back
9 comments
The interesting implication of the Flynn Effect is that there’s an element of nurture to executing IQ tests. It’s possible that brains have improved in some physiological way due to changes in nutrition and medicine, but it’s also very likely that knowhow, practise, or exposure to similar concepts has a significant bearing on IQ test results. This being opposed to the common perception that IQ is a strict measure of innate talent
Grok finally talked itself into a corner and admitted that there is no education/nutrition/etc induced IQ increase:

In essence, while the context of education and IQ today is vastly different from the agricultural and genetic science debates of Lysenko's time, the core idea of inheriting acquired traits has a historical parallel in Lysenkoism. Modern science, however, does not support the notion that education-induced IQ gains are genetically inherited.

Need to be really careful with chatbots—they can sometimes reinforce misunderstandings. Lysenkoism is a red herring here, since that's a (discredited) hypothesis about inherited traits. Acquired traits tend to have both inherited and environmental aspects (nature and nurture). These interact in complex ways to make you you.

Education, nutrition, and similar factors have pronounced somatic (non-inherited) effects. I think your arrow of causality might have been a bit off here:the key insight is that genes aren’t necessarily expressed optimally in adverse conditions.

For example, if you lack proper nutrition during a critical growth phase, even having the genetic potential to grow 7 feet tall won’t matter. Resource constraints mean it simply won’t happen—your body can’t grow that tall without the necessary inputs.

Now I’m really curious about your mental model! Could you share more about it or relevant parts of your Grok chat?

Too messy discussion for any rational summary. Me no expert on any of this.

Anyways arguing with Grok is entertaining, while it is politically correct and woke, it does not start screaming when proven wrong.

Not sure who Grok is, but the wiki article mentions ~15 points from iodide and 6 points from taking the test a second time.

It's possible that parents with better education pass that on to their kids and part of that is better test prep (and/or a clause system emphasizing education, and whatever genetics contribute to impulse control may play a role in that)

Grok is X's chatbot that, I guess, he was arguing with about this.
Maybe the downvoter crew will tell us what the issue is. They always do :-)
"That's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."
"Some studies have found the gains of the Flynn effect to be particularly concentrated at the lower end of the distribution."

This immediately suggests the hypothesis that environmental improvements[1] have increased the likelihood of individuals reaching their genetic potential, which also explains why the top end remains unchanged—it was already near its ceiling.

Of course there isn't a single "gene for intelligence"; each individual has different genes (parameters) leading to diverse tradeoffs and variations in (here) cognitive ability. But those genes can only manifest effectively if a person grows up with sufficient care. If nutrition, healthcare, exercise, and (possibly) education are lacking, then one cannot reach one's full theoretical potential.

[1] Advances in public health (e.g., vaccination, hygiene), nutrition (reducing malnutrition), and education.