Talk:Flynn effect/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

removed non-notable material

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or a news outlet. I have removed two non-notable passages: [1], [2]. The first is from a recent paper which hasn't been properly synthesized by any secondary sources, who's relevance is suspect, and who's primary conclusion doesn't make strong reference to the Flynn affect. The second is a pundit like he/said she said on the issue of extrapolation, which is not in any way notable, and only conveys opinions about the validity of extrapolation w.r.t. the Flynn affect. aprock (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed in Wikipedia. The science articles are full of peer-reviewed articles. The first article mentions the Flynn effect in the abstract so how is it not relevant? The second deletion uses a review article of the Flynn effect as well as a noted book. Neisser is certainly noted expert (headed APA's task force on IQ after the Bell Curve). How it is not relevant to mention the total size of the Flynn effect for different tests?Miradre (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain how the content is notable. aprock (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You deleted material from three scholarly sources. A noted book about intelligence by Jensen, a review article on the Flynn effect by Neisser, and a peer-reviewed article mentioning the Flynn effect in the abstract. Regarding notability see WP:NRVE.Miradre (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I never said they weren't scholarly. I said the content was not notable. By all means demonstrate the content's notability through reliable secondary sourcing. From WP:NRVE: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. aprock (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For example Jensen's book has over a thousand citations in Google Scholar.Miradre (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The notability of the book is not in question. However, the notability of the content you wish to include is. Wikipedia does not have a reference to every obituary in the New York Times. This is not because the NYT is not a notable publication. Until you can establish the notability of the content you wish to include, I'll be done here. I'll at this point note that if I do not respond to any comments unrelated to secondary sourcing for the content, it's because they are not relevant. I'm not here to have endless debates with you about nothing in particular. If you can't discuss the issue at hand, that's fine with me. You can continue that discussion on your own. aprock (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a notable scholarly source you do not have to prove that the part you cite is notable in itself. Where is that supposed policy? Miradre (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy that particularly applies here is WP:NPOV as manifested in the section on undue weight. Many of the articles subject to the recent ArbCom case have had undue weight problems for years, which other Wikipedians must now fix for the benefit of readers of Wikipedia and the benefit of the project's long-term reputation for accuracy among scholars who know the professional literature well. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What is supposed to be the NPOV problem with the above sources?Miradre (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, primary sources are disfavored by comparison to secondary sources for Wikipedia article text, as you can see for yourself by reading the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on sourcing. That is especially true of this article and the other articles within the scope of the recent ArbCom case. Much of the POV-pushing that has taken place in this set of articles over the last few years has consisted of inserted many too many references to minority primary sources while ignoring mainstream secondary sources that interpret the primary sources in light of the overall professional literature on the subject. This article still needs much improved sourcing to reliable secondary sources, which are full of analysis of the Flynn effect. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, two of the deleted sources were secondary. Regardless, Wikipedia does not prohibit primary sources. Science articles in Wikipedia are full of peer-reviewed sources.Miradre (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

More fundamentally, WP:N does not apply to this at all: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."Miradre (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the specific policy you're omiting is WP:UNDUE: each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources ... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. We're back to how prevalent this extrapolation s/he said is in reliable sources. When you're ready to back up inclusion of this content by showing it's prevalence in reliable sources, please do so. aprock (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed articles are reliable sources. How can it violate WP:UNDUE to mention the view, presented in a peer-reviewed study, that infectious diseases may be an important explanation for the Flynn effect?Miradre (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is how prevalent is that viewpoint? Even the authors of the paper don't hold that viewpoint. They only offer it up as a possible explanation. Do you have any other sources which establishes the prevalence of the viewpoint? aprock (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The authors certainly holds the view that it is an important explanation and provides evidence for this view. I am not saying that this is the truth. But undeniably it is one of several explanations with some evidence in the scientific literature. As such it should be mentioned.Miradre (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not a prevalent viewpoint. aprock (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What the "prevalent" viewpoints regarding the explanations are in the field is unclear. Regardless, WP:NPOV certainly does not exclude mentioning the existence of minority views. Only giving them undue weight.Miradre (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A view that is suggested (not held) by a single paper is not a minority viewpoint. aprock (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if this is correct, what policy prevents briefly mentioning the existence of such a paper and the view there?.Miradre (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Or more generally. Where is the policy stating that one cannot briefly mention a view in a peer-reviewed paper?Miradre (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting feedback for draft for new article "Nations and intelligence"

See User:Miradre/Nations and intelligence. Things to improve before moving to Main namespace? Relationship to this article? Miradre (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong title (as a matter of the English language). Maybe not an encyclopedic topic by Wikipedia policy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you are posting this here since the article was created two days after my request for feedback and you have earlier made comments on the talk page of the article. The title is already discussed there. Better to have the discussion regarding this article in one place instead of duplicate discussions.Miradre (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources tags

