Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

7 October 2007 | Vanity

Posted on 10/07/2007 5:33:52 AM PDT by shrinkermd


Reasons For This Book Review

I have limited this review to three broad purposes: (1) To explore the nature of the Flynn Effect; (2) To introduce Dr. Flynn’s latest thoughts on re-defining intelligence; (3) And, to discuss the black/white IQ gap.


In 1994 Herrnstein and Murray published The Bell Curve. Rising IQ test scores over time were enigmatic. Since James R. Flynn had focused attention on this finding, Murray and Herrnstein labeled this as the “Flynn Effect.” This persistent and progressive IQ increase was thought to be a result of better nutrition and richer cognitive environments. In addition, Danish researches opined the majority of the IQ changes occurred in the bottom half of the bell curve.

What is the Flynn Effect?

The IQ gains from generation to generation are great; further, these gains are found world wide. For example:

There is an additional complication. Youngsters have an inheritance correlation of .45, but when they become adults this rises to .70. Essentially, the childhood environment influences IQ test results more than the adult environment influences test results. It is hard to imagine the environment having greater influence with time.

While not mentioned by Dr. Flynn, presently the most intelligent and better educated women are having fewer children and having them later. If they have their children around age 30, there are roughly three generations per century. Less educated women are not only having more children around but having them at an average age of 20; this means there are five generations per century. This is called dysgenesis and was originally estimated by Catell to result in a loss of about 1.5 IQ points per generation. It is important to note, the whole subject of dysgenesis is fraught with conflicting studies and fiercely held political beliefs.

Also not mentioned by Dr. Flynn is the finding that family size seems to be inversely correlated with IQ. That is, the smaller the family the higher y the average IQ.

Another problem is rising demand for professionals. In 1950 17% of the general population entered professions or their equivalent; the average IQ for this group was 114.5. Presently, 33% of the general population enter the professions or their equivalent; now the average IQ now is 110.5.

Knowledge Base Necessary to Explain the Flynn Effect

Before I can give Flynn’s explanation of this phenomenon, it is necessary to do two things. First, to achieve maximum understanding, you should review the Wikipedia article on I.Q; this can be found HERE. Second, as part of the following discussion it is important to understand the interaction of inheritance and the environment when it comes to intelligence and changes thereof. This is summarized in the previous article as:

With this information, I can explore the whys and wherefores of the Flynn effect.

Some explanations do not hold up to serious, scientific scrutiny.

The first of these explanatory failures is nutrition; American children test higher in 2007 than they did in 1950 but they do not have a better diet. Dutch children born during WWII experienced serious malnutrition, but they do as well on IQ tests as children born in 1962. Finally, on the basis of sophisticated experiments and mathematical inference it appears what little effect nutrition has is focused in the lower socio-economic classes. Increases in height over the last decades does not really correlate with increases in IQ; therefore, assuming that height and IQ changes are correlated is mistaken.

The second of these explanatory failures is test sophistication. Here it is assumed children are becoming test wise and this explains the Flynn Effect. Obviating this is the observation that the Flynn Effect has been noted since 1932—before widespread testing.

The third of these explanatory failures is increased educational opportunities. It is true that today’s schoolchildren read at an earlier age than their grandparents. But by age 17, children and their grandparents are similar in information and vocabulary. Current students, then, are no better at vocabulary and general information than their grandparents. Ditto for mathematical knowledge; gains described for young children, again, fall off by the 12 grade and leave today’s children no better mathematically than their grandparents.

Okay, so the above three are insufficient by themselves to explain the Flynn Effect. Then, how do we explain it?

Before we can offer Dr. Flynn’s explanation, it is necessary to understand two psychological tests—The Wechsler Intelligence Scale For Children (WISC) and Raven’s Progressive Matrices.

The WISC is an IQ test and like all such tests its primary function is to predict academic achievement. This test contains separate subscores for verbal and performance IQ. This test is less dependent on overall verbal ability than the older Stanford-Binet test. The test is constructed such that the average IQ is 100 and the standard deviation is 15; this means that on the bell curve (Gaussian Distribution) 68% of the population will have an IQ between 85 and 115.

The WISC has been administered to children from 6-16 since 1950. The subtests are as follows: information, arithmetic, vocabulary, picture completion, block design, object assembly, coding, picture arrangement and similarities. The subtest Flynn effects vary over a generation or more: information gained only 2 IQ points while similarities gained 24 points.

