Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by SpacePete, Jun 8, 2016.
Yep, that too!
^ I missed it. What breakup? Link?
A one sided forum bromance, like CJ's amorous advances towards SammySilver.
I think that you will find that while they appear to about maths they are actually not, they are about pattern recognition.
Without looking at the study in detail it is hard to conclude. To begin with, the dailymail notoriously incites to hypochondriasis using flimsy and specious science.
The Hartford Uni website reveals that the drop according to their metrics from the 1950s to now is a *whopping* 3 points.
Perhaps this matters more at the tails of the intellectual spectrum, rather logarithmic at the ends and sigmoidal in the centre. It is a major advance to be able to make meaningful grunts for example. At the other end, a mastermind bent on world domination might have the decisive edge.
The study is actually quite hilarious, probably as intended, with gems such as:
"Evidence found by doctors states that another possible explanation for the decline in average I.Q. is via blood transfusions They found that the blood not only carried a small amount of the person but it also carried the information that allowed them to think. They did a transfusion between two people, one was intellectually very advanced and the other was one person who was considerably lower on the I.Q. ladder. The recipients of the blood became confused over time and their ability to maintain their previous level of I.Q. was indeed noted to be in jeopardy"
The graph boldly extrapolates a further drop of world average IQ to 84 from its present calculation of 88. If it truly is 88 now then we really should be careful with our immigration policy as ours is higher and importing stupid people "because equalism" is well, pretty stupid, imo.
Bear in mind this study is by a professor of sociology.
One would think an academic in that discipline would point out that since the 1950s life expectancy has mushroomed by about 10 years.
This alone would skew IQ as it declines over age, peaking perhaps in our 20s to 30s. It may be more relevant to examine subtests on the IQ standard tests as they probably change over the lifespan.
The idea of racially based test differences is maybe too loaded a question for a British public university academic in the arts faculty, all the more so given unguarded discussion could lead to imprisonment due to draconian legislation, let alone the clearly calculated mass immigration of potentially offended types in the last twenty years.
It needs hardly said again that one of the two Nobel prize winners for the discovery of DNA lost his university position for even arguing that fact, with evidence. It simply can't be discussed nowadays in the place it should, university.
This is unfortunate, as it probably needs to be clarified. Europoids have declined in population percentage quite substantially in the last 100 years and now face minoritisation within decades in most of the West. However, east Asian popuations have exploded, due to "populate or perish" policies in the Cold War era.
Popular theory suggests East Asians are on average higher IQ than Europoids, so logically, world IQ should have increased, if that was a dominant and real variable, and Asians are not cheating on their exams.
More likely, imo, higher IQ people in historical times in the West were selectively advantaged to breed. They were more successful and had more children. The less successful had offspring that died more frequently. This is correlated to the Industrial Revolution in Europe.
Nowadays, with advances in obstetrics and early life care, as well as cradle to grave social welfare, lower IQ families are more likely to see their offspring mature into reproducing adults. This is at a time when it is more expensive to place bright children in private school, leadig to less reproduction in those families more likely to produce intelligent children.
Less intelligent people are breeding like rabbits, in other words. This seems evident anyplace you go around Oz, either by religious or Darwinian imprimatur, all at the expense of the taxpayer. Can't say much about America, but online looks to be the same issues...
The orgin of IQ tests as you know then is deeply flawed. There are several other studies that indicate broader 'ability' is in decline though
The 'Victorians are smarter than us' story got a lot of media coverage but is based on reaction time (a different mechanism) and anthropology tells us that brain size has been declining since the invention of agriculture.
I wonder if we see in a more limited colour spectrum since the introduction of widespread and effective artificial lighting for example. Probably.
My personal tentative conclusion is that initially agriculture and then urbanisation leads to an evolutionary decline in 'ability' whether in rhetorical deduction or physical ability. Perhaps natures innate form of population management?
One of the distinguishing points of the Victorian era was a massive shift to an urbanised population.
To take 'ability' in terms of the fairly flat characteristics of a fighting unit as a beast of burden with high stamina etc. It is quite clear that a regular roman legionnaire was capable of what would be almost inconceivable in terms of stamina today, an example well illustrated by the British army being unable to find suitable fodder for the boer war due to the impact of urbanisation on their recruiting base.
