In my last post I argued that brain size among whites in Western countries has been increasing by about 0.44 standard deviations (SD) per half-century, or 0.88 SD over the last 100 years or so, probably because of improvements in the biological environment (i.e. nutrition, disease reduction as scholar Richard Lynn proposed).
Scholar Arthur Jensen suggested one could conservatively estimate gains in “real intelligence” by multiplying gains in brain size by the correlation between brain size and IQ. Assuming brain size gains of 0.88 SD over the century, and an IQ vs brain size correlation of 0.35, this predicts “real intelligence” has improved by 0.88 SD (0.35) = 0.31 SD over the last 100 years (roughly 5 IQ points).
And yet the Flynn effect tells us tells us IQ test performance has increased by the equivalent of 30 IQ points over the 20th century. I used to think most of the Flynn effect reflected a real biological gain in intelligence (though not necessarily g) but I now believe it’s 83% culturally acquired knowledge and skills.
In order to measure the part of the Flynn effect that’s real, you need culture fair IQ tests. Of course there’s no such thing as a perfectly culture fair IQ test but the following tests come close:
- Block Design
- Digit Span
- Simple reaction time
Block Design is culture reduced because it requires no language, no numbers, no use of a pencil, no columns and rows or deep concentration like on the Raven Progressive Matrices. It’s basically pure non-verbal reasoning and it’s the kind of fun hands on task that engages the interest and motivation of people from every culture. Even cavemen living 80,000 years ago could take it. Some people think kids who play with Rubik’s cubes would have an unfair advantage, but I don’t buy that because practice at one cognitive domain does not transfer to another, not even a very similar one. On my other blog I wrote:
A Promethean once told a story about how 90% of chess grand masters could not solve a chess puzzle that many high IQ people who suck at chess can easily solve. If I recall, the problem involved putting many queens on a five by five chess board so that all of the queens would be safe. Grandmasters often have ten or more years of education, knowledge and understanding related to chess, yet were not able to solve a chess problem that high IQ chess beginners with chess ratings about 1000 points lower could solve quite quickly. This demonstrates that education, knowledge, and understanding improve specific skills but do virtually nothing to improve one’s ability to adapt when the situation changes and adaptability is the essence of intelligence. Chess grandmasters are experts at playing chess on an eight by eight board with one queen per player, but all that expertise did not increase their intelligence. It didn’t even increase their chess intelligence because they were no longer chess masters when the rules of chess changed. All it improved was their ability to play the very specific form of conventional chess they had practiced.
Similarly, Digit Span also comes close to being culture fair. Respected blogger Dr. James Thompson writes:
I hope you will agree that this is a simple test, easy to understand, and largely bereft of any intellectual content. All you need is: to know the names of single digits, and to understand the simple instructions and examples given so that you repeat the digits forwards, and in the later version of the test, backwards. In particular, if you can do digits forwards you reveal you know your digits and have some memory, and if you can do a short string backwards you reveal that you have some memory and you understand the idea of repeating digits backwards.
The test is not only bereft of intellectual content, but is also low on cultural content. Once you have learnt digit names you are ready to do the test. I assume that forwards and backwards are concepts understood by all cultures worthy of the name.
Indeed if you replaced digits with nonsense sounds, you might even be able to give this test to a child raised by wolves. And while people who live in a culture where there’s a lot of memorizing may seem to have an advantage, unless they’ve specifically practice remembering numbers, they’re unlikely to have an edge. As I wrote on my other blog:
Scholar Arthur Jensen cited a study where people practiced over and over to improve their short-term memory. At first people could repeat only seven digits from memory, but with practice they could improve up to 100 digits. But when asked to repeat letters instead of digits, they were back down to only seven. So all that endless training did nothing to improve their short-term memory span, let alone their overall intelligence. All it improved was the extremely narrow specific ability they practiced.
Lastly, simple reaction time is so devoid of culture that even people with zero education can perform the task in under one second. And evidence suggests it can’t easily be trained.
So assuming these three tests represent something close to a culture fair battery, it is interesting to ask how much they’ve increased over the last 100 years or so.
According to scholar James Flynn’s book Are we getting smarter?, Block Design on the WAIS has been increasing by the equivalent of 2 IQ points a decade, so on a scale where white Americans today have a mean IQ of 100, whites a century ago would have a Block Design IQ of 80.
Meanwhile new evidence suggests Digit Span scores have been flat, so whites a century ago would have a Digit Span IQ of roughly 100, just like today.
Lastly, a paper by scholar Michael Woodley et al found that simple reaction time was actually faster 100 years ago in Western countries. Although the paper used statistical inferences to argue that general intelligence was 12 IQ points higher 100 years ago, the raw data showed simple reaction time itself was the equivalent of 6 IQ points higher.
