You realise with some of the scandinavian countrys, Norway specifically for sure, the IQ data they have the tests not just the scores right?

See above my dude

What's Dysgenic fertility?

What's a sigma?

Are you changing the subject because you dont have a counterargument or is this intended to lead back into the results of a study (that is unfortunately paywalled)?

I have access to the journals actually.

But that's not why I was asking.

I think you don't have a basic literacy in this topic, or basic statistics.

Because the thing you're saying is a problem, isn't a problem if you have all the tests and not just the scores.

You say that while continually misunderstanding my position, so forgive me for my lack of faith in your judgement

Even in your made up erroneous understanding of how IQ is calculated

In fact the vast majority of this discussion has been spent brushing away strawmen, and also the incorrect assertion that there isnt a plurality of explanations for the Flynn Effect. You even asserted that I should accept the notion that IQ is increasing based on those numbers, and due to a supposed consensus, despite arguing the contrary (without even the mention of a named trend or study, while asking me for a citation regarding something reasonably well documented that you already allegedly knew about)

heh.

"The average IQ gets adjusted 3 points every 10 years
As in, 10 years ago "our" 100s would have been 103's"

This is not accurate either way it can be taken. This is not an accurate representation of what is happening in the Flynn effect, nor is it true in terms of scores. The tests aren't "adjusted" every 10 years by 3 points if I'm to take it literally. Nor is it adjusted to compare historical scores.

The best historical comparisons are from the nodric countries that have been using the same god damn tests for 50 years.

As in, if you take the measurements on average. If you're looking at say, SB scoring from one iteration to the next, theres a period during which they take a representative sample from the larger population and then use that to scale to 100

Wrt strawman I mean our discussion as a whole, as well. There were several times where you seemed unable to distinguish between my description of someone else's position, and my own position. You also suggested I didn't know about distribution of powers despite my statement being based on a misunderstanding we had over the change you were suggesting. Measurements of scores on older and current tests vouch for this

You're still focusing on the content of tests, rather than the normalization of scores

......

what you don't seem to understand is very little needs to be "normalized" for comparisons.... which is what I'm trying to point out to you.

Your thought experiment for calculation is actually not how any of the tests work, but even if it did, it wouldn't be a problem.

You wouldn't have to normalize anything.

and what's changing about the populations that it's only 3 points per decade.

Well I'm not saying it's a massive increase either, am I?

Then why would scores not be the same for all tests?

If one person takes a test from 20 years ago and a test from now, would the scores not be the same?

For the way tests are socred since like 1920 in all the major tests?

Yes

Right, but that's not what the data corroborated

... what data?

so basically you think everyone compared to people from 1950 is really 2σ higher in IQ

lul

@Beemann
Re: the Flynn Effect
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3950413/

That study isn't about the flynn affect

This is about whether you can get a higher IQ through training, not whether the Flynn Affect is happening or not.

Two very distinctly different things.

>although whether g shows the Flynn effect is still unsettled (te Nijenhuis and van der Flier, 2013)

so you linked a study that's talking about cognitive training that's citing a study about the Flynn effect being "unsettled" as proof that the Flynn effect is debunked?

Is the Flynn effect just the idea that western nations have steadily increasing IQ or specifically that training causes this?

Did you check that actual citation?

The source doesn't call it unsettled.

Given that epigenetic changes through life are a thing it doesn't seem too terribly ridiculous to believe that training could cause it, and if it's just in general IQ increases it seems like you could probably chalk that up to generations of people actually getting enough (and enough of the right stuff as our knowledge on nutrition increases) to eat. Like how people used to be a foot shorter on average a hundred or two years ago. Your brain takes up a ton of nutrients, makes sense to me that it'd get better too