"At <a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hppbxV9C63g&amp;t=1h54m30s"">1:54:30</a> the 'Flynn Effect'  is believed to be IQ raising historically across the board due to positive changes in the environment as a whole--significantly enough to require consistent recalibrations to IQ tests?  Doesn't that conflict with Haier's belief that environmental factors are negligible in comparison to genetics?  The compensatory approach in the 60s could have been well intentioned", but flawed due to a number of factors.  Not knowing the standards held by the participants, governance and quality assurance/feedback the approach could have failed for a number of reasons.   The guest has stated that environmental changes during the prenatal period can be influential, so perhaps this goes beyond to things like the physical and mental health/wellbeing of the parents, access to healthcare and nutrition before the child is born etc..,(reply>), @nehorlavazapalka no, the Flynn effect didn’t really do much at the upper end of the spectrum. It mostly lifted people at the bottom. You are right about “hackable” tests, of course.,(reply>), @nehorlavazapalka If the environmental effects are  uniform and at the same time the environment benefits (access to proper nutrition, healthcare, mental health, etc..) are proportionally lower in some groups, it is possible that stable consistent improvements in these areas could make a difference.,(reply>), The Flynn effect acts only on some subtests and +/- uniformly on the entire population (btw proving that black culture isn't isolated at all). Most of the gains were on easily hackable and trainable subtest, most already leaked to the public. Some subtests and many skills weren't affected at all in the last 100 years - mostly those that are hard to train and not hackable. For example. children today are about 2 years ahead in math and reading due to the FE but the overall maximum perfromance (level of math competence) in young adulthood is almost exactly the same.