Like other IQ tests there is a strong tendency for performance of the subtests to be inter-correlated. Using factor analysis it is possible to tease out a factor called “general intelligence” or ”g.” This “g” is what the average person thinks of as “intelligence.” IQ and “g” are correlated at about .90. There are various “g” loadings (differences) for the subtests on WISC as well as in other IQ tests. Dr. Flynn opines this about “g:”

“There is nothing mysterious about the notion of “g.” In everyday life, all of us talk about general abilities that lie behind the fact that someone excels at a wide range of tasks is superior on a wide variety of traits.” (page 6)

The Raven’s Progressive Matrices is a multiple choice test that measures abstract reasoning; this can be correlated with IQ. The test was originally developed by Dr John C. Raven in 1938. The test offers a design with a piece missing; you have to find the piece that fits and this involves noting similarities and differences across rows and down columns. Raven’s test demands one thinks out problems on the spot without having learned how to do so. The test is culture and language free and norms have been worked out for both children and adults.

The Wikipedia entry for Raven’s summarizes the situation as follows:

” Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary tests measure the two main components of general intelligence (originally identified by Spearman): the ability to think clearly and make sense of complexity, which is known as eductive ability (from the Latin root "educere", meaning "to draw out") and the ability to store and reproduce information, known as reproductive ability.

Adequate standardization, ease of use (without written or complex instructions), and minimal cost per person tested are the main reasons for its widespread international use in most countries of the world. It appears to measure a type of reasoning ability which is fundamental to making sense out of the "booming buzzing confusion" in all walks of life. It has among the highest predictive validities of any test in most occupational groups and, even more importantly, in predicting social mobility, the level of job a person will attain and retain. As a test of individuals it can be quite expensive . However, the per person cost can be much lower, because the test booklets are re-usable and that can be used up to 50 times each.

Two remarkable, and relatively recent, findings are that, on the one hand, the actual scores obtained by people living in most countries with a tradition of literacy - from China, Russia, and India through Europe to Kuwait - are very similar at any point in time. On the other hand, in all countries, the scores have increased dramatically over time.

While there are no reliable US data; other countries, including the UK, have show a Flynn Effect of .5 IQ points per year. Remember, the Flynn Effect measured by the WISC found only .3 IQ points per year. On the basis of the Raven’s, in thirty years the average IQ would be 115. This means that 50% of our grandparents would be assigned to special education classes if they were judged against today's norms!

The Flynn Effect Explained

The author begins the discussion by pointing out that the Flynn Effect is not uniform across the WISC subtests; measuring over a generation, the similarities subtest increases 12 times faster than the information subtest. This occurs in spite of the fact that the “g” loadings are about the same. (I have previously explained “g”)

”Asking whether the Flynn Effect gains are intelligence gains asks the wrong question. The twentieth century saw some cognitive skills make great gains while others were in the doldrums.” (page 10)

The real question is why these gains occurred. The author begins his explanation by discussing basketball. Assume you have two identical twins raised apart in a state that lionizes basketball players. Then assume your two twins are taller and faster than average. Genetic Advantages, then, that were modest at birth, result in large differences in performance. Naturally, comparing these two raised apart twins suggests the importance of genes even though the social environment (encouragement, coaching, training, etc.) was also important. Genes and the social environment are, then, mutually reinforcing and result in larger differences than either alone could achieve.

Professor Flynn believes intelligence is also amenable to this “multiplier effect.” A child with a slightly superior brain is encouraged such that he becomes a library aficionado, gets upper level courses and ends up in a prestige university. What Flynn posits is that superior genes co-opt the environment and visa versa.

He narrows this down to data within a generation and data between generations. “Twin studies could show that genes can explain 100 percent of the IQ differences within a generation, and yet, environment might explain 100 percent of the average IQ differences between the generations.” (Page 37)

Professor Flynn sees a sea change in how we think. We are less and less rewarded for concrete thinking and more and more rewarded for abstract thinking. Once, we only needed to know whether stools were poisonous; if that is a toadstool it is poisonous. Once it was sufficient to know one can hunt rabbits with dogs; now we need to know that the similarity between rabbits and dogs is they are both mammals.

