<p>I’m glad you posted this link. I’m going to hunt up more of Flynn’s work. Thanks.</p>
<p>Gottaloveucla, Have you read The Bell Curve? The authors do not make the argument that race determines IQ. They do make the argument that IQ tests measure something real (it reifies the concept of “intelligence”) and that there are populations of people (“race”) that can also be reified, and that there are measurably different intelligence distributions between races. To the extent that “race” actually exists (see SJ Gould for a LOT more on this), the aggregate distribution is a normal distribution (“bell curve”). It’s more complex than “because you’re black, you’re stupid.” The authors would argue something more like, “If I know your race, I can make a prediction about your likely IQ score that is more likely to be accurate than if I don’t know your race.” My biggest problem with their conclusions has been that I don’t really know what “race” means. I’m not sure you should reify it. Now that other researchers are questioning the validity of the raw data, this is going to get really interesting.</p>
<p>Flynn’s analysis is very cool in that it suggests that IQ scores are at least in part determined by societal experience in how to cognitively map objects and concepts in the environment. It does map my qualitative experience that children raised in intellectually stimulating environments turn out to be brighter adults. I’ve wondered about the causal flow – do brighter parents provide better environments for their genetically brighter kids, or can any child benefit from a better environment? I suspect it is a little of both, personally, but I’m looking forward to learning more.</p>