Start reading What Is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect on your Kindle in under a minute. Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here or start reading now with a free Kindle Reading App.

Deliver to your Kindle or other device


Try it free

Sample the beginning of this book for free

Deliver to your Kindle or other device

Sorry, this item is not available in
Image not available for
Image not available

What Is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect [Kindle Edition]

James R. Flynn
3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)

Print List Price: £18.99
Kindle Price: £16.20 includes VAT* & free wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet
You Save: £2.79 (15%)
* Unlike print books, digital books are subject to VAT.

Free Kindle Reading App Anybody can read Kindle books—even without a Kindle device—with the FREE Kindle app for smartphones, tablets and computers.

To get the free app, enter your e-mail address or mobile phone number.


Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition £16.20  
Hardcover £24.99  
Paperback £18.99  
Kindle Daily Deal
Kindle Daily Deal: Up to 70% off
Each day we unveil a new book deal at a specially discounted price--for that day only. Learn more about the Kindle Daily Deal or sign up for the Kindle Daily Deal Newsletter to receive free e-mail notifications about each day's deal.

Book Description

The 'Flynn effect' refers to the massive increase in IQ test scores over the course of the twentieth century. Does it mean that each generation is more intelligent than the last? Does it suggest how each of us can enhance our own intelligence? Professor Flynn is finally ready to give his own views. He asks what intelligence really is and gives a surprising and illuminating answer. This expanded paperback edition includes three important new essays. The first contrasts the art of writing cognitive history with the science of measuring intelligence and reports data. The second outlines how we might get a complete theory of intelligence, and the third details Flynn's reservations about Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. A fascinating book that bridges the gulf separating our minds from those of our ancestors a century ago, and makes an important contribution to our understanding of human intelligence.

Product Description


'A masterful book that will influence thinking about intelligence for many years to come.' Robert J. Sternberg, PsycCRITIQUES

'It is not just the fascinating effect that makes the book special. It's also Flynn's style. There's an unusual combination of clarity, wit, apposite allusion, and farsightedness in making connections and exploring unexpected consequences.' Ian Deary, Edinburgh University

'Flynn paints a dynamic picture of what intelligence is and has produced an impressively multidimensional and often wise look at the elusive topic of human intelligence.' Publisher's Weekly

'[Flynn's] book consists of a series of plainly stated statistical observations, in support of deceptively modest conclusions … IQ measures not just the quality of a person's mind but the quality of the world that person lives in.' Malcolm Gladwell, The New Yorker

'This book is a gold mine of pointers to interesting work, much of which was new to me. All of us who wrestle with the extraordinarily difficult questions about intelligence that Flynn discusses are in his debt.' Charles Murray, American Enterprise Institute and co-author of The Bell Curve

'Flynn explores one of the most intriguing findings in the social and cognitive sciences. His brevity and lack of pretension belie the profundity of the phenomenon he discovered and the forces (whatever they turn out to be) that cause it.' Steven Pinker, NBCC's Good Reads

'In a brilliant interweaving of data and argument, Flynn calls into question fundamental assumptions about the nature of intelligence that have driven the field for the past century. There is something here for everyone to lose sleep over. His solution to the perplexing issues revolving around IQ gains over time will give the IQ Ayatollahs fits!' S. J. Ceci, Cornell University

'Flynn provides the first satisfying explanation of the massive rise in IQ test scores. He avoids both the absurd conclusion that our great-grandparents were all mentally retarded and the equally unsatisfactory suggestion that the rise has just been in performance on IQ tests without any wider implications.' N. J. Mackintosh, University of Cambridge

'This highly engaging, and very readable, book takes forward the Dickens/Flynn model of intelligence in the form of asking yet more provocative questions. … A most unusual book, one that holds the reader's attention and leaves behind concepts and ideas that force us to rethink all sorts of issues.' Sir Michael Rutter, Kings College London

'This book is full of insightful ideas about our measuring rods and the ways in which they tap the thing that matters: the brain's relative capacity to use memory and learning to adapt to the world as we have made it.' The Times Higher Education Supplement

'Mainstream IQ researchers, who are used to being demonized when they are not being ignored, admire Flynn, who is politically a man of the left, for his fairness, geniality, insight, and devotion to advancing knowledge.' Steve Sailor,

'In What Is Intelligence? James R. Flynn … suggests that we should not faciley equate IQ gains with intelligence gains. He says that it's necessary to 'dissect intelligence' into its component parts: 'solving mathematical problems, interpreting the great works of literature, finding on the spot solutions, assimilating the scientific worldview, critical acumen and wisdom.' When this dissection is carried out, several paradoxes emerge, which Flynn in this engaging book attempts to reconcile.' Richard Restak, American Scholar

Book Description

An expanded paperback edition of James R. Flynn's thought-provoking examination of dramatic increases in IQ gains over the twentieth century. Includes new essays on the contrast between writing cognitive history with the science of measuring intelligence, the theory of intelligence and Flynn's reservations about Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.

