The Great Endumbening(slate.com)
slate.com
The Great Endumbening
https://slate.com/technology/2018/09/iq-scores-going-down-research-flynn-effect.html
80 comments
That could readily explain the drop in IQ for younger siblings: Their older brother clued them in on this detail.
Outside of environmental factors, social factors should also be considered.
Oversimplified: Maybe everyone is being too safe and not exposing children to stimuli that promote better development.
I suspect several factors are contributing to this. 1) As more toys are discovered to be 'dangerous' or 'have small parts' children have less exposure to complex objects or it is deferred to later ages. 2) Adults have less, or are less inclined to, time to properly care for children and thus don't understand that judgement and supervision can allow 'supervised' use of toys that can be dangerous if not properly used, but would be fine if used while supervised. 3) I wonder how strongly this correlates to all parents within child rearing units being in the workforce (single parents, dual income parents, etc)? 4) Or how it relates to decreasing access to natural areas to explore as a child?
These are only some of the social influences that could also be part of the cause.
Oversimplified: Maybe everyone is being too safe and not exposing children to stimuli that promote better development.
I suspect several factors are contributing to this. 1) As more toys are discovered to be 'dangerous' or 'have small parts' children have less exposure to complex objects or it is deferred to later ages. 2) Adults have less, or are less inclined to, time to properly care for children and thus don't understand that judgement and supervision can allow 'supervised' use of toys that can be dangerous if not properly used, but would be fine if used while supervised. 3) I wonder how strongly this correlates to all parents within child rearing units being in the workforce (single parents, dual income parents, etc)? 4) Or how it relates to decreasing access to natural areas to explore as a child?
These are only some of the social influences that could also be part of the cause.
> 2) Adults have less, or are less inclined to, time to properly care for children
Rather the opposite, I suspect: the amount of time (well-off) adults spend tutoring, coaching, and otherwise interacting with their kids has gone through the roof in the past few decades.
When I was a kid (in Europe), both my parents worked. Starting in first grade, I walked to and from school unsupervised and was responsible for keeping myself entertained in the afternoons until they got home, which generally meant roaming the neighborhood with a pack of friends. This is pretty much inconceivable today.
Rather the opposite, I suspect: the amount of time (well-off) adults spend tutoring, coaching, and otherwise interacting with their kids has gone through the roof in the past few decades.
When I was a kid (in Europe), both my parents worked. Starting in first grade, I walked to and from school unsupervised and was responsible for keeping myself entertained in the afternoons until they got home, which generally meant roaming the neighborhood with a pack of friends. This is pretty much inconceivable today.
I had the opposite upbringing, in that one of my parents was always home (at least until later in life when I was more self-sufficient); nowadays you can't seem to make ends meet or own a house unless both parents are working.
I mean I'm the age my dad was when his third child was coming and I was only able to buy a reasonable house last year. He / they were able to buy a bigger house, newly built, with more land on a single, low income wage and a 12.5% interest mortgage nearly 40 years ago.
I mean I'm the age my dad was when his third child was coming and I was only able to buy a reasonable house last year. He / they were able to buy a bigger house, newly built, with more land on a single, low income wage and a 12.5% interest mortgage nearly 40 years ago.
I learned many lessons in nature, and it allowed my mind to light with imagination and curiosity.
Why isn’t this effect visible in America, then?
The summary of the study the article mentions and links to doesn't show if the trend is an average of some sort or if it's the result of a more self-selecting sample region.
Unfortunately between that and only having first-hand local culture knowledge, I am unqualified to speculate in a meaningful way about the differences in culture and environment.
Also, just because a trend is increasing does not also mean that there's an underlying masking effect or that there isn't overall convergence. Ideally at least similar studies would be performed on a global basis if a global comparison is occurring.
Unfortunately between that and only having first-hand local culture knowledge, I am unqualified to speculate in a meaningful way about the differences in culture and environment.
Also, just because a trend is increasing does not also mean that there's an underlying masking effect or that there isn't overall convergence. Ideally at least similar studies would be performed on a global basis if a global comparison is occurring.
