Smart Phones And The Flynn Effect

  • Thread starter fresh_42
  • Start date
In summary: Technology has made our lives easier and more convenient in many ways, but it has also made us more reliant on it. We may not be as good at certain tasks without technology, but overall, I believe it has greatly improved our quality of life. However, it is important to continue to challenge ourselves and not become too reliant on technology, as it can also hinder our cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills if we become too dependent on it.
  • #1
fresh_42
Mentor
Insights Author
2023 Award
18,994
23,959
Sources first:
Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg said:
Population intelligence quotients increased throughout the 20th century—a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect—although recent years have seen a slowdown or reversal of this trend in several countries. To distinguish between the large set of proposed explanations, we categorize hypothesized causal factors by whether they accommodate the existence of within-family Flynn effects. Using administrative register data and cognitive ability scores from military conscription data covering three decades of Norwegian birth cohorts (1962–1991), we show that the observed Flynn effect, its turning point, and subsequent decline can all be fully recovered from within-family variation. The analysis controls for all factors shared by siblings and finds no evidence for prominent causal hypotheses of the decline implicating genes and environmental factors that vary between, but not within, families.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674

Adrian F. Ward said:
Our smartphones enable—and encourage—constant connection to information, entertainment, and each other. They put the world at our fingertips, and rarely leave our sides. Although these devices have immense potential to improve welfare, their persistent presence may come at a cognitive cost. In this research, we test the “brain drain” hypothesis that the mere presence of one’s own smartphone may occupy limited-capacity cognitive resources, thereby leaving fewer resources available for other tasks and undercutting cognitive performance. Results from two experiments indicate that even when people are successful at maintaining sustained attention—as when avoiding the temptation to check their phones—the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capacity. Moreover, these cognitive costs are highest for those highest in smartphone dependence. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of this smartphone-induced brain drain for consumer decision-making and consumer welfare.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/691462

I stumbled upon it here (emphasis mine):
https://science.howstuffworks.com/l...rch-confirms-it-really-are-getting-dumber.htm
and an interesting point is
... What's behind the loss of smarts? Scientists hypothesize changes in our education systems, nutrition, the current media environment, a decline in reading and an increase in online activity as possible culprits. Some blame the IQ test itself ...
so I do not want to discuss such test at all. Whatever one may think about them, I think they will definitely reflect a tendency, which is far more interesting as to what extend an IQ test measures what. I find it too easy to blame the measurement. In my opinion, this would merely distract from the observation. And this is what I think should be discussed.

I remember a dialogue I had about the layout of a modern IDE. The youngster had set it to a vast collection of icons and I said I couldn't handle this: "I want roll down menus, I can read! Do you expect me to learn three dozens of icons for each software I use?" I found that symptomatic.

Another observation of mine is, and I include myself, that since we get used to short video clips, or even shorter cuts within them like in music videos, our attention span has continuously decreased. This would have been somewhere since the early 80's which coincides with the time the authors above measured the reversal of the Flynn effect.

So my provocative question is: Do we make us dumber with each new technology we use?
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN and russ_watters
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #2
fresh_42 said:
So my provocative question is: Do we make us dumber with each new technology we use?
You might want to limit that to certain TYPES of technology. I think most technological improvements have nothing to do with making us smarter or dumber. Just think of simple but significant things such as electric motors and their multitudinous uses. Do washing machines make us dumber? I could go on and on.
 
  • #3
phinds said:
Do washing machines make us dumber?

I'm not sure yet... ours quit working yesterday, so it needs to be fixed... by me!
I could go on and on.

I wish you had stopped before... "washing machines". . :rolleyes: . :-p
Lol... JK.

.
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN, Klystron and fresh_42
  • #4
phinds said:
You might want to limit that to certain TYPES of technology. I think most technological improvements have nothing to do with making us smarter or dumber. Just think of simple but significant things such as electric motors and their multitudinous uses. Do washing machines make us dumber? I could go on and on.
Yes, that was of course a rhetoric reduction. As mentioned in the title and in my example of icon-usage I obviously meant our modern world of communication and how we display the interfaces of electronic screens nowadays.
 
