18 replies to this topic

[nowayout]

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

[Nattzor]

The "problem" with this study is that there were 2 studies from the Victorian era, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that.

[Turnbuckle]

If we continue this trend of losing 14 IQ points per century, we better start building domestic robots to take care of us.

[nowayout]

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 nowayout, 25 May 2013 - 08:17 PM.

[brainslugged]

If we continue this trend of losing 14 IQ points per century, we better start building domestic robots to take care of us.

I am perfectly fine with this future.

[kylehere]

Full article here: https://dl.dropboxus...294/science.pdf

[nowayout]

I don't know about the quality of the results, but the rest of the article is poor. Their speculation about the cause seems to have an ideological agenda behind it that is somewhat ugly. They basically assume that, since the start of the 20th century, poor or uneducated people were just not smart or they wouldn't have been poor and uneducated, and that the smart people were rich and educated. It's really a laughably naïve kind of right wing point of view.

Edited by nowayout, 25 May 2013 - 11:48 PM.

[maxwatt]

Flynn effect contradicts.

[mait]

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.

I am also thinking about pollution but in larger terms: "psychological pollution" because of diminished social support and rising average stress level (http://usatoday30.us...time/55587296/1), industrial pollution in food and water and EMF pollution maybe. But I could be wrong here, this is just my hunch feeling. I am thinking the more reasonable explanation should be that the modern studies have more representative sample of general population, while Victorian era samples of experiments may had been from better well-off circles of society that may have resulted in a sample with mental abilities level higher than average.

I am absolutely shocked by this eugenics hypothesis being presented so rampantly w/o first considering other explanations. But as sad it is the eugenics movement is slowly coming back to being in its soft form (prenatal eugenics for example): http://www.edge.org/...se-detail/23838 and listen the second part of this lecture, where future prenatal eugenics in respect to risk of low IQ is quit clearly voiced out: http://www.youtube.c...?v=62jZENi1ed8.

Edited by mait, 26 May 2013 - 03:06 PM.

[maxwatt]

There are two factors involved in reaction time: muscle speed, and decision time. They can be separated but was this done in all of these papers?
As far as IQ, the Flynn effect -- increasing scores on IQ tests (such as the original SAT) over time. Interestingly, this effect appears to be stronger in the "genetically inferior" groups the paper mentions.

[Nattzor]

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"?

[nowayout]

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"?

Because in their data they include a bunch of other studies also showing the trend even if they ignored the Victorian ones; leaving out the two Victorian studies you don't like does not change the picture.

[Tom_]

The evidence is strongly in favor of IQ increasing. A decrease in reaction time since then could be because we are becoming progessivly less physically active and reaction time improving actions just aren't taking place.

[AOLministrator]

Exemplary for the scientific bullshit that seems to emerge recently. Imo they should ramp up the SAT difficulty to prevent such people from even getting a degree.

[Mind]

Idiocracy here we come, lol.

[Keizo]

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.

[Jembe]

Correlates with T decline, hmm.

[maxwatt]

Also correlates with DDE (DDT breakdown product) and PCBs in body fat.

[StevesPetRat]

dT/dt != 1.