Primary sources are not disallowed in Wikipedia. Science articles in Wikipedia are full of peer-reviewed articles as sources.Miradre (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In many cases that is a mistake in the sourcing of those articles. This mistake is very common, because primary research articles are easier to look up online than reliable secondary sources, for many disciplines. See the Wikipedia reliable sources guideline ("Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research.") and the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources (medicine) ("Respect secondary sources Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim (see Wikipedia:No original synthesis that advances a position). Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field.") for guidance on what sources to prefer for Wikipedia article text, especially for statements about human intelligence or genetics or other medical claims. You are correct that many of the 6,906,652 articles on Wikipedia are now in apparent violation of those guidelines, but the proper response to that observation is to fix those problems and meanwhile use the best possible reliable secondary sources for the articles we are discussing together. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted primary sources are not disallowed and none of the given peer-reviewed articles ignore the above. If you have a problem with a specific source, then state it here. There is no no policy support for tagging every peer-reviewed article without explanation.Miradre (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The primary source template is a standard Wikipedia editing template that should be used, yes, with common sense, but that any editor can use as the circumstances require. This article badly needs more secondary sources (as it long has), and I am calling for those to be added to the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

But you have not given any "circumstances" for why just these peer-reviewed articles are problematic. With your reasoning, or rather lack of it, every peer-reviewed source in Wikipedia should be tagged which is not supported by policy since peer-reviewed articles are not disallowed. Specific peer-reviewed articles as sources may be problematic in some cases, yes, but then the circumstances causing these specific articles to be problematic should be explained.Miradre (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

restored deleted section

This is the second time that this section has been deleted. If this section is problematic, I suggest bringing any problems to talk. aprock (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There are now two sections with identical text word-for-word. If you prefer to have the text in the other place then I do not feel strongly about that. I will remove the duplicate text in the other location.Miradre (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. I did not notice that you'd extensively edited the section before you deleted it. Aparently, I copied the section from the wrong revision. I'll be restoring the correct version presently. If you have issues with that version, I suggest bringing them here. aprock (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. See my edit summaries here.[3][4][5][6]Miradre (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The material you deleted was not duplicate material. It did refer to the same sources however. aprock (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The section I did delete today was identical word-for-word. Regarding the previous material now restored see my edit summaries above. They still apply and if unanswered I will delete the material again.Miradre (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The material is not duplicated anywhere in the article. I did see your edit summaries above, and they do not describe your edits properly. If you are not interested in discussing this on the talk page as per WP:BRD, I'm not sure that this dispute will be resolved easily. aprock (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am discussing this on the talk page. Please explain why the edit summaries do not describe my edits correctly.Miradre (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I did. [7]. [8]. aprock (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Let us do it this way then: Proposed deletions:

• "There is considerable debate about how the change in IQ over time relates to the change in intelligence over time. Factor analysis is frequently used to construct multi-factor models to explain the variation in IQ scores. The relationship between intelligence, IQ, and the most significant factor is not well understood."

This is unsoured. An explanation with source for g is in the section " "The Flynn effect and the "general intelligence factor". As such the above should be deleted.Miradre (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Studies that use multi-group confirmatory factor analysis test for "measurement invariance". Where tenable, invariance demonstrates that group differences exist in the latent constructs the tests contain and not, for example, as a result of measurement artifacts or cultural bias. Wicherts et al. (2004) found evidence from five data sets that IQ scores are not measurement invariant over time, and thus "the gains cannot be explained solely by increases at the level of the latent variables (common factors), which IQ tests purport to measure". In other words, some of the inter-generational differences of IQ are attributable to bias or other artifacts, and not real gains of general intelligence or higher-order ability factors."

No need to go into great detail about this particular study regarding if g has increased or not. The study and conclusion already mentioned "The Flynn effect and the "general intelligence factor". As such this text should be deleted.Miradre (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The rise in test performance may be independent of how well the test measures intelligence. Studies have shown that while scores for the WISC subtests have improved over time, the level of improvement is generally uncorrelated with a specific subtest's g-loading (i.e. correlation with g). However, a Dutch study found g gains in descendants of non-Western immigrants, while another study found g gains in Spanish students."

Firstly, this violates NPOV by the describing results of the first studies as a fact. Secondly, it is factually incorrect by not all studies in the first set using WISC. Thirdly, some of the links in the references do not work. These problems are fixed in the section "The Flynn effect and the "general intelligence factor" which also describes these studies. As such this text should be deleted.Miradre (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive dialog. I'll just note here that "duplicated material" is not the primary issue that you're bringing up here (as compared to the edit summaries). I'll work on improving on the problems you've mentioned sometime tonight. aprock (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The primary issue is certainly that these two sections cover the same material. With the additions noted above which I have described in not just one but two separate sets of edit summaries. So this is the third time.Miradre (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

When I've got time, I'll restore the deleted content with the above concerns resolved. aprock (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of material

