On 31 Mar 2003 11:17:11 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman Rubin) wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ snip, previous dialog.
RU > > >Yes, IQ scales are periodically re-normed. That is > >the STRONG, world-wide evidence for the Flynn > >effect -- the fact that researchers discovered that > >everyone around the world has to make the tests > >tougher, by a few points every decade, to keep the > >averages for normals at 100. HR > > Are the tests tougher? Or has it become memorization > and regurgitation, with the practice on taking multiple > choice tests raising the levels? The test designers are > very poor at thinking themselves, and thus have eliminated > this part from the tests. Besides, it is very difficult > to test thinking at all on multiple choice tests. > Herman, you are floundering so bad here, you must be totally out of touch with psychometric literature. " memorization ... multiple choice ... the test designers... ". The Flynn effect was first documented in the standardization of IQ tests. *YOU* have been willing to talk about IQ tests as if they measured something real. A decade or so ago, one obvious "explanation" was that kids were being crammed with facts, etc., for the tests. But further study shows that big surprise: improvement seems to be biggest on the tests like the Raven Progressive Matrix that are the best regarded measures of 'g' or fluid intelligence or the ability to think fast (as opposed to crystallized intelligence or mere knowledge). I haven't been keeping up, so I googled on <"Flynn effect" FAQ> . The first hit led me to http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.html which seems like a competent overview. That pointed me to a Flynn summary published in the American Psychologist, 1999, vol. 54, 5-20, which was also good. And has further references. RU > > >Isn't this one the most intriguing findings of > >social sciences, in the last 50 years? HR > > Are the "social science" at all scientific? RU > > >- It has been an amusing confirmation for the folks > >(liberals, mainly) who stood for a long time with a > >claim whose support seemed (just) metaphysical, > >that I.Q. has to have a strong social or social class > >component. It does confirm that, whatever the > >explanation someday proves to be. HR > > The ones who call themselves liberals now have never > accepted that there could be a genetic factor in any > form of mental ability. The twin studies done at > Minnesota have shown that it is even greater than the > strongest eugenicists thought it could be. Well, if you don't believe someone who has been writing in front of you with great intelligence and general knowledge for the last 5 years, and you won't read published discussions that include the big names in IQ-genetics research, then I might ask why we should pay attention to your apparently-obsolete citations (re: their content; re: your disconnect from the IQ literature). -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