  • #5
phinds said:
Do washing machines make us dumber?
OCR said:
I'm not sure yet...
OMG... I'm sure now... they do, they do !

.

.
 
  • #7
"Ephraim! Our machine is walking!"
I can read no more... I can not continue! . :DD . :DD . :DD

.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
The machines that make life simpler, make... life ... :H do I have to say it ?
 
  • #9
"Do washing machines make us dumber?"
Ours makes me speechless with rage when it halts mid-cycle...
/
FWIW, after a decade out of CAD, I'm having ghastly problems trying to relearn stuff I knew. Currently clinging to lowest pitons on TurboCAD's training wall...

Um, I used M$ 'Office' suite at work, gradually came to loathe its bloat and knack of complicating my work-flow. I've devolved to the classic 'Notepad' for text-bashing, with 'Wordpad' and 'Libre' in reserve. Graphics handled by nimble 'Irfan View', via its 'just complex enough' interface...

OT: M$ have now quietly, quietly fixed Notepad's silly word-wrap bug they introduced along with all those wondrous features a few months ago...
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #10
While appreciating the humor of 'washing machine' comparisons, appliance analogies are too limited compared to 'smart phones'.

Smart phones do not just perform a task (communication) and replace older tech (telephones), they represent an essential link and interface to vast stores of information and applications far beyond dedicated tasks such as washing and drying laundry. Other technology threads explore and attempt to list 'what smart phones do'; yet are still incomplete.
 
  • #11
fresh_42 said:
So my provocative question is: Do we make us dumber with each new technology we use?
Probably, but I think it is a worthwhile trade-off that we seem smarter.
 
  • #12
phinds said:
You might want to limit that to certain TYPES of technology. I think most technological improvements have nothing to do with making us smarter or dumber. Just think of simple but significant things such as electric motors and their multitudinous uses. Do washing machines make us dumber? I could go on and on.
I don't think the difference is as big as you are making it out to be. Physical devices make us physically weaker just as information devices make us dumber. In both cases the task we offload to the machine we get worse at as a result. It's the same issue.
 
  • Like
Likes gleem and fresh_42
  • #13
russ_watters said:
Probably, but I think it is a worthwhile trade-off that we seem smarter.
I think we can look up things so easily nowadays, that the necessity and therewith the capability to remember them has been decreased. Examples like the multiplication table come to mind, maybe even orthography! Smileys are the new words, icons the new labels!
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #14
fresh_42 said:
I think we can look up things so easily nowadays, that the necessity and therewith the capability to remember them has been decreased. Examples like the multiplication table come to mind, maybe even orthography!
Agreed, but it's more than just memory. A couple of other examples;

-My dad can do math in his head far faster and more accurately than I can.

-Langauge processing is more than just memory. It's understanding and applying grammar rules properly, for example, is a growing problem in my perception.

But I was serious when I said I think it is worth the tradeoff and it was a partial joke to say we "seem" smarter. The engineering output I or my company can do today far exceeds what we did in the past, despite our reduced skills. So with lower skills we turn out a superior product and that's a net win in my book.
 
  • #15
russ_watters said:
... understanding and applying grammar rules properly, for example, is a growing problem in my perception.
Boy howdy do I ever agree w/ that. The proper use of pronouns is almost a totally lost ability. I constantly hear public figures and TV personalities (supposedly "journalists" whose TOOL is language) and seemingly educated guests using pronouns in ways that would have been considered shamefully ignorant 50 years ago.
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander, russ_watters and Klystron
  • #16
fresh_42 said:
I think we can look up things so easily nowadays
fresh_42 said:
orthography
(I had to look up that word...) :frown:
 
