Intelligence Quotients: science or pop pyschology?

IQ tests are a reliable measure of one thing - the ability to pass IQ tests.The Flynn effect - a tendancy of average IQ to increase over time for the population of a given region - raises serious questions about the idea that IQ tests measure raw native ability.

I don't think that there is a single thing that can be labelled intelligence. What we call intelligence is the aggregation of a number of abilities which are not always simple to test. I would add that wehat we call intelligence is a product of training as well as native ability or potential.Your turn. How would you explain the Flynn effect ?

quote:

---

The Flynn Effect is probably the number one objection to IQ testing, but this seems to based off of graphs showing a trend that IQ scores are increasing. It bases its conclusions on a variety of reasons like a better diet, more familiarity with multiple choice questions, etc. But these objections, though perfectly valid, don't really undercut the intelligence quotient in my opinion.

---

That's badly confused. The Flynn effect is the OBSERVED increase in measured IQ shown in the graphs - and it is consistently found in different studies on different populations. "Better diet" is one of the factors that might explain it. So you are confusing the effect with possible explanations of the effect. Objecting to those explanations doesn't help you.So I'm going to have to ask you again. What is your explanation for the Flynn effect ? Surely it demonstrates that there is some factor in measured IQ other than an inherited basic ability because if it were IQ would tend to remain stable.