| > This flies in the fact of lots of evidence to the contrary Your examples are not evidence of higher IQ. They are examples of human progress. > 1) High-school students now understand mathematics that only advanced degrees would have understood in 1919. Being the first to do something and following in their footsteps is two very different things. Sure but that is just because it is better understood now. All this this means is that the idea / technique is better understood and understood by more people. > 2) High-school musicians now regularly play pieces that were considered meant only for "virtuousos" in 1919. Again this is just evidence that more people understand how to play the pieces. Doing something novel and unique is much more difficult than understanding something that is already understood. That is why scientists sometimes say they are standing on the shoulders of giants > The fact that IQ tests (whatever they measure) have shown an aggregate increase is also evidence against your hypothesis. You are oversimplying the findings, I made the same mistake when I first heard of the flynn effect. What you are referring to is the Flynn effect. This is where the average IQ increases each generation. While there is an increase of ~3 points every decade, it is on the low end of the distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Rise_in_IQ > 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. 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. Some studies have found a reverse Flynn effect with declining scores for those with high IQ. In other words the people with the lowest IQ scores are increasing more greatly and pushing the average up. The whole distribution itself is not moving with it though. I dislike the whole idea though of IQ as a test of intelligence (which is a nebulous concept in itself). I've seen people with high IQs believe in very ridiculous things and engage in behaviour which most would consider to be stupid. As someone that did 2 proper IQ tests back in the 90s because my school thought I mentally handicapped (I am dyspraxic so technically I am). The tests are good at identifying whether you are good at abstract reasoning. There are other forms of thinking that I am very bad at even though I am on the higher end of the IQ scale (I was graded at 142 at the time). |
This follows whether it is due to better education, better training, better tools, or better nutrition.
Are programmers "smarter" than they were 50 years ago? They can certainly create much more complex programs that do MUCH more than we could 50 years ago.
Are chess players "smarter" than they were 100 years ago? ELO ratings sure suggest they are.
Would those people of 100 years ago been able to do the tasks we can now given our current society? Maybe. But that indicates that "intelligence" is also a function of "current environment". And, if the current environment is better, then the humans are "smarter", too.