This sourced material has been removed: "There are many different kinds of IQ tests using a wide variety of methods. Some tests are visual, some are verbal, some tests only use of abstract-reasoning problems, and some tests concentrate on arithmetic, spatial imagery, reading, vocabulary, memory or general knowledge. The psychologist Charles Spearman early this century made the first formal factor analysis of correlations between the tests. He found that a single common factor explained for the positive correlations among test. This is an argument still accepted in principle by many psychometricians. Spearman named it g for "general intelligence factor." In any collections of IQ tests, by definition the test that best measures g is the one that has the highest correlations with all the others. Most of these g-loaded tests typically involve some form of abstract reasoning. Therefore Spearman and others have regarded g as the perhaps genetically determined real essence of intelligence. This is still a common but not proven view. Other factor analyses of the data are with different results are possible. Some psychometricians regard g as a statistical artifact. The accepted best measure of g is Raven's Progressive Matrices which is a test of visual reasoning."

This provides a clear explanation for what g is. Why was it removed? The current text is unclear and explains poorly. Take the sentence "Factor analysis is a statistical method which can be used to describe variability in terms of a small number of components. For IQ tests, this is typically done by using a series of subtests targeted to specific mental abilities." What kind of variability? What kind of components? Furthermore, the factor analysis is primarily not an analysis of subtests, but an analysis of tests, some of which do not have subtests.

Furthermore, claiming that "IQ tests which measure a wide variety of mental abilities" is dubious and POV when many considers that there is only one main form of intelligence and for example Raven's Progressive Matrices has no subtests of different abilities.

This sentence was removed: "In any collections of IQ tests, by definition the test that best measures g is the one that has the highest correlations with all the others." Why?Miradre (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The content was not removed, it was edited to be clearer, more concise, and less of a direct quote of the original source. aprock (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You have not answered the specific points I raised. Unless you do, I will restore it and correct as per above.Miradre (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Contenet related to the Flynn effect was not removed. Some content not related to the Flynn effect was removed. Most of that material was about the g-factor which is detailed in the "see also" article. Additionally, some of it was edited to be clearer, more concise, and less of a direct quote of the original source. aprock (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the statements you introduced are incorrect as explained in detail above. Other material in now more unclear as explained above. Please respond to the specific points I raised above.Miradre (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Q: "Why was it removed?" A: This is an article about the Flynn effect. Extended discussion of the g-factor can be found on the see also page.
• Q: "What kind of variability?" A: The variability in test scores. See the linked to factor analysis article.
• Q: "What kind of components?" A: Statistical components, of which the g-factor is one. See the linked to factor analysis article.
• Q: "This sentence was removed ... Why?" A: Because this content is about the g-factor. Extended discussion of such is in the g-factor article.
• Q: Furthermore, claiming that "IQ tests which measure a wide variety of mental abilities" is dubious... A: This content is directly sourced to Neisser97.

aprock (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for template?

What's the rationale for the navigation template that has been inserted in this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Flynn effect is about issues in the measurement of human intelligence. Please read WP:BRD before undoing reverts on challenged edits again.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The rationale is that the Flynn effect is about human intelligence. Of course the template should be there.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality?

Why is the article supposed to violate NPOV? I will remove the template unless reasons are given.Miradre (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible End of the Progression

Deleted these two throw away lines from the Possible End of the Progression:

"Also, if the Flynn effect has ended for the majority, it may still continue for minorities, especially for groups like immigrants where many may have received poor nutrition during early childhood."

"There is a controversy regarding whether the US racial gap in IQ scores is converging. If that is the case then this may or may not be related to the Flynn effect."

There's no research to back up these ambiguous statements, and the two lines virtually have nothing to do with the end of the Flynn effect, and in fact, try to make a case that the progression hasn't ended at all. The two statements simply do not belong in the "Possible End of the Progression" section of the Flynn effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sempre30 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That the Flynn effect has ended except in the nations where this has been confimred is unclear.

Regarding the first statement this obviously true for children to immigrants that has received poor nutrition in their childhood in their original country.

Regarding the second statement, here is a source:

"It is important to recognise, however, that, if indeed the Flynn Effect is now at an end in such highly developed countries as Norway and Denmark, it may be far from over in countries which are less developed. Much of the recent reporting of a continued Flynn Effect has come from such countries (Cocodia et al., 2003; Daley et al., 2003; Meisenberg et al., 2005). If such differentials were to continue, then any national differences in cognitive test performances (Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002) might be expected to diminish in the future."[9]Miradre (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with the end of the progression?? Again, I assert that the two above statements have nothing to do with the end of the progression, and stand behind the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sempre30 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Sempre30 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously if Flynn effect continues for certain groups the progression has not ended for these groups. Hard to think of anything more relevant than that.

