Search This Blog

Thursday, October 03, 2019

Flynn Effected

The Flynn Effect is one of the most cited topics in the debate over nature versus nurture regarding intelligence:

The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores that were measured in many parts of the world over the 20th century.[1] When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.
Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a study published in the year 2009 found that British children's average scores rose by 14 IQ points from 1942 to 2008.[2] Similar gains have been observed in many other countries in which IQ testing has long been widely used, including other Western European countries, Japan, and South Korea.[1]
This effect is strong evidence against intelligence being overwhelmingly heritable (though since IQs run from less than 50 to 200+, there's still a fair amount of potential room for nature). As a result, James R. Flynn (for whom the Effect was named), has been somewhat of a hero for those who discount the heritable nature of intelligence.

It seems, though, that Mr. Flynn's hero status has waned substantially. He recently tried to get a book published (In Defense of Free Speech: The University as Censor), but it was rejected out-of-hand by the publisher. The reasons for the rejection were explained in an email (the whole article is interesting) from the publisher:
I am contacting you in regard to your manuscript In Defense of Free Speech: The University as Censor. Emerald believes that its publication, in particular in the United Kingdom, would raise serious concerns. By the nature of its subject matter, the work addresses sensitive topics of race, religion, and gender. The challenging manner in which you handle these topics as author, particularly at the beginning of the work, whilst no doubt editorially powerful, increase the sensitivity and the risk of reaction and legal challenge. As a result, we have taken external legal advice on the contents of the manuscript and summarize our concerns below.
There are two main causes of concern for Emerald. Firstly, the work could be seen to incite racial hatred and stir up religious hatred under United Kingdom law. Clearly you have no intention of promoting racism but intent can be irrelevant. For example, one test is merely whether it is “likely” that racial hatred could be stirred up as a result of the work. This is a particular difficulty given modern means of digital media expression. The potential for circulation of the more controversial passages of the manuscript online, without the wider intellectual context of the work as a whole and to a very broad audience—in a manner beyond our control—represents a material legal risk for Emerald. ... [emphasis added]
The ironies are frightening (to me), yet delicious. The first is that a book arguing for free speech is censored. That's kinda gettin' near the end of the road for free speech, isn't it? The second is that a progressive hero is censored. As long as he was willing to research and write stuff that supports that which all right thinking people are certain is correct, he's a hero and is cited incessantly. Write something a little different and bzzzzt, throw the bastard out.

The truth may be dangerous and now we're at a point where trying to find the truth is even more dangerous.

16 comments:

Peter said...

I don't think censor is the verb you want here. Presumably Flynn doesn't have a right to be published. Publishers reject manuscripts for lots or reasons all the time. I think if you read between the lines of that e-mail, you will see that underneath all the bumph about racism, etc, the lawyers killed it, arguably not without reason. I do get the irony of his raising the issue of genetic racial differences in order to refute them, but he jumped into some very controversial public issues and I'm not convinced he has the right to demand to be heard in the public square as if he were conducting an erudite discussion in a faculty lounge.

Bret said...

Ok, true, "censor" isn't accurate. Call it writing artistic license since the title of the book is "In Defense of Free Speech: The University as Censor" and I think in common writing (american) my use of the word "censor" isn't accurate but it isn't terribly unusual to use in that way either.

Clovis said...

Bret,

Considering we live in an age where anyone is free to self-publish, I can't really get too moved about a publisher refusing to publish anything.

Like your post in this blog, Mr. Flynn is one click away from publishing whatever he wants.

Peter said...

Bret, on the subject of the dangers of public debate today, I thought you might enjoy this.

I am fascinated by the reverence and obeisance so much of the Western world is showing Ste. Greta of Thunberg. No one dares bell the cat by saying she doesn't know what she is talking about and is obviously being manipulated. The only acceptable reaction is to beam at her in awe and shame. It's a sign of how mindless and empty our public discussions have become that one has to look to the likes of Vladimir Putin to speak truth to power.

Clovis said...

Peter,

Thank you very much for that mindful Putin video.

He does surely know what he is talking about, when he closes it recommending we should protect children and teenagers from too strong emotions.

Our only salvation from the oppresion of the likes of Greta is Putin. And Trump. And Bolsonaro. Thank God we have such strong and thoughtful people in power.

Peter said...

Geez, we haven't seen him for months and already he needs only a couple of sentences to draw Trump and Bolsonaro into the discussion. :-)

Clovis, tell us, is the Brazilian right wing starting to complain about Bolsonaro Derangement Syndrome?

Clovis said...

