
Our IQs have never been higher – but it hasn’t made us smart - hawski
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160929-our-iqs-have-never-been-higher-but-it-hasnt-made-us-smart
======
rayiner
The whole "young people don't read" angle is totally tangential. The article
makes a big deal of it up front but never justifies it with a concrete tie-in
to the research.

As an older millennial that's gotten pretty cynical: why should I read? Most
of what is written is just like this article: an attempt to mash some ideas
together and explain an underlying phenomenon that the author doesn't really
understand. I'm pretty bitter about how much time I wasted in school reading
things that were bunk (wait, Columbus did what?) And as study after study gets
debunked (until last week, I used to believe exercising willpower sapped
physical energy--thanks HN), and "experts" can't agree on questions like what
caused the financial collapse, I've become pretty convinced that most of the
theories underlying public policy, diplomacy, and the course of history are
pseudo-science if not outright fantasy.

Millennials, I think, are utilitarian and unromantic. Fancy ideas in books
don't hold much appeal to us because as the web makes information more
available, we realize nobody knows what they're talking about.

~~~
pfortuny
Read poetry: you will find wisdom, not science. Truth, not facts. Beauty, not
data.

Go to museums.

~~~
rubber_duck
If you can't analyze your wisdom then it's not worth discussing, facts and
data are objective - I don't perceive the the things you mentioned as smart
but pretentious.

~~~
twwl
> facts and data are objective

Sure -- it's just a pity neither you or me or anyone will ever come in contact
with them. _Everything_ we think/write/read is based on assumptions/axioms.
You don't even have to "dig" to realize that, you just have to scratch the
surface.

------
jasode
Well, "smart" can mean above-average problem-solving abilities, and/or
learning new cognitive skills at rate that's faster than the average
population.

Another definition of "smart" is the accumulation of _knowledge and facts_.

The 2nd definition is what the BBC headline and James Flynn is talking about.
He's concerned we're not _" smarter"_ in the sense of not reading more books,
and not knowing about history like The 30 Years War, etc. In contrast, when
another writer like Joel Spolsky talks about _" Smart and Gets Things
Done"_[1], he's emphasizing the 1st definition (aptitude).

So yes, IQ and knowledge are decoupled from each other and can increase at
different rates. E.g. there are a lot of high-IQ physicists out there that can
solve crazy equations but are not interested in reading a bunch of history
books. In JF's framework, this makes those scientists "dumber".

[1][http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing...](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing3.html)

~~~
Retric
History like philosophy has a rather inflated importance in peoples minds.
Knowing say the names of Roman rulers is no more important than know the
starting lineups for a 1980's sports team.

~~~
jschwartzi
You're right, but history is not about knowing the _names_ of the people. US
Public Schools do us all a disservice by pretending that History is about
memorizing names and dates. It's about remembering what they did and why.

Hadrian is interesting not because he's Hadrian and he was once a Roman
emperor. Hadrian is interesting because he commanded to be built an enormous
military fortification. The history of that fortification includes his
motivations and that of his generals. There may even be a relationship to the
economic circumstances of the time, and there were likely some interesting
political ramifications. That's what's interesting. Hadrian could just as well
have been named Buttface and there would still be something to study there.

~~~
Retric
Don't get me wrong, history is interesting, but so is chess. That does not
make them important. Part of the trap is history is a great way for people
with power to justify why they have power.

However, in a wider context the history of disease, the history of technology,
and the history of systems of thought do more to shape our world than the
history of people. Yet, sanitation for example is generally ignored relative
to the story's of people.

------
ideonexus
At the core of this article, to my mind (and ignoring Flynn's typical baby-
boomer lament that _kids today don 't know what I know_), is the false
dichotomy of "nature vs nurture." The article claims that IQ is 80% predicted
by genes by adulthood. It's the same point stressed by Charles Murray in "The
Bell Curve," which suggested that government social programs were a waste
because African Americans lacked the genes for higher IQ and were therefore
doomed to poverty [1].