Product details

  • Format: Kindle Edition
  • File Size: 1107 KB
  • Print Length: 229 pages
  • Page Numbers Source ISBN: 0521880076
  • Simultaneous Device Usage: Up to 4 simultaneous devices, per publisher limits
  • Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (27 Aug. 2007)
  • Sold by: Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.
  • Language: English
  • ASIN: B000SGBL9U
  • Text-to-Speech: Enabled
  • X-Ray:
  • Word Wise: Not Enabled
  • Enhanced Typesetting: Not Enabled
  • Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #530,089 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
  •  Would you like to give feedback on images?

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, and more.

Customer Reviews

4 star
3 star
1 star
3.5 out of 5 stars
3.5 out of 5 stars
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Stunning 8 Feb. 2009
This book is a lesson for all psychologists. A man from outside the discipline produces a concise summary of and explanation for the apparently anomolous phenomena of increasing IQ scores. Beautifully written
Comment | 
Was this review helpful to you?
1 of 6 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars What is really intelligence? 20 Aug. 2012
What is intelligence has no conclusion. Probably, you would be disappointed in this book if you wanted to get an answer. The author takes you into a labyrinth of his thoughts. It starts with evidence, but ends idealist's human equality remarks. The author's style is quite illogical, jump around the related, sometimes unrelated topics. Some examples, analogies, and his "Boxes" do not help your understanding. This book is not a scientific but a kind of critics. Looking for another book!
Comment | 
Was this review helpful to you?
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on (beta) 4.1 out of 5 stars  23 reviews
84 of 87 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant update to Murray and Jensen's work. 16 Oct. 2007
By Gaetan Lion - Published on
Format:Hardcover|Verified Purchase
I have read about this subject a lot and came across the "Flynn Effect" several times. This is the phenomenon that the general population IQ has steadily increased by about 3 IQ pts per decade. Detractors of IQ such as Stephen Murdoch IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea argue that the Flynn Effect proves IQ measurements are meaningless. IQ proponents such as Charles Murray Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book) and Arthur Jensen The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (Human Evolution, Behavior, and intelligence) vest little importance to the Flynn Effect. Yet, they have not managed to explain it away. I thought I'd study this strange phenomenon from the horse's mouth.

I was stunned. This book is brilliant. Flynn goes much beyond his predecessors in explaining what intelligence is and how it does change over time. The first thing Flynn did is disaggregate the IQ trends into their subcomponents. He observed that the improvement over time were very different depending on the domain. On arithmetic and vocabulary questions, IQs remained virtually flat for decades; Meanwhile, on `similarities' and `picture riddles' IQs went through the roof.

What's going on here? Flynn explains that our social context of everyday life has become more complex and scientific minded that have lead the population to think critically. In turn, this has contributed to higher scoring in similarities and complex picture riddles. As our society moved from an agricultural based one to an industrial one and ultimately information based one, our demand on critical thinking grew commensurately. The percentage of our labor force engaged in farming and factory work is declining while the one engaged in information based activities is growing rapidly. A half century ago a high school degree was a big deal. Now a college degree is often a prerequisite if not a graduate degree.

Flynn goes on capturing the dynamic interaction between the environment and cognitive capabilities over time. Flynn's "individual multiplier" stipulates that an individual influences the environment he operates in because the environment will respond to where the individual excels. Flynn's "social multiplier" describes the escalation of cognitive demands as we progressed from an agricultural to an information based society. The social multiplier is a giant mass wide positive feedback loop. Everyone's expectation of academic and professional achievement has risen over time.

Thus, Flynn concludes we have become far better at solving abstract problems because that is what society currently demands us to do. In his mind, this does not necessarily mean we are so much smarter than our ancestors (the physiological processing capability of our brains has not changed). It just means we have a different focus (abstract and post-scientific vs concrete and pre-scientific).

For Flynn, IQ can change over time depending of the choice you make. You decide to go on to college or grad school. You marry a smart one or a not so smart one. You decide to go in an intellectually intense profession or not. These decisions will affect your cognitive capabilities. That contrasts with Murray and Jensen who thought that IQ was pretty much fixed by the mid to late teens. The two positions are probably not so far apart. Cognitive capabilities can improve depending on favorable activities and exposure as Flynn suggests. But, those improvements are probably capped within a certain range as Murray and Jensen would indicate.

Flynn does not annihilate the foundations established by Murray, Jensen, and others. And, he certainly disagrees with Stephen Murdoch that IQ is meaningless. But, Flynn adds that you have to look at the dynamic time dimension associated with change in the social context (social multiplier) that have a strong impact on IQ. Let's face it, time affects everything. You can't compare GDP per capita, home prices, sports world records without putting them into an historical context. Flynn demonstrated the same is true for IQ.

