trained in academia, thus potentially overstating their effect on society as a whole. Flynn designe a test he calls SOCRATES (Social Criticsm and Analysis Test) with 14 open essay statements for university students where one should elaborate on the nature of the statements, which would bring out (lack of) awareness of a number of SHA. In relation to Wisdom mention is made of a practical wisdom test developed by Nevo and Flynn, the HED-VQ (Humane Egalitarian Democratic Values Questionnaire), which is a 46 items questionnaire described in more detail in Flynns book, How to defend human ideals. Such questions include “everyone who is willing and capable of working should get a job everyone should have equal access to job opportunities; no one should be discriminated against because of their race. (Flynn, 2007, p. 168).
Overall: All in all a book with a great deal of concepts to chew upon where it’s strength lies. The quantification and validation of concepts is limited in the book, unfortunately, but probably a better approach then to include unjustified quantification for the sake of it or very preliminary numbers. And sometimes this is difficult in any case, without substantial funding and scientific endurance, given the need to do tests during decades of time, as to figure out for instance environmental differences on IQ. Flynn addresses the audience constructively on these limitations stating “Testing the Dickens/Flynn model will take time. Those who are impatient should help..by following our research designs, or propose better tests of our model, or best of all, develop alternative models that resolve the genes versus environment paradox…Lamenting that the model has not been tested since its inception does not count as help. (Flynn, 2007, p. 99).
References Nettelbeck, T. (1998) Jensen’s chronometric research: Neither simple nor sufficient but a good place to start. Intelligence, 26, p. 233. 241.
No comments:
Post a Comment