But then, as the article notes, if IQ is so reliant on genes, then why the
Flynn Effect? Why are IQs collectively rising year-over-year in our society
[2]? If it is the result of our modern society, where technology perpetually
challenges us to think abstractly every waking minute of our lives, then
wouldn't the Flynn Effect eventually level off at some point in the future? If
it really is 80% genes (and I'm still waiting for my 23andMe results to
identify the specific SNPs responsible for my Mensa membership) then how far
can that 20% environmental influence take us?

These are the most interesting questions to me. Our brains exhibit a high-
degree of plasticity. Making students and teachers aware of neuroplasticity
can have significant positive outcomes on their education [3][4].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)

[3] [http://www.edutopia.org/blog/neuroscience-higher-ed-judy-
wil...](http://www.edutopia.org/blog/neuroscience-higher-ed-judy-willis)

[4] [http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/dec0...](http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/dec09/vol67/num04/How-to-Teach-Students-About-the-Brain.aspx)

*edited for formatting.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Maybe IQ rises because people are learning to take IQ tests. I read in some HN
posting: in the 40's folks registered ~70 on IQ tests (old tests found in
drawers at some University). The questions were 'trick questions' and the
test-takers weren't familiar, so answered pragmatically and were marked wrong.
Example: "There are no Rhinos in Germany. Munich is in Germany. How many
Rhinos are in Munich? A) 0 B) 1 C) 3 D)other" Folks would answer B. We imagine
they are thinking "Well Munich is a big city, and probably has a zoo. There
would be at least one Rhino in the zoo." Are they wrong? As an "IQ test
question" they're wrong. But as a real-world issue, they're on the right
track.

Today people have encountered trick questions by the time they take IQ tests,
so they do better. That might be all there is to it.

~~~
Jtsummers
For questions like that, it's less that it's a trick question (unless you're
familiar with the Munich Zoo), than that you are only supposed to take the
constraints of the problem as presented. The situation is presented as a
hypothetical, it's not a trick, it's an abstraction that (many) people have
trouble with. Like getting students to understand that a figure in a geometric
sketch isn't _precise_ , it's just representative, look at the numbers
included to actually understand it.

~~~
barrkel
If it's abstract, why does it use a real place in the question? Answering the
question correctly is in fact predicated on a sophisticated assumption of how
this particular type of question is constructed: using metaphors of real life
to construct abstract scenarios to test arithmetic or logical predicates. You
need to know that it's abstract, and that the construction of the abstract
scenario is by metaphor with reality.

------
anotherarray
In my country, unlike the US, it's legal to use psychological tests for hiring
purposes.

Still, as I grew my company, I've realized how inaccurate they can be. Some of
the best performing testers couldn't demonstrate a long-term perspective or
broad set of knowledge/opinions.

Whereas they were terrific at solving puzzles, they couldn't accept or
recognize a puzzle itself.

------
scotty79
"the major intellectual thing that disturbs me is that young people like you
are reading less history"

For me history is just fiction that by sheer accident actually happened (well
kinda, because there's a lot of post-factum narrative in history that might be
false as any other story). It's interesting that it happened but not that
interesting to give it some value that trumps other factors that make fiction
interesting.

~~~
mcguire
That must make it difficult to understand other people.

~~~
scotty79
Certainly I have trouble to understand why do you think that. Just not sure if
that's because my perception of history or some other fundamental difference
in our viewpoints.

------
tomkin
I hate to say this, but IQ tests are BMI tests for the brain, and about as
accurate. If a coffee, bad sleep, or a dose of Ritalin can change the result –
at its very nature – it is not a scientific method of measurement (the ability
to retest and get the same result).

We could say it's a good read of a _spectrum of mental capacity_ , but to
suggest that IQ is capable of anything more is whack science.

~~~
coldpie
BMI is a perfectly valid first-order approximation of appropriate weight
ranges for the 95% of the population who are not body builders.

~~~
phaus
Perhaps BMI isn't very accurate for slightly short people. It says I should
weigh 115-149 lbs. I currently weigh 190 and when I manage to get down to 170,
I look very athletic. The last time I weighed 149, I looked like I was
starving.

