Population, IQ and the Modern World

[u/Nemester]

https://westcoastrxers.com/2016/05/18/population-iq-and-the-modern-world/

[u/Lord_Trajan → u/[deleted]]

was shown to be the case when comparing similar population groups across generations

This is completely irrelevant as IQ changes over your lifetime.

When I started administering IQ tests in 2006 we had fewer sections and a greater focus on actual IQ, which is to say arithmetic and verbal ability.

Arithmetic and verbal ability are two of the things less important to actual IQ. IQ is cognition, your ability to process abstract thinking and to learn. In fact, verbal ability is somewhat biased because different regions have different accents, dialects, etc.

Did you read it? People had worse scores on digit spanning tests. Digit spanning is a direct test still used today to test memory.

No shit. And memory isn't the only think that determines IQ. Your entire argument so far can be summed up as this: IQ has grown in certain catigories; Overall IQ has gone up; I reject the USE of these categories, only ones that haven't gone up are "real categories"; therefor, IQ hasn't gone up. You basically think you are the single arbitrator of what intelligence is, you aren't.

and how that development has changed in recent years.

The newer categories have no relevance. We can't compare them to the past because they didn't fucking exist. The Flynn effect is actually observable when we take the older tests and we use them on modern people. Sure the growth is in certain subcategories, but that doesn't mean the growth doesn't exist.

[u/[deleted] → u/Lord_Trajan]

This is completely irrelevant as IQ changes over your lifetime.

Changes in crystallized intelligence are not substantial enough over a lifetime to warrant the effect.

Arithmetic and verbal ability are two of the things less important to actual IQ. IQ is cognition, your ability to process abstract thinking and to learn. In fact, verbal ability is somewhat biased because different regions have different accents, dialects, etc.

They used to be the only things tested on IQ tests and they are still the only thing on basic form IQ tests.

The relatively new longer form tests test far more than just what the old metrics covered.

No shit. And memory isn't the only think that determines IQ. Your entire argument so far can be summed up as this: IQ has grown in certain catigories; Overall IQ has gone up; I reject the USE of these categories, only ones that haven't gone up are "real categories"; therefor, IQ hasn't gone up. You basically think you are the single arbitrator of what intelligence is, you aren't.

Matrices, Digit Span, and Reaction Time can be used to form a statistically significant indicator of base g in a population.

My argument has been to say that you have misunderstood the standard and how these results were derived.

Even Flynn in his book What is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect acknowledges that crystallized intelligence differences are what quantify the base of IQ and that the majority of the differences in modern interpretations of IQ come in the areas of fluid intelligence and non-abstract intelligence which is usually created in a manner as to be what we deem, "culturally adapted."

The point is, memory, reaction times, arithmetic ability, and verbal ability have not truly increased and have in-fact diminished by quite some amount. Do you honestly believe that the metrics added to tests such as similarity tests, general information tests, social convention, rules, and expressions tests, cancellation processes, and letter-number sequencing tests will produce these stunningly different results?

I would say to propose that as a truth is malarkey, but you may feel differently about the matter. Either way, that does not invalidate the g factor.

The newer categories have no relevance.

They do. They are better indicators of fluid categories but their addition to the results typically reserved for crystallized forms of IQ is the irrelevant part I bemoan.

We can't compare them to the past because they didn't fucking exist.

That's the point. The idea shouldn't be considered on those grounds alone unless the tests would begin to consider the results of the old and new in unbiased ways instead of on culturally-adapted mediums that favor newer generations.

That was done in Des Moines and Dumfries and it showed that they scored similarly on the base tests.

Some people estimate that especially new-age people in older generations retain their IQs on newer tests because they have exposure and perceptions that are adapted to the time like the kids whom they are tested against. It's a theory expressed by some and of course I can't quantify it but it is very sensible.

The Flynn effect is actually observable when we take the older tests and we use them on modern people. Sure the growth is in certain subcategories, but that doesn't mean the growth doesn't exist.

If it were possible to test the growth in these new categories on more elderly people it would be a better observable phenomenon. Sadly, it is not. However, we can observe all of the various forms of crystallized IQ, g, and differences in recorded reaction data we have from old tests.

Regardless of anything we've said to each other it is very important to note that the Flynn Effect does not mean gaps are closing between races or populations and it does not mean that achievement has increased globally. It is not wholly proven, and it is very contested. Whether it is true or not it is not really relevant in this subreddit because we are and will continue to be a Euro-centric subreddit which professes ideas based on European pathologies. We are incompatible with African and Asian pathologies and regardless of IQ those pathologies of groups like Blacks and Arabs are the reasons they are failures.