>>12619087Thanks for actually posting the research articles.
I'm not going to thoroughly read them. Going off the abstracts and a little bit of reading it seems that the original objection is that the flynn effect hasn't yet occurred in sub-saharan africa. The flynn effect is usually attributed to the quality of health care in a country. For example, the average burden of infectious and parasitic diseases is correlated strongly with average IQ of a country. So their argument seems to be that comparing sub-saharan africa with high infectious disease burdens with rich western countries with low infectious disease burdens needs a reasonable correction. It seems their contention is that lynn hasn't corrected properly.
Lynn responds without fully addressing the point, and claims that the objectors selected elite samples of subsaharan africans.
Both arguments are reasonable. They don't really contradict each other at all. One is saying, if you do this correction to the data you get X result. The other says, the correction I did is fine, and X is based on an unrepresentative sample; a representative sample will produce Y.
What does this highlight? The complexity of the topic, and the difficulty in doing such research. When it comes to more rigorous science, you can control most variables, and you don't have to do some difficult-to-gauge correction.
The answer to "how do i interpret this conflict?" is: If you care enough about this topic, go get a phd and do research yourself. Otherwise, you probably won't be able to resolve this conflict. Grey areas are frequent in academic research, sorry if you can't handle that