In addition to this dynamic time dimension, Flynn strongly disagrees with Jensen's near obsessive attempt to establish a correlation between fast reaction time and IQ. Flynn states that depending on what reaction time measure you focus on, it can have either a positive or a negative or zero correlation with IQ. Despite these disagreements, Flynn pays much respect to Jensen's achievements including his G factor that captures a huge amount of information at any one static point in time.

Flynn adds that his field is much too focus on IQ. And, he invites his peers to come up with other measures that would capture critical acumen and wisdom. He has developed some rudimentary tests to measure those, but he acknowledges they need more work.

All the mentioned books are interesting and do contribute to fully understand how Flynn's book is revolutionary. Indeed, his theories are as much a leap as from Newton's law of gravity to Einstein's theory of relativity. It offers a totally different multi-dimensional intelligence framework.
43 of 45 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars A mixed bag 19 Nov. 2007
By Bruce Gregory - Published on
Format:Hardcover|Verified Purchase
I find this book hard to characterize. If you are an IQ maven, it is an essential read. On the other hand, much of the book deals with issues the author obviously feels strongly about, but issues that do not cast much light on the nature of IQ. The Flynn effect is the secular increase in IQ scores in developed countries over the past 50 years and possibly longer. It is well documented but not well understood. Flynn offers an explanation for the effect that I do not find particularly convincing. He maintains that over the past 50-100 years we have been increasingly viewing the world through "scientific spectacles" and this changing perspective explains why the gains in IQ are confined to certain subtests. (The subtests that show the most improvement involve the ability to discover rules that apply to patterns that the subject has never encountered before. Subtests devoted to vocabulary and arithmetic skills show virtually no change.) I have been associated with science education for over twenty years and have seen no data that support Flynn's optimism with regard to growing understanding of the scientific approach to problems.

The case can be made that over the past century we have encountered an increasingly complex visual world with the advent of new technologies (movies, TV, computer-based games) and these complexities have required the development of "higher-order" pattern discovery. (I am troubled by the uniformity in the rate of increases in IQ score, because it seems implausible that the visual environment has been growing more complex at a constant rate.) What the data seem to show is we are experiencing a secular increase in our ability to formulate rules that apply to both visual and verbal patterns. The most logical "culprit" driving this growth is the increasingly more complex environment. (On a more personal note, the author has caused me to rethink my view of Raven's Progressive Matrices. The tests are normally described as being based on visual pattern recognition and hence "culture free". It now seems to me that the tasks rely on the ability to formulate and test rules based on visual input. This skill seems to me to go well beyond what we normally call pattern recognition.)

The author makes a strong case for adjusting IQ scores for the amount of time that has elapsed since they were normed, but this is primarily of concern for activities that are based excessively on IQ scores. (Unfortunately such activities are prevalent in the United States and include "qualifying" convicted criminals for the death penalty and qualifying children for special instructional help.)

The author succeeds admirably in making the case that we know much less about intelligence that some experts claim we do. He also presents a wealth of data not normally covered in discussions of intelligence. These accomplishments alone make the book worth reading.
25 of 25 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars One of the most important books about IQ 8 Oct. 2007
By Peter McCluskey - Published on
This book may not be the final word on the Flynn Effect, but it makes enough progress in that direction that it is no longer reasonable to describe the Flynn Effect as a mystery. I'm surprised at how much Flynn has changed since the last essay of his I've read (a somewhat underwhelming chapter in The Rising Curve (edited by Ulric Neisser)).
Flynn presents evidence of very divergent trends in subsets of IQ tests, and describes a good hypothesis about how that divergence might be explained by increasing cultural pressure for abstract, scientific thought that could create increasing effort to develop certain kinds of cognitive skills that were less important in prior societies.
This helps explain the puzzle of why the Flynn Effect doesn't imply that 19th century society consisted primarily of retarded people - there has been relatively little change in how people handle concrete problems that constituted the main challenges to average people then. He presents an interesting example of how to observe cognitive differences between modern U.S. society and societies that are very isolated, showing big differences in how they handle some abstract questions.
He also explains why we see very different results for IQ differences over time from what we see when using tests such as twin studies to observe the IQ effects of changes in environment on IQ: the twin studies test unimportant things such as different parenting styles, but don't test major cultural changes that distinguish the 19th century from today.
None of this suggests that the concept of g is unimportant or refers to something unreal, but a strong focus on g has helped blind some people to the ideas that are needed to understand the Flynn Effect.
Flynn also reports that the rise in IQs is, at least by some measures, fairly uniform across the entire range of IQs (contrary to The Bell Curve's report that it appeared to affect mainly the low end of the IQ spectrum). This weakens one of the obvious criticisms of David Friedman's conjecture that modern obstetrics caused the Flynn Effect by reducing the birth related obstacles to large skulls (although if that were the main cause of the Flynn Effect, I'd expect the IQ increase to be largest at the high end of the IQ spectrum).
It also weakens the inference I drew from Robert Fogel's book on escape from hunger. Flynn does little to directly address Fogel's argument that the benefits of improved nutrition show up with longer delays than most people realize, but he does report some evidence that the Flynn Effect continues even when the height increases that Fogel relies on to measure the benefits of nutrition stop.
Flynn reports that the Flynn Effect has probably stopped in Scandinavia but hasn't shown signs of stopping in the U.S. His comments on the future of the IQ gains are unimpressive.
There are a few disappointing parts of the book near the end where he wanders into political issues where he has relatively little expertise, and his relatively ordinary opinions are no better than a typical academic discussion of politics. In spite of that, the book is fairly short and can be read quickly.
One interesting experiment that Flynn discusses tested whether students preferred one dollar now or two dollars next week. The results were twice as useful in predicting their grades as IQ tests. Flynn infers that this is a test of self control. I presume that is part of what it tests, but I wonder whether it also tests whether the students were able to realize that the testers' word could be trusted (due to better ability to analyze the relevant incentives? or due to a general willingness to trust strangers because of how the ways they met people selected for trustworthy people?).
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Important, fascinating, and misleading ... again 29 Dec. 2013
By Paul F. Ross - Published on
Format:Paperback|Verified Purchase
Review of Flynn’s What is intelligence? by Paul F. Ross