One way or the other as a species it does seem there is evidence we are in decline when it comes to individual mental and physical ability, worldwide and without exception.
The trouble with all this is that testing over the last hundred years was often conducted with an agenda to reach a desired conclusion at the time rather than apply any scientific method.
Feral humans and for example the child of a family who were isolated in Siberia and developed the ability to chase deer on foot along with other direct observations makes me think much of the latent ability is still lurking beneath but it requires a developmental stage in the right environment to bring it to the fore. So some of the decline is permanent and genetic and some is 'short term' and due to developmental environment.
This is not childhood exposure to violence and trauma as that seems to lower ability. Natures blessing in making us comfortably numb in a hostile environment.
On a more general point any global society that culturally endorses the likes of jersey shore is clearly borderline intellectually disabled en mass.
Just spitballing, but I feel that all things being equal, an aging population will also lower the average. As the age expectency increases, and senior moments follow, then personal IQ also drops.
Some of the decline is permanent.............
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." Benjamin Franklin.
Are you *sure*?
Still more convincing than mono-arm
A better model UFO and a good soundtrack makes all the difference.
Farming to blame for our shrinking size and brains
"Looking at human fossil evidence for the past 200,000 years, Lahr looked at the size and structure of the bones and skulls found across Europe, Africa and Asia. What they discovered was that the largest Homo sapiens lived 20,000 to 30,000 years ago with an average weight between 176 and 188 pounds and a brain size of 1,500 cubic centimeters.
They discovered that some 10,000 years ago however, size started getting smaller both in stature and in brain size. Within the last 10 years, the average human size has changed to a weight between 154 and 176 pounds and a brain size of 1,350 cubic centimeters.
While large size remained static for close to 200,000 years, researchers believe the reduction in stature can be connected to a change from the hunter-gatherer way of life to that of agriculture which began some 9,000 years ago. "
"While the change to agriculture would have provided a plentiful crop of food, the limiting factor of farming may have created vitamin and mineral deficiencies and resulted in a stunted growth. Early Chinese farmers ate cereals such as rice which lacks the B vitamin niacin which is essential for growth.
Agriculture however does not explain the reduction in brain size. Lahr believes that this may be a result of the energy required to maintain larger brains. The human brain accounts for one quarter of the energy the body uses. This reduction in brain size however does not mean that modern humans are less intelligent. Human brains have evolved to work more efficiently and utilize less energy.
I think she's being a bit optimistic on the 'human brains have evolved to work more efficiently' as the decrease in reaction time from the Victorian era shows.
Bwahaha, and then further down the page on that link we have:
Fkn scientists, and we fund them?
Old Soul is on fire today. Quite a few quality posts....
Thanks for the Idiocrasy clips BTW. Had never heard of that movie before, but watched it with the wife (who loves even crappy grade comedies) last nite and got a few laughs. Nite ended well
So the human brain tripled up to from 2,000,000 to 200,000 years ago then stayed static until 10000 years ago and then began shrinking and we wound up with keeping up with the kardashians, Paris Hilton and technology adoption based on utility in pornographic distribution. This is not an IQ test.
Yes we should fund hard science, absolutely as our survival is dependent on technological advance and some semblance of moral equilibrium, we should probably consider withdrawing funding as species from Kayne West though.....as gay fish belong free in the ocean and not displayed doing tricks at MTV awards.
There is hope. kardashians is not yet in the spellchecker.
Yep, and the UN says eating meat causes cancer. Clearly agriculture, the industrial revolution and technology have been a positive for humanity. Who knows, in another million years we mightn't even need bodies or physical brains.
Not meat. Processed meat. No study has ever been carried out saying Fresh meat causes cancer unless consumed at a daily rate which would be improbable 10,000 years ago. Most omnivores and carnivores except those evolved as scavengers will naturally avoid meat that is not fresh. Meat eating is natural to us as the only other way to get vitamin B is dairy farming and we did not even consider doing that until 10,000 years ago.
You might enjoy Ian Banks. In one book he treats with a societies that invents virtual hell for the incarnations of the virtualised backups of neural states prior to death.
Now imagine an eternal virtual hell full of idiots with each batch of new arrivals stupider than the last.
Have you heard of the hologram theory of the universe?
Separate names with a comma.