  • #17
berkeman said:
(I had to look up that word...) :frown:
"ortho" is right as the right angles ("gon") in orthogonal bases, and "graphy" is carving the stones! Guess we already lost this ability when we stopped writing messages in stones. Imagine the trouble they must have had correcting a spell error!
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron, phinds and berkeman
  • #18
fresh_42 said:
Imagine the trouble they must have had correcting a spell error!
I believe this was the first documented case of that happening...

https://d2ciprw05cjhos.cloudfront.n...4/03/shutterstock_132176021.jpg?itok=QfSWHtKR

shutterstock_132176021.jpg
 

Attachments

  • shutterstock_132176021.jpg
    shutterstock_132176021.jpg
    25.8 KB · Views: 393
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213, Klystron, phinds and 1 other person
  • #19
What exactly is "familial intelligence"? Couldn't families be changing and people choosing lower IQ partners? With the Norwegian welfare system there's virtually no chance of ending up homeless or without food anymore, and choosing a partner from "good families" to guarantee survival isn't prioritary like it used to be a few decades ago.
Uneducated people also tend to have more children even within the same "family", however they define it, and a developed economy pretty much guarantees the same survival rate independently of the socioeconomic background. This also didn't use to be the case until recently.
 
  • #20
berkeman said:
I believe this was the first documented case of that happening...
:oldlaugh:

Thanks. I REALLY got a chuckle out of that.
 
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213, fresh_42 and berkeman
  • #21
ZeGato said:
What exactly is "familial intelligence"? Couldn't families be changing and people choosing lower IQ partners? With the Norwegian welfare system there's virtually no chance of ending up homeless or without food anymore, and choosing a partner from "good families" to guarantee survival isn't prioritary like it used to be a few decades ago. Uneducated people also tend to have more children even within the same "family", however they define it.
A few decades? That must have been more than just a few.
  • You implicitly claim that IQ and income are positively related: Can you support this, or is it just a wild guess?
  • You also equal education and intelligence, which is also a wild guess. Moreover the paper explains, how they eliminated family effects.
  • Your third implicit assumption is, that matching marriages had been and is no more driven by economical goals. I doubt this. My antithesis is, that it was and is far more driven by sociological reasons. So again, can you support this claim?
I got the impression that prejudices are the motivator of your statements rather than facts.
 
  • #22
fresh_42 said:
A few decades? That must have been more than just a few.
  • You implicitly claim that IQ and income are positively related: Can you support this, or is it just a wild guess?
  • You also equal education and intelligence, which is also a wild guess. Moreover the paper explains, how they eliminated family effects.
  • Your third implicit assumption is, that matching marriages had been and is no more driven by economical goals. I doubt this. My antithesis is, that it was and is far more driven by sociological reasons. So again, can you support this claim?
I got the impression that prejudices are the motivator of your statements rather than facts.

1. Many studies were done on the subject, and yes, there is a positive relationship between the two.
This https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlation-between-iq-income/ is very informative on this, and it uses this study as the source, among others that it links.
2. That study you cited states: "Polygenic scores that predict education are correlated with IQ"
3. It's fair to assume that with a welfare state guaranteeing your and your children's survival, economic goals are no longer as important as they were 50 years ago when this wasn't the case. Any exploration of the causes for lower IQ over the decades should start with the parents' IQ, which is the best predictor for children's IQ, instead of delving into more exotic and unproven explanations like technology lowering our IQ IMO.

This study relies on families with two or more male siblings for their model, that they then use to generalize for the whole population. There are far simpler explanations for the IQ lowering cited in this same study, even though environmental factors may also play a role.
 
  • #23
fresh_42 said:
So my provocative question is: Do we make us dumber with each new technology we use?
Interesting question. And as with most technology, I think important questions also are how we use technology and how much we use it.

I think it is good that the use of quite new technology like internet, smart phones and social media is studied and discussed, and that also social and health aspects are considered; here's another recent study which I personally found very interesting:

Paper: Hunt, Marx et al, No More FOMO: Limiting Social Media Decreases Loneliness and Depression (Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology)
Article about the research: Social media use increases depression and loneliness (Penn Today)

Edit: The study is not about intelligence, but I wanted to share it since others may find it interesting. My intention is not to change the topic :smile:.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Klystron and fresh_42
  • #24
Could a lot of the problem with smartphones be feeling that one has to respond every time one gets an alert -- and respond right away? It ought to be a simple matter to have one's phone collect one's alerts, so one can respond to them at one's leisure.

