IQs rise, but are children really smarter?
An expert says scores are higher because more people view the world through scientific spectacles.
By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times
Staff Writer
October 27, 2007
James R. Flynn, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Otaga in New Zealand, discovered two decades ago that IQ test scores were steadily rising in the developed world despite failing schools and stagnant standardized test scores — a phenomenon called the “Flynn effect.” During a recent visit to UCLA, Flynn talked about the conundrum, which is the subject of his new book, “What Is Intelligence?”
Are children today smarter than their parents?
I don’t think they are smarter if by that you mean they have better brains. They think better on their feet; they can solve problems on the spot without being told what to do; they are better at working with shapes, thanks in part to the Internet and the computer. But they have no larger vocabularies and are no better at arithmetic.
So why are their IQs higher than those of their parents and grandparents?
The people who invented IQ tests saw the world through scientific spectacles. They were interested in logical reasoning. But generations ago people were very utilitarian. If you asked a person in 1900 what a dog and rabbit had in common, they would say you could use a dog to hunt rabbits. Today you would say they both are mammals. That is shorthand for a lot of insight. That may seem trivial, but classifying the world is prerequisite to understanding it scientifically.
You are referring to the portion of the IQ test that measures the ability to determine similarities?
Yes. And if you say “Mammals,” you get two points, and if you say “Dogs hunt rabbits,” you get none. The score on this portion of the test has gone up 24 points in America since 1947.
Do you think there is something wrong with the way IQ is assessed?
The people who designed the test thought they were measuring intelligence, but they were actually measuring a mix of intelligence and a way of looking at the world. They looked at the world through scientific spectacles, and it took a long time for the average person to slowly take on that perspective.
What caused scientific thinking to go mainstream?
It permeates everything. I think some events were people moving into managerial and technical work and needing to think on their feet; not being so exhausted from manual labor so that you can be intellectually challenged in your leisure, and play chess or bridge. A reduction in family size allowed parents to spend more time with their children.
It seems odd that IQ scores are up while scores on other standardized tests are not.
If you look at the PSAT, which is given to juniors in high school, the scores are stable and are not going up with IQ. The PSAT has lagged IQ because it tests reading and general arithmetic.
Here is the full story.
Are children smarter?
I don’t know.
But I do know that the current trend is to somehow cover up most IQ issues. Just recently Dr. James Watson, the DNA discovery fame, Nobel Prize winning scientist made a statement related to the intelligence of the black people. Despite his credentials, he didn’t get even as much as a question, as for “why do you think so?”. Instead the scientific (and non-scientific) world jumped on him, declaring him a racist, his employed threw him out of his job (well…he “resigned”) and in almost age 80, he can now disappear in shame, instead of fame.
Was Dr. Watson right? We will never know, now will we? Nor will we know whether children are smarter or not, because today’s politically correct atmosphere rejects the notion offhand, that anyone as a group can be smarter. We are declared a big equal world, and that’s it. Was that ever scientifically proven? Of course not. We just believe that, but too many people have a fuzzy good feeling to believe that, so it will be kept this way, until reality one day may kick mankind in its guts.
Gabor
Yes,generally they are.
And it’s not just due to education.
It’s evolution,the reason we are what we are.
Perhaps it’s less than 1 IQ point per century but genetically humans
are smarter and smarter.
Speaking of which,do you think Judit Polgar is more intelligent than Zsuzsa Polgar?
Speaking of which,do you think Judit Polgar is more intelligent than Zsuzsa Polgar?
Gee Mr. Mad Sloan, your stink can be smelled on your words.
Why don’t you just go away?
I think its baloney. It’s like assuming we are smarter than people a thousand years ago.
We may know more because of the accumulation of knowledge…(And I think the test are easier today..haha).but that certainly does not make us “smarter”
One of my favorite quotes ..and there are many..from Albert Einstein:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
Happy Saturday and best wishes
Mike Magnan
Mike,
You really think that say
Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis is
biologically equaly smart as you?
I bet he isn’t.
As concerns question which of
Polgar’s sisters is more intelligent (by measure of IQ) ,I don’t have any idea.
well…um first of all they are different species (that lived side by side at one point) so I don’t know what you mean?
Second…if I think I am getting your train of though right….a generation or two simply can’t constitute a measurable gain in actual intelligence …(just cause you’ve been trained to push buttons better than most only makes you a more efficient monkey..not a smarter one) and third…I wonder how many people reading this and running around today could achieve some of the things they have in the past….without gigabytes of established knowledge.
My previous point was rather simple and I thought easy to understand.
I don’t think Intelligence is properly understood as your comment suggests. I’ll never forget volunteering with special needs kids and marveling at the powerful and unique way they sometimes could see things even when “intelligent” people like us would never have had the depth to see.
It
s all rather relative….but I’m sorry I was not more clear. I thought I was..
Happy Saturday anyhow..haha.
Mike
ps..I won’t touch the other topics here as ..c’mon…they’re not worth it.
If all relevant factors affecting IQ average scores are considered, this is a much tougher question to answer than it first suggests.
Consider:
As first derived, given, and tallied, IQ tests measured native ability, an “intelligence quotient”, that suggest what one’s “native intelligence” be. However, recently, due to declining IQ average scores, IQ testing boards have revised (read, made easier) IQ tests akin to SAT tests so students would likely score higher, which in fact they have done (in the United States). Many suggest that this practically invalidates the test, that it is akin to giving a patzer a phony GM chess rating and claiming they are of the same caliber as Susan–NOT!!!!.
Needless to say, many Far-Eastern and European nations laugh and jeer at the American educators and testing board for using these tactics, because these methods clearly show up when American students (who now score higher on SAT and IQ tests do poorer and poorer each year when gauged against Far-Eastern and European students.
be lookedThis is a very tough question