For those who need an evaluation of a book in the first few sentences of a review, know that Flynn’s report is important, impossible to read and understand for anyone but the most dedicated professional psychologist specializing in the measurement of intelligence, and misleading. It is not the first, nor is it likely to be the last, of books on this topic that is misleading and seriously without foundation for some of its work. At just over 200 pages in a small-page format, it’s short. It works on an important
Flynn, James R. What is intelligence: Beyond the Flynn Effect 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, xi + 217 pages
task, a terribly important task, measuring and understanding the implications of human intelligence. There are moments when the book is thoughtful and insightful, but the non-psychologist will find those moments difficult to distinguish from the majority of its meanderings when the author thinks, loosely, sometimes erroneously, without the necessary anchors in broadly conceived empirical observations about intelligence and operations for measuring intelligence. If an introduction to the century-long struggle to understand human intelligence and its consequences led you to Flynn’s title and this review, you may find the background provided in this review of more help than Flynn’s book itself.

The public’s discovery of racial differences in intelligence

Herrnstein (Harvard University) and Murray (Johns Hopkins University) published The bell curve (1994) which treated consequences of general intelligence for a large, representative sample of students in the US, ages 14 to 22, who had been selected in 1979 and repeatedly followed for the next fifteen years (at which time Herrnstein and Murray accessed their data), collecting information about their life’s events … some having reached middle age by the time The bell curve was written and published. The bell curve reported correctly that many unwanted life’s events happened to those whose intelligence had been measured as low at the time the students entered the study in 1979. Those of low (measured) intelligence generally failed to enter and complete college, experienced high rates of unemployment, became single parents, needed a variety of public services, and committed crimes and were jailed, all these unwanted outcomes being experienced at rates higher than for those whose intelligence was higher. I read The bell curve in 1994, knew I was reading something important, and invited fellow townsfolk in the privileged town of Lincoln, Massachusetts to gather in my living room for several weekly discussions of the book. The book immediately leaped to nationwide notoriety through newspaper reviews and commentary because the book pointed clearly to the increased likelihood of these unhappy life circumstances occurring for American blacks. Gould of Harvard reviewed the book, his reviews appeared in newspapers and magazines, he all but calling The bell curve racist. A few years later Gould continued his campaign against the measurement of intelligence in his The mismeasure of man (1981). Herrnstein and Murray, with Gould’s help, had made Americans very conscious of and sensitive to racial differences between the average of intelligence test scores and between measures of average school achievement. Buried in Herrnstein’s and Murray’s The bell curve was a report about James R. Flynn’s work showing that IQ (intelligence quotient) scores for succeeding generations of children are going up. These were not small gains in scores. Pushed backwards to grandparents’ generations from a current assumed average IQ of 100 for adults, the implications of the “Flynn effect” suggest that most everyone’s grandparents were borderline mentally retarded! Were subsequent generations getting more intelligent? There was no answer. Herrnstein and Murray labeled Flynn’s observation “the Flynn effect.” Having read Herrnstein’s and Murray’s report with care in 1994, I must have seen their comment on “the Flynn effect,” but I made no note of it then. It made no impression on me. I was alerted to the Flynn effect during recent reading, purchased Flynn’s book, and am reviewing it as is my decade-long habit for each book that I read.

