Talk:Flynn effect

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flynn effect article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 7 months

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Flynn effect, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2024

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to remove the Rindermann survey as it has come to my attention that it was rejected many times before. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cultural bias in IQ tests

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Research shows that minority groups often score lower on traditional IQ tests due to cultural biases, not because of actual differences in intelligence 2A02:A420:25D:5B60:24C0:A57:4DB5:3A63 (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK. Do you have a specific edit you wish to have made? Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nutrition section wordiness

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Nutrition section under the Proposed explanations tab is long, repetitive (especially about brain size), and reads weird. Doesn’t seem the usual Wikipedia quality. Phoenix2448 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Flawed visualization for gains in IQ for world regions

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The visualization seems to be wrong as it shows that the gains were the exact same for both Global and Oceania. A similar visualization was made by the authors of the paper where the data comes from. It can be viewed here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240304105129/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/1745691615577701/suppl_file/10.1177_174569161557770_SuppFigure1.jpg ~2026-19116-61 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree -- the link you supplied supports changing the "Global" graph in the Flynn effect#IQ group differences section of article. --DavidCary (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2024

Cultural bias in IQ tests

Nutrition section wordiness

Flawed visualization for gains in IQ for world regions