From TFA:
"As Flynn and Shayer note, Scandinavian IQ declines might well presage future trends in other countries. It may be that, once we’ve made our schools as good as theirs, we’ll see our Flynn effect max out, and then whatever channels feed their anti-Flynn effect will show up in our data, too."
"As Flynn and Shayer note, Scandinavian IQ declines might well presage future trends in other countries. It may be that, once we’ve made our schools as good as theirs, we’ll see our Flynn effect max out, and then whatever channels feed their anti-Flynn effect will show up in our data, too."
Amazing that the same pet hypothesis can explain both rising and falling IQ.
Given how broad this effect, it seems like an amazingly good mechanism to attribute to a pet peeve of your choice: screen time, chemicals, lack of good old-fashioned memorization, boring playgrounds/toys, lousy education, lack of exercise, the decline and fall of practically everything, etc. Couple that to a golden opportunity for older people to self-praise ("In my day we weren't as dumb/sheltered/poisoned as you folks") and you have the perfect storm.
Making these fond arguments slightly more awkward is the fact that this effect doesn't seem to be happening in America, but I suppose all you youngsters lacked the attention span to read all the way to the end of the article. Now get the hell off my lawn.
Making these fond arguments slightly more awkward is the fact that this effect doesn't seem to be happening in America, but I suppose all you youngsters lacked the attention span to read all the way to the end of the article. Now get the hell off my lawn.
One day, in the far future, it will be discovered that ubiquitious plastic has profound but subtle effects on intelligence, fertility and general health. Amending that will be like moving out of the slow zone.
The roman civilization used lead pipes for drinking water.
The roman civilization used lead pipes for drinking water.
> Scarborough wrote that Nriagu's basic premise couldn't be trusted because of sloppy work. He also concluded that the Romans were aware of the harm lead could cause, that lead poisoning wasn't endemic in their society and that Rome did not fall because of it.
> Yet French researcher Hugo Delile and his team, reporting in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014, concluded that such concentrations were "unlikely to have been truly harmful." The group also claimed that enough criticism of Nriagu's theory had been amassed over three decades to largely debunk it.
> "Lead is no longer seen as the prime culprit of Rome’s demise," Delile wrote.
> Yet French researcher Hugo Delile and his team, reporting in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014, concluded that such concentrations were "unlikely to have been truly harmful." The group also claimed that enough criticism of Nriagu's theory had been amassed over three decades to largely debunk it.
> "Lead is no longer seen as the prime culprit of Rome’s demise," Delile wrote.
It wasn’t the pipes, it was the wine, which they sweetened with lead acetate. Delile’s paper only touches on water supply, rather than lead as a deliberate addition to diet.
The Romans used lead acetate to sweeten their wine. In comparison I don't think the lead pipes were a problem.
I suppose we could blame high fructose corn syrup, then.
Despite the harmful effects of lead, the Roman civilisation might well have been better off for it anyway. Did they have access to a more suitable material that wasn't prohibitively expensive?
(I legitimately don't know; maybe clay pipes would work?)
(I legitimately don't know; maybe clay pipes would work?)
Clay pipes did work. Lots of places in the empire had clay, even over long distances.
> The roman civilization used lead pipes for drinking water.
True, but the theory that this affected public health is a myth.
True, but the theory that this affected public health is a myth.
Do you have any supporting statements? I'm just curious.
Well, one potential way that one could determine if this could yet be down to environmental contaminants would be to look at diet.
Nordic and Northern European states have far more seafood, particularly bottom feeding seafood like plaice and sole, which are fantastic bioaccumulators of nastiness, in their diet than the average American [1] - and marine environments ultimately accumulate a large proportion of fun things like micro plastics, and therefore BPA and phthalates, which have been shown to have a negative impact on gestatory brain development. [2]
It would be illuminating to see what correlation exists, as it may well be causative.
[1] https://www.greenfacts.org/en/fisheries/figtableboxes/figure... [2] https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/common-plastic-chemicals-aff...