Here is another source showing that the Flynn effect is relevant when discussing the US IQ gap. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.12.002 Miradre (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I note that you again have removed this material despite the presence now of a source. Unless good reasons are given I will eventually restore it.Miradre (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Miradne, what is your source for the claim that the American racial gap is related to the Flynn effect? The paper by Jensen and Rushton explicitly denies any connection between the black-white gap and the Flynn effect, so it can hardly be used a source to argue the opposite. Jensen and Rushton's paper is directed at Flynn. However, Flynn himself denies ever claiming that the Flynn effect is causally linked to the b-w gap: "I never claimed that the Flynn Effect had causal relevance for the black/white IQ gap. I claimed that it had analytic relevance."[10] In other words, Flynn believes that because there are large cohort differences in IQ due to unknown environmental causes, it's possible that there are also (other) unknown environmental causes that bring about the large racial differences. Whatever you add to the article should match the sources you cite.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That there is at least one paper dealing with this, and also Flynn's quote you note yourself, obviously shows that the question is interesting. I never stated that they are related, and I mentioned Rushton and Jensen's view that they are not. It is important to mention that the Flynn effect and a possible convergence of the US Black-White gap is not necessarily the same thing.Miradre (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

SAT tests have the same effect possibly - however, until 100 extra points were added to all test scores the SAT was falling. A trick was to make the test "harder" but to put the harder questions at the end of the test where noone ever arrived at and putting lots of easy questions up front ( all the same value). My state - and yours - picks through available academic tests to pick the one our kids will score highest on. I suspect - given huamn nature - that the Flynn Effect has run into the "political/real world effect". In 1913 the IQ was standardized at 100 - after that there was a gradual drop to 95 - except in very unusual and specific case it is unlikely that large populations have reversed this quickly ( possibly the 1913 test was only taken by the academically gifted and the drop is due to included the less able ). If IQ test are any good ( probably not very ) then the test should not be correlated to food/height or even education or culture - I guess the IQ test isn't any good.159.105.80.220 (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment Tests Negatively Correlated with the Flynn Effect

Sources in the external links. The Creativity Crisis (Newsweek) and Center for Education Reform for SAT reference. Sempre30 (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give sources in the external links but after the claims. Regarding creativity, that is not necessarily related to intelligence. Now regarding SAT scores, you have a point, but your source is not scholarly and old. I have added some better material on this and also on teacher perceptions.Miradre (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The creativity/intelligence relationship is far from resolved by psychologist, but I would say in the case of the Torrance Test, they are definitely linked. As far as the declining SAT scores and the consequential re-center, I feel this is general well-known knowledge, whole books have been written on the subject, so to provide a "scholarly" source seems a little redundant. Do a google if you don't believe it. Sempre30 (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is not exactly how it works. The burden of evidence is on you to show that this material has a sound basis, that does require that you present the particular books from which you have your knowledge. It is certainly not redundant to require scholarly sources, it is rather a necessity.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, I'm not certain I understand. Wikipedia clearly has a preference towards secondary article sources. Scholarly publications often border on primary sources, which is often tagged, so to request I post a scholarly source doesn't make a lot of sense. I only posted my sources in the external links, because at the time, I couldn't figure out how to link them in the article. No disrespect, but Wikipedia posting system is one of the most cumbersome forums I have ever been on. Despite that, it is my favorite web address. Miradre, the reason why the SAT article is "dated" is because the recentering controversy happened 15 years ago. It isn't news anymore. Sempre30 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Existing creativity research is supportive of a) most creativity tests partially measuring IQ and b) high IQ lowering creativity. It's covered by several creativity threshold hypothesis related sources, though I don't think any of them have linked it to the Flynn effect, nor is there agreement about IQ depressing creativity nor agreement that the correlation between IQ and creativity (up to the threshold of 120) is due to g loaded testing. Other research that hints in this direction is that people with high IQs have lower brain activity, while creative people have higher brain activity in the right side of the brain. Obviously low and high brain activity are mutually exclusive. --Scandum (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the source for the claim that high IQ lowers creativity? Studies like the SMPY do not lend support to such a conclusion.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Scandum, the Newsweek article makes the link between the flynn effect and creativity. I'm just basing my info off of the article, assuming someone in the know wrote the article. (see link below) "Like intelligence tests, Torrance’s test—a 90-minute series of discrete tasks, administered by a psychologist—has been taken by millions worldwide in 50 languages. Yet there is one crucial difference between IQ and CQ scores. With intelligence, there is a phenomenon called the Flynn effect—each generation, scores go up about 10 points. Enriched environments are making kids smarter. With creativity, a reverse trend has just been identified and is being reported for the first time here: American creativity scores are falling."http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html Sempre30 (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It however doesn't make the connection that creativity scores dropped because of a rise in IQ. Even sources that deal directly with the issue give very broad conclusions, as if the goal is to make sure everyone can draw whatever conclusion they like, which I guess secures future funding. As such it may be best to simply present the facts and let the readers figure it out. --Scandum (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just don't have the academic/research background to do any type of quality analysis on the nature of creativity, so I've decided to place the references in more appropriate areas of Wikipedia when time permits, since my contributions here have been continuously deleted. Sempre30 (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Effects of Environmental Lead

