Talk:Flynn effect

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flynn effect article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 7 months

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Flynn effect, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Disputed content 2

IP 2a02:a020:550:89d2:4257:59b5:5c58:ab10 is invited to discuss their preferred content here rather than edit warring. Per policy, the onus to achieve consensus is on those wishing to include disputed content, and two experienced editors have reverted you so far. My objection is that your content appears to fundamentally misunderstand / misrepresent the meaning of what you're quoting. Generalrelative (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didnt see your message.

To that, I would disagree. If you read the rest of the passage that I'm quoting, you'll see that Flynn believes that the g gap between black and white people narrowed by almost the same degree as the iq gap, and he also wrote that, if g gains were not possibly, that it also wouldnt be possible to get meaningful gains on heavily g-loaded subtests. He also implies that assisting black people financially and other ways may help reduce or close the iq gap, but it wouldn't be enough to close the g-gap by itself. This is in line with spearman's hypothesis, not against it.

Sorry for undoing the edit before going to the talk section, btw. 2A02:A020:550:89D2:4257:59B5:5C58:AB10 (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he asserts that the root cause on the iq gap is the g gap in the document. 2A02:A020:550:89D2:4257:59B5:5C58:AB10 (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of the cited source is not an excuse to edit war. If a source does not say he "backtracked", than this is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. The comparison to hearing aids was contextualized by previous paragraphs in that chapter. To editorially select part of a much longer chapter and use it to imply something which is not directly supported is both WP:SYNTH and cherry-picking. Grayfell (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph I selected most accurately portrays what he thinks about it, therefore its not. Its not wp:synth either. If, hypothetically, a book written by someone says "...And I shot the man in the head with a revolver." Are we not allowed to say he killed the man in question just because its not literally stated like that? Its not an interpretation.

Its clear that he believes that the iq gap can only really be closed by solving the root cause, the g gap. Again, this clearly means he is largely in agreement with spearman's hypothesis. 2A02:A020:550:89D2:4257:59B5:5C58:AB10 (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely why we don't allow WP:SYNTH. Regarding Flynn's critique of Spearman's hypothesis, you added:

...he backtracked on this stance later on, believing the root cause to be more complex than the environmental factors that are commonly attributed...

This is entirely incorrect. Rather, Flynn argued that even if Spearman's hypothesis were correct, it would still be consistent with 100% environmental factors. He states this very clearly, e.g. in his essay "The spectacles through which I see the race and IQ debate", which was published in 2010, two years after the book where you claim he "backtracked". Generalrelative (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the spearman hypothesis states is that the iq differences are caused by the g gap. Therefore it wouldnt matter if he said the g gap was 100% environmental. Ironically you're in agreement with me here. 2A02:A020:38E:8F03:A68E:6569:96B:C2DA (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he does indeed believe that the environmental factors are simply more complex than, for example, a difference in finances, which is the commonly cited but wrong factor. 2A02:A020:38E:8F03:A68E:6569:96B:C2DA (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not in agreement, but unfortunately I don't have the time or bandwidth to engage with you further. If you would like to solicit additional editor opinions, I'd suggest doing so on a noticeboard like WP:NORN. Generalrelative (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're just not gonna try to dispute it or accept that I'm right then? 2A02:A020:38E:8F03:A68E:6569:96B:C2DA (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the text you are seeking to add is just plainly a misrepresentation of what Flynn is saying –– which becomes especially clear when it is read in context –– and you are wildly off base about what the "commonly cited" environmental factors are (everyone understands that they are complex). There is, simply put, no evidence in what you've presented that Flynn "backtracked" about any of this stuff. If you disagree, your options are to persuade others, to wait for others to come along who may be persuaded by what you've written already, or to post at a noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, you think I'm wrong, you say this because when the paragraph is supposedly read in context it'll be clear when, but you refuse to provide any quotes from it?

Can you tell me how exactly this is a misinterpretation? It becomes blatantly obvious that he accepts spearman's hypothesis, believing the g-gap to be fully environmental if you read the whole chapter. He even mentions the fact that IQ gains on heavily g-loaded tests couldn't have happened without a closure of the g gap. What pary am I misinterpreting here, and which paragraphs or quotes convinced you of such? 2A02:A03F:80F1:2D00:7D50:DDC8:5E52:315B (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If what you really want is a quote: [1]

The significance of IQ gains rests on what they tell us about the evolution of our minds in the 20th century, not on whether we have some kind of g advantage on our ancestors. And the new habits of mind are too diverse and complex to be captured by the concept of “enhanced fluid g”. ... My belief that the GQ gap between black and white “tells us something about causes” has been explained. It does not reverse a past position but is a new insight.

Please understand that you are entitled to good-faith engagement, which is what Grayfell and I have given you, but no one is required to WP:SATISFY you. Over and out, Generalrelative (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it's not hard. Characterizing someone's statement as a "backtracking" on a highly-controversial issue like this requires a WP:SECONDARY source saying so explicitly. Using a primary source for it is inappropriate WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. If you believe the quote represents him "backtracking" (which I think is absurd but that's beside the point), you should be able to find massive amounts of secondary coverage saying so, given how significant it would be. You can't cite language like that directly to a quote to Flynn, not unless he overtly says he's backtracking or something. (And, just in case this comes up - you can't even position the quote to imply that he's backtracking, that would still be WP:SYNTH. To connect that quote to that section, you need a secondary source overtly making the connection, not just your own feelings on the matter.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need an essay at Wikipedia:Aquillion said what I wanted to say but sooner and better. Anyway, +1 per WP:ASWIWTSBSAB. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I would be first in line to endorse such an essay. This has been my experience so many times. Generalrelative (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content 3

IP 80.200.232.89 is invited to discuss the disputed content they wish to add here rather than edit warring. In this case, the strong consensus of the scientific community and Wikipedia editors is against this content, as you will see here. That's why I referred to this content in my edit summary as WP:PROFRINGE and contrary to consensus. The Rindermann study has been discussed and rejected many times. Generalrelative (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely to be block evasion or meat-puppetry from DimmlerRedeemed who was blocked for socking on another account and is probably associated with the Human Diversity Foundation. The edits on 80.200.232.89 and the other IPs match to what DimmlerRedeemed has been editing. I would support page protection as this disruptive editing is an on-going issue. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could accept the rejection of the Rindermann study, I didn't know that. However, the other sources I have cited don't even go against the consensus, they just provide gains that aren't the "Wow!" you expected, like Nisbett's claim that black scores for educational attainment rose by 35%, when other researchers find lower scores.

Also idk who DimmlerRedeemed or human diversity Foundation is? How do our edits overlap lol. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah that's crazy bro really used the WP:DENY on me @Generalrelative 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2024

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Flynn effect. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Request to remove the Rindermann survey as it has come to my attention that it was rejected many times before. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]