Nordic and Northern European states have far more seafood, particularly bottom feeding seafood like plaice and sole, which are fantastic bioaccumulators of nastiness, in their diet than the average American [1] - and marine environments ultimately accumulate a large proportion of fun things like micro plastics, and therefore BPA and phthalates, which have been shown to have a negative impact on gestatory brain development. [2]
It would be illuminating to see what correlation exists, as it may well be causative.
[1] https://www.greenfacts.org/en/fisheries/figtableboxes/figure... [2] https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/common-plastic-chemicals-aff...
Your link only shows total fish protein, not bottom feeders. Fish such as plaice and sole form a miniscule portion of the Nordic cuisine, and is mostly favored by older people anyway (anecdotal, don't have numbers).
Excellent point. I'm just going to get out in front of it and claim that nostalgia is the cause.
And ignoring how we have access to several orders of magnitude more knowledge, and not just 'we' as in 'we westerners' but all around the world, billions of people are getting connected to the internet and the vast array of knowledge (and cat pictures) that's available there.
I don't know about people getting dumber, I'd argue people are getting broader in terms of knowledge (and inane knowledge, and cat pictures). However, overall as humanity we're growing in knowledge at an enormous rate, with financial measures like GDP to follow (see e.g. China whose GDP multiplied several times over in the past 30 years).
I don't know about people getting dumber, I'd argue people are getting broader in terms of knowledge (and inane knowledge, and cat pictures). However, overall as humanity we're growing in knowledge at an enormous rate, with financial measures like GDP to follow (see e.g. China whose GDP multiplied several times over in the past 30 years).
[deleted]
My own personal hypothesis on this: it's clear that one skill that used to be important is now much less important, and that's memory. When I was a kid I remembered dozens of phone numbers, now I know about 3. My fear, though, is that other higher order thinking skills are still very dependent on memory, and as we need to exercise our memory less frequently, other parts of our cognitive abilities suffer.
I imagine if you peeked over a teenager's shoulder as they went about their routine phone habits you'd have little idea what was going on through all the memes, inside jokes, cultural references, and slang. I have a hard time believing our ability to memorize is so rigid that it peaked in the period after operators routed calls and before phone books, rolodexes, and contact lists in flip phones. We just put memory to different uses throughout time.
> We just put memory to different uses throughout time.
I agree. Just look how many site names, youtube channels, game rules, game item stats, memes, pokemon names (is that still a thing?), anime slang, etc. young people can memorize.
No /s, I am serious.
I agree. Just look how many site names, youtube channels, game rules, game item stats, memes, pokemon names (is that still a thing?), anime slang, etc. young people can memorize.
No /s, I am serious.
Sure, but it's plausible that kind of memory is measured differently. It's been decades since I took an IQ test, but one component was "digit span", where they'd give you longer and longer strings of arbitrary digits and see where you couldn't keep up. As someone programming before copy/paste that was a skill I practiced all the time, so I was freakishly good at it.
There’s a long tradition of speculating about this going back to Socrates, who famously never wrote because he considered it lazy when memory is the real strength of intellect.
I also don’t think that Socrates would have been any stupider had he learned to write, and it’s only through Plato we have a record of him at all.
I also don’t think that Socrates would have been any stupider had he learned to write, and it’s only through Plato we have a record of him at all.
His argument is that a man who always walks with crutches will have his legs atrophy and that writing is a crutch for memory.
He was also worried because written words can’t challenge you. If you read something and _think_ you understand it but actually do not, the book can’t quiz you on it and tell you you’re wrong. He was worried about people gaining false senses of knowledge, and losing the ability to critically analyze and defend ideas.
I attribute that to the lack of boredom in young people. When I was young I was bored at least from time to time. This led to doing mischief but also to use the brain and invent something entertaining to waste time.
Now distractions are all around us (play stations and TV on demand) or with us (smart phones). No more need for being imaginative.