Nevin (Environmental Research Section A 83, 1}22 (2000)) proposed that changes in childhood lead exposure may be connected to the Flynn effect. I propose that this should be referenced in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.183.19.2 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 July 2007

Note to the person who wrote it. If you believe it is appropriate to add, why not do so? and please sign your comments by using four tildes, like this but without the spaces ~ ~ ~ ~

Skywriter 04:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently added a brief section on possible environmental explanations for the Flynn effect, including Nevin's. Olawlor (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Graphs

There is no available graphs to show the effect? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Consistency between dysgenics and the article's treatment of the evolutionary explanation

This article dismisses the evolutionary explanation of the Flynn effect outright, on the grounds that too little time has occurred for genes to play a factor, given the dramatic changes we've seen in IQ over just the 20th century. Sounds fine. Then later on, when the article covers the alleged decline of the Flynn effect, it discusses dysgenics at length. It seems like this is inconsistent. If evolution as an explanation is implausible on the grounds that too little time has occurred for natural selection, then too little time has occurred for natural selection in the human gene pool for dysgenics to occur as well. One could suggest that dysgenics occurs by causes exogenous to the population--e.g., genes coming in from other populations. But that has a nasty bias to it: why think that's what's going on for dysgenics, but dismiss the possibility that external factors influenced the increase in IQ where it has been observed in the 20th century? Also, the dysgenics section makes claims about a global dysgenics, i.e., the world population IQ progressively declining [because of genetic factors; edited add]. That's mighty difficult to square with a quick dismissal of the possibility of IQ-increasing natural selection.

Here's my explanation for what's going on: dysgenics is a political issue, and people who are interested in it have an axe to grind, and are willing to find tons of citations raising their points. (Alternately, if it's not the editors the Wiki site, then there's more people out there writing things to be published on dysgenics for the same reason[, and that glut of literature gets picked up by the editors].) There's not really a big crowd whose political views about welfare or whatever hinge on an evolutionary explanation for the Flynn effect. Thus, the article biases towards the people who are strongly looking for evidence of dysgenics. That's bad.74.176.54.211 (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Microevolution

I have read many articles about the Flynn Effect but no one seems willing to consider the possibility of natural selection as the cause. In this case it would be called Microevolution or small scale changes in gene frequency over small time scales. If we agree that higher intelligence strongly improves a person’s chance of career and financial success, why not consider the possibility that this extends to reproductive success? As evolution on this time scale would only change the distribution of existing genes and not create new ones, this would be entirely consistent with the Flynn effect being strongest at the lower end of the intelligence range. No new and improved “smart” genes are being created. Instead, existing “smart” genes are becoming more common. It is also possible that the reproductive benefits of intelligence are non-linear. I suspect that the bottom tier of the intelligence spectrum within each cultural group is significantly less successful in reproduction that every other tier. The key point here is that reproductive success would need to be examined within the context of cultural groupings.

While I have no proof that this is the primary cause of the Flynn effect, it seems almost impossible to avoid including it as at least a contributing factor. A hundred years ago the primary selective pressures on the human population were factors related to mere survival. Live was “nasty, brutish, and short”. Higher intelligence would have been of secondary importance. The measured beginnings of the Fynn effect approximately correspond to timeframe when infant mortality declined and overall life expectancy began to increase. This would have inevitably changed the mix of selective pressures on the human population. Datlas99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.239.92 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 August 2005

This has been considered, however, lower than average IQ is actually of a reproductive advantage in modern societies. The fitness cost of high IQ and/or a college education are large, and thus the expection would actually be a slightly lower average IQ over the time period. --Rikurzhen 01:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite a reference for this ? I'm think the way this subject was studied was critical to the conclusions that can be drawn. Stating that a lower than average IQ has a reproductive advantage only leads me to wonder how the populations were defined and how they stratified the I.Q. ranges. Think about this, the reproductive influence of I.Q. doesn't have to be linear across the entire I.Q. spectrum to have an affect. The gene frequencies for the entire gene pool can be moved by a strong selective pressure on a narrow segment. Has anyone looked at the reproductive success of the bottom tier of the I.Q. range? Datlas99 14:46, 24 August 2005

Eh? "Fitness cost" of high IQ and education? Where are you getting that from? A college education is financially an excellent investment, and smarter people live longer happier lives. Perhaps you are referring to how richer people tend to have fewer children, and education and IQ tend to lead to more money...? --Maru 04:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Longer, happier lives, yes, but does that mean more children ? That's the only aspect that counts for evolution. See dysgenics. --Flammifer 08:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't, Flammifer. The assertion is dubious to begin with, as it contradicts the Flynn effect. Furthermore, the "only" effect that counts for evolution is whether or not alleles spread within the gene pool. Children numbers are almost irrelevant. It has yet to substaniated that being smart or going to college makes one reproduce less, indeed intuition would lead one to suspect that given that college is an excellent financial investment, it would lead to greater reproductive fitness, not less, and that such an effect could be significant, and not irrelevant due to other considerations, and that this is in accord with the very well supported/observed Flynn effect. --Maru 12:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to with "The assertion is dubious to begin with" :-P

