Is the average IQ going up?

[gib65]

Over the last 100 years or so, has the average IQ, as measured in schools by standard IQ tests (like the Stanford-Binet and the WAIS), been going up? If so, by how much? Has it beeing going up in adults as well as children? What would be the causes of this?

[insane_alien]

isn't the average IQ 100 by definition?

[john5746]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/flynn_pr.html

 

This article discusses the "Flynn effect". IQ tests are normalized something like once a decade, so he used that data to find that students were performing better on IQ tests.

 

The explanation proposed in this article is that as society changed from Farming->Industrial->Technical so did the leisure time and the activities during that leisure time.

[gib65]

isn't the average IQ 100 by definition?

 

Right. Technically, IQ can't change. But mental age can. IQ is determined by mental age divided by chronological age.

 

It's as if we were trying to measure the length of something that kept growing over time and so we adjusted the size of our ruler.

 

Thanks for the article john5746.

[john5746]

Thanks for the article john5746.

 

Your welcome, no problem. I haven't looked into it much, but I am skeptical. If we took an IQ test from say 1950, I doubt that the results would be skewed that much better than those from the 50's. Something like that should be done instead of assuming that the cummalative differences between each normalization period can be applied.

[doG]

What would be the causes of this?

 

Evolution comes to mind. Consider your question in the context of the entirety of human history. Consider the IQs of our ancient ancestors compared to modern man. Can you imagine a trend? You wouldn't notice this much in a hundred years but you can see that in the long haul our IQ is increasing.

[antimatter]

Evolution comes to mind. Consider your question in the context of the entirety of human history. Consider the IQs of our ancient ancestors compared to modern man. Can you imagine a trend? You wouldn't notice this much in a hundred years but you can see that in the long haul our IQ is increasing.

 

I don't think so. The ratio of 'intelligent' people in my school to 'not-so-intelligent' people is around 1:8

I'm basing this off of four classes.

I know this isn't what you're calling 'the long haul', but I really do think that we're doing something wrong, and as much as I love computers and the outrageous amount of time I spend on them every day, I think they're part of the problem.

[Riogho]

The tests have changed over time dramatically. In the 3rd grade in the 1930's it was amazing if you were literate. Today we teach that in the 1st grade. It's not that we're smarter, it's that our school system is more academically rigorous. That makes it very difficult to compare times so far away.

[antimatter]

Right, it's all proportional to the time period, but what I'm saying is that IMHO, the IQ isn't proportional to our time period...it's rather low.

And you'd be surprised how many 'illiterate' children there are in my grade...it's quite depressing.

 

You do bring up a very good point, it's difficult to compare, it's like comparing Beethoven and Duke Ellington (I don't care what they say: ellington>beethoven)

[Psyber]

I'm concerned about the number of today's young people who depend entirely on spell-checkers and calculators, and don't seem to know when their software has installed "English US" by default instead of "English AU" or "English UK" which is relevant here, and can't tell when the calculator has given bizarre results because its battery is nearly flat.

 

This is not a function of IQ but of education, or perhaps the IQ of those who design curricula?

[Mag]

Maybe IQ is going up because they are dumbing down the IQ Tests, eh?

[Donut.Hole]

IQ probably isn't going up, it's just that people's minds are better tuned for IQ-style thinking, if you please. The recent need for literacy has boosted education and has made this possible.

 

I don't think so. The ratio of 'intelligent' people in my school to 'not-so-intelligent' people is around 1:8

I'm basing this off of four classes.

I know this isn't what you're calling 'the long haul', but I really do think that we're doing something wrong, and as much as I love computers and the outrageous amount of time I spend on them every day, I think they're part of the problem.

 

I hope I'm not one of those dumb people at your school, antimatter.

[antimatter]

IQ probably isn't going up, it's just that people's minds are better tuned for IQ-style thinking, if you please. The recent need for literacy has boosted education and has made this possible.

 

 

 

I hope I'm not one of those dumb people at your school, antimatter.

 

I don't think that there really has been an increase in education. There WAS an increase in literacy, but there's a lot of people in our school who can't read analog clocks, let alone chapter books. I remember reading a 600 page history book in 1st grade.

 

Of course you're not.

[lakmilis]

Evolution comes to mind. Consider your question in the context of the entirety of human history. Consider the IQs of our ancient ancestors compared to modern man. Can you imagine a trend? You wouldn't notice this much in a hundred years but you can see that in the long haul our IQ is increasing.

 

I doubt there was *any* IQ change whatsoever mate.

 

Our knowledge pool i larger....

