Hacker News Reader

I've got some incredibly lazy sunday afternoon non expert thinking.

200 years ago, just about everything was custom, bespoke. A carpenter would look for a piece of wood that was best for solving the problem at hand, that bit of warp was perfect for making a barrel stave.

Work now, of all kinds, is more about minimum thresholds. classify objects or problems, and use standard approaches. Just about any piece of wood is fine, because we have power tools and standardized fasteners.

We've shifted from local optimization to identifying minimum requirements. A shift away from arbitrary wood blocks, to high-tolerance, highly consistent lego blocks.

Anyway, i think the flynn effect is mostly about reshaping the world to value a little bit more abstraction over local optimization, and we teach people how to operate in the consistent world rather than the bespoke world.

Anyway, our great grandparents weren't dumb. Their minds were focused around a time when everything was precious, scarce and unique. They had to focus on what makes X special, and how can i use that unusual feature the best way possible? Now, we have lots of stuff that's plentiful and consistent. How do we systemize around that?

I mean, to a very large extent, a keyboard is a keyboard. we can have passionate arguments about mechanical keys vs rubber dome, but there's like a handful options, and at the end of the day any of them will let you type and be reasonably productive. But our great grandparents, they likely considered what's special about every object they interacted with.

That's not to say i don't think about, say, dishes. But if i break a dish, i'll just go buy another one. Our great grandparents probably thought a lot more deeply, and worried more about everyday objects, just because they were so much more expensive. They needed that local optimization. For, like, everything.

I feel like data analysis is moving us into a new world where the assumption of interchangeability is ruthlessly exploited, so I suspect that there's a feedback where the older mentality is becoming more valuable again. At least until things reach a new equilibrium.

Like, every product you buy has a million factors that affects its quality, and at best, you can test, directly or by proxy a very few. So, it used to be that you could assume that the quality was representative. But increasingly, it's possible to optimize precisely the characteristics consumers (or regulators or reviewers) look at while making everything they don't crap.

Capitalism seemed to work so well for a while because businesses inadvertently provided more quality than economically optimal, but better data processing is changing that and I think it will force an evolution in what sort of intellect thrives in the society of the near future.

I don't disagree that the transition you describe happened, but we're in the middle of a new one in my opinion.

It’s like what happened in the physical and construction world. If the romans had computers their viaducts wouldn’t still be standing. If Caesar could use a tenth of the material for the same ends when invading Britain he would have. He didn’t so had to massively over engineer.

Hence why a Roman infrastructure is still used in the UK to this day.

The brain is like a muscle. But the info age isn't a gym workout. It's doing curls with cans of soda. The info age "workout" creates fatigue, not muscle.

While, it's not necessarily info age / distraction age centric, I suggest checking out the book "Your Brain at Work" by David Rock.

https://davidrock.net/books/

> The Flynn effect says we're gaining an avg of 3 IQ pts every decade since the early 20th century. Meaning our great grandparents, on average, would be considered mentally handicapped compared to today's intellect.

According to Flynn's later work[0], this gain might be explained by:

> The Dutch data proved the existence of unknown environmental factors so potent that they account for 15 of the 20 points gained. The hypothesis that best fits the results is that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather a correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence. This hypothesis can also explain difficult trends on various mental tests, such as the combination of IQ gains and Scholastic Aptitude Test losses in the United States.[0]

> do our brains act like muscle and the info age as a super gym?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "age as a super gym", but cognitive functions can be increased, much like how exercising strengthens the muscles used.

Some research supports earlier introduction to abstract concepts contributes to increased fluid intelligence. Other research posits nutrition might be a contributing factor. It would not be unreasonable to think both contribute to some degree.

As far as "brain hacking" goes, there is research supporting increasing fluid intelligence via far-transfer cognitive training (working memory, set switching, sustained focus, etc.). It also is hypothesized that these cognitive training tasks contribute to near-transfer benefits.

EDIT: corrected cognitive training enumeration.

0 - https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-17534-001

This started going back down in the 1970s: https://www.sciencealert.com/iq-scores-falling-in-worrying-r...

I'm not an expert, but a brief scan of secondary sources (Wikipedia and Our World In Data) show it going back to 1910 in the Americas at least:

https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence

Edit: ah excuse me, I misread. I have seen a question about its recent reversal.

I think there's more nuance to the claim from statistical perspective. How is the average estimated, what kind of a distribution does population IQ have, and what factors influence it?

Super interesting to compare this to violent crime rates and the percentage of atmospheric lead!

Well to be honest the iq test has always been kind of bullshit imo. It changes with your level of education. In HS mine was 120 and now it's 143 (edit: I actually took that test 4 years ago and 3 years ago I had a brain tumor that left me with seizures and I have definitely suffered cognitively because of that so its probably lower if my memory and focus are any indicator). The test itself doesn't even measure useful cognitively profound abilities and if it did we'd all be near the same. It measures everything as a flat value. There is no value for each type of cognitive ability and most of it is skills you've picked up through life and education.

So when you look back at our great grandparents, take me for example, I'm part native hawaiian and my great grandparents were literally living in a shack on the beach. Their lives consisted of catching fish and fruit and sugar cane farming I don't even know if they could read before my grandparents started school. So of course their iq is lower. I mean hell you can't even take the iq test if you can't read. So I don't think the brain changes that we have are responsible for our higher iq points. I think it's availability to information, the more you have and contemplate the smarter you'll be. Pretty straight forward I think. Higher nutrients and regularly available food is helpful as well obviously.

The Flynn effect seems to have peaked and has been reversing

Most of the things worth mentioning were invented by these "mentally handicapped" generations. Not sure how that works.

The important thing to note about the parent poster was that he said "on average". Perhaps these things were not invented by average people.

Edit: fix auto correct mistake

If we are on the average smarter now, we have to see higher achievement rate on the average too. Doesn't seem to happen.

Is it implied anywhere that an increase in IQ corelates with a decrease in EQ?