According to the pyschologically accepted Flynn effect, across the 20th century, the average I.Q. increased 3 points per decade, if we calculate this out, this means that:
from 1903-1953, the average person was borderline retarded.
If we extrapolate this theory out to prior to the twentieth century, then:
from 1853-1903, the average person was mildly retarded
from 1803-1853, the average person was moderately retarded
from 1753-1803, the average person was severely retarded
from 1670-1753, the average person was profoundly retarded
In 1669, the average person had 0 intelligence.
Prior to 1669, the average person had negative intelligence.
For an example, in 1563, the year before Shakespere was born, the average person had an intelligence of -32.
If we theorize that Shakespeare was a genius and possessed an intelligence 40+ average, then Shakespeare’s intelligence was only 8, today’s intellectual equivalent to Shakespeare is profoundly retarded.
If this is so, then why don’t many profoundly retarded people write Shakespeare-level literature?
And why are there so few people with negative intelligence?
That’s what I like about math: For a piddling investment of facts, one can reap such a bounty of nonsense.
Obviously, the Flynn effect must have started in relatively recent times. Otherwise, vistas like the OP’s open up, and that is simply absurd: What, Plato was so stupid his intelligence would be too low to be measured? Thomas Jefferson’s IQ was lower than the room temperature on a cool day?
I don’t have any answers, except to hypothesize that people have become better and better at taking tests in general due to the increased amount of schooling people are getting.
OK, I’ll refocus my question, if we accept that the Flynn effect is accurate for the twentieth century, a more limited interpretation of the theory.
Where is all of the evidence that for the majority of the century most people were retarded?
(A good answer might be that the Two World Wars, the Russian Revolution, The Great Depression, and the Cold War are ample evidence for profound mental retardation; however, most of these events were led by an elite and thus do not reflect the intellect of the masses.)
Again, if for most of the century, most people were borderline retarded, why is there so little evidence for this, outside of intelligence tests?
You can’t “extrapolate this theory out to prior to the twentieth century” because, as you say in your first line, the Flynn effect applies to the 20th century.
The increase in average IQ (and this is where i start making guesses) would probably be from the increasing levels of civilisation, medicine, etc.
Many more people are educated now than at the beginning of the 20th century, and western style civilisation lends more time to careers, etc, not just making ends meet. On a whole, therefore, the intelligence average will rise.
According to the orthodox interpretation of the Flynn effect, in 1903, the average person had an I.Q. of 70. The Encyclopedia Britannica lists this intelligence as being the upper level of those who need special care, training, and supervision to survive.
“a tested intelligence quotient of 70 being the usual upper borderline for those needing special care and training…etc.”
The average person in 1903 would be unable to possess this special care, training, and supervision, and would therefore theoretically die before reaching sexual maturity.
And yet they didn’t…
So, that means the Flynn effect cannot be carried that far. The only reasonable interpretation is to assume that the average IQ was relatively flat before some point, and has been rising steadily since then. If we could find a good reason for it to begin rising at that point, we could reasonably extrapolate that to other periods in history with similar conditions.
Since we have to recalibrate the test upwards regularaly to keep a 100 IQ in the middle of the distribution curve, I’d say the Flynn effect is pretty well proven. The debate here is to determine how far back the Flynn effect can be extrapolated.
I should have been more clear. I wasn’t disputing the Flynn effect, but rather, Myles’s statement that “theoretically” everyone from back in the old days was borderline retarded.
No, I am not seeking a debate on the validity of intelligence tests, I genuinely do not understand how the implications of the theory of the Flynn Effect can be accepted as true even in the twentieth century, and yet the Flynn Effect seems to be a relatively well-accepted theory in psychology.
I am asking why the Flynn Effect is accepted by many to be true for the Twentieth Century despite the seemingly unworkable results that the theory implies?
How can it be true that most people in 1903 needed care and supervision because of borderline retardation, if the Flynn effect is true?
Or does the Flynn effect only describe so far back, if this is true, when does the Flynn effect start working?
I am just asking for some clarification, to help me sort this theory out in my head.
I’m sorry that the Subject and OP were so silly and confusing.
OK so Encyclopedia Brittanica lists 70 as being borderline-special-care cases. But that means special care for today’s society.
In the beginning of the century, there were plenty of simple, yet labourious jobs. IF the Flynn Effect is indeed relevant to around 1900, then that’s where I think all the average-and-below IQ-ers would be.
As for a good reason for IQs to begin rising… how about indoor plumbing?
You may not want to debate it, but the answer to your problem is that people aren’t getting smarter; it is the tests that are at fault. They measure something, but it’s not intelligence.
I think the fundamental error here is treating IQ as a linear, single valued function rather than a distillation of many aspects of a person’s personality. It might very well be that “common sense” intelligence or what allows us to live out daily lives has not changed appreciably since the 1900’s but more formal and abstract forms of reasoning have improved dramatically.
The figure for borderline retardation at 70 implies that all facets of personality are around the 70 level. It has parralels with physical development as well. Humans have grown appreciably taller in the last few centuries yet you cannot compare a dwarf today with an average person 100 years ago. There are marked and specificl physiological differences between the two.
What annoys me is that someone (1) makes a stupid assumption and (2) uses multiplication to deduce from it something even more stupid. When someone criticizes the conclusion, do they criticize the assumption? Do they heck! They criticizie maths for allowing step 2! (Or logic, for allowing ‘therefore’)
