I'm not clear if you think IQ is about the same or not.

The average IQ gets adjusted 3 points every 10 years

As in, 10 years ago "our" 100s would have been 103's

uh

Don't know what you're talking about

but if you're talking about the Flynn affect

you didn't understand it

got a citation for what you're talking about, only 3 point increase I'm aware of is the Flynn Affect

and, what you're descibing about 3 points is correct, but not about what it means as an average.

I'm not saying it *means* anything as an average. I'm simply talking about standardisation of testing and results on prior tests.

....

Okay which standard IQ test are you talking about then?

What? I'm talking about your assertion re: my conclusion. I'm not talking about a special IQ test. The point is that they have to be standardized

...

Stanford-Binet etc?

Your lack of response to the direct question makes me think you're still confused about the Flynn affect

There's not a "standard IQ test"

You're continuing to go down the wrong rabbit hole. I'm saying what you're suggestion re: my conclusion regarding the Flynn effect is false

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