As for the number of children being irrelevant, mm, I'd have to question that. Seems to me that's the most common way of spreading alleles in the gene pool, though there are other strategies (helping your relatives spread their genes, making sure your children have kids too, etc.). Flammifer 15:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was the whole Flynn effect is about the average populace getting smarter, no? So you're arguing that the stupider people should be out-breeding the smarter implies the populace average intelligence going down, not up. --Maru 21:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That wouldn't be surprising if the Flynn effect did not represent a real change in average ability, which is a possible interpretation of the effect. It is also possible that both a positive effect and a dysgenic effect is occurring simultaneously and the overall trend is upward. --Rikurzhen 22:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

There are quite a few more variables in evolution the IQ or the # of children you have. Yes in the short term it would seem the that the # of children you have would the dominate factor, however this does not take into account long term effects. with a less then average IQ would be less likely to survive on average for a multitude of reasons. So in the long term average I.Q.s should increase globally, barring societal intervention or a new evolutionary pressure. 50.84.79.9 (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoa there guys. Here's a paper along the lines of my claim about negative fitness from increased IQ: PMID 12267266. Feel free to do more literature searches. --Rikurzhen 22:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Also, relative fitness is--of course--all we are able to measure. --Rikurzhen 22:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ethanol

The part suggesting that ethanol is somehow an environmental hazard should be removed. Ethanol burns leaving only water vapor and carbon dioxide. Gasoline is the toxic nasty fuel that leaves thousands of stinky carcinogens, and dangerous carbon monoxide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.11.207 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a word about the Flynn effect inversion ???

Use your preferred web translator, and most of all read these references :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article721863.ece http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_IQ.pdf https://www.google.fr/search?q=flynn+effect+inversion&oq=flynn+effect+inversion&aqs=chrome.0.57j62l3&sugexp=chrome,mod=4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

---

Inversion de l'effet Flynn ?

Une étude d'Aden et Shayer datée de 2005 et portant sur 25,000 enfants scolarisés en Grande-Bretagne suggère au contraire une inversion pure et simple de l'effet Flynn, et une régression de trois ans d'âge mental des élèves britanniques entre 1975 et 2005. Cependant des études ultérieures démontrent que chaque pays a son rythme d'une part mais qu'également l'effet Flynn ne profite qu'aux moins doués, le King's College de Londres étant un établissement d'élite ne correspond pas à ce critère. Cependant la tendance d'une stagnation voire d'une légère régression de l'effet Flynn en Occident est bel et bien établie, les causes en sont encore à l'étude d'autant que le phénomène n'est pas homogène.

---

-- 12:49, 19 February 2013‎ 82.226.27.88

This is not a replicated finding backed up by reliable secondary sources, which is what we use to edit Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cultural expansion

The reason for this is the spread of European culture. The "Flynn effect" is in effect a measurement of how rapid European culture is being spread worldwide and nothing more. It is just another form of European cultural imperialism. Set the stardards and have the power (guns and resource control) to judge everyone else by those stardards. --Shabaka Tecumseh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.209.46 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 October 2003

Except that it has also (or especially) occurred among white European populations (in Europe and the US). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.90.87 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 January 2004

The fact that the increase occurs especially in White European nations, could just be further evidence of the growth of a European cultural standard; that the unifying aspect of it becomes most readily apparent in the places where it is strongest to begin with. --Shabaka Tecumseh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.61.22 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 July 2004

I certainly appreciate your concerns, and the issue of cultural bias in IQ tests is a significant and important issue, however I don't believe it holds water here. First, as the disscussant above noted, the Flynn effect is in fact most pronounced in homogenous, white European cultures. Now you argue that this may be further evidence of the growth of a "European standard" but I think you would be hard pressed to prove that the Dutch (for example) are significantly MORE homogenous or European now than they were 40 years ago! Yet the Flynn effect is clear there....

A second and perhaps more compelling argument stems from the fact that the Flynn effect is, if anything, more pronounced when we assess people with tests that are the LEAST culturally biased. Psychologists have individually adminsitered IQ tests that are purely non-verbal and can be administered with no verbal directions to persons with no formal education. These tests apparently show the least cultural bias (e.g. differences between cultural/ethnic/racial groups are lowest on these tests) yet the Flynn effect is, if anything, stronger with them. Again, while cultural bias in testing is an important issue, it is not the core of the Flynn effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.133.19 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 27 April 2005

I've got to disagree. The rise shown by the Danes seems to have tapered off, and then started going backwards. This actually strongly supports Shabaka's point, as the cultural biases first boosted the Danish scores, then, as they became 100% homogenised and the biases in the IQ tests were slowly removed due to better understand of the subtle bias effects, they came to depress those same high scorers.

