A meta analysis showing visual reaction times, a marker of innate intelligence, declining by about 30% over the past century, from about 210 in 1920 to about 270 today.
http://www.upi.com/H...pt=hs&or=hn
Posted 25 May 2013 - 07:12 PM
Posted 25 May 2013 - 07:51 PM
Posted 25 May 2013 - 08:09 PM
Posted 25 May 2013 - 08:12 PM
The "problem" with this study is that there were 2 studies from the Victorian era, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that.
Edited by nowayout, 25 May 2013 - 08:17 PM.
Posted 25 May 2013 - 10:03 PM
I am perfectly fine with this future.If we continue this trend of losing 14 IQ points per century, we better start building domestic robots to take care of us.
Posted 25 May 2013 - 11:46 PM
Edited by nowayout, 25 May 2013 - 11:48 PM.
Posted 26 May 2013 - 01:51 AM
Posted 26 May 2013 - 02:50 PM
The "problem" with this study is that there were 2 studies from the Victorian era, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that.
No, if you read the paper you will see that they take into account many studies over the course of more than a century. A link to the full PDF of study is in this article: http://news.yahoo.co...-180634194.html
An interesting question would be why. I don't buy their eugenics hypothesis. Maybe pollution has something to do with it.
Edited by mait, 26 May 2013 - 03:06 PM.
Posted 26 May 2013 - 04:08 PM
Posted 29 May 2013 - 07:21 PM
The "problem" with this study is that there were 2 studies from the Victorian era, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that.
No, if you read the paper you will see that they take into account many studies over the course of more than a century. A link to the full PDF of study is in this article: http://news.yahoo.co...-180634194.html
An interesting question would be why. I don't buy their eugenics hypothesis. Maybe pollution has something to do with it.
Posted 29 May 2013 - 09:50 PM
The "problem" with this study is that there were 2 studies from the Victorian era, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that.
No, if you read the paper you will see that they take into account many studies over the course of more than a century. A link to the full PDF of study is in this article: http://news.yahoo.co...-180634194.html
An interesting question would be why. I don't buy their eugenics hypothesis. Maybe pollution has something to do with it.
http://i.imgur.com/Tj9Fcrp.png - There are two studies from the Victorian era. So why did you write "no"?
Posted 29 May 2013 - 09:55 PM
Posted 02 June 2013 - 07:23 PM
Posted 27 May 2014 - 06:39 PM
Flynn effect contradicts.
Yes it would be horrible to consolidate the Flynn effect with these Satanic suggestions. What monstrous off-spring would be produced but the great Devil himself?
Edited by Keizo, 27 May 2014 - 06:41 PM.
Posted 27 May 2014 - 07:06 PM
Correlates with T decline, hmm.
Posted 27 May 2014 - 11:43 PM
Also correlates with DDE (DDT breakdown product) and PCBs in body fat.
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:43 AM
dT/dt != 1.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users