Clark, Lawlor-Savage, and Goghari (this issue) provide an interesting comment on the explanatory framework of generational IQ test score changes over time in the general population (i.e., the Flynn effect). They argue that IQ test score gains are not due to genuine ability increases in the general population but are rather manifestations of incidental training due to a more stimulating (technological) environment or changes in the way we approach problems because of novel forms of (social) interactions in our everyday living. While I disagree with them that a new definition of intelligence is necessary in order to understand the Flynn effect (the definition described by Gottfredson, 1997, which has been signed by 52 intelligence researchers does not conflict with what we know about the Flynn effect), I could not agree more with Clark and colleagues that it is necessary to be aware of what population IQ changes on different ability domains and specific tasks mean. To clarify these points, I will discuss (a) empirical evidence about strength and moderators, (b) what this means for different proposed explanations, and (c) likely future developments based on the accumulated evidence about the Flynn effect.