 

Archimedes would by far outsmart most of us if alive today... or Pythagoras or Scorates.... but they spent a lifetime perhaps to devise the first steps which we easily trod in now.

 

I would as easily trust an ancient human which was born now as you in any IQ measures.. in fact I would assume it was down to 50 50 to which one of you was the smarter given its inheritance and of course external stimuli (lets for the sake of the argument say that was held ~constant).

 

 

So nope, no trends which I can see. It's in your imagination perhaps?

 

I remember reading a 600 page history book in 1st grade.

 

Of course you're not.

 

Interesting egocentric ideal about oneself.

 

I *remember* reading a 600 page book in 1t grade...

 

Amazing... 600 page book but you don't remember the title nor what it is?

 

just that it was 600 pages? what about content?

 

Lol, how enjoyable people of today can be

 

I remember my first book at 5. It was he-man (hihi).

My first 1000+ book I admit was probably not until I was 13 or 14. (Tolkien).

 

All other books up till then were scientific books or fictional book all less than 500 generally (ah wait... through school had to read the bible and went through that at around 12, ok so Tolien 2nd ).

 

However, instead of "floating outside myself, remembering oh how swell I was to read XX pages" , I actually remember most of the content of what I have read in early days... It's more between 14 and 17 I think the vast amount of books just has slipped out of my memory :/

Edited May 27, 2008 by lakmilis
multiple post merged

[antimatter]

Interesting egocentric ideal about oneself.

 

I *remember* reading a 600 page book in 1t grade...

 

Amazing... 600 page book but you don't remember the title nor what it is?

 

just that it was 600 pages? what about content?

 

Lol, how enjoyable people of today can be

 

I remember my first book at 5. It was he-man (hihi).

My first 1000+ book I admit was probably not until I was 13 or 14. (Tolkien).

 

All other books up till then were scientific books or fictional book all less than 500 generally (ah wait... through school had to read the bible and went through that at around 12, ok so Tolien 2nd ).

 

However, instead of "floating outside myself, remembering oh how swell I was to read XX pages" , I actually remember most of the content of what I have read in early days... It's more between 14 and 17 I think the vast amount of books just has slipped out of my memory :/

 

I wasn't being egocentric, if you were actually paying attention to what I was saying, you would know I was drawing a basic comparison to myself, and most illiterate morons in my school.

Unfortunately you were wrapped in criticizing other people, most likely because you were never too good at reading yourself.

Oh, and way to make base-less assumptions, I remember all the book, and sorry if I can't remember the title of a book I read over 10 years ago.

Edited May 27, 2008 by antimatter

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

IQ probably isn't going up, it's just that people's minds are better tuned for IQ-style thinking, if you please. The recent need for literacy has boosted education and has made this possible.

So what you really mean is that while IQ scores are going up, that may not actually mean intelligence is going up.

[antimatter]

That doesn't make all that much sense though.

Unless people are cheating on those tests!

 

If you get a good IQ score, that would mean you're intelligent enough to get a good score...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Unless IQ really isn't an accurate measure of intelligence. Who said that "intelligence" is being able to solve the type of problems they have on IQ tests?

[antimatter]

What other aspects of yourself help you solve problems?

Intelligence is the only aspect that helps you with them...of course 'intelligence' is rather broad.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Is intelligence problem-solving ability?

 

I just don't think there's any good definition of "intelligence", so there really can't be any good measure of it.

[iNow]

There are many definitions of intelligence. There are different kinds of inelligence. The IQ test has been shown not to be an accuarate measure, yet it is still frequently used.

 

 

Here is a high level overview which gives you a brief tastes of the different ideas and work becoming prominent in this field:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

[Kyrisch]

I think the bottom line here is that IQ tests do not accurately assess pure mental capacity for many reasons, including but not limited to the bias towards literacy (I am taking the definition of intelligence to be that abstract idea of mental ability or capacity in general). Even the most spatial and abstract IQ tests must be administered by giving some sort of direction, which must be in some specific form and will therefore be biased towards those with a completely irrelevant but tremendously skewing ability with that random skill.

[antimatter]

There is no bias.

Each IQ test should be adapted to where that person is coming from.

Also, you've forgotten verbally administered tests, which deals with illiteracy.

Though if someone is from a place that doesn't teach them to read, they most likely wouldn't know of an IQ test...

 

/speculation

[Kyrisch]

Verbally administered IQ tests are still biased because of differences in oral comprehension skills. I, myself, am a visual learner as has been made clear to me multiple times in my education and cannot absorb and comprehend information nearly as quickly when conveyed to me orally.

[antimatter]

Same applies, if you can't understand what is being said, you shouldn't be taking an IQ test in the first place...