Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Are We Getting Smarter?: Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century Paperback – September 6, 2012
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Customers who bought this item also bought
Q&A with author James R. Flynn
You've often said that our minds are not becoming more intelligent, but rather, more modern. What do you mean by that?
Raven's Progressive Matrices uses images to convey logical relationships; the Wechsler tests consist of 10 subtests, some of which do much the same but others of which measure the traits intelligent people are likely to pick up over their life time, such as the ability to classify objects.
We do so well on these tests because we are new and peculiar. We are the first of our species to live in a world dominated by categories, hypotheticals, non-verbal symbols, and visual images that paint alternative realities.
There has been a transition from using the mind to manipulate the concrete world for advantage toward logical analysis of symbols increasingly abstracted from the appearance of the concrete world and even the literal appearance of the symbols themselves. This is what I call supplementing "utilitarian spectacles with "scientific spectacles"—which does not imply that the average person knows much science.
The great psychologist Alexander Luria did some wonderful interviews with pre-modern people:
There are no camels in Germany; the city of B is in Germany; are there camels there or not?
Reply: I don't know, I have never seen German villages. If B is a large city, there should be camels there.
But what if there aren't any in all of Germany?
Reply: If B is a village, there is probably no room for camels.
Note how the pre-modern mind refuses to abandon the concrete world and refuses to use logic to analyze a hypothetical situation. Today, we automatically classify things rather emphasize their differences, take the hypothetical seriously, and use logic to analyze both the hypothetical and abstract symbols.
What misconceptions about IQ do you disprove in your new book?
First, that IQ tests can measure intelligence over cultural distance. Some believe the low IQs of developing nations show that they do not have the intelligence to industrialize. In 1910, the US and the UK had a mean IQ of 70 and yet, they still industrialized.
Second, that IQ gains tell us nothing except that people do better on IQ tests. Take moral argument. It seems incredible to us that a father would kill his daughter because she had been raped for the sake of "family honor." We would ask, "What if you had been knocked unconscious and sexually assaulted?" But if he sees moral maxims as concrete things, impervious to change, rather than as general principles subject to logic, and sees no point in "speculating" about hypotheticals, he will dismiss your question as totally irrelevant.
Since 1950, gains on Vocabulary and Information subtests, at least for adults, have been large. More words means more concepts conveyed. More information means more connections perceived. Better analysis of hypothetical situations means more innovation. As the modern mind developed, people performed better not only as scientists and technicians but also as chief executives of corporations.
Third, that women average lower IQs than men. The most recent data for five advanced nations show women equaling or slightly surpassing men.
Fourth, that you should use outdated tests to execute capital offenders. Many of these men are not mentally competent. They took obsolete tests at school and since the standards of the time were lower, it looks as if their IQs are nearer to normal than they are.
Will IQ scores ever reach a plateau, or will the "Flynn effect" keep marching on?
Gains seem to have stopped in Scandinavia. Presumably, this is because certain causes have exhausted their potency. They have eliminated poverty, provided modern schooling for all, parents interact with their children from infancy, the ratio of adults to children in the home cannot fall further if they are to replace themselves, even solo-mothers are not isolated, leisure has becomes as filled with cognitively demanding pursuits as anyone would welcome, the economies have as many cognitively-demanding jobs (administrative, professional) as feather-bedding can provide.
One of my surprises was that gains are still robust in the nations for which we have recent data: America, Britain, Germany, and South Korea. I suspect none of them are as socially progressive as the Scandinavians. Gains will certainly keep marching on in the developing world, unless their progress is impeded by civil war, wars over water, or natural disasters.
Whether the gains continue or not, it will be tragic if we do not capitalize on those we have made thus far. Tertiary education turns out graduates with professional or vocational skills. But they do not get the key concepts they need to react critically to the mass of information the modern world uses to confuse them. How many graduates can do elementary economic analysis, recognize good social science, or know that appeals to nature in moral argument (heart transplants are unnatural) are bankrupt?
"Flynn has made this field his own ... This book's strengths are the authority of the author, the engaging writing style, the importance of the topics dealt with, and the up-to-date nature of the content."
--Ian J. Deary, University of Edinburgh
"No one but James Flynn could have written this book. It contains his most recent ideas about the causes and implications of the massive rise in IQ test scores that has been termed the "Flynn Effect", and is thus essential reading for anyone wishing to keep up to date with the latest thinking about the nature of IQ."