The meaning of racial differences in intelligence

We can and do classify individuals using racial and ethnic terms such as white, black, Asian, Hispanic, native American, German, Irish, Swedish, Italian, and the like. The classifications become less and less meaningful as life today sees large increases in “interracial marriages” and children of “mixed” racial and ethnic backgrounds emerge from these marriages. Studying “race” through the lens of DNA examination, we find that we’re all of mixed race. When we assemble intelligence test scores “by race,” we observe differences between the averages. Those differences are real. They are “statistically significant.” However, when one examines and understands the wide variation in intelligence within a “race” or an “ethnic group” as one looks at one individual and then the next, for Race A and Race B, ethnic Group F and Group G, the differences between the averages fade into being inconsequential. They are overwhelmed by the variety of intelligence within each group. Pursuing “group differences,” there also are differences between the averages of men and women, but they too fade into being inconsequential as one understands and appreciates the wide variation among individual women and, likewise, among individual men. The excitement about interracial differences in mean intelligence test scores is driven not by the practical importance of those differences (for there are no large practical differences as many aspects of human performance teach us if we will but look) but by emotions and habits of thought with respect to race … or gender … or sexual preference … or Italians and Greeks and Chinese … or any other means for classifying individuals that we are taught by our cultures to consider as important. What, then, do we do with these emotions? One thoughtful response is “We try to understand what ‘intelligence’ means … how it is measured … whether it is measured so that any individual, no matter his/her background, has an equal opportunity to show his/her stuff (city kids are not asked questions about cows; country kids are not asked questions about street numbers) … whether those measuring instruments remain ‘well calibrated’ as time and society move from one decade to the next.” Presumably a reader, picking up Flynn’s What is intelligence?, intends to move toward answering these questions. However Flynn does not address the issues at the level of these very important background interests!

Prior studies

The reader needs to know, among other things, the history – about a century old – of the measurement of intelligence.
One of the earliest measures of intelligence was accomplished by Binet in France in the early 1900s. Building upon Binet’s work, Terman and others produced the Stanford-Binet test in the US. The Army Alpha, an intelligence test that could be given to tens or hundreds of individuals simultaneously, was built for use with military recruits in WWI. Since then the Wechsler tests, and many, many others including the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), have been built. Some intelligence tests are designed to be given to just one person at a time, the test administration requiring the full focus of a test administrator. These include the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler tests. Other tests are designed so they can be given to tens or even hundreds of individuals simultaneously as well as given to just one individual at a time. The Army Alpha and the SAT are of that kind. Flynn’s research, leading to his description of what came to be called “the Flynn effect,” used several versions of the Wechsler tests as his main source of data. Binet’s work was begun about 1900 so that school students could be separated into different classrooms, based on their IQ as measured by Binet’s test, where daily tasks for the slow learners, average learners, and fast learners could be used. That helped teachers capture and keep the attention and interest of all the students in a classroom rather than wrestle with the problems, within a single classroom, of maintaining the interest of the fast learners while the slow learners were practicing the basic skills.
A National Longitudinal Study of Youth was launched in the U.S. in 1979, gathered information about youths ages 14 to 22 at that time, and followed them regularly in subsequent years. The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) was used with these youth. The survey work and database maintenance were done under leadership by researchers at The Ohio State University. The ASVAB included the Army’s intelligence test and it was that measure from which Herrnstein and Murray prepared their study of the life-outcome implications of intelligence as reported in The bell curve.
There had been many other prior studies of intelligence and student achievement. James Coleman published his study of the Equality of educational opportunity in the U.S. (1966) nearly three decades before Herrnstein’s and Murray’s The bell curve (1994). It was my privilege to participate in a seminar reviewing the newly published Coleman study in the fall of 1966 at Harvard University. Our seminar having been convened by the Dean of the School of Education at Harvard, it was led by Daniel Patrick Moynihan (later U.S. Senator from New York) and Thomas Pettigrew, had about forty attendees including the Chayes from Harvard’s Law School, Arthur Jensen who has published frequently on intelligence in the meantime, Christopher Jencks who considered Who gets ahead? (1979) in America, and the well known statistician Alexander Mood who flew to Boston from Washington DC each time the seminar met in order to attend our meeting. We met at the Harvard University Faculty Club, were served dinner, enjoyed conversations with our fellow seminarians, then settled down to serious discussion about Coleman’s report. With Moynihan’s height and loud voice dominating pre-dinner chatter (recall Moynihan’s 1969 recommendation to President Nixon, three years later, about the need to treat race issues with “benign neglect”), fueled by Moynihan’s love for Irish whiskey, one sometimes wondered whether the seminar could get down to serious and coherent thought. Racial differences in school achievement by students throughout the United States were prominent findings from the Coleman study. High performance in tests of knowledge by Asians, Unitarians, Jews, and others along with low performance on the same tests by American blacks, native Americans, Hispanics, and kids from poor urban and rural neighborhoods were prominently reported.

Discovering why those differences in educational achievement were there, as prominently and convincingly revealed by Coleman’s study, became and has remained a major challenge to education in America.

I was the only attendee in that Moynihan-Pettigrew seminar in 1966 (among the forty or so attendees) who submitted a memorandum to the seminar. I recommended a factor analysis of Coleman’s data about schools. Mayfield (I think it was Mayfield) of the National Center for Educational Statistics did such a study after our seminar had adjourned. I was convinced that the general intelligence of the student populations for each school affected the students’ performance on achievement tests and sought more information from Coleman’s data on whether additional resources (more teachers, better teachers, more money for schools, etc.) affected students’ achievement as independent inputs to the educational process after having controlled statistically for the intelligence of the students. The study was done. Mayfield overlooked the opportunity to send me a complimentary copy of the report and I’ve never read it!

