Open Letters
Yggdrasil's Library
THE ORION PARTY
The Prometheus League
- Humanity Needs A World Government PDF
- Cosmos Theology Essay PDF
- Cosmos Theology Booklet PDF
- Europe Destiny Essays PDF
- Historical Parallels PDF
- Christianity Examined PDF
News Blogs
Euvolution
- Home Page
- Pierre Teilhard De Chardin
- Library of Eugenics
- Genetic Revolution News
- Science
- Philosophy
- Politics
- Nationalism
- Cosmic Heaven
- Eugenics
- Future Art Gallery
- NeoEugenics
- Contact Us
- About the Website
- Site Map
Transhumanism News
Partners
The Rising IQ Curve
The Rising Curve: Long-Term Gains in IQ and Related Measures,
published by the American Psychological Association, 1998 with 23
contributors.
The Rising Curve covers three main topics in intelligence: Is there a
world-wide trend in intelligence that is rising, is the gap between Blacks and
Whites narrowing, and is there a dysgenic trend in genotypical intelligence?
The Flynn Effect: Rising IQs around the world
The observed increase in average IQ scores of 3 points per decade has been
reported by many as proof that intelligence is not stable but is flexible with
regards to environmental influences. However, none of the authors in this
extensive review of the data, believes that intelligence is increasing at a
rate greater than can be attributed by eugenic means (breeding smarter
people). Instead, they are looking at the mechanisms of tests and how they are
administered and interpreted in different time periods as people become
exposed to differing environments. That is, as the humans change their
environment they change the context in which their intelligence comes into
play, and the testing methods must take this change into account. Obviously
they have not because the generational change in IQ results has increased,
without any evidence that today's children are any smarter than their
great-grand-parents. So it is back to the drawing boards for the
psychometricians who design the tests.
Neisser states that, "Whatever g may be, we at least know how to measure
it. The accepted best measure, which has played a central role in analyses of
the worldwide rise in test scores, is the Raven Progressive Matrices. This
test, devised by Spearman's student John C. Raven, was first published in 1938
and is now available at several levels of difficulty. Arthur Jensen has said
that Raven's test 'apparently measures g and little else' and that it 'is
probably the surest instrument we now possess for discovering intellectually
gifted children from disadvantaged backgrounds'. The Raven is of particular
interest because it shows such large IQ gains over time. In The Netherlands,
for example, all male 18-year-olds take a version of the Raven as part of a
military induction requirement. The mean scores of those annual samples rose
steadily between 1952 and 1982, gaining the equivalent of 21 IQ points in only
30 years! This amounts to a rate of no less than 7 points per decade -- a
figure confirmed by data from many other countries. What can these increases
mean?"
And later he states, "However, one may choose to interpret it, the fact
that (unknown) environmental factors are raising the mean IQ of Americans by 3
points per decade certainly shows that the environment matters! The second
proposition has quite a different status. Within a given population and a
given range of environments (e.g., those that are characteristic for White
American males in 1998), genetic factors do make a major contribution to
individual differences. This has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt by
the methods of behavior genetics, a discipline that is primarily concerned
with variability. The individuals in a given population differ on almost any
measure one is likely to care about: their heights, weights, Raven scores, IQ
scores, or anything else. Every such measure has a distribution, often a
bell-shaped normal one. . . . Unfortunately, no one knows what it is about the
environment that makes this contribution to differences in IQ scores. Some
obvious possibilities, such as the economic and intellectual quality of
children's home situations, may be less important than was once believed. The
surprising fact is that when biologically unrelated children are raised in the
same home (as in many cases of adoption), the correlation between their IQ
scores is unimpressive in childhood and near zero as they grow up! This
finding is important, but it is still negative: The aspects of the environment
that do matter for the development of intelligence have not yet been
identified."
Well, it doesn't mean that people are getting any smarter but rather that
the environment is impacting how the results of IQ test scores are
interpreted. That is, the expression of intelligence is not the same as
intelligence. If children today have a high level of exposure to
visual-spatial stimulus such as computer games, and IQ tests used 50 years ago
used the same visual challenges to interpret intelligence, then the tests may
no longer be valid from one generation to the next for comparisons.
Intelligence hasn't changed, the means to test intelligence has not kept up
with human contextual flexibility to deal with a changing environment.