Both the WISC subtests for abstract reasoning and the Raven’s Matrices are the principal reasons for the Flynn Effect. The Raven’s Matrices, for example, demand you think a problem through on the spot without previously learning the method to do so. Between the generations, mathematics, general knowledge and vocabulary have shown little Flynn Effect; between the generations every abstract reasoning subtest of the WISC and Raven’s has shown large and persistent increases in the Flynn Effect.

What this documents is that today’s children and youth are better at on-the-spot problem solving. (Think Raven’s Matrices Data). This change is sustained and greatly rewarded by the environment since we have increased numbers of professional, technical and managerial jobs to fill. All of these jobs often require the ability to make decisions without prior guidance or rules.

The author ascribes this increase in abstract reasoning to the prevalence of the “scientific ethos;” put in another way, more and more people put on the “scientific spectacles” when assessing life and its problems.

These conclusions also mean our grandparents were not mentally retarded but, rather, they needed and used concrete over abstract reasoning.

Wikipedia summarizes the Dickens and Flynn Effect thusly:

”Dickens and Flynn in 2001 presented a model for resolving several contradictory findings regarding IQ. They argue that the measure “heritability” includes both a direct effect of the genotype on IQ and also indirect effects where the genotype changes the environment, in turn affecting IQ. That is, those with a higher IQ tend to seek out stimulating environments that further increase IQ. The direct effect can initially have been very small but feedback loops can create large differences in IQ. In their model an environmental stimulus can have a very large effect on IQ, even in adults, but this effect also decays over time unless the stimulus continues….

So here is the final skinny, “…within a generation, genetic differences drive feedback processes—genes use individual multipliers to determine and magnify IQ differences between individuals. Between generations, environmental trends drive feedback processes—environment uses social multipliers to raise the average IQ over time. What dominates depends on what seizes control of powerful multipliers.”(page 41)

Some suggest that video games, popular electronic games and computer applications are enhancing abstract reasoning. At least one investigator (Johnson) has found TV shows now make far more cognitive demands than those of a generation ago. Single thread plots have been replaced by multiple thread plots. Also noted is the age of chess grand masters keeps falling.

The good news is by reading this far, you have reached an understanding of the Flynn Effect. The bad news is that it may not continue. Some Scandinavian research suggests IQ gains have stopped there. Of course, there is no real reason to assume these gains would go on forever. There has to be a limit as to the number of people capable of abstract reasoning.

Towards A New Theory Of Intelligence

Factor analysis is used to derive “g.” Using “g” makes a definition of intelligence seem unnecessary. IQ, on the other hand, is defined as that what IQ tests measure. Thus we have instrumentalism as the core defining concept of IQ. This may be satisfactory for IQ but it is unsatisfactory as a definition of intelligence.

Even though Dr. Flynn criticizes the use of “g” for what we ordinarily think of as intelligence, he notes the following:

Notwithstanding the above he asserts “g” is not a definition of intelligence and suggests an alternative approach.

The more comprehensive approach he labels with the acronym “BIDS.” He sees the brain, individual differences and social trends as having equal integrity and he attempts to integrate these three into a coherent whole.

He believes intelligence is comprised of:

Dr. Flynn points out that what usually is meant by intelligence is mental acuity; however, all of the above are also major components of intelligence and must be considered.

The remainder of the section on the nature of intelligence is comprised of philosophical considerations, suggested experimental designs and reflection on a series of other theories about intelligence.

At the end on this section, there is also a discussion on the dangers of misusing IQ tests in death penalty cases. Here, there is a danger to falsely overestimate IQ if obsolete norms are used. There is a definite possibility of executing mentally retarded perpetrators on the basis of a falsely high I.Q.

The Flynn Effect and Racial/Ethnic Differences

This book review is already too long and my patience is short; so I choose to make this part of the discussion short.

The easiest way to do this is to discuss a recent debate between Professor James Flynn and Professor Charles Murray. The latter person is the co-author of The Bell Curve. This was an exceptional effort by both debaters who had wide differences in opinion but absolute similarity in their approach to one another—collegiality and fairness.

Through the miracles of The Internet you can watch the entire proceeding by either going to You Tube or the American Enterprise Institute Web Site.

Additionally, there are two fine written summaries by accomplished writers. The first is by Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine. The second is by Hart and Carter of American Renaissance. Either one gives a short summary.

Flynn believes the black/white gap is closing. He sees Black IQ scores rising faster than Whites. He bases part of this on a difficult to interpret study of German-Black-American children raised in Germany.