In the four decades since the Coleman report, with several boosts toward equalizing opportunity in education from the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. educators and other professionals have addressed the matter (a) by carefully researching instruments for measuring intelligence to make sure they avoid biases in the selection of material about which to be quizzed in an intelligence test, (b) by providing Head Start schooling opportunities for children in economically deprived settings, (c) by busing students “across town” if necessary to give each school a set of students that racially represents the local region, (d) by carefully equalizing the educational resources available in each school under one school board (resource equalization is not always easy to accomplish when local school districts commonly have the opportunity to set their own tax rate for raising revenues for local funding of public schools), and (e) by hiring policies for teachers and school staff that emphasized racial diversity.
In short, the consequences of intelligence differences that Herrnstein and Murray reported in 1994 were not new findings. Coleman had reported the racial discrepancies in educational achievement three decades earlier. Herrnstein and Murray, using the National Longitudinal Study of Youth begun in 1979, were able to show a variety of life’s consequences that follow for individuals finding themselves at different places on the bell curve with respect to intelligence, the intelligence measure having been observed at about eighteen years of age or earlier. Jencks (1979) had added to the reports of life outcomes (as influenced by backgrounds and intelligence) in Who gets ahead? published fifteen years after the Coleman study and fifteen years before Herrnstein’s and Murray’s The bell curve (1994).

How is intelligence measured?

Intelligence is measured in essentially the same way any “knowledge” known to any individual is measured. The examiner (or test) asks a question. The person being tested answers the question. The answer is determined to be either “right” or “wrong” by following rules for “scoring” the answer established at the time the question was framed by the test builder. A full examination is accomplished by asking many questions usually beginning with questions most people will answer correctly (easy questions) and then proceeding to the questions for which fewer people know the answers (the more difficult questions). One’s “score” on the test (in most instances) is determined by counting the number of right answers. Some intelligence tests use more complicated scoring procedures. The test-taker’s IQ (intelligence quotient) is then determined by comparing the number of right answers supplied by this test taker with a database showing the number of right answers individuals of the same chronological age as the test taker have accomplished when they took the same test. If the test taker gets a score that is average as compared with the “norm group,” s/he is assigned an IQ of 100. If the test taker gets a score one standard deviation lower than the average for the norm group among those of the same age as the test taker, the test taker is assigned an IQ of 85. If the test taker gets a score two standard deviations above the average for the norm group who are of the same age as the test taker, s/he is assigned an IQ of 130. In effect, IQ is defined by the number of questions answered correctly by the test taker after the test taker’s score has been compared with the scores of many individuals of the same age who participated in the norm group. Thus an intelligence test is a test of knowledge, knowledge of a kind presumably “everybody” has had an opportunity to learn by the time they reached the age of the test taker, after which measurement the test taker’s score is compared with the scores of a norm group.

What is a norm group? For tests in the U.S., the “norm group” usually is a group with equal numbers of males and females that have been randomly selected from the U.S. population. Builders of intelligence tests take great care to find and test large numbers of individuals who, in combination, represent “the population of the United States” and so form a U.S. norm group for the test. The norm group needs to be “like” the U.S. population as a whole with respect to gender, age, race, ethnic background, religion, political persuasion, preferences for favorite sports, health, settings in which they have lived … and so on and on although, as you can guess, few norm groups are checked for their “representativeness” with respect to all these variables.

It is immediately obvious when constructing a test that six year olds have a different vocabulary than do eighteen year olds, so questions to be used in the intelligence test have to be fashioned to sample knowledge that has in some sense been accessible to the test taker in the test taker’s lifetime and life circumstances. For the test results to be accurate and for the opportunity for the test taker “to show her/his stuff,” the questions must be chosen to test knowledge that the test taker has had the opportunity to acquire.

The foregoing, then, is the core framework describing how intelligence testing is done and how IQ scores are determined. It does get a bit more complicated, of course. Should the questions be about the meaning of words? Yes. Should they require the manipulation of numbers? Yes. Should they present geometric figures, rotate those figures, and expect the test taker to understand and report what rotation has been done? Yes. Should the test taker’s score depend on how many squares into which s/he can put three pencil dots in fifteen seconds? Well, perhaps. Should questions be asked for which the right answer depends on an understanding of social niceties? Well, perhaps. Should the test taker be asked whether s/he ever crosses the street to avoid meeting someone? Well, perhaps. Which, then, is the “right” answer: “I do,” or “I don’t” ? Is it fair to ask the test taker whether s/he has ever drawn pictures or words on a public wall facing the street? Which, then, is the “right” answer: “I have,” or “I haven’t” ? Is it fair to ask “Are all cows black?” when some test takers may never have seen a cow? As you can see, “intelligence” soon has many different facets. Some test takers are very good with words, less able with numbers. Some easily understand rotating geometric figures while others understand them less well. Some understand social niceties while others do not. Thus “intelligence” is sometimes described as having a verbal component, a numeric component, a geometric (or spatial) component, an interpersonal or emotional component, and so on.