So summing up, 100 years ago, on a relatively culture fair battery, whites would likely score:
Block Design IQ: 80
Digit Span IQ: 100
Simple Reaction Time IQ: 106
Full-scale IQ: 93
I very crudely estimated the full-scale IQ by treating each of the three tests as subtests on the WAIS-IV (two of them are) and then prorating since the WAIS-IV has ten core subtests, not three.
It’s interesting to note that an IQ of 93 (with reference to today’s white mean of 100) suggests real IQ has only increased 7 points over the century, which is very similar to the 5 point increase I predicted at the start of the post from brain size gains.
It’s also interesting that the most g loaded “culture fair” test (Block Design) increased the most, the least g loaded (simple reaction time) decreased, suggesting a good correlation between the “culture fair” Flynn effect and g, which might be expected if it’s caused by brain size. Though with only three data points, the correlation with g might be meaningless.
Pumpkin Person 
If you have full scale IQ of Whites today at 100 but 93, 100 years ago then the phenotype has changed not the genoype. That means the genetic potential has increased (been expressed fully) but not Intelligence. So where I am 113 today 100 years ago I would be 93(1.13) = 105.09.
My General ability is still high because heritability of culture is greater than heritability of (speed). Linear increase in speed (IQ) is exponential in cultural learning. (g) is fully expressed in enriching environments. Therefore (g) is exponential and (FSIQ) is linear. 105.09(1.3) – 100 = 36.617.
As with what I calculated earlier my mental age is 36 and my General ability is 130.
Had you been born and raised 100 years ago, you probably would have scored perhaps 83 on the WAIS-IV instead of 113 though correcting for culture bias (against people 100 years ago) would have likely raised your score to 106-108
Of course the WAIS-IV didn’t exist 100 years ago..
So 83 would be chronometry
And 106 – 108 would be cultural?
In that time period?
These are my medications
2 days ago
luvox
Gabapentin
One month ago
Benztropine
one year ago
Risperdal Consta
I do not spend that much time on visual stimulus.
My sister can draw puppies with smooth textures.
I am on the internet for long periods,
I think that if I did spend time on fast stimulus,
That I would be faster on chronometry.
One of the Buddhas tenets was right concentration.
I can feel the serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
I can feel music at a deeper level now.
Internal awareness grows by external awareness.
I spend too much time analyzing everything to pay attention.
Someone quoted Carl Jung about how Extroversion and Introversion works.
Ti conserves the analytic process of avoiding cognitive errors.
Te consumes those methodologies of expounding every detail need to complete something.
Fi conserves those emotions needed to sustain personal balance and identity.
Fe consumes the emotional valence of attachment one feels from exposure to others.
Si conserves exposure to reality to only remember relevant information.
Se consumes reality to the extent that every texture is remembered.
Ni conserves insights to only that which can be drawn from within.
Ne consumes every insight one gains from the external environment.
By these definitions I am INTP.
Ti conserves the analytic process of avoiding cognitive errors.
Ne consumes every insight one gains from the external environment.
Si conserves exposure to reality to only remember relevant information.
Fe consumes the emotional valence of attachment one feels from exposure to others.
I think that if I focused on external realities more than I would have a higher chronometry score. Most of my time comes from system 2. Which means I focus on abstract relationships instead of (Se consumes reality to the extent that every texture is remembered.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious
System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious
Because of system 2 my memories of abstraction is faster, much much faster. I learn abstractions very fast. But i do not learn From Se shifting into Ni. My Ne shifts all its insights into Si. And Ti reviews everything over and over.
My hypothesis is that when you give up reflecting on the external and go internally the way I do. You give up reaction time for absorbing abstractions. So when it comes to intelligence I am able to access my long term memory allot better than I can utilize short term memories (abstractions; variables). My neurons are not slow, they just were conditioned to work with long term memory instead of the immediate environment of sense perception. When I was 22 processing speed was 92 now its 86. Verbal comprehension was 118 now it is 132.
Specialization within a peer group requires Intelligence. But intelligence being working memory is adaptive is specialization. Some people have huge working memory and under utilized long term memory. And some like you Pumpkin Person. Have great working memories and long term memory. Because you have Ni and Se working with Te. When I remember things I can tell what bias a person is using to neglect self reflection. My data base is constantly updated (analyzed with Ti) so I can adapt (taking any situation turning it to my advantage). The mental construct I have allow me to generalize the situation instead of calculating all the variables in short term memory. So my empathy does not require pure calculation.
