re: As IQs Fall, Can Gamification Help?
Sorry it's taken so long to get back here; the system was not willing to believe I had previously existed and let me in, but when I tried to create a new i.d. it told me that I couldn't use any of my previous identity because it already existed, and it was rather a long run-around. So I'm actually the same John Barnes, and you probably shouldn't trust me ...
The Flynn Effect is about as real as anything in the human sciences can be; absolutely robust across at least five decades and in more than 60 nations, in both longitudinal and categorical studies. The falling IQs after so many decades of rising IQs obviously don't have as big a body of data, but it's been established by the same means.
Most people are very nervous about the idea of IQs changing in either direction (nobody wants to think the dang kids are going to be smarter than we are, but nobody wants to think idiots are going to be running our life support either), so there's a lot of denialism out there, with many, many people pulling explanations out and tossing them around. But distracting environments can be controlled for (and have been, in several good studies) and the rising IQs long precede home computers, television, and most other media. The falling IQs start too early to be the Internet (and they don't start in places where Internet or WWW connections first became common), but too late to be widespread computer access.
ADD has a fairly small effect on IQ because there are ways to administer IQ tests that compensate for it (that's part of how we know that there are some very bright people with ADD).
Flynn's explanation -- abstract categorization being deployed more and more for tasks for which it is less and less suitable, but being valorized as the "right" way due to cultural bias -- is harder to test, but at least fits the known data.