Redefining Intelligence: MemeBox Interviews Cognitive Historian Dr. James Flynn
April 03 2008 / by memebox
Category: Other Year: General Rating: 8
Dr. James Flynn, the
cognitive theorist who discovered the steady rise in human IQ
scores over the past 100 years (subsequently dubbed the Flynn
Effect), is now advancing a compelling new model of
intelligence based on the idea that 
environment significantly impacts the development of intelligence,
aka our ability to solve complex problems.
Attributing IQ gains largely to “the rise of the scientific ethos” and abstract thinking ability, as well as a propensity for genes to “match better environments”, Flynn imagines a future in which technological breakthroughs may better our ability to comprehend complex systems, making us a good deal smarter. However, he also cautiously points out that we could be approaching natural limits to critical thinking ability, as the pursuit of decadence increases and humans become “less willing to do cognitive exercise”.
What follows is an illuminating must-read interview with Flynn about his thoughts on the interplay between intelligence and our rapidly changing environment:
MemeBox: What do you do and how is that related to the future?
James Flynn: I am both a historian of cognition and a moral and
political philosopher. The latter relates to the future because
clear thinking about the good life and the good society is of
eternal 
value. However,my recent book, What is intelligence?
(Cambridge), describes the evolution of the American mind in the
20th century. As usual, only if we understand our immediate past
can we see the challenges the future holds. In this case, we can
make two predictions about the 21st century with some probability.
That developing nations will acquire the habits of mind that
developed nations have recently acquired. That the task for
developed nations like America is to build an enhanced critical
ability on the foundation of the IQ gains of the 20th century.
M: Why is the study of intelligence important to us humans?
JF: That we think it is important is undeniable in that we spend huge sums on education trying to train intelligence to be socially useful. We are correct to do so. Intelligence is essentially the capacity to solve problems and a complex industrial society demands that we have certain habits of mind: that we classify the world in a way that promotes a scientific understanding; that we can use logic to deal with hypothetical problems; and that we can deal with novel problems on the spot.
M: What is the relationship between environment and intelligence? (Environment as in the whole system: biology, information, technology, society, the universe.) To what extent can we distinguish between the two?
JF: Until recently, it was thought we could use twin studies to neatly distinguish the effects of genes and environment on IQ and they said that genes were overwhelmingly potent and environment feeble. Then I began to document these huge IQ gains over time that amounted to some 30 to 50 IQ points during the 20th century in America. These showed environmental factors of enormous potency, but that of course created a paradox: how could the twin studies show environment so feeble while IQ gains showed it to be so potent? (Cambridge), describes the evolution of the American mind in the 20th century. As usual, only if we understand our immediate past can we see the challenges the future holds. In this case, we can make two predictions about the 21st century with some probability. That developing nations will acquire the habits of mind that developed nations have recently acquired. That the task for developed nations like America is to build an enhanced critical ability on the foundation of the IQ gains of the 20th century.
The answer the book gives is the Dickens/Flynn model. Within a generation, better genes tend to match better environments, that is, a person born a bit taller and quicker than average will be likely to make basketball teams throughout their school years and get the environmental advantages of team play and professional coaching. The twins studies credit this powerful combination of genes and environment all to genes, so the potency of environment is hidden. But the present generation has not real genetic advantage over the last generation, so the huge IQ gains are purely the effect of environment and testify to how potent it really is.
M: As we evolve IQ tests to reflect general wisdom and problem solving abilities, do you expect them to remain limited to single humans, or must they also incorporate environment? In other words, can we truly measure intelligence without holistic context?
JF: The short answer is No. Individuals respond to the changing priorities of an evolving society. In America in 1900, the emphasis was mainly on utilizing the concrete world for practical purposes and even the schools examined for what they considers to be socially valuable facts. Today, we are expected to go beyond the concrete to classify it using the language of science. In 1900, if you asked someone what dogs and rabbits had in common, they would tend to say that you use dogs to hunt rabbits. Today, they would say that they are both mammals. In 1900, people did not take the hypothetical very seriously and were exposed to few abstract symbols. Today, we use logic to deal with hypothetical situations and formal symbols all of the time – just look at we spend our leisure on video games. And school exams focus less on facts than on relationships between concepts.
So, when you measure IQ, you are measuring more than intelligence in the narrow sense. You are also measuring the patterns of thinking that the times emphasizes. And measuring all of this by a single number misses too much. For example, I have spoken as it it were informative to say Americans gained 30 to 50 IQ points in the 20th century. Actually, this conceals a whole range of different trends. The best data (since 1947) show we have gained almost nothing in terms of general information, everyday vocabulary, and arithmetical reasoning, but have made huge gains in classification, seeing logical relationships between symbols, and on-the-spot problem solving.
M: What might a general IQ test consist of 10 years from now?
JF: I think that tests like the WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) that has 10 subtests will still be appropriate. But they should be supplemented with tests of critical acumen. I am in the midst of designing a test that will measure how well university graduates can do social analysis and criticism, that is, whether they have learned to use concepts like market, tautology, placebo, to analyze what they hear and read.
M: In your most recent book, What is Intelligence?, you explain that abstract thinking and the tendency of IQ tests to reward abstract thinking generally explains the Flynn Effect. Does abstract thinking make humans more intelligent, or simply more likely to arrive at more intelligent decisions? JF: I think the word “intelligence” muddles what has actually happened and what has happened can be described as follows. Our brains at conception are no better than they ever were. But in response to the evolving demands of society, we can attack a far wider range of problems than our ancestors could. It is like the evolution of the motor car in the 20th century. Are automotive engineers any brighter than they were 100 years ago? – no. But have cars evolved to meet modern demands for more speed and entertainment while we drive (radios, tape decks, etc) – yes. Our brains are no better but our minds have altered as dramatically as our cars.