There is also this interesting correlation of declining crime rate which can be attributed to kids wasting time with play stations rather than hanging out in the street.
have discussed this with close friends. In the past we perceived that and considered declining intelligence as an assumption, with recent articles like that it seems to be a fact.
Now distractions are all around us (play stations and TV on demand) or with us (smart phones). No more need for being imaginative.
There is also this interesting correlation of declining crime rate which can be attributed to kids wasting time with play stations rather than hanging out in the street.
have discussed this with close friends. In the past we perceived that and considered declining intelligence as an assumption, with recent articles like that it seems to be a fact.
So why is this happening in Scandinavia but not in the US? Doesn't the US have just as many play stations and smartphones?
It's hinted in the article,
Basically, as this is an average for societies, the average environmental factors are better in Scandinavia than in America. But those factors already peaked, and now are starting a downwards trend:
>The authors note several possible factors, among them worsening health and nutrition, a decline in the quality of education, detrimental changes to media exposure, and the indirect effects of immigration.
OTOH, America's average environmental factors are still improving, so, it's still on the rise:
> It may be that, once we’ve made our schools as good as theirs, we’ll see our Flynn effect max out, and then whatever channels feed their anti-Flynn effect will show up in our data, too.
Basically, as this is an average for societies, the average environmental factors are better in Scandinavia than in America. But those factors already peaked, and now are starting a downwards trend:
>The authors note several possible factors, among them worsening health and nutrition, a decline in the quality of education, detrimental changes to media exposure, and the indirect effects of immigration.
OTOH, America's average environmental factors are still improving, so, it's still on the rise:
> It may be that, once we’ve made our schools as good as theirs, we’ll see our Flynn effect max out, and then whatever channels feed their anti-Flynn effect will show up in our data, too.
So again a pet hypothesis which can explain both rising and falling IQ. So what observation could theoretically disprove this hypothesis?
Note that you can state exactly the opposite hypothesis and still claim the numbers support it. The use of gaming consoles and smartphones improve IQ, but this effect have maxed out in Scandinavia.
Note that you can state exactly the opposite hypothesis and still claim the numbers support it. The use of gaming consoles and smartphones improve IQ, but this effect have maxed out in Scandinavia.
Is it just me or was the knee-jerk 'racism!' on everything immigration-related in the article off-putting? I mean, is it racist to say that immigration might cause a decline of average intelligence, if it's clear that there are physical factors in play in the countries where the immigrants come from that could cause a decreased iq (lower nutrition etc, as noted in the article)? I'm not claiming that it's the case, but the prima facie dismissal of any theory like it because 'it's racist!' that anything might be influenced by immigration made the whole piece feel just very intellectually dishonest.
Again, just to be clear and lest I'll get dragged down into 'you're racist' myself, I'm not claiming one way or the other. My point is that apparently some conclusions are off-limits from the start; any evidence in that direction must be wrong because of the conclusion it leads to. It's this sort of thing that makes real racists go 'see how we're being censored'.
Again, just to be clear and lest I'll get dragged down into 'you're racist' myself, I'm not claiming one way or the other. My point is that apparently some conclusions are off-limits from the start; any evidence in that direction must be wrong because of the conclusion it leads to. It's this sort of thing that makes real racists go 'see how we're being censored'.
I don't think we can rule out an evolutionary explanation so quickly. We are starting to get firm genetic evidence that something like dysgenics is occurring in Iceland, for example:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/10/1612113114
There is also a plausible mechanism of action, intelligent people tend to get an education proportionate to their intelligence. Educated people have ridiculously low birth rates. Intelligence is heritable.
Just like conservatives will have to overcome their global warming denial, those of the progressive tradition may well have to start accepting what cognitive genomics is making increasingly obvious: intelligence is hereditary and this has policy implications.
Should it prove to be a genetic decline, we have solutions, such as embryo selection, in the wings that can work now with little research. This will get us ~3-8 IQ points per generation:https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection
Iterated embryo selection and genetic engineering will be able to offer much more, several standard deviations in multiple traits simultaneously.