ETA: about loneliness and depression, correlation need not mean causation in one direction. It could be a case of the most lonely and depressed people having social media as their only social outlet.
 
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213
  • #25
lpetrich said:
It ought to be a simple matter to have one's phone collect one's alerts, so one can respond to them at one's leisure.

On my phone, I have "do not disturb" on virtually all the time. That means the phone only alerts me if the incoming call/notification is on the list of those important enough to disturb me. (Right now the only one who falls into that category is my wife.) I can look at the other notifications and deal with them when I have time.
 
  • Like
Likes lpetrich
  • #26
What do we do to compensate for the (mostly) mindnumbing activities we do on the phone? I dare say not much so as the user gets lazier, the effects will reflect in their cognitive abilities. I don't blame the smart phone, I just blame the user. Perhaps overly simplified :olduhh:

I own a smart phone and it has had no effect on my ability to focus or remember things. Then again, I don't waste away looking at the screen, drooling. Maybe I'm being a bit spiteful, a tad touchy subject, kind of lost a friend to the smart phone (we do talk, but mostly online and the conversation is stale, at best, not like it used to be) and now I blame her, because she wouldn't listen to me :sorry:
 
  • #27
fresh_42 said:
So my provocative question is: Do we make us dumber with each new technology we use?
Or does tech free us from having to remember fairly trivial information or functions to focus on more advanced functions.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #28
nuuskur said:
What do we do to compensate for the (mostly) mindnumbing activities we do on the phone? I dare say not much so as the user gets lazier, the effects will reflect in their cognitive abilities.
The same thing we did before using phones. Reading something, doodling, daydreaming :smile:.

nuuskur said:
I don't blame the smart phone, I just blame the user. Perhaps overly simplified :olduhh:
Blame the phone too. And the persons responsible for developing the software. There are video game developers and social media platform developers who have knowingly used psychology (intermittent reinforcement) which creates a type of addiction in the users for the sake of making more money (and nowadays there are many video games in which users pay a monthly fee to play). Gambling machines (like slot machines) are based on intermittent reinforcement; with simple rules and visual enhancements, the machine sometimes reward the player, which can condition the player to keep putting in more money, even though the rewards are fewer than the times there are no rewards. And when there is a reward, there are "bells and whistles" to enhance the feeling of reward.

Compare with facebook; relatively simple interface, likes (thumbs up) and emoticon functions and notifications which are colored red to catch the eye. The users reward each other. And this has become a sort of standard on the net, it's the same on youtube and even on comments on youtube. And we have the same thing on forums (like this one, but I don't mind it here :smile:).

Edit: And now I remembered an interesting TED talk on this topic, in which, among other things, the addictive components and cognitive consequences of social media usage are addressed:

Quit social media | Dr. Cal Newport | TEDxTysons
 
Last edited:
  • #29
nuuskur said:
I own a smart phone and it has had no effect on my ability to focus or remember things.
What I have noticed in myself is that the more social platforms I participate on, the less focused I become, particularly if I have them open on the computer at the same time. And it really started to bug me when I installed a lot of software on my Android TV box, which soon started to bombard me in my living room with notifications with annoying sounds from facebook, youtube and other software. I found it to be very distracting when I was doing other things at home. Those notifications have now been turned off :smile:.
 
  • #30
phinds said:
The proper use of pronouns is almost a totally lost ability. I constantly hear public figures and TV personalities (supposedly "journalists" whose TOOL is language) and seemingly educated guests using pronouns in ways that would have been considered shamefully ignorant 50 years ago.
Just between you and I, I think you are right. The wife and me were discussing this the other night.