--Nicholas Mackintosh, University of Cambridge
"The scholarship of this book is detailed and exhaustive. The originality of thinking is sprinkled throughout the beginning chapters, and reaches a peak in the final two. With his unique perspective, Flynn literally is "opening new windows"."
--Jonathan Wai, Duke University
"Reveals new data on the evolution of the mind and predicts which mental abilities will continue to be enhanced...."
--Indie Sleepers, Publishers Weekly
"...Are We Getting Smarter? is full of thought-provoking reflections...
--John Naughton, The Guardian
"...[Flynn] remains one of the most original thinkers in IQ testing."
--Bruce Bower, ScienceNews
"... "If Mr. Flynn's explanation for rising IQ is right, he isn't merely explaining mankind's mental evolution. Reading-and critically evaluating-Mr. Flynn actually makes us smarter. Or at least more modern...."
--Bryan Caplan, Wall Street Journal
"...the book remains valuable for grasping our changing capacity for learning over time-and our room for growth."
--Samantha Murphy, Scientific American Mind
"...in making the case that the Flynn effect is connected to modernity, the book offers a broader indictment of intelligence research and the field of psychology as a whole..."
--Meehan Crist and Tim Requarth, Columbia University, The New Republic
"Flynn asks poignant questions and works hard to provide clear, thorough, well-researched answers.... This is a very worthy read by a leader in the field..."
--Devon Tomasulo, MFA, PsychCentral.com
If you’re the author, publisher, or rights holder of this book, let ACX help you produce the audiobook.Learn more.
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
He documents the critical consequences of ignoring the Flynn Effect. In the US any criminal with an IQ two full standard deviations below the average (IQ of 70) is deemed incompetent to stand trial and exempt from the death penalty. But, the majority of IQ tests are obsolete. An individual can get an IQ score of 76 (6 pts above incompetence) solely because of the test being outdated. Educators' assessment of children being gifted or cognitively impaired can be highly inaccurate. Giving an old test to children inflates their IQs. As a result, the selected gifted group will be far larger than it should be and many of the children needing special assistance will be ignored. The Flynn Effect also affects memory loss tests. And, health care professionals routinely administer obsolete tests. By doing so, they diagnose elderly individuals as doing just fine when they do need assistance in living.
Flynn proposes two solutions to resolve the Flynn Effect. The first one is updating tests frequently. The second one is adjusting scores downward by 0.3 pts per year. So, someone with an IQ of 120 associated with a test normed 20 years ago would have an adjusted IQ of 114. Somehow, the professions have rejected either approach.
Flynn considers intelligence a relative concept that needs to factor age of individuals (cognitive capabilities have their own lifecycle) and contemporary social context (Flynn Effect). Our society has become increasingly complex especially at work. And, that is the primary cause of our increasing IQ scores over time. Are we getting smarter? On page 163, he answers his own question: "I cannot give an absolute measure of the ability to classify or use logic... but I can say we are much better at both today than our ancestors were in 1900." So, the straightforward answer is "yes, we are."
Flynn contemplates whether developing nations will catch up with developed ones on IQ tests. He debunks many arguments related to climate, nutrition, and health; as he finds they do not cause IQ increases. Instead, IQ results from GDP growth that entails a society becoming increasingly complex. He notes that the IQ of developing nations is often rising rapidly. But, so are the ones of developed countries (Box 11, pg. 57). The issue is whether the societies of the developing world will catch up to the complexity of the developed ones. Some will and make the transition from developing to developed countries such as many Southeast Asian countries have.
Flynn observes that IQ changes with age, especially IQ subcomponents. And, the aging pattern is different for individuals of various brightness levels. The very bright tend to lose more of their analytical skills with age than the not so bright ones. This is because they progressively lose some of their analytical skills upon retirement. The remedy for them is to simply remain actively engaged in research and studies throughout retirement as he has done himself. Flynn is 78. But, with more leisure time in retirement, bright people communicate and socialize more. So, their vocabulary keeps on improving (Box 24, pg. 116).