It seems similarly unreasonable for most of my friends and family.

~~~
SamReidHughes
Your standards are based on living in a society of fat people. At 149 you'd
still be sporting copious amounts of flab.

~~~
phaus
My standards are based on objective reality and a decent knowledge of physical
fitness and nutrition.

When I weighed 160, I had slightly defined abs. Similar to what you would see
on someone with 10-15% body fat.

The existence of a lot of overweight people in the US doesn't change what the
words "overweight" and "athletic" mean.

~~~
SamReidHughes
First you looked "very athletic" at 170, now your abs were "slightly defined"
at 160. Uh huh. If that means anything, that means you had a lot of visceral
fat, or it's more stored in the legs.

~~~
SamReidHughes
And well, it's WAY past the edit window now. The next time you are at 160, I
recommend using the tape measure to measure things like waist to chest
circumference, and thigh circumference. Then ask if those measurements are
bigger than what can be explained by the muscular performance you get. Another
thing you can do is try jumping rope, running in place, or doing jumping
jacks. When I do these activities, I get "jiggle." My moobs and stomach get
jerked around, because there is some flab there. The effect lessens as you
lose weight.

What is not objective is looking in the mirror in some lighting and thinking
you look pretty good. That's a subjective measurement based on objective
reality. Your body might distributed fat in a way that's relatively
aesthetically pleasing -- mine does too, it hides it all in the thighs, and
people think I'm way more in shape than I am -- and that's not the same thing
as being healthy.

------
trebor
Having capacity doesn't imply the desire or motivation to make use of it. IQ
is "capacity" but it doesn't mean that we inherently make better use of our
"greater" intelligence.

------
aluhut
So we got better in solving IQ tests?

------
Kenji
Going to university has completely destroyed my capability to appreciate
novels. After years of reading maths/programming/electrical engineering books
and the like, when I pick up a novel and it says "Tim said this, and Julie
replied that", etc., I am bored out of my mind. Why should I care what they
say, get to the point. You could compress this 700 page thing into 10 pages
and barely any of the content is lost (in other words, low information
density). I wish I could sill appreciate novels, but in most cases I can't.

In my eyes, most novels are trash and there are only a few worth reading.

~~~
jerf
"In my eyes, most novels are trash and there are only a few worth reading."

That's actually the expected result, by the way. Sturgeon's Law, roughly
"ninety percent of everything is crap", is one of those ha-ha-only-serious
sorts of things. You can put math around it if you want; if the quality of a
given type of media is normally distributed (probably with the bottom end cut
off by it never getting published), the best of the best is generally much
much better than the vast bulk of what is out there, and so if you measure by
the standard of what the best puts out, almost everything is crap.

One of the things that keeps the world going around is that we all have
different distributions, though; what is for me a +6sigma novel might be well
below average to you.

I'd say to you that bloated page counts are definitely a common thing. It's
what you get when you pay by the word. I'd also say that _any_ story can be
reduced to a couple of sentences, if you're being really cynical ("One day,
Bob defeated the evil overlord and peace reigned throughout the land."). There
are stories out there that are quite dense and everything has a point. But,
yes, they are the exceptions. The trick is in finding them.

~~~
npsimons
> I'd also say that any story can be reduced to a couple of sentences, if
> you're being really cynical

Lord of the Rings LITE(tm): Some guys take a long vacation to throw a ring in
a volcano.

See also:
[https://www.youtube.com/user/HISHEdotcom](https://www.youtube.com/user/HISHEdotcom)

------
blueprint
The quality of a person, as well as how well they can recognize what exists as
it is, is determined by their degree of truthfulness.

------
oldmanjay
Those who fetishize history are doomed to annoy everyone about it

------
SixSigma
IQs can't be higher. The tests are designed to be normally distributed with an
average of 100.

~~~
ideonexus
This statement is true, but a bit misleading. Yes, IQ tests are constantly
being adjusted so that the mean is always 100, but the average person today
will score above 100 on an IQ test from a decade or more ago. This is what the
article is referring to when it asserts "Our IQs have never been higher." It
is a factual statement and the basis for the "Flynn Effect," which has tracked
our steady increase in average IQ for many decades now [1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)

