Partly because they are smarter. The flynn effect is actually only on the non-g-loaded parts of tests. In reality we're getting dumber and can't sustain the sophistication of past music.
-There's doubt that the Flynn effect was real to begin with and isn't just an artifact of a measure that never really made sense to begin with (IQ)
-Plenty of "sophisticated" music is being made right now, perhaps you are not aware of it but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist
-Old people have always hated younger people's music - see the moral panic over the second summer of love, people thinking rock n'roll/metal/techno was satanic etc.
-Most of what people think is youngsters' music (e.g. most electro genres) is actually quite old
Your response is pretty disturbing on many levels I have to say
If measuring something like the visual reaction time of people makes sense, then so too does measuring IQ. Nobody is claiming that the Inuits ability to see far away objects in intense glistening brightness of their snowy lands doesn't constitute real intelligence just because it isn't measured on IQ tests.
> Your response is pretty disturbing on many levels I have to say
Well then I guess I will have to worry about the very real loss of genius in shame and silence.
I notice you have conveniently chosen to avoid answering the other talking points and am choosing to believe out of charity that you don't have time to write an elaborate response.
>If measuring something like the visual reaction time of people makes sense, then so too does measuring IQ.
I don't know what you mean by "make sense". To me it doesn't make sense insofar as it purports to put a single number on a very complex concept that no one really knows how to define or agree on a single definition. The traditional "predictor of life outcomes" motte-and-baley fallback isn't satisfactory for most people as it relies on circularity (in our society much of our life outcomes is actually determined by how well we do at tests that are strangely similar to IQ tests) and fails to account for the many, many socially maladapted yet gifted people out there. It's also unsatisfactory as it pretends to capture something from the inner person but outsources its definition to the outer world.
Also, none of that explains how one's IQ test results may predict one's ability to appreciate 'sophisticated music', nor is it clear what is meant by 'sophisticated'.
>fails to account for the many, many socially maladapted yet gifted people out there
When has anyone ever claimed that being socially adept correlated with IQ? It's long been a trope that geniuses were eccentric and socially mal-adjusted. Even Isaac Newton, centuries ago, was known to be an odd recluse.
It would be very difficult for Generation X and Y to experience moral panic over younger generations' music, considering that we grew up listening to music with explicit sex, violence, and depictions of drug use.
Are you saying that musical intelligence is more highly G-loaded than most other dimensions of intelligence? That would be pretty interesting if true, any research you could point us to?
-There's doubt that the Flynn effect was real to begin with and isn't just an artifact of a measure that never really made sense to begin with (IQ)
-Plenty of "sophisticated" music is being made right now, perhaps you are not aware of it but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist
-Old people have always hated younger people's music - see the moral panic over the second summer of love, people thinking rock n'roll/metal/techno was satanic etc.
-Most of what people think is youngsters' music (e.g. most electro genres) is actually quite old
Your response is pretty disturbing on many levels I have to say