Re: IQ and the Flynn effect

Brian Atkins (
Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:07:50 -0400

Hal Finney wrote:
> Derek Strong writes:
> > The key difference lies not in the richness of the pictures, nor in the
> > fact that they are moving. What is different is the rapidity with which a
> > vast number of different *scenes* can be (and regularly are) thrown at the
> > brain. Humans are used to, say, watching the high speed chase of a lion
> > running down a wildebeest. Fine. But TV lets you watch, say, a sprinting
> > lion, then a sprinting wildebeest, then the legs of each, then a passing
> > car, then an airplane, then a flock of birds, then the narrowing iris of a
> > human eye, then an explosion, then a view of the earth from space, then a
> > shot of a human sitting on a couch looking at all of this, all in a
> > timeframe that is *amazingly* short (on the order of a couple of seconds).
> This is true, but of course television has only been available since the
> 1950s, while the Flynn effect goes back at least a decade and probably
> several decades before that.

Can you say movies?
Movies were very big in the decade before TV, and they also expose
the brain to many quickly changing scenes.

The future has arrived; it's just not evenly distributed.
                                                       -William Gibson