The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day. When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.
Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, subjects born over a 100-year period were compared in Des Moines, Iowa, and separately in Dumfries, Scotland. Improvements were remarkably consistent across the whole period, in both countries.[1] This effect of an apparent increase in IQ has also been observed in various other parts of the world, though the rates of increase vary.[2]
There are numerous proposed explanations of the Flynn effect, as well as some skepticism about its implications. Similar improvements have been reported for other cognitions such as semantic and episodic memory.[3] Recent research suggests that the Flynn effect may have ended in at least a few developed nations, possibly allowing national differences in IQ scores[4] to diminish if the Flynn effect continues in nations with lower average national IQs.
Origin of term[edit]
External video
Jim Flynn U of Otago.jpg
James Flynn: Why our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents', (18:41), TED talks
The Flynn effect is named for James R. Flynn, who did much to document it and promote awareness of its implications. The term itself was coined by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, authors of The Bell Curve.[5] Although the general term for the phenomenon referring to no researcher in particular continues to be "secular rise in IQ scores", many textbooks on psychology and IQ testing have now followed the lead of Herrnstein and Murray in calling the phenomenon the Flynn effect.[6]
Rise in IQ[edit]
IQ tests are updated periodically. For example, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), originally developed in 1949, was updated in 1974, in 1991, 2003 and again in 2014. The revised versions are standardized based on the performance of test-takers in standardization samples. A standard score of IQ 100 is defined as the median performance of the standardization sample. Thus one way to see changes in norms over time is to conduct a study in which the same test-takers take both an old and new version of the same test. Doing so confirms IQ gains over time. Some IQ tests, for example tests used for military draftees in NATO countries in Europe, report raw scores, and those also confirm a trend of rising scores over time. The average rate of increase seems to be about three IQ points per decade in the United States, as scaled by the Wechsler tests. The increasing test performance over time appears on every major test, in every age range, at every ability level, and in every modern industrialized country, although not necessarily at the same rate as in the United States. The increase has been continuous and roughly linear from the earliest days of testing to the present.[7] Though the effect is most associated with IQ increases, a similar effect has been found with increases in attention and of semantic and episodic memory.[3]
Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997 the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior', but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'" He also wrote that "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial."[7]
Raven (2000) found that, as Flynn suggested, data interpreted as showing a decrease in many abilities with increasing age must be re-interpreted as showing that there has been a dramatic increase of these abilities with date of birth. On many tests this occurs at all levels of ability.[1]
Some studies have found the gains of the Flynn effect to be particularly concentrated at the lower end of the distribution. Teasdale and Owen (1989), for example, found the effect primarily reduced the number of low-end scores, resulting in an increased number of moderately high scores, with no increase in very high scores.[8] In another study, two large samples of Spanish children were assessed with a 30-year gap. Comparison of the IQ distributions indicated that the mean IQ-scores on the test had increased by 9.7 points (the Flynn effect), the gains were concentrated in the lower half of the distribution and negligible in the top half, and the gains gradually decreased as the IQ of the individuals increased.[9] Some studies have found a reverse Flynn effect with declining scores for those with high IQ.[10]
In 1987, Flynn took the position that the very large increase indicates that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but only a minor sort of "abstract problem-solving ability" with little practical significance. He argued that if IQ gains do reflect intelligence increases, there would have been consequent changes of our society that have not been observed (a presumed non-occurrence of a "cultural renaissance").[7] Flynn no longer endorses this view of intelligence and has since elaborated and refined his view of what rising IQ scores mean.
Precursors to Flynn's publications[edit]
Earlier investigators had discovered rises in raw IQ test scores in some study populations, but had not published general investigations of that issue in particular. Historian Daniel C. Calhoun cited earlier psychology literature on IQ score trends in his book The Intelligence of a People (1973).[11] R. L. Thorndike drew attention to rises in Stanford-Binet scores in a 1975 review of the history of intelligence testing.[12]
Intelligence[edit]
See also: g factor (psychometrics) and Fluid and crystallized intelligence
There is debate about whether the rise in IQ scores also corresponds to a rise in general intelligence, or only a rise in special skills related to taking IQ tests. Because children attend school longer now and have become much more familiar with the testing of school-related material, one might expect the greatest gains to occur on such school content-related tests as vocabulary, arithmetic or general information. Just the opposite is the case: abilities such as these have experienced relatively small gains and even occasional decreases over the years. Recent meta-analytic findings indicate that Flynn effects occur for tests assessing both fluid and crystallized abilities. For example, Dutch conscripts gained 21 points during only 30 years, or 7 points per decade, between 1952 and 1982.[7] But this rise in IQ test scores is not wholly explained by an increase in general intelligence. Studies have shown that while test scores have improved over time, the improvement is not fully correlated with latent factors related to intelligence.[13] Rushton have shown that the gains in IQ over time (the Lynn-Flynn effect) are unrelated to g.[14][15] Researchers have shown that the IQ gains described by the Flynn effect are due in part to increasing intelligence, and in part to increases in test-specific skills.[16][17][18]
Proposed explanations
See also: Impact of health on intelligence
Attempted explanations have included improved nutrition, a trend toward smaller families, better education, greater environmental complexity, and heterosis (the occurrence of offspring with more pronounced phenotypical traits from mixing the genes of its parents).[19] Another proposition is the gradual spread of test-taking skills.[7] The Flynn effect has been too rapid for genetic selection to be the cause.[20]

Svatko tko je ikad slušao neki kolegij o inteligenciji zna koliko je polje raznorodno i da nekih konačnih zaključaka nema.
Iako je proučavanje inteligencije najprestižniji dio psihologije (meni osobno ne i najzanimljiviji), teško ju je precizno mjeriti i izraditi testove.