Overall in the United States, the average IQ for Black four-year olds is 95.4 but this diminishes to 89.4 at age 14 and 83.4 by age 24. He ascribes this widening gap as being due to a poor cognitive environment. For example the children of professional families hear 2500 words per day while children of welfare mothers hear only about 600. He also still claims that Blacks closed the gap by 5.67 points between 1972 and 2002. His final opinion is that there are no biological differences to account for the black/white gap; hence, this gap will disappear when the Black cognitive environment improves.

Murray notes the black/white gap did closed somewhat since the early 1900s and the 1970s. Murray believes after this time, closing the gap ceased. He states, with considerable evidence that the black/white gap remains about 15-17 IQ points (one standard deviation). Murray points out that “g” is highly heritable and he gives greater emphasis to inheritance over the environment. Murray also states that “g” has biological, empirical referents in the brain. Murray cited a vast amount of data that documents the gap has not been narrowed when you asses IQ in adulthood.

Murray also notes no educational effort including the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has reduced the gap. He remains opposed to the NCLB Act. Benefits of this and other efforts initially show results but over time diminish or end.

Murray crucially also notes, that the gradual increase in heritability by age 24 is found in all races and cultures. That is, children have a heritability coefficient of .45 which rises to .70 as adults. What happens is that, with time, early environmental influence diminishes; hence, the heritability component becomes more evident.

Presently, both agree the issue is not solved. Neither nature or nurture can claim victory.

Eventually, both debaters discussed their political philosophy.

Murray is a libertarian and sees government intervention as expensive and of questionable value. He urged tailor made individual planning for all children rather than attempts to equalize groups.

Flynn, on the other hand, is a socialist and he believes massive government intervention could reduce or eliminate the black/white gap. Flynn frankly stated his solution is presently impossible in the United States.

Not to be forgotten is another brilliant libertarian, Thomas Sowell, also believes the environment is important in suppressing Black learning and intelligence.

Final Thoughts and Opinion

Dr. Flynn is a masterful teacher and a powerful advocate for his beliefs. He also writes well; unfortunately, the subject matter can only be simplified so far. This requires the reader to spend some effort at grasping some technical matters.

I have only discussed three of Flynn’s points. His discussion of the Flynn effect is convincing. His discussion of the nature of intelligence was all too brief and focused too much on thinking not buttressed by logical empiricism. His views on the black/white IQ gap were interesting; technically, he won the debate. Published data, however, supports Murray’s view more than Flynn’s. To me, Murray was dead on in his understanding of the matter. Only time will tell who was right.

This book is a must for academics. It also belongs on the shelves of those interested in human nature—psychiatrists, psychotherapists, clinical psychologists, teachers, educators, policy makers and so forth. Intelligence, what it is, what it means and what can be done to enhance it will be studied for a long time to come. Wise policy makers will re-think some of the past failed solutions and replace them with policies based on empirical data. Making policies on metaphysical political beliefs has not worked.

The book was published in August of 2007 by Cambridge University Press. It is 207 pages including index. In some places you can buy if for less than $15,

Thanks to those who read this far. You might be interested to know that self-education is significantly and positively correlated with an IQ over 120.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: flynn; iq; race
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
For those interested there are three Wikipedia entries worth noting. The first is titled—The Flynn Effect; it can be found HERE. The second is titled--”Race and Intelligence”; it can be found HERE. The third is titled-- User:Kevin Murray/IQ draft; it can be found HERE.

On the “User:Kevin” link look down to tables regarding “IQ Cohorts” and “Controlling For IQ.” If someone is html literate it would be nice if these tables were posted here or on a separate thread. They could inspire a lively discussion.

Wikipedia does have problems but the above posts contain valuable information and links. The bibliographies are exceptional.

Thanks to the American Enterprise Institute! First, for sponsoring the Flynn/Murray Debate and, second, for putting the debate on the Web. Your efforts will percolate through those interested until reason predominates.

1 posted on 10/07/2007 5:33:57 AM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Wikipedia does have problems but the above posts contain valuable information and links.

That doesn't sound intelligent to me.

"This book is a must for academics. It also belongs on the shelves of those interested in human nature—psychiatrists, psychotherapists, clinical psychologists, teachers, educators, policy makers and so forth. Intelligence, what it is, what it means and what can be done to enhance it will be studied for a long time to come. Wise policy makers will re-think some of the past failed solutions and replace them with policies based on empirical data. Making policies on metaphysical political beliefs has not worked."