Another factor is repeated testing. If you keep doing IQ tests, your scores go up. One case in the US was decided along these lines. US law says that those who cannot understand what they did wrong may not be put to death, and it has been ruled that this is an IQ of below 70.[1] Re-normalisation effects are an issue here, as are the repeated tests, as since the first test, where the guilty party scored just 68 (and was therefore safe from state execution) on the first tests, but who now scores around 75. Of course, the possible better nutrition in prison may have assisted, but it is most likely the repeated taking of IQ tests that caused the rise. [1] http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=675512002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.14.176.57 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 6 July 2006

There's no such thing as a standardized test that isn't culturally biased. First, the testers are defining intelligence within their own cultural paradigm, and then they are measuring it according to that. I do not understand how that is not culturally biased.99.137.52.41 (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

is it possible humans are passing knowledge on the tests genetically?

well thats my theory and i'm sticking to it. --Compn (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No. The data show that is not possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Morphic Resonance

Seems to me that the Flynn effect supports Rupert Sheldrake's ideas of morphic resonance. 192.139.140.243 05:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would add back in: The hypothesis of morphic resonance, first proposed by Rupert Sheldrake in 1981 predicts that when some members of a species have learned a task or solved a puzzle, others will be able to do so more easily, on average. Sheldrake suggests that the Flynn Effect may be an example of this principle. In this case, morphic resonance would not apply equally to all IQ subtests but mainly to those that involve puzzle solving. In fact Flynn found very little increase in the scores in the subtests for information, arithmetic and vocabulary, and only modest gains in comprehension. The largest increases were in “performance” subtests, which involved solving puzzles. The biggest increases of all were in a Similarities Subtest in which subjects had to indicate similarities between different items, and also in a subtest called Raven’s Progressive Matrices, which demand “that you think out problems on the spot without a previously learned method for doing so.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nautis (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Morphic resonance" is patent nonsense and pseudoscience. per WP:FRINGE, it has not place in a serious encyclopedia. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that morphic resonance is patent nonsense that has no place in an encyclopedia article about the Flynn effect. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The effect of literacy

I removed the section called Literacy because it is based on a primary source, and, what's more, the source in question, a scientific paper, has apparently not been cited by any reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources, and while the use of primary sources is not entirely forbidden, I find it questionable that a whole section is devoted to an argument presented in a paper that has not been discussed by the scholarly community. More specifically, the paper completely disregards many well-established findings that contradict its major claims (see here[11]).

Can Miradne, who reverted my deletion, explain why he/she thinks this paper should have a section devoted to it in this article?--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Most science articles in Wikipedia cites numerous "primary" sources if one should call peer-reviewed papers that. They are not forbidden as reliable sources. If you have any sourced objections, please add them. Note that IQ differences in the US are not the same as IQ differences worldwide. A factor not important in the US may well be important in developing nations.Miradre (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says that "a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors", so Marks's paper is a primary source. Most science articles may or may not cite primary sources, but Wikipedia policy discourages the use of them. There are no sourced objections to (or endorsements of) Marks's two papers on the topic, probably because his claims are so absurd. Marks argues that racial differences in the US are also caused by literacy differences, so it's not just about developing countries.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Once more, primary sources are not disallowed, and the science pages of Wikipedia uses them extensively. I quote from WP:RS: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars."

If his claims are absurd, then you should have no problem finding sources showing this.Miradre (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed articles are reliable sources, but WP:SECONDARY means that we should preferably use only those peer-reviewed articles that are secondary sources. You weren't involved in the race and intelligence arbitration case, but one of the things that was stressed there was that articles should be based on secondary sources.

If Marks's views are notable, you should have no problem finding sources showing this.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is not probhibition of using peer-reviewed articles as my quote from WP:RS shows. Please give me the quote and link to the ruling prohibiting the use of peer-reviewed articles as sources.Miradre (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you babbling about? This is not about peer review, but about the use of a primary source that presents a viewpoint that may not be notable enough to include in the article. The use of primary sources is always discouraged in Wikipedia, and the use of this particular source and devoting an entire section to it is highly questionable when the paper has not been discussed in any reliable secondary sources. Articles should not give undue weight to marginal views:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

------

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Given the marginality of Marks's views, they probably should not be covered at all in this article. Certainly there should not be a separate section for them. If they are mentioned at all, one sentence in the Schooling and test familiarity section would be plenty.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with no need for a separate section. But that its view is an extreme minority is unproven. I think that many would accept it as another factor making for a more complex environment which would train IQ.Miradre (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we're making some progress at last! I don't think Marks's study merits a mention in the article, but if you insist, perhaps one sentence such as "Citing a high correlation between rising literacy rates and secular gains in IQ, David Marks has argued that the Flynn effect is caused by changes in literacy rates" could be included in the Schooling section.

