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

we know the same for the modern samples

You don't have to normalize by some arbitrary 3 points.

it's not that hard to compensate for such things across samples

all the popular IQ tests haven't changed much since the 1930s

it's just minor updates. A lot of it is identical in terms of what's tested, with the language just being updated...

it's not like some completely qulatative data like you're making it sound.

>it's not like some completely qualitative data
Which, the test or the results? The results are what's being compared

The tests themselves.

Tests haven't changed much for 50 years

The revisions are minimal

we have a changelog

your whole arbitrary 3 points a year thing just seems like you're pulling it from the flynn affect. You seem to be implying that everythin is relative when you can pare down the data so everything is the same and recalculate if necessary. But not every test is scored as you suppose anyway, but even if it was it wouldn't be a problem for historical comparisons.

Again, a changelog isnt going to show a difference if you're dealing with a test that has scoring relative to a certain # rather than hard coded scoring
And no, it's not a problem for historic comparisons, which is the data the Flynn Effect is based on

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.