Download Are We Getting Smarter - Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century (2012) PDF

TitleAre We Getting Smarter - Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century (2012)
TagsPsychology & Cognitive Science Cognition Neuropsychological Assessment Intelligence Quotient Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
File Size5.5 MB
Total Pages326
Table of Contents
                            Cover
Are We Getting Smarter?
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
Figures
Tables
Boxes
Acknowledgments
1 Opening windows
2 IQ and intelligence
	The evidence and its peculiarities
	A pause to make a point
	Two kinds of significance
	Similarities and Raven’s
	IQ trends and the real world
	Trends test by test
	Measuring intelligence versus historical narrative
	The theory of intelligence
	Closing windows
3 Developing nations
	Parasites versus the Ice Ages
	The developed world
	Requiem for nutrition
	The Dutch
	Top and bottom of the curve
	IQ and height
	Norway and two kinds of nutrition
	Raven’s data from Britain
	The Coloured Progressive Matrices results
	The Standard Progressive Matrices results
	The merged data
	Summary on nutrition
	Hybrid vigor
	Health and class
	The developing world
	Kenya (IQ 72)
	Saudi Arabia (IQ 84)
	Dominica (IQ 82)
	Turkey (IQ 90)
	Sudan (IQ 71)
	Brazil (IQ 87)
	China (IQ 105)
	The twenty-first century
4 Death, memory, and politics
	Death a lottery
	Daubert motions
	The distinction between tests and their norms
	Adjusting obsolete IQ scores
	Analysis of gains from the WAIS to the WAIS-IV
	The rate of 0.300 points per year revisited
	The WAIS and other tests
	Something new about the very bottom of the curve
	Individuals and groups
	Playing the game
	The present state of play
	Something new about the top of the curve
	Other times, other places
	Tip of the iceberg
	Scandal in the literature
	Political debate
5 Youth and age
	Vocabulary trends since 1950
	Vocabulary and tertiary education
	Active versus passive vocabulary
	Parents talking to teenagers
	Trends from youth to old age
	The WAIS and its four indexes
	Bright bonuses and bright taxes
	Cross-sectional and longitudinal data
	Progressivity of the bright tax
	Confidence limits
	Simulating cohorts
	Causes
	What we know about the brain
	Pointers
	Ignorance and puzzles
6 Race and gender
	The significance of g-loadings
	History of a debate
	The Flynn effect mantra
	Status of the race and IQ debate
	Comments on Rushton and Jensen
	Summary on race
	g and gender
	University samples
	What does the data say?
	Students at a magnet school
	Students in general
	Argentina
	New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa
	Estonia
	Israel
	Men and women and genes
	Hole to the center of the earth
7 The sociological imagination
	(1) The mystique of the brain
	(2) The mystique of g
	(3) The mystique of measurement
	(4) The tale of the twins
	(5) The triumph of the elite
	(6) The history of nutrition in Britain
	(7) The history of urbanization in Turkey
	(8) The history of teenage subculture
	(9) Intelligence and intelligences
	(10) Intelligence is not über alles
	(11) The intellectual inferiority of university women
	(12) The “psychotic” attitude of black women toward marriage
	(13) The dull are violent
	(14) The dull drive cars
		There are people there
8 Progress and puzzles
Appendix I: Tables and comments on IQ trends
Appendix II: Tables and comments relevant to capital cases and comparing the WAIS-III IQs of various nations
Appendix III: Tables and comments relevant to adult/child IQ trends and bright taxes/bonuses
Appendix IV: Tables and comments relevant to gender and Raven’s
Appendix V: Wonderful paper on causes of Raven’s gains
References
Subject index
Name index
                        
Document Text Contents
Page 1

www.cambridge.org/9781107028098

Page 163

Race and gender

147

who qualified for a special school. Duckworth and Seligman
(2006) studied 198 students (age 13.4 years) at a magnet school.
They had qualified (three years earlier) on the basis of grades and
standardized tests. On the Otis–Lennon, girls had a mean IQ of
106.94, which implies that the bottom 27.7 percent were missing;
and a threshold of 91.1. The boys had 111.21, which implies that
the bottom 46.8 percent were missing; and a threshold of 98.8.
So for admission to this school, the female threshold was 7.7 IQ
points lower.

After entry into the school, girls had a Grade Point Average
(GPA) 0.6 male SDs higher than boys. However, the within-school
SD is attenuated and should be corrected: 0.6 times 0.62 equals
0.372 population SDs or the equivalent of 5.6 IQ points. In other
words, girls could spot boys 4.27 IQ points (111.21 – 106.94) and
outperform them academically by 5.6 points. Using delay of grati-
fication measures and estimates of self-control, Duckworth and
Seligman concluded that the girls had more self-discipline.

On a standardized academic achievement test, girls
scored 1.3 points above boys. Because universities emphasize SAT
(Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for admission, we would expect
a lower female IQ threshold for university students amounting
to at least 5 points (1.3 + 4.27 = 5.57).

Students in general

Between 1990 and 2000, female high-school graduates in America
had a GPA well above boys (Coates & Draves, 2006). The only
values given for a GPA SD show that the female mean would
be 0.342 to 0.402 SDs above the male. Gurian (2001) estimates
that boys get 70 percent of the Ds and Fs and girls get 60 percent
of the As. About 80 percent of high-school dropouts are boys.
Coates and Draves find a similar pattern in the UK, Ireland,
Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. No advanced
nation has as yet been found to be an exception.

Page 164

Are We Getting Smarter?