Flynn states this fact succinctly, "Moreover, data whose quality cannot be
challenged have posed the same question. The Dutch military data, like those
of Israel, Norway, and Belgium, are near exhaustive; but even better, Vroon
compared a sample of the total population of Dutch examinees with the scores
of their own fathers. There is simply no doubt that Dutch men in 1952 had a
mean IQ of 79 when scored against 1982 norms. Has the average person in The
Netherlands ever been near mental retardation? Does it make sense to assume
that at one time almost 40% of Dutch men lacked the capacity to understand
soccer, their most favored national sport?"
Of course not, and that is why the Flynn effect is not taken seriously as
an increase in real intelligence, because we just do not see one generation as
more intelligent than previous ones, on a myriad of social indication scales.
One would have to assume that the Greek philosophers were all mentally
retarded, and yet wrote with such elegance that we still read and try to
interpret their works today. It is absurd. And not one scholar in this book
believes that real intelligence is changing but ever so slightly over time
from environmental effects.
He goes on, "However, a careful survey of serious Dutch publications
revealed not a single reference to a dramatic increase in cognitive ability or
escalating giftedness among schoolchildren. The number of inventions patented
in fact showed a sharp decline over the last generation (Flynn, 1987a, pp.
172, 187). . . . This means that in 1918, when scored against today's norms,
Americans had an average IQ of 75 on tests in which the crystallized component
is at least as great as that of the Wechsler tests. Does that mean that during
World War I about half of White Americans lacked the capacity to understand
the basic rules of baseball?"
This shows that over time, and a short time it is, we have not refined the
tools to test intelligence longitudinally from generation to generation. That
flaw no doubt will be addressed in years to come, but it is at present a
problem that poses a vexing problem. But it in no way invalidates the
conclusion that intelligence is real, it is primarily genetic, and matters in
almost every aspect of human endeavor. And that is one of the primary reasons
we know that increased scores are just that, an increase in scores and not in
intelligence. There is absolutely no point in understanding intelligence with
the vigor that we do if it did not contribute significantly to job
performance, driving ability, voting sophistication, health, and a myriad of
other social indicators. Intelligent people just plain perform much better
than others when it counts. And there is no indication that these factors have
been increasing over time due to an increase in real intelligence.
Environmental studies on nutrition have shown that vitamins or supplements
have failed to reveal any impact on intelligence. How about education or some
other mode of learning? Well, the data is confusing and circuitous. 48 states
that, "The first subhypothesis, concerning better teaching of school-learned
content, has already been falsified by the pattern of IQ gains over time. As I
have shown, gains drop as one goes from Raven's type tests to performance
tests to verbal tests to Wechsler subtests like Arithmetic, Information, and
Vocabulary. This implies that the gains tend to disappear when material closer
to the learned content of the school curriculum is tested. This leaves the
second subhypothesis, namely, that schools are teaching better
decontextualized problem-solving skills. Perhaps they are, but the hypothesis
is empty unless (a) these school-taught skills are identified; (b) they are
linked to the problem-solving skills used on IQ tests, particularly
culture-reduced tests of fluid g; and (c) they are linked to some kind of
real-world problem solving or, the greatest puzzle, it is explained why there
is no such link. The very fact that children are better and better at IQ test
problems logically entails that they have learned at least that kind of
problem-solving skill better, and it must have been learned somewhere.
However, simply to assert that the enhanced IQ test skill can be equated with
some enhanced school skill is arbitrary and vacuous. The fact that education
cannot explain IQ gains as an international phenomenon does not, of course,
disqualify it as a dominant cause at a certain place and time. Particular
countries are sometimes influenced by a factor that is culture specific.
Comparing age cohorts has suggested that the urban Chinese gained 22 IQ points
on the Raven Progressive Matrices between 1936 and 1986. Learning to read
Chinese characters involves memorizing complex symbols, combining them to
alter meaning and signal pronunciation, and taking such tasks seriously. The
literacy that follows urbanization might be an important cause of matrices
gains peculiar to China."
If nothing else, the above statement shows the confusion with the phenomena
of IQ differences between generations, but it also shows that it does not
occur where one would expect, in those skills that we have been pushing for
years now to equip children to enter a more complicated workplace. That is,
whatever the increase in intelligence scores mean, it DOES NOT translate into
any hope of improving the expectations of today's children and young adults
being better able to cope with our advanced technical society. The high test
scores do not translate into smarter people. More than likely, the so-called
increase in intelligence scores will be simply the training of visual symbol
manipulation like the matrices gains of the Chinese above or some other
stimulatory activity that impacts the tests scores, but not intelligence.
