I didnt say there was

I said that IQ tests undergo standardization, which they have to, or they'd be no good as IQ tests

You're not answering my questions sufficiently, which makes me think you don't know what you're talking about with IQ

This 3 point nonsense is incorrect

you can take the same IQ test from 10 years ago.

the meaning of the numbers has not drifted 3 points

As I said, if you have a citation for what you're describing I'd like to see it.

I think you read about the Flynn affect and didn't understand it.

Are you confusing score with score relative to the prior test? Because the Flynn Effect is literally about the process of normalizing scores over time, which led to what some perceived to be an increase in intelligence. I do not think that's what it points to, but if you're taking IQ as a rock solid measurement, it's something to be accounted for

The fact that you're seemingly conflating "one standardised test" with "standardisation for testing" isn't giving me much hope though

I know there isn't one standardized test... they don't all even use the same SD...

the way you're talking makes me think you wouldn't even know what a Gaussian distribution is

It still makes me ask, "what is this 3 point compensation you're talking about"

Which you still haven't answered, other than to say you don't have hope that I understand you, when you can't even link to something citing what you're talking about.

We literally have data from the Scands and Switzerland, and some other countries that have continually used the same psychometric testing for 50 years.

Which is what most people point to when they're talking about IQ decline since it's the same psychometric test on the same "population"

All military memebers are given IQ tests there...

Which is most adults

Why would the IQ testing drift by 3 points with the same test over x years compared to past historical results?

I literally did answer you in the last post I made. I'm talking about the Flynn effect, which others (not I) attribute to an increase in intelligence, which does modify IQ scores (in the sense of adjustment over time) as part of renormalization.

"The same test over X years"
It's not the same test, ultimately. It is readjusted

The changes are minimal

The test is basically the same. have you looked at the changelogs?

So rather than say the Flynn affect is an actualy increase in intelligence because of better health as most Prychologists who study IQ believe you believe it's because the test changed

and even though we're no longer riasing in IQ, you still think it's drifting 3 points every x years...

Even though we have data from countries admininstering basically the same fuckin' tests for half a century and that's where the most solid evidence of the Flynn affect comes from, as well as testing in the Turd World.

AFAIK it's the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland that hey use as a sample since they have required military serivce, and everyone in the military gets an IQ test....

I mean clearly I know nothing about Psychometrics so you can correct me here, but I was under the impression that the main idea of the Flynn affect came from the Scandinavian data and the limited data from the Turd World where they got them to stop eating lead and feed them as children.

Doesn't matter since the Flynn Effect is entirely debunked.

Even Flynn's given up on it.

Then in either case what he's saying is wrong

which is what I was fucking pointing out

Sure.

I was just reinforcing that point.

And in the 70's for whatever reason they changed all the tests to no longer reasonably measure IQ

HS's used to give IQ tests more often, and the SAT used to be less of an acheivement test.

We actually have a decent amount of IQ data even in the US because of that.

Probably when they started letting all the "hispanics" in cali

gotta hide the decline 😉

There are multiple theories re: why the Flynn effect occurs. Further, a changelog doesn't necessarily cover what the Flynn effect actually is. An IQ test is not a hard number, from my understanding, but a floating point. 100 is your average relative to other people taking your same test, not a hard value representing your personal intelligence. So a 100 today doesn't mean the same thing as a 100 on a prior test, as they were normalized for different populations. Further to go back to the consensus point, the data ultimately matters more, especially within the "soft sciences". This is the same quadrant of academia after all that has been plugging child gender transition despite the actual verifiable data on the subject

>debunked
Source?

We know what the old tests were

we know the participants age, sex, and score