Are We Smarter Than Our Ancestors?
By Thomas Hally

      IQs are going up dramatically. In 1994, the “Flynn Effect” was the name coined as an explanation for the increasing IQ scores in more than 30 industri­alized and developing nations. Flynn, a 73-year-old professor emeritus, found that IQ had improved in the 20th century at the rate of an incredible three points per decade. Earlier researchers had failed to notice this trend because IQ scores are always calculated with respect to the average score of the present group.
     But to what extent do IQ tests measure raw intelligence versus learning versus some other factor correlated with intelligence? Professor Flynn believes that the hypothesis that best fits the results of his study is that IQ tests do not measure in­telli­gence, but rather correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence. Flynn is certain that the increase in IQ is actually an increase in abstract problem solving rather than intelligence. We must re-think exactly what we mean by intelligence.  
     Because populations experience IQ gains over time, we must constantly re-standardize IQ tests so that subjects are not scored against inaccurate IQ norms. The use of obsolete norms can cause problems, particularly when comparing scores between different groups and different populations. A widely-held hypothesis is that people lose fluid intelligence over time. In his book, What is Intelligence? Beyond the Flynn Effect, he discusses a mystery that has baffled IQ researchers for decades: “Are we really smarter than our ancestors?”
     Older people were raised in an era when the general level of intelligence was lower. Professor Flynn showed that if a person’s IQ is calibrated for the period in which they grew up, an old person scores just as well as a young one. The reason that the graying population doesn’t do as well on IQ tests as young people is not because older people are “stupid,” rather that the younger generation simply has had a head start.  
     We have created the tools and the environment to maximize IQ scores. Seventy-five years ago there were no televisions, no computers, no cell phones and, in most cases, no automobiles. The time-tested, practical ideation and solutions of our parents and grandparents has given way to technology and science.
     Professor Flynn’s “multiplier effect” is integral to this hypothesis. Simply stated, the more adults (especially higher IQ adults) there are to children, the more likely the young ones will be positively influenced. Over time, one would expect that the opposite ends of the Bell Curve would stretch as humans with the highest (and lowest) IQ scores mate and reproduce. Furthermore, indi­viduals with lower IQs are having more children than their higher IQ counterparts. Would this not lower the average IQ?
     Flynn believes that 75% of the score on an IQ test is due to nurture, and 25% is due to nature. The Flynn Effect illustrates the difficulty of comparing test results over time, but says little about the validity of tests within a given generation.
     Professor Flynn, nevertheless, believes that some of us have reached the upper level of our cognitive functions. Various factors include single parenthood and low birth rates, and we have simply become “lazy.” Scandinavia, especially, has been affected more by this “dumbing” trend, or leveling off, and not those nations studied in the developing world.