←back to thread

American IQ scores have rapidly dropped, proving the 'Reverse Flynn effect'

(www.popularmechanics.com)
256 points hirundo | 1 comments | 10 Apr 23 13:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
JoeAltmaier ◴[10 Apr 23 22:29 UTC] No.35518164[source]▶
When IQ tests were invented folks didn't know about tests, at least in the US. They were rural immigrants who could maybe read. So when asked logic questions, they would answer pragmatically and be 'wrong'. That had some impact on perceived early low results.

As folks became better-read and educated they began to understand that IQ test questions were a sort of puzzle, not a real honest question. The answer was expected to solve the puzzle, not be right in any way.

E.g. There are no Elephants in Germany. Munich is in Germany. How many elephants are there in Munich? A) 0 B) 1 C)2

Folks back then might answer B or C, because they figure hey there's probably a zoo in Munich, bet they have an elephant or two there. And be marked wrong.

replies(8): >>35518406 #>>35518599 #>>35518661 #>>35519064 #>>35519319 #>>35520774 #>>35521627 #>>35522433 #
pseudo0 ◴[10 Apr 23 22:57 UTC] No.35518406[source]▶
That theory could be plausible, except Flynn used results from Raven's Progressive Matrices, which is just pattern recognition. There are no questions about elephants or text-based questions that could introduce cultural bias. It's simply picking the shape that matches the pattern presented in a grid.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's_Progressive_Matrices

replies(2): >>35518518 #>>35519847 #
WalterBright ◴[10 Apr 23 23:09 UTC] No.35518518[source]▶
I've often heard from humanities academics that STEM majors do not confer critical thinking skills.
replies(9): >>35518564 #>>35518590 #>>35519179 #>>35519561 #>>35520094 #>>35520298 #>>35520427 #>>35520477 #>>35525385 #
worrycue ◴[11 Apr 23 03:11 UTC] No.35520298[source]▶
I really wonder what do the people in humanities consider “critical thinking”. Mathematics and formal proofs are the epitome of logical thought IMHO - while arguments in the humanities often don’t have the same level of rigor; nor are their p-tests as stringent as in the physical sciences. So what exactly is it that’s they think is missing from STEM?

Edit: Don’t just downvote. Explain. That’s what we are here for.

replies(5): >>35520807 #>>35521055 #>>35525141 #>>35525213 #>>35525360 #
1. gilbetron ◴[11 Apr 23 13:57 UTC] No.35525213[source]▶
I live in a college town, and have lots of liberal arts friends in academia, and have had this discussion many times, a discussion that has a lot of peril, as they get upset very easily about this issue!

As near as I can tell, when they say "critical thinking" they really mean "persuasive thinking". Humanities, given its lack of rigor (or ability to have rigor) compared to STEM, often falls back on persuasive arguments, and so studying them requires you to become persuasive if you want to excel. This is why they can often come into conflict with STEM "arguments" - STEM isn't about persuasion, but about proof and testing and evidence and ... math! You can't persuade the laws of the universe, they are just something that exists. That's why they consider scientists so pedantic.

Anyway, that's the theory I've developed, I hope it has persuaded you some, but if not, it is likely that I trained as an engineer and am rather tepid with my persuasive skills ;)