It seems to me that people's intelligence, or lack thereof, is most apparent when they switch into an unfamiliar context. Many can look very competent within their element, but when you ask them to operate in an unfamiliar environment, that's when deficiencies become apparent. IMHO IQ tests fail in that they themselves are a specific type of environment. Given the rise in literacy and use of technology, it only makes sense that more people would perform better on that type of task today. However, if IQ were a measure of performance of a number of very unfamiliar tasks, my guess is we wouldn't see much of a change.
So I think that when we learn that IQ is rising on average, as a couple of these writers mentioned, it is a valid indicator that our societies are definitely making some kind of cognitive progress. Precisely how and why they have been improved is less easily understood.
- But I do believe that this measure has proven itself time and time again to be an reliable, if not perfect, predictor of a person's ability to perform intellectually.
I agree there. It measures a certain type of intelligence quite well. In undergrad, one of my classmates was working on an engineering problem in our student lounge. This guy was straight A, just brilliant. The problem he was working on dealt with heat exchange in a plant, and the water cooling system. I remember him turning to me and quite seriously asking if I thought it mattered if the flow out of the plant was lower than flow going in. Intelligence is a funny thing.