Better Nutrition as a Possible Mechanism for the Flynn Effect

Here.

Developmental gains at age 0-2 mirror Flynn IQ rises. This rules out test-taking effect, education, etc. as causes and suggests better nutrition.

A high correlation was found between increased developmental gains in recent years and the Flynn Effect. In other words, the FE is already operating from ages 0-2. That is too early for education or many other environmental effects to take place and the only reasonable explanation for Flynn-like gains at such a very early age is better nutrition. Furthermore, education is ruled out as is test-taking or practice effects, as infants don’t practice taking tests. Better test-taking skills has been suggested as a reason for the FE, but there seems to be a lot of good evidence that this is not true. Furthermore, infants get no formal education, so education cannot be a possible source of these early gains.

Also the theory that the Flynn Effect represents “hollow gains” and not any real increase in intelligence is laid to rest here. Developmental gains means that children are reaching real developmental milestones faster and better than they were before. The only way that could possibly be interpreted is as an intelligence increase. It’s not a “hollow gain” to for an infant to reach developmental milestones faster and better than they did earlier. If children are reaching these milestones better and sooner than they were before, that can only be possible if they are definitely smarter.

I always thought there was nothing to this “hollow gains” nonsense, and this is more evidence of that.

Conclusion: The Flynn Effect is real and appears to represent an actual intelligence increase, possibly related to better nutrition. It seems reasonable that better nutrition would make better brains, and that may be what is occurring.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

0 thoughts on “Better Nutrition as a Possible Mechanism for the Flynn Effect”

  1. That is too early for education or many other environmental effects

    Yes because children are not inundated with televisions and electronic media from day 1. /garbage.

    1. Hey Swank. You need to read the comments rules. You can’t say that what I write is garbage. That’s an insulting ad hominem and that’s not allowed towards me.

      The rules also allow me to insult you all I want to while you can’t insult me back. LOL, goddamn I love this blog.

  2. Interesting…people have got taller through better nutrition so it makes sense that their brains might have got either bigger or better….seems like the simplest explanation.

    have brains got bigger?

    Could also be something to do with a decrease in baby disease and illness.

    I wonder why the increase is in specific areras and not across the board ie in g…? That’s corect isn’t it?

    1. I am not sure if brains have gotten bigger at all. It is a good question.

      Not sure why it is not across the board in g if it is due to better nutrition and you are correct that it is not across the board in g.

      1. Brain have indeed got bigger. Better nutrition have affected size of all the part of the organism, including brain.

      2. The correlation between IQ and height is 0.2 for the simple reason that some genes affect all the body including brain. And nutrients affect all the body, as these genes do.

  3. Iodine supplementation played a huge role.

    Also, better management of infectious diseases that wreak havoc on developing nervous systems, elimination of heavy metals from products, discouraging smoking and consumption of alcohol by pregnant women, shaming of beating children that can cause traumatic head injuries.

    There’s just been too many studies on how all the aforementioned can impair IQ for the effect to be purely the product of training.

    1. Yeah exactly, what nutrition is there in Africa? I remember someone in the Phillippines, saying vitamins were expensive there.

  4. Children have hormonal imbalances and many inflammatory disorders nowadays. Degenerative diseases or aging conditions occur to people younger and younger. It seems a stretch to think nutrition is improving and increasing intelligence that way. It would make a difference, which could be a major factor in cultural differences.

    DHA in the brain is positively correlated to reaction time. Here is another interesting paper:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23206328
    *A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution

  5. Considering the strong evidence of nutirition and education, why do these white nationalists keep insisting on genetics? it’s because they’re brainwashed.

    1. Why are white countries/cities/neighborhoods better, cleaner, less violent? Conversely, why are Blacks violent and destructive, regardless of century or continent? From Haiti to South Africa to Baltimore–and Ferguson twice!
      If it was just nutrition, shouldn’t nonwhites have stopped being violently stupid by now?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.