I've tried to submit this previously, and it didn't seem to "take". Here it is again:
--- The "scientific" [quotes and implication mine] results in the article are not particularly meaningful. Why?
Because I.Q. stands for "Intelligence Quotient". And so what, you say? So "Quotient" refers to a comparison between the individual's (or group of individuals') test results and the overall results of a broad, broad population against which the individual's results are to be scored.
In order for the I.Q. to be meaningful, the individual test must be scored against a standard representing the individual's own age group. (And more; see below) Thus, a ten-year-old student's results are scored against a contemporary ten-year-old population, rather than the general population. Why? Because it is assumed (rightly or not, see below) that ten-year-olds all have had comparable opportunity to learn, and thus any individual differences may be attributed to a built-in, innate ability we call intelligence. That comparison is then expressed as a number we call the Intelligence Quotient.
Now, if you compare say a twenty-year old's raw score against a standard derived from his own time, you just might have something meaningful. But if you compare it against a standard set up twenty years ago you have a mathematical monster which can mean nothing.
Why? Among other things, the variously negative and positive influences of the ubiquitous boob-tube. The variously negative and positive influence of the computer. The change in textbooks, positive or negative. The social/cultural effects of the omnipresent automobile. Weakening of the family. Lower standards in crowded schools. And on and on.
And finally, to say that the whole population's I.Q. rises at X rate over X time is meaningless by definition. Why? Because by definition the average of a population's I.Q. is 100. That's by definition, whether today or thirty years ago. To say that the I.Q. of the population rises necessarily means that the average I.Q. is rising, and that can't be because of the very nature of the concept of I.Q.
If you want to say that test-takers get better raw scores on the test instrument today that their parents would have thirty years ago, that's fine, if true. But each of those populations MUST have their quotients calculated against an equivalent population standard--mom and pop against the standard of thirty years ago, and junior against a standard based on contemporary society.
All of the above is, of course, ignoring the (to me) obvious fact that the underlying assumption of the I.Q. is wrong. It was wrong many years ago when the concept of I.Q. testing was formulated, and it is wrong today. Why would I say that? Because just because two students have each lived ten years, say from 1998 through 2008, does not mean that they have had the same or even an equivalent exposure to the world, and will not necessarily achieve the same raw score, even assuming they were born with the same inbuilt mental processing ability.
Getting back to O'Bama's brain, I'd just love to have in my head the processing power of that man's brain, whatever its color!