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.

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