The sales pitch is noted.

2 posted on 10/07/2007 5:44:53 AM PDT by Loud Mime (Life was better when cigarette companies could advertise and lawyers could not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

IQ can have its ebbs and flows when you add emotion. Some very smart people do very stupid things when emotion is in the mix. Its called the momentary FUIQ and it can make all the difference. Forty years of intelligent actions can be wiped out by one second of emotion.

3 posted on 10/07/2007 5:46:39 AM PDT by badpacifist (They say your head can be a prison Then, these are just conjugal visits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

Well, offhand...

Oh and most important - NOT voting for Democrats or RINOs


4 posted on 10/07/2007 6:19:28 AM PDT by Condor51 (Rudy makes John Kerry look like a Right Wing 'Gun Nut' Extremist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
thanks, your effort is appreciated and undoubtedly gives anyone who reads it objectively Knowledge and Information: The more you have the more problems you can attack. As do all your many posts.
5 posted on 10/07/2007 6:45:09 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

Wow! What a great post—it’s bookmarked.

I’ve always been interested in intelligence and IQ. I think Dr. Flynn’s definitions and explanation of the rising intelligence rates is the best I’ve ever seen. I also think his approach is right on—individualized learning programs. Is this not what home schooling does? Isn’t this what the one room school houses did? Both of these showed better success than our current school system.

My daughter is disabled and when she was in primary and secondary schools, she had an IEP—Individualized Educational Program. Each area of learning had an individual goal with an objective measurement. This made a lot of sense to me, since I have been in management all my life with MBO—management by objectives. I asked my brother in law, who is a teacher, why we couldn’t do this for every child. He said the teachers couldn’t keep up with the paper work for each child. I said this is merely tracking their performance—it could all be computerized. He said it couldn’t.

Our educational system needs serious shaking up—this is what I expect to eventually happen.

6 posted on 10/07/2007 6:46:11 AM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner (The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is at all comprehensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Why doesn't the Information Age explain the Flynn effect, at least in part?

Today, everyone--well, almost everyone--is constantly bombarded from birth by information. This has the effect of organizing people's thinking in similar ways, and it seems to me that organized thinking predisposes to high achievement on tests and disorganized thinking to low achievement. (People are also bombarded with facts.)

People weren't bombarded like this a few decades ago.

I think, for example, that someone who's spent his life and early development like The Man with the Hoe, if given a set of symbols or some picture cards to perform some testing function, might spend most of his time with a question mark over his head and likely give up. He may never understand what was expected of him.

Furthermore--I'm aware of the limited value of anecdotal information--but motivation, emotions, and organized/disorganized thinking can affect test results significantly.

One example: I knew a woman once who was utterly hopeless for anything but mopping the floor. She had had no education and a difficult life. Her thinking was so disorganized that following simple instructions was beyond her. I marvelled that her innate capacity for thinking was a complete unknown. If someone had given her an IQ test, she probably would have scored below 70. But it occurred to me that if she had been raised carefully, as I was, by parents who expected high performance and provided a constantly stimulating environment, and if her thinking had been organized from an early age, she would certainly have performed more successfully in life and probably on tests too. If I had handed her a multiple choice test or some colored blocks to organize, I think she would have been baffled.

Another: My wife is one of the smartest people I've ever known, but she is also one of the most introverted. If she took an IQ test, she would be so concerned about the tester and other things, and she would get so flustered, that she would no doubt score much lower than reality.

Of course, neither has been tested; so we'll never know, and I could be in for a surprise.

What do you think, Shrink?

7 posted on 10/07/2007 7:36:51 AM PDT by Savage Beast ("History is not just cruel. It is witty." ~Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Knowledge and innate intelligence are often jumbled. You can appear smart with knowledge or appear dumb without it, even though you have good innate intelligence. Also, a very good memory can make one appear smarter than they are (that was the case for Bill Clinton). But there is an upper limit to knowledge as it applies to perceived intelligence. Useful creativity and the creation of new knowledge is the next level. High impact creativity is the next level. This level also includes the ability to “get you mind around” vary complex problems with many “actors” and significant bad data. The last level that I have identified so far is the ability to create wisdom. These last two levels are very rare and in the case of the highest level, I would say extremely rare.