148

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) published the results for 15-year-olds on a
test of reading proficiency (PISA, 2006). In 57 nations, high-school
girls outperformed boys. Box 31 gives results for nations and
groups of nations that are of particular interest. It makes little
difference whether we take results for the 15 nations of Western
and Central Europe (including Iceland and Scandinavia), or the
USA, or the median from five nations that will be closely ana-
lyzed soon. All values suggest that the female IQ threshold for
university entrance is about 3 points below the male threshold,

Box 31 (see Table AIV2 in Appendix IV)

For each nation or group of nations, I give: the female reading
advantage translated into an IQ-points metric (SD = 15); how
much lower the female IQ threshold for university entrance
would be, if university students were selected purely on the
basis of reading; and the female IQ deficit (compared to males)
that would result among university students (assuming gen-
der parity in the general population).

Western/Central Europe 5.78 points (reading advantage); 2.89
(lower threshold); 1.97 (lower IQ)

USA 6.60 points (reading advantage); 3.30
(lower threshold); 2.24 (lower IQ)

Argentina 6.31 points (reading advantage); 3.15
(lower threshold); 2.14 (lower IQ)

Australia 5.94 points (reading advantage); 2.97
(lower threshold); 2.02 (lower IQ)

Estonia 8.30 points (reading advantage); 4.15
(lower threshold); 2.82 (lower IQ)

Israel 4.99 points (reading advantage); 2.50
(lower threshold); 1.70 (lower IQ)

New Zealand 5.27 points (reading advantage); 2.63
(lower threshold); 1.79 (lower IQ)

Page 325

Name index

309

Jensen, A. R., 3, 9, 52, 95, 134, 135, 136,
138, 139, 140, 158, 159, 160, 161,
162, 163, 166, 167, 177, 189, 206, 268

Johnson, S., 19
Johnson, W., 125

Kagitcibasi, C., 6, 59, 61, 174
Karmona, A. J., 151
Kazlauskaite, V., 280
Khaleefa, O., 6, 61, 63, 65
Kolmos, J., 43

Laird, C., 154, 280
Lamar, M., 129
Lamb, S., 152
Lee, K. H., 5
Lluis Font, J. M., 41
Lovaglia, M. J., 260
Luria, A. R., 13, 14
Lynn, R., 5, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 49, 55,

61, 63, 65, 141, 142, 144, 150, 152,
154, 156, 157, 158, 173, 178, 179,
260, 265, 272, 280

Mackintosh, N. J., 141
Maguire, E. A., 27, 128
Mahdi, W., 58
Martonell, R., 42
Meisenberg, G., 6
Mill, John Stuart, 189
Mills, C. Wright, 159, 178
Mintz, S., 106
Mosler, D., 52
Murphy, R., 5
Murray, C., 5, 150, 167, 173
Must, A., 5, 42
Must, O., 5, 42, 272

Neisser, U., 15
Nijman, E., 81
Nilsson, L-G., 93, 184
Nisbett, R., 128
Nunn, J., 20
Nyberg, V., 42

Owen, D. R., 5, 41
Owen, K., 152

Penke, I., 125
Pietschnig, J., 5, 38
Pullman, H., 154, 280
Putallaz, M., 88

Raudik, V., 5, 42
Raven, J., 44, 64
Raven, J. C., 44

Rebello, I., 260
Redford, Robert, 97
Reid, N., 152
Reschly, D. J., 88
Resnick, S. M., 129
Reuterberg, S.-E., 5, 42
Roid, G. H., 238
Roivainen, E., 89, 185, 243
Rönnlunda, M., 93, 184
Rosenau, J. N., 96
Rossi-Casé, L., 5, 42, 57, 149
Rubenstein, Y., 29
Rushton, J. P., 33, 34, 95, 136, 138, 139,

260
Rust, J., 44
Rutter, Sir Michael, 54

Sattler, J. M., 238
Schneider, D., 5
Schooler, C., 23
Seligman, M. E. P., 147, 187
Shadish, W. R., 80
Shayer, M., 46
Shi, Hong, 34
Silverman, I., 260
Silverman, W., 80, 184
Skuy, M., 260
Sowell, E. R., 129
Squire, A., 44
Stalin, Josef, 162
Statistikaamet, 272, 279
Steen, R. G., 53, 54, 55
Sternberg, R. J., 29, 187
Stixrud, J., 29
Stokes, T. L., 260
Storfer, M. D., 40
Su, Bing, 34
Sulman, A., 5, 61
Sundet, J. M., 5, 41, 43, 53
Svensson, A., 5, 42

Teasdale, T. W., 5, 41
te Nijenhuis, J., 5, 37
Thompson, P. M., 129
Thorndike, R. L., 238
Thorne, S., 16
Thornhill, R., 33
Toga, A. W., 129
Torjussen, T. M., 5, 41, 43
Tsai, S. J., 128
Tuddenham, R., 4, 6

Urzua, S., 29

van Eeden, R., 5
Vanhanen, T., 32, 35, 55

Page 326

Name index

310

Vineland, 71
Voracek, M., 5, 38
Vroon, P. A., 41

Wai, J., 88
Wechsler, D., 41, 76, 79, 88, 108, 189,

238, 240, 242, 249
Weiss, A., 179
Weiss, L. G., 76, 238

Weyl, N., 176
Wicherts, J. M., 7
Williams, W. M., 145
Worth, W. H., 42
Wright, Quincy, 164

Young, G. W., 88

Zhong, Hua, 34

Similer Documents