Very early in the history of intelligence testing, Spearman (by 1903) described the fact that some test takers got high scores for most of the different kinds of questions while others tended to get low scores regardless of the question’s content … this when each individual appears to have given full attention and intent to answering all the questions correctly. The fact that scores on many different types of questions were positively correlated was said to describe “general intelligence” or simply “g.” In the history of educational and psychological measurement from 1900 to the present time, no “measure” of an individual’s capabilities is as accurate (as valid) in forecasting life’s outcomes (school performance, performance on the job, difficulties occurring in a lifetime such as going to jail, etc.) as is “g.” Many people dislike this “fact of life,” resisting the notion that “intelligence” is a characteristic having a large influence on life’s outcomes, but a fact of life it remains whether we like it or not. Gould (1981) wrote a book describing how “measures of man” are being misused. Measures of intelligence or measures of aspects of personality can and are being misused. But they also can be used properly to the immense advantage of individuals, families, the economy, and societies worldwide. Gould’s work (1981) has not contributed to a balanced view of intelligence, of the importance (or lack of importance) of differences between the average scores of racial (and other) groupings, of the proper use of intelligence measures (and other measures) of individual human performance, or of the benefits that follow from the proper use of “measures of man.”
Where does Flynn’s book fit in this story?

Flynn (1984) began pointing to the ever improving scores on subtests of the Binet and Wechsler tests. Youths tested in 1945, their scores then compared with norms gathered in 1945, received relatively accurate IQs. Youths tested thirty years later, in 1975, using the 1945 version of the test, their scores then compared with norms gathered in 1945, earned higher scores and therefore received higher IQs. Were the youths tested in 1975 “more intelligent” than the youths tested in 1945? Flynn thinks not. In early chapters in What is intelligence? (2007), Flynn argues that cultural changes occurred between 1945 and 1975. Television, non-existent in 1945, became an important part of most families’ lives by 1975. Children and youth were exposed to a larger variety of sources of information in 1975 than were available to the youths of 1945 and therefore learned many things that youths of 1945 had no opportunity to learn. They learned more skills and more background items of information. They could answer more questions correctly for the Binet and Wechsler subtests. Using the 1945 norms, those tested in 1975 received higher scores and therefore higher IQs. Flynn’s arguments explaining the “Flynn effect” are appealing. They may be correct. Since the growth of IQ scores is about 0.3 IQ points per year, Flynn argues that an IQ based on a 1945-version of a test taken in 1970 and then compared with the 1945 norms to get IQ should be corrected using the following calculation: “IQ-correct-for-1970 = IQ-based-on-1945-norms – ((1970 – 1945) x 0.3).” In effect, the IQ based on 1945 questions and 1945 norms should be decreased by 0.3 of an IQ point for each year intervening between the year the norms were established and the year the test taker was tested.

Read the above paragraphs again and again until you understand them. Nowhere in Flynn’s What is intelligence? will you find as clear and succinct an explanation of the “Flynn effect,” its causes, and what to do about it (all this according to Flynn) as is presented in the above paragraphs. That points to a major problem for the book. Flynn does not know what audience he is writing for and, even if he did, he would not know how to communicate with the audience.

One possible audience for this book is the audience of professional psychologists who use the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler tests to establish IQs for the youths and adults that they test. Flynn does not write for them. He shows only the most general of empirical findings describing the “Flynn effect,” explains those findings using (almost) only words when tables and graphs and descriptions of procedures and correlations of “corrected” IQs and “uncorrected” IQs with other variables are needed to convey information to his audience and convince them that Flynn has a handle on important truth and is recommending procedures that are essential. The scientific-professional audience will know that many variables affect test performance and a young student’s school involvement, and they will expect to see studies showing how these additional influences (test taker’s ethnic background, family’s socioeconomic status, test taker’s first language, quality of schools attended, specific exposures to learning experiences outside of school [computer games, museums, sports, …], and the like) are related to the norm-based IQ score and the corrected IQ score. The scientist-professional audience will want to know how scores from group tests of intelligence (the Army Alpha, the SAT, etc. etc.) correlate with the norm-based and the corrected IQ scores derived from individual testing. Does the corrected score make a practical difference? Flynn provides none of this information in this book.

Another audience for Flynn’s book is the audience of educators who need to know which students can perform well in the normal school classroom, which students need to be in classrooms teaching for students with special needs (just what are this test-taker’s special needs?), and which students can be helped only by one-on-one education and coaching along with his/her caretaker’s insight into the level of life’s self sufficiency such a student will be able to achieve. Flynn’s book provides none of this information.