The good news is the brain is somewhat like a muscle and the innate portion can actually be strengthened with the right kind of training. Most people do not train the innate portion and exhibit the normal stagnation and even decline of this ability. Knowledge increases and even the accumulation of wisdom, but unless exercised properly the innate portion remains the same.

The following is a belief based on just general observation with a trained eye. I believe most people are getting slightly smarter on the innate side from generation to generation. Unfortunately, the schools more than wipe out this effect with a poor knowledge base and teachings that run counter to wisdom.

This may be funny, but it is not a joke: I believe that there is a strong possibility that liberals are genetically incapable of wisdom. I know many of them fall into the category of “malleable minds”.

8 posted on 10/07/2007 7:44:43 AM PDT by Revolutionary ("I love it when a plan comes together.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: badpacifist
It seems to me that some of the smartest people in the world are the ones who can figure out what they need to be happy and get it.

It could be something as simple as a vegetable garden or marrying the right person.

Or maybe going to a psychiatrist to find out what's wrong, how to dispatch their demons, killing them, and living happily ever after.

Or maybe figuring out what it will take to stay sober and managing to do it day after day for a lifetime.

On the other hand, how smart is a high achiever with a testing IQ of a zillion who has to take drugs for situational depression and is in his fifth unsuccessful marriage?

9 posted on 10/07/2007 7:46:53 AM PDT by Savage Beast ("History is not just cruel. It is witty." ~Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Revolutionary

I once knew a man who was in Mensa (’scuse me, Mensans) and who would not talke to anyone who wasn’t. How smart is that?

10 posted on 10/07/2007 7:48:41 AM PDT by Savage Beast ("History is not just cruel. It is witty." ~Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

Not very smart! It can be very trying when talking to people with significantly lower intelligence, but this is where many of the problems are highlighted that smart people solve and for which they receive recognition. Smart people don’t generate many problems, or at least ones they will discuss. Many feel any problem they bring up must be significantly difficult to make them look even smarter. Many times these tend to be more argumentative than solvable.

11 posted on 10/07/2007 8:00:09 AM PDT by Revolutionary ("I love it when a plan comes together.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Revolutionary
Yes. To be so concerned with appearances as to allow it to interfere with one's happiness and welfare is not very smart. To consult a therapist and fail to discuss significant problems--or any problems, for that matter--is not very smart. And to be argumentative rather than solving problems is also not very smart.

I think some people are like idiots savant in that they can be highly successful in limited ways, maybe broadly limited ways, but the overall result is not very smart.

For example, someone could be highly successful academically or in business, or produce a high score on an IQ test, but be unhappy and have a life that's a mess. Such is person is skilled in certain things, but if he were smart, he would figure out what he needs to be happy--assuming, of course, that he wants to be happy...which presents another subject for discussion.

12 posted on 10/07/2007 8:22:21 AM PDT by Savage Beast ("History is not just cruel. It is witty." ~Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

Yes, good points. Flynn discusses them directly or tangentially, but I can only post so much of his book without copying it.

13 posted on 10/07/2007 8:27:54 AM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Revolutionary

Liberals are utopians. Pride makes them believe they can create a perfect society. Human nature does not follow utopian plans. YOu have it right.

14 posted on 10/07/2007 8:29:13 AM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

Like any other ability or disability it is what you do with it that counts.

15 posted on 10/07/2007 8:30:22 AM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Revolutionary

I don’t know much, but I know this much:
1. People envy talent in others.
2. Just about everyone you meet is smarter than they seem.
3. Nobody likes to be corrected.

16 posted on 10/07/2007 8:43:54 AM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
"Liberals are utopians. Pride makes them believe they can create a perfect society. Human nature does not follow utopian plans."

Exactly. How smart is that? Not very.

And the university professors who succeed academically but can't think for themselves--they're essentially idiots savants.

17 posted on 10/07/2007 8:44:02 AM PDT by Savage Beast ("History is not just cruel. It is witty." ~Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

Thanks, S! This is an interesting post. ~S

18 posted on 10/07/2007 8:44:54 AM PDT by Savage Beast ("History is not just cruel. It is witty." ~Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tsomer

Wise words!

19 posted on 10/07/2007 8:59:49 AM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

Do countries that kill people for heresies have a worse environment for “g”?

North Korea seems dumber than South Korea.

20 posted on 10/07/2007 9:03:59 AM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson