The Flynn effect

[Kosmo]

"The Flynn effect describes an increase in the average intelligence quotient (IQ) test scores over generations (IQ gains over time). Similar improvements have been reported for other cognitions such as semantic and episodic memory.[1] The effect has been observed in most parts of the world at different rates."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

 

The wikipedia page has also a "Possible projection of Flynn through ages" that shows a Rome year 0 average IQ much closer to 48 then of 100.

The Flynn effect it's well proven, but of course romans did not preserved results of their standardized IQ tests so we can only presume that their average IQ was below those of the people in the western societies in early XX century when IQ testing begun. Also I doubt that IQ testing results tell us much.

 

Still, I believe that any realistic view of ancient societies must take in account that they were not only less informed and less educated but also, on average, substantially less intelligent.

[Viggen]

I think you have to see that in context, i mean if the average roman had 48 then the average non roman had probably even much less, so in a world surrounded by 38s you rule (according to this effect) with 48 , apart from measuring intelligence via IQ tests is heavily disputet by several scientists...

[Ursus]

The Egyptians built pyramids using the crudest of methods, the Greeks made advances in science that were unparalleled till the end of the Enlightenment, and the Romans built aqueducts and roads that are still in use today. Stupid is not a word I'd use to describe them.

[Nephele]

This has nothing to do with the Romans (or any other ancient civilization) being less intelligent than us.

 

As explained in this issue of American Scientist:

 

Flynn contends that our ancestors were no dumber than we are; rather, most of them used their minds in different ways than we do, ways to which IQ tests are more or less insensitive. That is to say, we have become increasingly skilled at the uses of intelligence that IQ tests do catch. Although he doesn

[Melvadius]

I always feel uncomfortable with pronouncements made about the relative intelligence or otherwise of particular societies on the basis of a 'perceived' improvement in results from IQ testing.

 

The underlying issue with modern IQ tests are that they are heavly culturally influenced as well as really only testing individuals against a standardised set of (usually) written questions. Many of these questions seem to be used in a variety of forms now not just when students are being taught at school or college but also regularly featuring in newspapers and in the various 'brain training' games available. It is patently obvious to me that an increasing percentage of people are becoming attuned to these style of questions.

 

In a mainly non-literate or at best semi-literate society, which some argue Rome was, most people are unlikely to have come across these types of questions or at least not in the same quentity so would not know where or how to start answering them - even if they could read or understand the underlyign principles of the questions.

 

An 'apparent' improvement in IQ in my view is effectively a self-fulfilling prophecy being derived not from increased intelligence but increased practice.

[the5500th]

Well I think that the Flynn affect is relevant only so far back. Somebody with an I.Q. of 60 is special needs and even somebody with an I.Q. of 80 would be in the special class at school. Now Men like Archimedes, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were all obviously above the average intelligence so are we to assume that that they had I.Q.s of 60 or were the smart people as smart as the smart people of modern times under this theory. To finish a person with an I.Q. of 48 would not be able to understand Roman law, properly understand books by Roman authors or even know the points politicians were arguing. I think the fact that we have Roman books and letters like those of Cicero show that their is no way that Romans were all special needs but that rather they were ignorant of the world and more easily lead because of the lack of easily accessible information.

[Brucecarson]

"The Flynn effect describes an increase in the average intelligence quotient (IQ) test scores over generations (IQ gains over time). Similar improvements have been reported for other cognitions such as semantic and episodic memory.[1] The effect has been observed in most parts of the world at different rates."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

 

The wikipedia page has also a "Possible projection of Flynn through ages" that shows a Rome year 0 average IQ much closer to 48 then of 100.

The Flynn effect it's well proven, but of course romans did not preserved results of their standardized IQ tests so we can only presume that their average IQ was below those of the people in the western societies in early XX century when IQ testing begun. Also I doubt that IQ testing results tell us much.

 

Still, I believe that any realistic view of ancient societies must take in account that they were not only less informed and less educated but also, on average, substantially less intelligent.

 

I think it has more to do with the recent (last few hundred years) improvements in diet, better nutrition and so forth. The thing is, it doesn't scale down without end. Poor nutrition will hold one back mentally, but it's not linear. Having half the nutrition doesn't make one half as intelligent, perhaps a quarter less intelligent. So yes, Romans on average were probably less intelligent, especially the lower classes with a poorer and less varied diet. The wealthy would probably be roughly equal to modern people. Notably the improvement has recently stopped or slowed down... which backs up the nutritional theory.

 

The point about "types" of intelligence has value as well... but I disagree with the conclusion they're reaching that we need some other sorts of tests to be "fair" to people. IQ tests are designed to test the types of intelligence needed in todays world. All this cultural relativist BS about different ways of thinking being perfectly valid is quite simply wrong. They're not all equal, some of them are pretty useless in a modern context. The point of testing is not to make people feel good, but to place people where they best fit.

 

Also, there's probably some evolutionary improvement since ancient times. Not much though, if evolution were that quick one would expect more variance between genetically disparate groups of humans. But the IQ of equally well fed Africans is only about ~5 points lower than Caucasians (if that), differences between all the other groups fall in a similar range. (By the way I'm about 1/4 black so I'm not making some kind of racist argument here, just looking at the evidence).

[Kosmo]

The point about "types" of intelligence has value as well... but I disagree with the conclusion they're reaching that we need some other sorts of tests to be "fair" to people. IQ tests are designed to test the types of intelligence needed in todays world. All this cultural relativist BS about different ways of thinking being perfectly valid is quite simply wrong. They're not all equal, some of them are pretty useless in a modern context.

 

This is very true.

As the article Neph linked above concludes at the end: "If Flynn is right, knowing how many picture-puzzles different cohorts of Dutch teenagers could solve is actually a window through which we can see a momentous change, the

[Brucecarson]

This is very true.

As the article Neph linked above concludes at the end: "If Flynn is right, knowing how many picture-puzzles different cohorts of Dutch teenagers could solve is actually a window through which we can see a momentous change, the

[Late Emperor]

Also, there's probably some evolutionary improvement since ancient times. Not much though, if evolution were that quick one would expect more variance between genetically disparate groups of humans. But the IQ of equally well fed Africans is only about ~5 points lower than Caucasians (if that), differences between all the other groups fall in a similar range. (By the way I'm about 1/4 black so I'm not making some kind of racist argument here, just looking at the evidence).

 

AFAIK the difference found in average IQ between the equally well fed caucasian-americans and african-americans (which are partially caucasian BTW) is about 15 points and there are significant differences even between european populations.

 

The comparison with equally well fed africans isn't reliable IMHO because in those poor and undeveloped societies only the upper classes can be well fed while in western societies (e.g USA) even the lower classes are well fed.

 

Regarding the Ancient's IQ I think that it can be said the same as modern third world societies: most inhabitants of the ancient world were illiterate and badly fed farmers and other manual workers while only a minority of the population was literate and well fed. The ancient science, phylosophy, technology, organization, etc... that we know were the intellectual product of this minority; I think therefore that it is possible that their average IQ was significantly lower than the modern one in the same countries (although 48 is exagerated IMHO) despite the intellectual achievements, infrastructure and organization of the ancient societies (which were quite technologically static BTW).

Edited August 1, 2010 by Late Emperor