Pronouns in English retain the last vestiges of the concept of grammatical case -- different forms for words depending on what part of the sentence they appear in. Way back in the Cretaceous, when I was in Jr. High, we learned how to diagram sentences, which reinforced the ideas of subject, direct object, indirect object, and other concepts that have implications on whether you use I or me, he or him, she or her, we or us, and they or them. In my opinion, it's a shame that this isn't taught much any more, or even at all. I don't have any data on this, but I suspect that a large fraction of middle school and high school English teachers in the US don't have a firm grasp on the proper use of pronouns.
 
  • #31
Mark44 said:
... I don't have any data on this, but I suspect that a large fraction of middle school and high school English teachers in the US don't have a firm grasp on the proper use of pronouns.
I think you are right but the issue is much worse than that. The additional problem is the young people these days simply don't CARE about the intricacies of proper grammar. They see it as an unnecessary burden to be bothered with and when all their friends speak poor English, why should they not do the same. It's much like vaccinations in that there is a herd level that is required and when enough of the herd uses poor English it becomes the norm. When we were young, poor grammar was considered as sign of ignorance and would be called out. Today it is ignored.

When my kids were young, they used proper grammar but I think really only because they KNEW I would call them out on it if they didn't. Now that they've left the nest some years ago they don't always, and they really don't care.
 
  • #32
Mark44 said:
Just between you and I, I think you are right. The wife and me were discussing this the other night.

Pronouns in English retain the last vestiges of the concept of grammatical case -- different forms for words depending on what part of the sentence they appear in. Way back in the Cretaceous, when I was in Jr. High, we learned how to diagram sentences, which reinforced the ideas of subject, direct object, indirect object, and other concepts that have implications on whether you use I or me, he or him, she or her, we or us, and they or them. In my opinion, it's a shame that this isn't taught much any more, or even at all. I don't have any data on this, but I suspect that a large fraction of middle school and high school English teachers in the US don't have a firm grasp on the proper use of pronouns.
We have similar developments here. E.g. people stop using the genitive, or they use it incorrectly with a "Deppen-Apostroph" (not sure, Google translate gave me "douchebag apostrophe"). The reason is, that we use the genitive 's' as an appendix and not as in English with an apostrophe. Nevertheless people spread apostrophes all over the place. 'Peter's interests' are 'Peters Interessen' in German, but 9 of 10 people will use the English apostrophe. Also immigrants, at least kids and teens use a so called 'infinitive German', i.e. they do not conjugate verbs at all!
 
  • #33
Well, language is evolutionary and the POINT of it all is to be understood, unambiguously, so in the long run language will likely evolve to forms that if spoken today would (and do) make us old persnickety people grit our teeth) but it will be clearly comprehensible to its (not it's) speakers.
 
  • #34
fresh_42 said:
E.g. people stop using the genitive
That's just about the only vestige of cases left in English -- that we attach 's to the end of a word to denote possession. E.g., "the dog's bone".

phinds said:
it will be clearly comprehensible to its (not it's) speakers.
The exception, of course, is it's, which is the contraction of "it is."

English speakers seem to be just as confused as German speakers about when to use an apostrophe and when not to. You can hardly walk into a grocery store and not see a sign offering, "Banana's" on sale.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #35
It's iodine. Iodine has been shown to increase IQ by as much as 15%. Now there is an idiotic trend (at least in the US) to eliminate iodized salt and use un-iodized "trendy" salt.

And iodine’s mental benefits may even help explain the Flynn Effect, which observes that IQ rose about 3 points per decade in developed countries throughout the 20th century. It’s been thought that improved health and nutrition were the driving forces of the Flynn Effect. Now, it appears that iodine alone was responsible for roughly one decade of that remarkable climb. All the more reason, then, for the rest of the world to follow suit and relegate iodine deficiency to the history books.

The economists found that in the lowest-iodine areas—the bottom quarter of the study population—the introduction of iodized salt had stark effects. Men from these regions born in 1924 or later were significantly more likely to get into the Air Force and had an average IQ that was 15 points higher than their predecessors.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...ne-to-salt-boosted-americans-iq/#.XHLbDOhKiM8

The effects of iodine on intelligence in children: a meta-analysis of studies conducted in China.