M: How does abstract thinking allow humans to do “more, better, with less”, as Systems and MEST Compression theorist John Smart puts it?
JF: I suspect that we reach a limit as to how much hard thinking we are willing to do both on the job and in our leisure. Call that energy and time, if you will. Modern society has reduced both the hours and physical demands of work and thus enormously expended the energy we have to devote to cognitively demanding pursuits in our leisure. But the rise of the scientific ethos and freeing logic from the concrete are a great gain in efficiency. Look at how much information is immediately conveyed when we call something a “mammal”.
M: Is there a MEST compression of ideas / simulations / memes occurring in our brains?
JF: We do not know enough to do this kind of analysis yet. My book looks at the brain physiology level of intelligence and argues that we are only now beginning to understand the roles of blood supply, dopamine sprayers, and mental exercise and how they are related to one another.
M: What is the relationship between human technology and abstract thinking / evolving intelligence? How are they similar? Does one beget the other? (I’m seeing proto-humans staring at cave paintings.)
JF: The first step towards a scientific ethos is the widespread use of machines because they encourage a de-personalized concept of causality. Then the industrial revolution demands universal education, eventually tertiary education, which encourages the formal as distinct from the concrete mode of thinking. Finally, if you are lucky, people absorb from science the concepts (market, tautology, placebo, sample, confounding variable) the tools of critical thinking
M: Do you suppose there is a correlation between accelerating growth in information , technology and communication and accelerating growth in IQ scores? Would you say the Flynn effect is a correlate of the Law of Accelerating Technological Returns?
JF: Definitely not. The rise in IQ scores is a function of total social forces of which the acceleration of information accumulation and technological change is only one. This is proven by the fact that in nations most advanced in these things, IQ gains have slowed and perhaps even stopped (Scandinavia). Most people live their lives with family, at work, and enjoying leisure. A more favorable ratio of adults to children in the home has driven IQ gains and now this has reached a limit with only one or two children and is reversing with the rise of solo-parent families. Formal education now takes up, for many, the years before 30 and it is not clear that people with tolerate much more. Leisure is also about as cognitively demanding as many will tolerate. The proportion of managerial and professional work roles is reaching “feather-bedding” levels. Perhaps as many people have absorbed the scientific ethos as can do so. The next century could see a period of decadence in advanced societies so that people are less willing to do cognitive exercise.
M: How will advances in brain imaging, information storage, longitudinal information capture, neuro-science, etc, affect the study of intelligence?
JF: I think brain imaging will take us for the first time to the “Babalonian astronomy” level of brain physiology, so that we will have a “map” of what parts of the brain are active in what cognitive functions. Also we may be able to “see’ blood supply and dopamine spraying at work in strengthening the neural connections that are used. If the latter could be matched the habits of the mind we build up when we solve problems and the former to whatever genes and environment make for efficiency of blood supply and dopamine spraying, we could begin to integrate brain physiology to the Dickens/Flynn model (which captures the basic mechanics of the personal and social levels).
M: How might human cognition be altered in the age of accelerating tech, info, comm change? How will new simulation tools, immersive 3D environments,brain-computer interfaces, faster computers, a more fluid web, scientific breakthroughs, etc, all conspire to affect cognition?
JF: Integrating people with machines (as I am doing at this moment with my word processor) may speed up the drudge of research. If I had electrodes on my skull that called up information at once and performed mathematical operations on cognitive demand, the amount of work I could do would expand but the quality (no sources left out) only slightly. And that is my social science work. I am not sure that thinking about philosophical problems would profit much at all. I do not think that the level of philosophical thinking has risen at all in the 20th century, although technology has certainly given ethics new problems to address.
M: What’s the relationship of human cognition to achieving the most comprehensive view of the system possible, or “topsight” as David Gelertner describes it? JF: If technology gives one an overview of a system (say the brain) so that one can absorb it as a unit rather than piecemeal, that will be a great step forward in many areas of science.
M: It’s been shown that tribes like the Piraha cannot be taught to count to 10 after certain critical windows are missed . What are the implications of critical periods for intelligence / abstract thinking, especially considering accelerating change?
JF: These people pose interesting problems for the development of language but I think we will get to know more about “critical periods” (say why it is so hard to learn language after a certain age) from current research. Note by the way the oddity that no one has posited that they are somehow genetically unique as at least a partial explanation of their culture.
M: What advice would you give to one of the many researchers currently pursuing Artificial General Intelligence? JF: Keep at it because it is interesting and I do not know how to do it. But they might temper their predictions by asking whether these intelligences will really write something on free will versus determinism that is not imitative.
M: What are some general trends you see forming or already in effect that are changing/will change the way we learn?
JF: The worst trend is the distortion of university education to towards narrow specialization so that even the best graduates can think critically, if at all, only in a narrow area. Learning how to think critically has gone up with the habit of taking hypothetical situations seriously, but further progress means better universities and I am not sanguine.
M: Any hunches about the ultimate destiny of intelligence?
JF: This is equivalent to knowing the ultimate destiny of man and I will be happy if we survive the 21st century with viable civilized societies. That behind us we can plot utopias for the future.
This interview was conducted by Alvis Brigis.
