Friday, August 17, 2018

Nature, Nurture, and Human Autonomy with James Flynn - Scott Barry Kaufman

Nature, Nurture, and Human Autonomy with James Flynn - Scott Barry Kaufman

Nature, Nurture, and Human Autonomy with James Flynn

"When you turn your back on reality you lose the ability to manipulate reality. One would think that is self-evident. I didn't go into this to not try to find the truth." — James Flynn*

Today it is an honor to have Dr. James Flynn on the podcast. Dr. Flynn is Professor Emeritus at the University of Otago and recipient of the University's Gold Medal for Distinguished Career Research. In 2007, the International Society for Intelligence Research named him its Distinguished Contributor. His TED talk on cognitive and moral progress has received over 3.5 million visits. His long list of books include Are We Getting Smarter?, What is Intelligence?, Where Have All the Liberals Gone?, Fate and PhilosophyHow to Improve Your Mind, and most recently, Does Your Family Make You Smarter?: Nature, Nurture, and Human Autonomy.

In this episode we cover a wide range of topics relating to intelligence and its determinants, including:

  • Flynn's attempts to clarify intelligence and its causes
  • The g factor, and what gives rise to it
  • The validity of multiple intelligences theory
  • Intergenerational trends (the "Flynn effect") vs. Within-generation trends
  • The "social multiplier" model of intergenerational trends in intelligence
  • Individual multipliers vs. social multipliers
  • The multiple causes of black-white differences in IQ
  • Charley Murray and the meritocracy thesis
  • Transcending the politics of intelligence research
  • The dangers of suppressing ideas and research
  • The 20% wiggle room of autonomy on IQ tests
  • The difference between internal and external environment
  • The impact of having a "family handicap" on SAT scores
  • What we can learn from astronomy about human intelligence
  • Toward a meta-theory of intelligence
  • Toward a more humane society


Why our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents [TED Talk]

Reflection about intelligence over 40 years

Heritability Estimates Versus Large Environmental Effects": The IQ Paradox Resolved

IQ Bashing, Breadkdancing, the Flynn Effect, and Genes

Men, Women, and IQ: Setting the Record Straight 

The Flynn Effect and IQ Disparities Among Races, Ethnicities, and Nations: Are There Common Links?

The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized 

Twitter Q & A with James Flynn

  1. "Would a 100 IQ person today be a genius if transported to the year 1918? If not, why not."

Flynn: No, they would just be better adapted in their ability to meet educational demands.

  1. "Are you concerned with the growing misuse of genetic causal fallacies in heritability research, and what can be done to make sure that researchers do not assert implications that are not supported by the data? Is this a question of education?"

Flynn: Whenever I catch them I am disturbed by both bad genetic hypotheses and bad environmental ones.

3. "What has caused the Flynn reversal in Nordic and some other rich countries? Markus Jokela suggested it could be health related."

Flynn: See this article in Intelligence by myself and Shayer on IQ decline.

  1. "Prof. Flynn has written about the increase in non-verbal reasoning on IQ tests that is attributed to the exposure to analytical/sequential/logical reasoning through technology. What should we do, then, to increase the verbal side of our reasoning, or have we reached the peak?"

Flynn: Read good literature and stand out against the trend to read less and less (see Flynn, The Torchlight List  and The New Torchlight List.

5. "Could the Flynn effect be based at least partially on a trade off, meaning that with change in culture promoting development of skills associated with higher IQ scores, this rise is at a cost of eg working memory?"

Flynn: I don't think there is a downward trend in working memory – see Does Your Family Make You Smarter?

6. "Do the intelligence gains the Flynn effect reveals show an in increase in the g factor?"

Flynn: No – see "Reflection about intelligence over 40 years" just posted on the net.

7. "What do you make of American SAT/ACT trends, that is the Asian scores increases and the Native-American scores declines?"

Flynn: Sorry I have only looked at black and white.

8. "Does you ever think there will come a time when rational, non-bigoted people can publicly discuss race and gender topics relating to your research?"

Flynn: Well I hope so – but there is no trend in that direction.

* Quote taken from a lecture Flynn gave at the University of Cambridge on July 20, 2012.

Saturday, August 11, 2018

Beyond IQ: Mining the “no-mans-land” between Intelligence and IQ: Journal of Intelligence special issue

I am pleased to see the Journal of Intelligence  addressing the integration of non-cognitive variables (personality; self-beliefs; motivational constructs; often called the “no-mans land” between intelligence and personality— I believe this catchy phrase was first used by Stankov) with intellectual constructs to better understanding human performance. I have had a long-standing interest in such comprehensive models as reflected by my articulation of the Model of Academic Competence and Motivation (MACM) and repeated posting of “beyond IQ” information at my blogs.

Joel Schneider and I briefly touched in this topic in our soon to be published CHC intelligence theory update chapter. Below is the select text and some awesome figures crafted by Joel.

Our simplified conceptual structure of knowledge abilities is presented in Figure 3.10. At the center of overlapping knowledge domains is general knowledge—knowledge and skills considered important for any member of the population to know (e.g., literacy, numeracy, self-care, budgeting, civics, etiquette, and much more). The bulk of each knowledge domain is the province of specialists, but some portion is considered important for all members of society to know. Drawing inspiration from F. L. Schmidt (2011, 2014), we posit that interests and experience drive acquisition of domain-specific knowledge.

In Schmidt's model, individual differences in general knowledge are driven largely by individual differences in fluid intelligence and general interest in learning, also known as typical intellectual engagement (Goff & Ackerman, 1992). In contrast, individual differences in domain-specific knowledge are more driven by domain-specific in-terests, and also by the “tilt” of one's specific abilities (Coyle, Purcell, Snyder, & Richmond, 2014; Pässler, Beinicke, & Hell, 2015). In Figure 3.11, we present a simplified hypothetical synthesis of several ability models in which abilities, interests, and personality traits predict general and specific knowledge (Ackerman, 1996a, 1996b, 2000; Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001; Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Ackerman & Rolfhus, 1999; Fry & Hale, 1996; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Kail, 2007; Kane et al., 2004; Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999; Schmidt, 2011, 2014; Schneider et al., 2016; Schneider & Newman, 2015; Woodcock, 1993; Ziegler, Danay, Heene, Asendorpf, & Bühner, 2012).

Click on images to enlarge.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

Intellectual disability in capital (Atkins) cases: Adjusting state statutes after Moore v Texas


  • Source: Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy . 2018, Vol. 32 Issue 2, p527-562. 36p.
  • Abstract: In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the execution of intellectually disabled inmates violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Twelve years later in Hall v. Florida (2014), the Court revisited its Atkins decision to provide fu rther clarification on how states should assess intellectual disability. This article examines Moore v. Texas (2017), the latest development in the Court, 's rulings on capital determinations of intellectual disability. It also reviews state statutes and court cases from the thirty-one death penalty states to determine how they comport with the Court's Moore ruling. These statutes and cases shed light on issues with respect to intellectual disability in capital trials that the Court has yet to address. The article concludes with model language to help states make their capital punishment protocols constitutional, so that the intellectually disabled remain free from execution.