Flynn observes that girls are far better students than boys. In all reviewed countries, girls have a huge advantage in reading (Box 31, pg 148). Better prepared, many more females go on to university than males. Yet, males average IQs in university are much higher than females. So, some derive that men are more intelligent than women. This is wrong. The males that go on to university represent a smaller self-selected sample than the females. It only makes sense that their average IQs would be higher than females. Flynn notices that in developing countries, women IQs are often lower than men. But, this is solely due to their being deprived of education and working opportunities. Flynn states on pg 157: "I believe that whether or not women achieve [IQ] parity with men is a good test of whether a society has achieved full modernity [men and women civil rights equality].
Flynn explains the superiority in academic achievement of the Asian Americans. By the 1980s, they represented only 2% of the American population, but already accounted for 14% of the students at Harvard, 16% at Stanford, 20% at MIT, 21% at Cal Tech, and 25% at Berkeley (pg. 177). Today all those percentages are much higher. Many believe this group has a far higher IQ. Flynn suggests this is not the case. Just like women are better students and are over-represented vs men in universities so are Asian Americans vs other Americans. It is the exact same issue. Both groups, women and Asian Americans study a lot harder than their counterparts. As a result a far larger percentage of their respective population goes onto universities. It is just that this trend is even more pronounced for the Asian Americans. Flynn states: "... it was not higher IQ scores but sociology of the family [tiger-moms and overall work ethics] that explains the remarkable academic achievements of the Asian Americans."
Within the nature-vs-nurture debate Flynn falls strongly on the nurture side. For him, nurture is having the opportunity to live and work within a complex society. Thus, Flynn weighs much less than his counterparts on nature (intelligence being inherited). Yet, when he addresses the studies on twins (pg. 167 - 169) that demonstrated that nature was a very strong factor (twins brought up apart end up having the same IQ regardless of environmental circumstances); he appears hard pressed to effectively rebut it. He goes on a long explanation regarding an "individual multiplier" that actually confirms the very "nature" argument he attempts to rebut.
In the end, intelligence is probably much less inherited than Flynn's counterparts (Jensen, Murray) suggest; but it is much more than Flynn advances. If you find this topic interesting, I also recommend Flynn's earlier book What Is Intelligence?. If you want to study the other side of the argument check out Murray's recent book Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.
Flynn himself explains what his book intends to accomplish (Page 1): "Whatever we are doing, we are making massive IQ gains from one generation to another. . .This book attempts to make sense of what time and place are doing to our minds." This book may be slow going for the novice, but it is an important work, one raising many provocative questions.
The Flynn Effect begins with the determination that as intelligence tests are revised, the standard for average performance (100 is calculated as the average score) are set based on people who take the tests. Over time, IQ scores rise. Even though the average (mean) score on different versions of IQ tests over time is 100, the scores over time need to be recalibrated to keep the mean at 100. So the mean stays the same--but the test takers are "smarter" than their predecessors. In that sense, people have been getting smarter. It is not only in the developed world that IQ gains have been ascertained; in many developing nations, IQ has also increased. To give a sense of how profound the changes have been, take the Netherlands. Compare IQ scores in 1982 with those from 1952. The person who got an average score (in the middle of the range of IQs) in 1982 would have scored higher than 90% of all Dutch in 1952.
Why the increases? Flynn believes that the Industrial Revolution and modernizing industry is a part of the explanation. He even notes that some have suggested that certain video games and computer applications may have sharpened people's minds. In short, events in the environment are key to explaining the increase. Do you argue that TV shows how dopey people actually are? Flynn cites a study showing that TV shows now are much more complex than before. He suggests comparing "I Love Lucy" with "Hill Street Blues." The latter demands much more from an audience as compared to the former. In many respects, life today demands more cognitive complexity from people, and this leads to using their inherent cognitive power at a higher level. An increasingly complex social world is a part of the explanation, then.
Many issues are joined in this book--such as the role of race in the discussion on intelligence, the role of nutrition in increased scores (with a surprising conclusion), the likely closing of the IQ gap between developed and developing nations, the effect of intelligence on violence, and so on.
This is an important book, albeit one that is more academic than easily accessible to non-academic readers. But the effort to understand the work will be richly rewarded.
Most recent customer reviews
A summary of the Flynn effect and various topics relating to IQ that the author finds interesting. A lot of the content is polemic against other IQ researchers.Read more