Jedna od definicija inteligencije glasi da je inteligencija sposobnost snalaženja u novim,nepoznatim situacijama.

@snowflake

moje mišljenje je da ljudi vremenom postaju manje inteligentniji,da ne kažem gluplji;gdje su danas umovi kao što su bili Leonardo da Vinci,Isaac Newton,Albert Einstein ili Nikola Tesla u svoje doba?

To ne može biti točno. Evolucijski to nema smisla.

To ne može biti točno. Evolucijski to nema smisla.

Inteligencija je višeslojna priča i nema jednostvenog i jedinstvenog testa za nju. Tu mora biti kombinacija više testova i situacija u interakciji s ljudima, da bi se okoprilike utvrdila razina inteligencije u više slojeva.

Pri tom nije isključeno, da ljudi koji su natprosječni u jednom segmentu, su ispodprosječni u drugom segmentu inteligencije.

Ja osobno tu imam mišljenje, da najbolje u životu uspijevaju ljudi, koji su u svim segmentima inteligencije više manje imaju sličnu razinu uspješnosti. Dakle, koji su uravnoteženi s nivoima rezultata u više slojeva.

To ne može biti točno. Evolucijski to nema smisla.

Ono što je mene iznenadilo, osim same brzine efekta, jest to da je prosječan rezultat uvijek 100.
Doduše, to je zato što se testovi mijenjaju i rekalibriraju svakih nekoliko desetljeća.
To me držalo u uvjerenju da tako brzi pomaci nisu mogući.

Opet Flynnov efekt, kad ga promotrimo pobliže, svodi se na bum apstraknog mišljenja naspram konkretnog i, vrlo vjerojatno, bum kristalizirane inteligencije.
Iako vrlo važne, (apstrakno mišljenje omogućuje znanost, kulturu...) ove dvije sastavnice nisu jedine sastavnice inteligencije.
Konkretno mišljenje, po meni, također je važno jer se odnosi na neposredno okružje, čovjekovo ovdje i sad, životno iskustvo i, opet vrlo važno, uvijek je primjenjivo.
Može li odmak od konkretnog u mjeri u kojoj je to prisutno u modernom društvu u konačnici značiti zaglupljivanje?

Ljudi koji su tek na prvom nivou svijesti o samom sebi oslanjaju se na mišiće. Ovi koji ovladaju malo bolje sobom oslanjaju se na ligamente. Mozak je, takođe, aparat za preživljavanje kao ruke i noge tako da ko zna dobro da radi rukama ne mora mnogo da misli. Nije inteligencija ono što čovjeka čini uspješnim, nego srce koje ga vodi. Đavo je najinteligentniji.

E sad, dal se IQ povecava iz generacije u generaciju... bioloski sigurno ne, jer je to uzasno malo vreme za genetske mutacije koje bi dovele do porasta "pameti"... mislim da je stvar u okruzenju. Broj informacija koje dnevno primamo eksponencijalno raste. Zatim okruzenje u kom zivimo, kontakt sa vise ljudi donosi i vise iskustva... zati od malih nogu klinci igraju razne igrice, gde kroz takav trening sticu veliko iskustvo u resavanju zagonetki. Ukratko, mozak nam je na mnogo vecem broju malih i velikih ispita, i prinudjen je da svoj ogromni potencijal brusi i usavrsava... uporedjujuci to sa zivotom pre 50 ili 100 godina, razlika je kao bog i sesirdzija.

Neko ce reci - kako nema vise onakvih velikana poput Newtona, Faradeja, Einsteina, Tesle... to su bili blistavi pojedinci u moru ljudi koji nisu imali nikakvo obrazovanje, niti mogucnost da pokazu svoj talenat. Danas isto imamo genijalce, ali su svi oni deo sistema, kamen u mozaiku ogromnog napretka koga moguce nismo ni svesni, ali samo kad se zapitamo kako je nas zivot izgledao pre 20 godina i danas... da nas neko sad vrati u 80-te illi 90-te, bez mobilnih, interneta... mesec dana bi bili izgubljeni... a tako smo ziveli tada kao klinci...

Taj tehnicki i tehonoloski napredak ne moze da isprati druga, mnogo vaznija strana coveka, a to je duhovna...koja se cesto zagubi, pa dobijamo nastancane robove materijalistickog drustva... ali to je sasvim posebna tema...