While many researchers would probably agree that rising literacy may have played a role in the Flynn effect, that is not Marks's argument. His argument is that "both secular and racial differences in intelligence test scores have an environmental explanation: secular and racial differences in IQ are an artifact of variation in literacy skills". I don't think any expert would agree with such a sweeping claim. Marks is an amateur in the field of intelligence research, and it shows.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Your text if fine but I would propose that it should be placed in the "Generally more stimulating environment" section instead. The schooling section uses material regarding the developed world while increasing literacy is more relevant for the developing world.Miradre (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The section on literacy has been deleted on two occasions and the discussion about the deletion has revealed the prejudices of the discussants to reject rather than to listen to interesting new ideas. The literacy theory is a new theory, but that does not mean that it is necessarily "absurd", that Marks is an "amateur", or that the theory is "unproven". The theory explains at least 70% of the variance in national IQ differences and between 95% and 99% of the changes in the Flynn Effect over time. Any theory which has that amount of predictive power is worthy of serious consideration. The decision to replace a paragraph by a single sentence is, in my view, debatable. The decision to place this sentence in the section on "Generally more stimulating environment" is an error. The sentence does not fit into this section at all. It fits much better under "Schooling." Guevera2013 (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Guevera2013

We don't need to discuss the absurdities of Marks's thesis. We can decide if it belongs to Wikipedia by checking if it meets the Wikipedia standard of being a significant view. More than two years ago, I noted above that it doesn't because "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" and "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia". This is still the case. It's been years since Marks presented his thesis, but other researchers have shown almost no interest in it. As a compromise, we agreed before that Marks's thesis can be briefly mentioned in the article (even if it relies on a primary source). You have given no reason why Marks should be given more coverage in this article, so I'm removing your additions.--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the main reasons given for the deletion of the section on the literacy explanation is that the theory is drawn from a primary source. To be consistent, the following four sections should be deleted as they are also based entirely on primary sources: "Schooling and test familiarity" based on refs 9, 19, 20 and 21 (all primary sources); "Heterosis" based on a single primary source 39; "Environmental toxicity" based on a single primary source 40; and "Studies looking at multiple factors" based on two primary sources 41 and 42. I encourage fellow Wikipedians to read the evidence presented in the primary source (ref 22) before making judgments about the alleged "absurdity" of the theory. The evidence in support of the literacy theory outweighs the evidence in support of the other theories, about which there is no agreement among intelligence experts. Unless good reasons can be given for maintaining deletion of the section on "Literacy" while these latter three sections should be retained, then I will eventually restore the section Guevera2013 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The primary source issue is one thing, but more important is the fact that Marks's thesis is not a significant view as defined by Wikipedia policies. However, I removed some of your claimed primary sources. Ref 9 (Neisser) is a review article and ref 20 (Plomin et al.) is a textbook, so they're not primary sources. In general, much of this article should be rewritten using reliable sources that review proposed explanations of the effect (there are many such sources).

You steadfastly refuse to defend the inclusion of Marks's thesis by reference to Wikipedia's rules about including only significant viewpoints and not giving undue weight to marginal views. The inclusion of all of the primary sources I just removed could be better defended than including Marks because the former are at least widely cited unlike Marks's thesis. There is no agreement about the causes of the Flynn effect among experts, but one thing that is clear is that they do not subscribe to Marks's theory. The experts have paid no attention to Marks.

Your personal opinions about the plausibility of Marks's ideas are irrelevant.--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The majority of sources in this article are primary sources, which is contrary to Wikipedia's rules. The article requires very significant editing to remove all references from sections that are primary sources unless there is a strong reason to justify leaving them in the article. The following references appear to be primary and should be removed or given very sparing space (one sentence maximum and certainly not a whole section): 3,5,7,8,10,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,22,23,24,26,27,28,30,33,34,35,36,37,40,41,42,43,44,47,48 and 49.Guevera2013 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is clearly not a fringe view in any sense of the word. It is a new argument that has not been taken up widely in the literature yet. The fact that Kaufman a well established IQ researcher mentions it positively as new exciting research shows that it is notable and not fringe. It is a question of how much weight it should receive, but it clearly should receive weight.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Marks' paper has also been cited by several other scholars. Among them: : "Are people in the South less intelligent than in the North? IQ and the North–South disparity in Italy Original Research Article The Journal of Socio-Economics, Volume 40, Issue 6, December 2011, Pages 844-852 Vittorio Daniele, Paolo Malanima", "Hassall, Christopher, and Thomas N. Sherratt. "Statistical inference and spatial patterns in correlates of IQ." Intelligence 39.5 (2011): 303-310.", "Citation: Berhanu, Girma. (2011 November 19) Academic racism:

Lynn‘s and Kanazawa‘s ill-considered theory of racial differences in intelligence. Education Review, 14(12).", "Eysenck, William. "Personality, intelligence, and longevity: A cross-cultural perspective." Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal 37.2 (2009): 149-154."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Abortion

Ctrl-f for "abortion" on both the article and talk page yielded nothing. Hmmm. Is there any reason why "increases mainly among the less able" could not be "decreases (of percentage of the population birthed) of the less able"?

173.10.120.118 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)