Another similar example might be transportation. Up until about 100 years
ago, no one traveled at high rates of speed. Now, from trains, plains to
automobiles, virtually everyone from a very young age is exposed to the
phenomena of travelling at a relatively high rate of speed, impacting the
motor sensory system that coordinates visual space with ones location. What if
this simple training has an impact on some of the purer intelligence tests
that use symbols? It has little value in most endeavors, but greatly impacts
IQ test scores. Something as simple as this can throw a monkey wrench into
looking at IQ differences from one generation to the next, while the tests are
still able to differentiate very accurately cohort standings with relation to
one another. That is the tests are valid but baselines must change with the
population group being tested.
Flynn goes on to say that "Different kinds of IQ tests show different rates
of gain: Culture-reduced tests of fluid intelligence show gains of as much as
20 points per generation (30 years); performance tests show 10 -- 20 points;
and verbal tests sometimes show 10 points or below. Tests closest to the
content of school taught subjects, such as arithmetic reasoning, general
information, and vocabulary, show modest or nil gains. More often than not,
gains are similar at all IQ levels."
Again, if the IQ gains had anything to do with education or with some
groups being deprived of some of life's advantages, such as growing up in a
lower SES family or other causes, then the gains would be disproportionately
larger for these children and they would translate into improvements in
educational performance. Neither of these is occurring as would be expected if
the causes of rising IQs had anything to do with advantages of one group over
another. Especially in light of the fact that the Flynn Effect is global and
not isolated to specific cultures or locations.
Greenfield states, "To conclude, the Flynn effect is an example of the
historical evolution of culturally phenotypic intelligence. It is not the
evolution of 'general intelligence.' However, the fact is that general
intelligence must always be instantiated in a specific cultural form. Culture
takes general intelligence and makes it specific." What this says is that
cultural changes are impacting the tests, and that the genetic component of
intelligence, from 60~80%, is not changing. And the only way to test whether
real intelligence is what it seems, an important indicator of how people deal
with the complexities of life whether on a farm, in the jungle, or in a city,
is to compare people within the context of that culture.
In addition, there has been no evidence that "within family" environmental
influences have anything but a minimal impact on intelligence. What
environmental influences there may be are "between families." In simple terms
it seems smart kids get smarter because they hang around with smart friends,
and dumb kids get dumber because they hang around with other dumb kids, and
the selection is theirs, not their parents (this is a simplification of this
hypothesis--see my web page for a lengthy discussion).
In conclusion, the Flynn effect means absolutely nothing with regards to
holding out any hope that people are getting smarter and that somehow
intelligence is not tied to our genes. The fact is, it is an academic question
with regards to what causes it, what does it mean for psychometricians, and
how will tests have to be modified in order to be able to compare IQ score
variations from generation to generation. IQ tests for comparing differences
in IQs within a cohort group are as good as we have and quite adequate and
robust in repeatability and in predicting how well one can expect to do
against the odds of life's challenges.
Is the gap between Blacks and Whites narrowing?
The second major issue in the book does not have any more definitive
answers than the first, but the critique of this assumption may be easier.
Several authors looked at the evidence, and simply put, there seemed to be a
closing gap for a number of years from the 70s through most of the 80s that
now is vanishing. What happened is the government stepped in an infused
massive amounts of money to improve the test scores, using the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), as a guidepost for Black
improvement. Had the government stepped in an infused the same amount of money
into programs for gifted students, then surely the gap would have widened just
as quickly between Whites and Blacks. All this has done is proven that if you
throw a lot of money at a problem, and unequally at that, that you can change
some test scores without changing the underlying abilities of those impacted
by the program.