Another audience for Flynn’s book is the parents of students, particularly young students, who are experiencing difficulties in school and need to understand what IQ means, how knowledge of the student’s IQ can be helpful, and just what kinds of educational guidance and educational experiences their child may need to grow into a self sufficient adult able to function in adult society. Flynn provides none of this information in this book.

Flynn makes technical errors for which this reader cannot forgive him. He writes, for example (p 79-80), “By adding his triarchic measures to the traditional predictive variables of high-school grades and SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores, [Sternberg] increased the percentage of variance explained from .159 to .248. Which is to say that the correlation between the predictive measures and university grades increased from .40 to .50.” The percentage of variance explained by a correlation of 0.40 is 16%, not “.159” as reported by Flynn. The percentage of variance explained by a correlation of 0.50 is 25%, not “.248” as reported by Flynn. Flynn seems not to know the difference between a percentage and a proportion and how they get expressed in numbers. Most competent writers for the behavioral and management sciences understand that the percentage of “variance explained” typically has enough error in its estimate that reporting the result to three significant digits (Flynn’s “.159” instead of the “16” I have used in this paragraph) cannot be justified. The unhappy truth is that many authors make the same error. Flynn’s statement on pages 79-80 is not the only place in the book in which Flynn makes both these errors (incorrect reporting of percentage; reporting results to a degree of accuracy greater than is justified by the underlying data). Furthermore, the SAT scores observed when the test-taker is a high school junior commonly correlate about 0.60 with the student’s Grade Point Average (GPA) in the first year of college as observed two years later … explaining roughly 36% of the variance in GPA. Do Sternberg’s measures of intelligence add 25% more variance explained to the 36% already explained by the SAT and high school grade point, bringing the total to 60% explained? That’s highly unlikely. Flynn clearly is not an accurate mirror for Sternberg’s results. When an author, Flynn in this case, does not have the technical details of his science in hand, one wonders if he is a competent viewer and critic of the larger picture.

Flynn worries about how the outcome of individual cases of capital punishment – under which state law allows as an acceptable defense the argument that the accused is “mentally retarded” and therefore is not responsible for the criminal act for which he/she is being charged – can often hinge on the adult measurement of the IQ of the accused. Flynn properly worries that an IQ “inflated” by the “Flynn effect” (by having used norms for evaluating the test score of the accused that assign to the accused an IQ that is falsely high and, thereby, condemn him/her to death row when an “accurate” IQ would indicate he/she was not responsible for his/her actions and therefore should not be put to death) can be the cause of genuine miscarriage of justice as justice is defined by U.S. law and practice. This reader understands and applauds that concern. Of course, if societies eliminated the death penalty altogether, as many think should happen, this concern disappears.

Flynn spends a few pages discussing aspects of “emotional intelligence” that Goleman (1995) proposes as well as the “triarchic mind” that Sternberg (1988) proposes. As a professional psychologist, I found these pages interesting reading. However Flynn does not introduce the reader to the means for measuring these aspects of intelligence nor does he present data showing how these aspects of intelligence relate to IQ and larger complex of skills described by the factor analysts. In fact, Flynn does a good deal of bashing of factor analytic approaches to understanding variables that reflect different aspects of intelligence without explaining why he’s so critical of the factor analysts. Flynn acknowledges that “g,” a product of the work of factor analysts, has proved to be scientifically and socially useful.

In short, I can name few audiences for which this work by Flynn is a sure fire “good read.” I am pleased to have purchased and read the book since it introduced me to work about which I knew little. While I’m grateful for the introduction, I’ve not learned what I need to have learned about those topics new to me, Flynn being such an incomplete, un-thoughtful reviewer-reporter.

Intelligence and its implications are such emotion-laden topics that no writer known to me in the last half century seems to be able to handle them. [This review has been shortened by's limits on review length.] 12/29/13 PFR
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars a wide scientific perspective 19 Feb. 2011
By Michael George - Published on
Flynn, in this short book, attempts a very broad analysis to answer the question posed in the book's title. I found the book not always easy to follow, as he threaded his way through his meditations on intelligence. Certainly, the main aspect of this resolves into the measurement of the g-factor as a scientific measurement. All too frequently, discussions of intelligence get mired in the personalities of the investigators or the feebleness of the science as it has been so susceptible to cultural, racial and sexual prejudices. However, Flynn makes it clear that the measurements have some scientific merit, and tell us something substantial about human beings as animals. He builds his exploration around the "Flynn effect", i.e. the seemingly paradoxical aspect of the intelligence tests to have shown an approximate increase of 3 IQ points on average per decade. Although I did not find his book easy to understand in certain places, his discussion of the dimensions and measurement of intelligence opened a door on this field of psychology for me.
Were these reviews helpful?   Let us know
Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

Customer Discussions

This product's forum
Discussion Replies Latest Post
No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight
Start a new discussion
First post:
Prompts for sign-in

Search Customer Discussions
Search all Amazon discussions

Look for similar items by category