I would get a high chronometry test score if I took one because each sub test would merge together into neuronal speed. So a sub test would measure my reaction time via latent inhibition. I think that I would do well on the marshmallow test (delayed gratification) and I did get in the 1st percentile on the stroop test (functional ascribed to the anterior cortex). I know I cannot understand string theory without knowing math. But I do understand math because math is abstract(symbol representation) and calculation gets results faster. Michio kaku and Stephen Hawking have a high status because they get results faster. If the person I meet a while ago is actually 171 who read my paper and said only 2 percent of the population think like Eisenstein then I am as smart as Einstein. I write like Eisenstein who was a materialist. And you said he was most likely IQ 132 thereabouts. If he really was slow in school it could be because of his processing speed. In that time period to become a patent clerk required you to analyze everything not calculate huge numbers of variables. String theory does require massive amounts of calculation and I think the person I met with and IQ of 171 could do those calculations. But when they get the results it become relatively easy to understand the new formula. Once you have the formula the exponent of understanding increases. You create the formula to solve new problems. That is why Einstein and Newton are so famous. Alexander was great because of his massive calculation abilities. You need good working memory to command troops. Generalization requires access to long term memories. This means adaptation has two way of expression. Fast(1) and Slow(2). System 2 is much slower than I would like it to be when it comes to me getting results. But I can adapt by social skills, I do not need to calculate every possibility of what a person will do or say. My theory of mind (why questions) do not require me to do so. I just need to reason with them to get what I want. Like Oprah can. (theory of mind)
My new medications are helping out allot.
My self awareness is no longer being repressed by bad emotions.
Last thing to mention I have the condition of Aphantasia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-FpDB8lKCGXQkxBQ2FnM19ZS0E/view?ths=true
The second link is my paper.
A few questions:
How do you explain the gains in block design score as cultural?
Are you suggesting that a child born in 1915, if adopted into a modern family, would have an IQ of 93, but if measured by the WAIS-IV after growing up back in 1915, would have an IQ of 70?
How is it then, that Sub-Saharan African IQ of 67 is a genetic IQ of 80? That is only a 13 point differential between phenotype and genotype, whereas your model suggests there should be a 23 point difference. Are you suggesting that sub saharan Africa is more culturally advanced than 1915 United States, and a Sub-Saharan African, if raised in 1915 United States would have an IQ of 57 according to WAIS-IV?
Most importantly:
How much lower would the heritability of IQ be in a population that varied in sophistication as much as ours has during the last century? Doesn’t that resemble of the world we live in now? Why then are IQ heritability estimates higher than 23% everywhere in the world? Doesn’t trying to find a single number that represents heritability across all different cultures distort the true nature of heredity?
A few questions:
How do you explain the gains in block design score as cultural?
I don’t. I think gains on that test are biological.
Are you suggesting that a child born in 1915, if adopted into a modern family, would have an IQ of 93, but if measured by the WAIS-IV after growing up back in 1915, would have an IQ of 70?
Yes, but this is a very tentative model. I’m no longer sure if it’s correct.
How is it then, that Sub-Saharan African IQ of 67 is a genetic IQ of 80? That is only a 13 point differential between phenotype and genotype, whereas your model suggests there should be a 23 point difference. Are you suggesting that sub saharan Africa is more culturally advanced than 1915 United States, and a Sub-Saharan African, if raised in 1915 United States would have an IQ of 57 according to WAIS-IV?
The average IQ in sub-Sahara is probably closer to 61, as I’ve argued in the past:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/07/05/estimating-the-average-iq-of-sub-saharan-africa/
The genetic IQ might be higher than 80
Most importantly:
How much lower would the heritability of IQ be in a population that varied in sophistication as much as ours has during the last century? Doesn’t that resemble of the world we live in now? Why then are IQ heritability estimates higher than 23% everywhere in the world? Doesn’t trying to find a single number that represents heritability across all different cultures distort the true nature of heredity?
Heritability is high for the population of a single country at a single time, but would be low for the entire population of the 20th century
Yeah I read on wiki the difference between between individual heritability and between group heritability like 5 minutes after I asked that last question. Derp.
A Promethean once told a story about how 90% of chess grand masters could not solve a chess puzzle that many high IQ people who suck at chess can easily solve. If I recall, the problem involved putting many queens on a five by five chess board so that all of the queens would be safe.
Pepe, here’s something you might find interesting. I don’t know who this Promethean was, but the late Giga Society member Albert Frank wrote an article about a similar problem, and it’s a fun little problem with interesting implications regardless of whether or not that’s the same person you’re thinking of: https://paulcooijmans.com/others/albertfrank/whathap.html
In March 2001, on the mailing list of GLIA, Olen Netteburg gave the following riddle (Olen told me later he had seen it in an old – about 1975 – scientific popular magazine) : On a chessboard 5×5, how to put five white queens and three black queens such as none queen can be taken in one move by an opposite colour queen?
I solved it in about 15 minutes, without great difficulty.
Up to now, I gave the problem to 48 chess players (with a time of 20 minutes).
The results are incredible :
13 international masters and international grandmasters : only one found the solution.
15 experts and masters (including myself) : none of the others found the solution.
20 “average chess players” : two found the solution.
Four of the experts asked for more time and solved the problem in about one hour.
I solved the problem in about ten minutes. I would consider myself an average chess player for the purposes of this problem. I gave this problem to someone with an I.Q. probably close to mine, and they did not solve it, possibly because they have severe ADHD. Try it yourself. Using a chessboard, either a physical one or one on the computer, as a visualization aid is fine.