Hauser states "My favorite contribution to this literature is an elegant
paper by Howard Wainer (1987). He showed that the uncertainty in SAT scores
introduced by the average 12-14% nonresponse on the race-ethnicity question
dwarfs the observed growth in minority SAT performance that occurred from 1980
to 1985. After observing the average verbal and math scores of White,
minority-group, and nonresponding test takers, Wainer observed that if the
scores of nonresponding test takers are the same as those of respondents of
the same race or ethnic group, then it is possible to estimate the share of
White and minority-group test takers among nonrespondents. Depending on
whether one uses the verbal or math scores to make the estimates, this
estimation procedure yields very different but rather high estimates of the
share of minority-group students among nonrespondents. From 1980 to 1985, the
estimated share of minority-group members among nonrespondents was never less
than half and ranged as high as 70%, whereas the share of minority-group
members was always estimated to be higher for mathematical than for verbal
scores. The discrepant estimates invalidate the assumption that respondents
and nonrespondents of the same ethnicity perform equally well, and the
resulting uncertainty in test scores is larger than the observed changes in
average test performance among minority test takers."
In just this one analysis therefore, the closing gap between Whites and
Blacks is shown to be meaningless because of confounding effects, and for that
reason the results are without any merit at all. And in a vindication of The
Bell Curve that we are seeing more and more of in academic journals and books,
Hauser states, "In one important respect, Herrnstein and Murray were surely
right: It is most dangerous to project trend lines unthinkingly. Yet another
set of NAEP assessments -- for 1992 -- became available after The Bell Curve
went to press, and these data appear to confirm that the trend toward
convergence in Black and White test scores was reversed after 1986-1988. For
example, Figure 1 shows trends in the average (mean) NAEP scores of Blacks and
Whites at age 13 in reading, science, and mathematics. The years of greatest
convergence are not entirely clear because there are no reading scores for
1986 and no science or math scores for 1988. It does appear that sometime in
the middle to late 1980s, the convergent trend ended, and Black-White gaps
returned to levels of the early 1980s."
In summary then the following conditions led to a false indication that the
intelligence gap between Blacks and Whites was closing when the government
changed important programs as follows:
-- Educational expenditures went up much faster for Black students than for
all students being tested.
-- Back to basics programs emphasized "teaching to the test" to improve
scores so that Black students could do better on the standardized exams.
-- An end to social promotions increased absenteeism and the drop-out rate,
so that these marginal or low intelligence Blacks were no longer tested and
included in the averages.
-- More students were enrolled into special education programs (slow
learners) which was dominated by Blacks and these students also were not
included in the NAEP test score results.
Finally, Ceci, Rosenblum and Kumpf state, "THE ESTABLISHED FACTS: There is
no dispute among psychometric researchers that Whites outscore Blacks on IQ
tests as well as on standardized achievement tests. The gap most commonly
reported is approximately 1 SD. (On the most widely used individual IQ tests,
this translates into a 15- to 16-point gap between Blacks and Whites;
Hispanics fall midway between these groups, and Asian Americans score about 3
points, on average, higher than Whites.) Racial and ethnic gaps in IQ and
achievement tests scores have existed throughout this century; for example, IQ
differences between Blacks and Whites were evident on the first Stanford --
Binet IQ test normed in 1932. Even earlier signs of a racial gap of
approximately 1 SD were apparent on the Army Alpha tests administered to
recruits during World War 1. These facts are not in dispute among researchers,
although their interpretation is open to argument."
Are we in a dysgenic or eugenic breeding trend?
Environmental changes as we have seen can change culture quickly with
regards to learning, attitudes, skills, moral values, etc. But the genetic
makeup of humans changes vary slowly under most reproductive conditions though
it can become rapid under conditions of immigration, war, or some other major
impact on the frequency of a population's genes. So the question arises, is
the population of the United
States increasing in genetic intelligence or decreasing? The final section
of this book deals with this issue, and the metaphor is that it appears we are
seeing the effects of a sinking ship in a rising pond. That is, we are better
educated but the genetic capital of our population may on the decline, which
of course will lead to a decline of the nation itself. But the data is
extremely difficult to interpret and inconclusive. I would only add that
genetic changes are far more important than environmental changes because they
are much longer lasting and intractable. That is for better or for worse, the
nation is pretty much stuck with the genes found in its population. And
competition with other nations will depend of the quality of these genes over
the long run.
