One contributor could be that, because we now measure IQ and understand its importance, we push students to learn that kind of intelligence at the expense of other skills. For example, 100 years ago girls were taught how to cook and clean, which are great life skills but may not help much with IQ scores. Today my teenage nieces do quite well in school (and one does very well on IQ-type tests) but don’t know how to cook Ramen noodles. Seriously.
Another possible contributor is that to truly excel one has to do better than the previous generation. This is most obvious in sports. Bill Russell is one of the greatest NBA players of all time but if you could magically transport him from the 1960’s into an NBA game today he would be lost and overwhelmed. Today’s ball players have been pushed more than Russell’s generation.
Again, listen to this TED talk before you comment further:
Flynn has some things to say about the difference between tests back in the early twentieth century and the tests given today. The ones back then were mostly about very concrete information. Mostly they were about memorization. The tests today are about abstractions. Very early in elementary school, students today learn about abstractions, whereas a hundred years ago they were not expected to understand abstractions very well.
This is a good summary of what Flynn Effect controversy is about. Join the debate!
This
This is an interesting idea and I’ve fantasized about something similar in the past. If I could go back in time to 1900, or 1800, etc., would I have been able to corner the job market as some genius? E.g. take some now-ridiculously simple literacy test and end up on an 1890’s fast-track corporate management program or be the only candidate for County Schoolteacher that can actually do long-division without fainting and end up with a stable career from which I can’t easily be deposed (“Ok, so go out and find someone else with such mad leet long division skillz! You won’t find them anywhere this side of Roger’s Pass!”).