Abstract
This study quantifies the effects of iodine on the intellectual development of children using a systematic manual literature search of Chinese publications related to iodine deficiency disorders. The Chinese Medical Reference Database, Medline, and Cochrane library were searched electronically in Chinese and English. Inclusion criteria included: studies conducted in China, comparing children (<16 ys) living in naturally iodine sufficient (IS) with those in severely iodine deficient (ID) areas, or children in ID areas born before and after the introduction of iodine supplementation. Intelligent Quotient (IQ) was measured using Binet or Raven Scales. The iodine sufficient control groups were comparable socially, economically, and educationally with the study groups. Random effects models were used in the meta-analysis. Effect size was the standard deviation IQ point (SIQP), which is equivalent to 15 IQ. Thirty-seven reported studies, total 12,291 children, were analysed. The effect size was an increase of 0.83, 0.82, and 0.32 SIQP respectively, for the children living in IS communities compared with those living in ID areas with no iodine supplementation, with inadequate iodine supplementation, or children who had received iodine during their mothers' pregnancy and after birth. These equal to 12.45, 12.3, 4.8 IQ points. Compared with that of children whose mothers were persistently exposed to ID, the total effect size of the 21 entries was an increase of 0.58 SIQP (8.7 IQ points) in the group receiving iodine supplementation during pregnancy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15734706

 
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213
<h2>1. What is the Flynn Effect?</h2><p>The Flynn Effect is a phenomenon where there is an increase in average intelligence scores over time. This has been observed in many countries and across different age groups.</p><h2>2. How are smart phones related to the Flynn Effect?</h2><p>There is a hypothesis that the use of smart phones and other technology may contribute to the Flynn Effect. This is because these devices provide access to a vast amount of information and can improve cognitive abilities such as problem-solving and critical thinking.</p><h2>3. Is there evidence to support the link between smart phones and the Flynn Effect?</h2><p>There have been studies that suggest a correlation between the use of technology, including smart phones, and improved cognitive abilities. However, more research is needed to determine a causal relationship.</p><h2>4. Are there any potential negative effects of smart phone use on intelligence?</h2><p>Some experts argue that the constant use of technology, including smart phones, may lead to a decrease in face-to-face interactions and social skills, which could have a negative impact on overall intelligence. However, this is a topic of debate and more research is needed.</p><h2>5. Can the Flynn Effect be solely attributed to smart phone use?</h2><p>No, the Flynn Effect is a complex phenomenon that is influenced by various factors such as education, nutrition, and environmental changes. While smart phone use may play a role, it is not the sole contributor to the Flynn Effect.</p>

1. What is the Flynn Effect?

The Flynn Effect is a phenomenon where there is an increase in average intelligence scores over time. This has been observed in many countries and across different age groups.

2. How are smart phones related to the Flynn Effect?

There is a hypothesis that the use of smart phones and other technology may contribute to the Flynn Effect. This is because these devices provide access to a vast amount of information and can improve cognitive abilities such as problem-solving and critical thinking.

3. Is there evidence to support the link between smart phones and the Flynn Effect?

There have been studies that suggest a correlation between the use of technology, including smart phones, and improved cognitive abilities. However, more research is needed to determine a causal relationship.

4. Are there any potential negative effects of smart phone use on intelligence?

Some experts argue that the constant use of technology, including smart phones, may lead to a decrease in face-to-face interactions and social skills, which could have a negative impact on overall intelligence. However, this is a topic of debate and more research is needed.

5. Can the Flynn Effect be solely attributed to smart phone use?

No, the Flynn Effect is a complex phenomenon that is influenced by various factors such as education, nutrition, and environmental changes. While smart phone use may play a role, it is not the sole contributor to the Flynn Effect.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
665
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
6
Views
544
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
9K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
4
Views
5K
Back
Top