Peter,

They are so busy going through bitter infighting and purges right now, they just haven't time to counter the original opposition.

But my mention of Trump and Bolsonaro is entirely on topic, since they are part of the same phenomena that made you to mention Putin: this overreaction to PC culture that makes grown adults to decry censorship where there is none and to fear pubescent girls with Asperger syndrome.

Peter said...

Oh yes. The list of "own goals" progressives scored that led to these populists is very long.
Sadly, most of them are just doubling down indignantly and self-righteously, and refusing to look at themselves in the mirror. The tragic lesson seem to be that, while individuals can sometimes repent and reform, masses hardly ever can.

Bret said...

Clovis wrote: "[Putin] does surely know what he is talking about, when he closes it recommending we should protect children and teenagers from too strong emotions."

I guess I'm lost as to your point. Putin said, "But adults should do everything they can to prevent children and teenagers from getting into some extreme situations. They should guard them against excessive emotions that can undermine their personality."

Do you think that adults shouldn't do anything "to prevent children and teenagers from getting into some extreme situations"? That adults shouldn't "guard them against excessive emotions that can undermine their personality"?

As a parent, Putin's statement seems reasonable to me. You are also a parent. Will you do nothing to prevent your children from getting into extreme situations? Or try to help them through excessive emotions?

Clovis wrote: "Our only salvation from the oppresion of the likes of Greta is Putin."

If, say, Obama said the exact same thing as Putin, would that make the meaning of the statement different? Or does the messenger define the message as much as the message itself?

Bret said...

Peter,

Thanks for the link to the Spectator article - it's a pretty concise description of the problems with modern discourse.

Bret said...

Clovis wrote: "Like your post in this blog, Mr. Flynn is one click away from publishing whatever he wants."

True.

And with a handful more clicks he can kindle publish at Amazon (and other e-retailers). And with a handful more clicks he can get paper copies produced and also sell those at Amazon and other places. He might even make more money if he did so.

Nonetheless, I still find the situation with Flynn being rejected for the stated reasons humorous. Perhaps I just have an odd sense of humor.

Clovis said...

Peter,

Maybe it was different with yours, but I've been observing that when my kids are in a conflict escalation, the more I try to talk them out of it, the more they escalate it.

I've been learning that much of society can be easily explained observing toddlers.

Clovis said...

Bret,

---
As a parent, Putin's statement seems reasonable to me. You are also a parent. Will you do nothing to prevent your children from getting into extreme situations? Or try to help them through excessive emotions?
---

I sure would do, Bret. As a parent, it would also be my duty to teach them not to take lessons from homicidal autocrats, which was the intent behind my links.

Or should we post here now pieces of wisdom from Mein Kampf? I am under the impression that wouldn't be of much help to our kids processing their emotions either.


---
Nonetheless, I still find the situation with Flynn being rejected for the stated reasons humorous. Perhaps I just have an odd sense of humor.
---

Oh, I can get the ironies you point out. I just think you missed the bigger one: Flynn wanted to denounce the university censorship, only to discover the censorship out of the university is much greater - most universities wouldn't shy away from allowing him teaching his supposedly controversial notes due to fear of losing money on lawsuits.


Peter said...

Clovis, there is another writer at the Spectator who I think would agree with you about toddlers. He wrote that there are only two possible responses to Greta's UN speech ("You ruined my childhood!"): A) "I'm so sorry, Dear. Your Dad and I are going to try to completely reconfigure the global economy to make it up to you", and; B) "Go to your room!".

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] Like your post in this blog, Mr. Flynn is one click away from publishing whatever he wants.

True, but.

Emerald Publishing, as an entity, has some cachet associated with it. Something published under its name must, therefore, have passed at least some sanity checks for accuracy, and style checks for writing quality. Throwing Emerald Publishing on the inside cover means something that self-publishing does not.

So, yes he can, but it isn't the same.

Assume for the moment that the book Dr. Flynn wrote was both factually sound and well written, which is why Emerald chose to publish the book in the first place. Now that they have rescinded their approval, it can only be for ideas they don't like, but are in themselves soundly based.

Which is where Bret's point comes into view — it is an excellent case-in-point for anyone who is having trouble with the concept of irony.

Or should we post here now pieces of wisdom from Mein Kampf?

Well, if Mein Kampf had actual pieces of true wisdom unique to it, why not?

After all, people quote the Quran all the time, despite it being in many places just as morally objectionable as MK.

Hey Skipper said...

Somewhat O/T, I seem to remember having read fairly recently that the Flynn effect has nearly stopped in post-industrial societies.