Lynn concludes that, "Four types of data indicating an inverse relationship
between intelligence and fertility have been presented. There is evidence for
an inverse relationship between (a) SES and fertility, (b) intelligence and
number of siblings, (c) intelligence and fertility, and (d) educational level
and fertility. All four lines of evidence point in the same direction and to
the same conclusion: Fertility has been dysgenic in the economically developed
world since the early decades of the 19th century and in most of the
economically developing world during the 20th century. The data showing an
inverse association between SES and fertility go back to the cohorts born in
the second quarter of the 19th century. This means that dysgenic fertility has
been present for about five generations. Retherford and Sewell's (1988)
American study indicated that the genotypic decline was 0.64 IQ points for the
generation born in 1940. If this figure is projected back for five
generations, it can be concluded that American Whites have suffered a
genotypic decline of 3.20 IQ points over the five generations. This is almost
certainly an underestimate because dysgenic fertility was considerably greater
in the earlier generations than among the 1940 cohort from which the figure of
0.64 IQ points is derived. When this is taken into account, the magnitude of
the deterioration of genotypic intelligence in the United States appears to
have been about 5 IQ points since the early 19th century. Dysgenic fertility
has probably produced a similar deterioration in Europe, considering that
dysgenic fertility in relation to SES was present in the early 19th century
and that the magnitude of the inverse relationship between intelligence and
fertility has been about the same. In the economically developing world, such
as the Latin American countries represented in Table 6, dysgenic fertility is
very strong, but has probably not been in place for so long. The proposition
that the genotypic intelligence of modern populations is deteriorating is not
directly verifiable but is an inference derived from two premises: the inverse
relationship between intelligence and fertility, and the heritability of
intelligence. Because the two premises are solid, the inference appears to be
solid. Recently, however, the inference has been challenged by Preston and
Campbell (1993), who claimed to demonstrate that dysgenic fertility is
compatible, after some generations, with a stable population IQ. Preston
restates this argument in the present volume (chapter 15). In my opinion, the
argument is flawed, for the reasons given by Coleman (1993) and Loehlin. If
Preston and Campbell's argument were correct, natural selection by
differential reproductive fitness would not work, and the fundamental theorem
of biology since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species would be
overthrown. I do not believe that biology is ready for such a drastic paradigm
shift. The dysgenic fertility and consequent deterioration of genotypic
intelligence that have been in place since the second quarter of the 19th
century have been accompanied by environmental improvements that have brought
about rises in phenotypic intelligence. It can be predicted that the
environmental improvements will in due course show diminishing returns and
peter out. If dysgenic fertility is still present when this point is reached,
it can be anticipated that phenotypic intelligence will start to decline.
Insofar as the maintenance of a high level of civilization depends on the
intelligence of its population, the quality of U.S. civilization will also
deteriorate. It is a curious fact that the evidence pointing to this
conclusion has received no mention in contemporary textbooks of psychology and
sociology."
I would like to add two final points to eugenics and to alterations in the
variance of the standard IQ bell curve: "assortative mating" and "grandparent
effects." With universal education there seems to be more of a trend for
intelligent people to marry each other. That is, the filtering process brought
about by separating groups into trade schools, universities or the factory
floor for social interaction leads more and more to likes marrying likes, and
this especially includes intelligence because more than any other trait it
determines what type of educational program and job you will be part of.
In addition, as people take greater care in making sure that their children
will be endowed with the very best genes, more emphasis will be placed on what
is known as the "grandparent effects." That is, when choosing a mate, I want
to make sure that the genes my wife carries are the very finest possible. The
best way to determine if our children will be intelligent with regards to her
contribution will be to look at her family tree and not just her intelligence.
Does she come from a long line of prosperous, successful and intelligent
relatives, or is it random? Were all four grandparents intelligent? Are her
siblings and cousins mostly intelligent or are they highly variable?
More and more, this type of information allows people to make highly
salient decisions regarding mate selection, and may lead to a class of people
who are far above the rest of society in innate intelligence. In fact, this
very technique as reported by MacDonald (see my web page) has been used by
Jewish families for thousands of years to select the best mates. Now that it
is common knowledge to any well educated person, the techniques can be applied
by a far greater number of people, and could lead to a secular eugenic
religion where the genetic quality of the children becomes foremost in a
families fertility practices as part of their value system. To have the best,
you must breed the best or "you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear."
The above review of "The Rising Curve" is highly biased. If you don't agree
with it, read the book and write your own highly biased review.
Transtopia
- Main
- Pierre Teilhard De Chardin
- Introduction
- Principles
- Symbolism
- FAQ
- Transhumanism
- Cryonics
- Island Project
- PC-Free Zone