But we cannot repair problems we refuse to look in the face.
There is also a plausible mechanism of action, intelligent people tend to get an education proportionate to their intelligence. Educated people have ridiculously low birth rates. Intelligence is heritable.
Just like conservatives will have to overcome their global warming denial, those of the progressive tradition may well have to start accepting what cognitive genomics is making increasingly obvious: intelligence is hereditary and this has policy implications.
Should it prove to be a genetic decline, we have solutions, such as embryo selection, in the wings that can work now with little research. This will get us ~3-8 IQ points per generation:https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection
Iterated embryo selection and genetic engineering will be able to offer much more, several standard deviations in multiple traits simultaneously.
But we cannot repair problems we refuse to look in the face.
> Intelligence is heritable
I believe parent is getting downvotes because of this, but this isn't a matter of opinion or social science. It's hard quantitative genetics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
This is the crux of any inter-generational change in average intelligence in a population. Human assortative mating patterns and the inverse relationship between intelligence and fertility account for some of the effect and some is due to shifts in the gene pool. While we can't and shouldn't discount environmental effects (goodbye lead paint!), the latest genetics research tells us that only 15-25% of variation in intelligence can be attributed to the environment.
I believe parent is getting downvotes because of this, but this isn't a matter of opinion or social science. It's hard quantitative genetics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
This is the crux of any inter-generational change in average intelligence in a population. Human assortative mating patterns and the inverse relationship between intelligence and fertility account for some of the effect and some is due to shifts in the gene pool. While we can't and shouldn't discount environmental effects (goodbye lead paint!), the latest genetics research tells us that only 15-25% of variation in intelligence can be attributed to the environment.
>15-25%
Citation, please?
Citation, please?
Click the wikipedia link I shared in the post you're replying to.
But how does assortative mating account for it? One would then expect at least neutral relationship between fertility and intelligence.
Smart people tend to reproduce with other smart people, but they reproduce an awful lot less. Interestingly, smart people having low fertility is a rather recent phenomenon. Lots of famous scientists came from huge broods.
famous scientists are probably exceptional enough to not be accounted into statistics. The questions is why they breed less.
> We have solutions, such as embryo selection , in the wings that can work now with little research. This will get us 3-8 IQ points per generation.
Can you provide some links to support this? I wasn't aware a trait as complex as intelligence was anywhere close to being selectable in embryos. You name a very specific "3-8 IQ points ours generation" though so I'm assuming you got this value from somewhere.
Can you provide some links to support this? I wasn't aware a trait as complex as intelligence was anywhere close to being selectable in embryos. You name a very specific "3-8 IQ points ours generation" though so I'm assuming you got this value from somewhere.
See gwern's write up: https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection
We can predict roughly 16% of the variance in IQ.
We can predict roughly 16% of the variance in IQ.
The article cites a recent study showing the IQ decline in pairs of siblings starting at the same time as the broader observed decline happened.
for every such study there are probably 10 twin studies showing that intelligence is heritable.
Heritable and genetically determined are not the same thing, and the findings of these kinds of studies are less clear-cut than you suggest:
> In all of these twin studies, however, researchers have rarely accounted for differences in the social context.
...
> Highlighting the insights of Kurt Lewin more than 70 years after his work, the researchers found that socioeconomic background had a major impact on genetic influences on intelligence: More specifically, when twins were reared in high socioeconomic status environments, genes accounted for approximately 72% of variance in intelligence scores between twins. When reared in low socioeconomic status environments, genes accounted for only about 8% of variance in intelligence within the twin pairs.
Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/under-the-influence/...
> In all of these twin studies, however, researchers have rarely accounted for differences in the social context.
...
> Highlighting the insights of Kurt Lewin more than 70 years after his work, the researchers found that socioeconomic background had a major impact on genetic influences on intelligence: More specifically, when twins were reared in high socioeconomic status environments, genes accounted for approximately 72% of variance in intelligence scores between twins. When reared in low socioeconomic status environments, genes accounted for only about 8% of variance in intelligence within the twin pairs.
Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/under-the-influence/...
I used to subscribe to this kind of simple genetic determinism.
I've since had cause to pursue a path in life in which I've become deeply aware of the other influences on intellect, cognition and judgement, which include the emotional environment (trauma, abuse, chronic fear/anxiety) and the nutritional and chemical environments.
From researching this topic extensively over several years, I'm confident in the belief that even if embryo selection were to help at all, it won't help enough to overcome these other factors.
Conversely, there’s a lot than can be done to help people improve their cognitive ability, regardless of their genetics, by altering these environmental factors.
I've since had cause to pursue a path in life in which I've become deeply aware of the other influences on intellect, cognition and judgement, which include the emotional environment (trauma, abuse, chronic fear/anxiety) and the nutritional and chemical environments.
From researching this topic extensively over several years, I'm confident in the belief that even if embryo selection were to help at all, it won't help enough to overcome these other factors.
Conversely, there’s a lot than can be done to help people improve their cognitive ability, regardless of their genetics, by altering these environmental factors.
See:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325704105_Flynn_eff...
Although there is still one possible genetic cause, which is people (both women and men; in fact, some studies show the effect is stronger for men: https://www.nature.com/articles/gim200868) having children later in life.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325704105_Flynn_eff...
Although there is still one possible genetic cause, which is people (both women and men; in fact, some studies show the effect is stronger for men: https://www.nature.com/articles/gim200868) having children later in life.
Or, the things the tests select for are gradually falling out of favor in our education system and society at large. Pollutants don’t seem like an unreasonable hypothesis either, though.
Pollution might make sense if the decline was measured worldwide, but it's localized to Northern Europe, where pollution has generally declined over the last several decades.
Forgive my impudence, but why does this matter?
I have barely managed to come to terms that I will never accomplish anything of value in my life. I suspect this is true for most people. As a society, we inherently value diligence and hard work over intelligence because most labor implies more of the former than the latter.
The elites will still be elites. The general population gets a little dumber over time on average, but this matters very little.
I have barely managed to come to terms that I will never accomplish anything of value in my life. I suspect this is true for most people. As a society, we inherently value diligence and hard work over intelligence because most labor implies more of the former than the latter.
The elites will still be elites. The general population gets a little dumber over time on average, but this matters very little.
"Never memorize something that you can look up."
We've outsourced memorising facts to knowing how to google it. Factor in calculators, spelling and grammar checkers - yoy can outsource a lot of memorising.
Which doesn't help when you're sitting an IQ test.
We've outsourced memorising facts to knowing how to google it. Factor in calculators, spelling and grammar checkers - yoy can outsource a lot of memorising.
Which doesn't help when you're sitting an IQ test.
I saw a Sherlock Holmes quote on here once, I liked it and I think it's relevant to your comment so I'll post it here.
"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."
"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."
Elsewhere Conan Doyle had Holmes explain that he did not know, or care, whether the Sun circled the Earth or vice-versa, because that fact was irrelevant for his activity.
While it is "arguing from fictional evidence", there's something here about why "personal growth" annoys me.
You'll find no end of people talking about things they do for their personal growth - an ongoing, endless growth. Exactly as if they have elastic walls and eidetic memories. (and no particular goal to grow towards, so they know when to stop, but that's another topic)
You'll find no end of people talking about things they do for their personal growth - an ongoing, endless growth. Exactly as if they have elastic walls and eidetic memories. (and no particular goal to grow towards, so they know when to stop, but that's another topic)
Excellent quote, thanks
Grammar checkers being perhaps the most malign of the lot. When I swipe o,f,i,t,s into Google keyboard now, out comes "Of it's". The alternatives bar does not even present "its". Even single-tapping i,t,s results in auto-corruption to "it's".
So syntactic distinction between the possessive and the contraction is being driven to extinction, by Google's half-smart AI.
So syntactic distinction between the possessive and the contraction is being driven to extinction, by Google's half-smart AI.
Time to update the tests. They are culture specific. If they aren't geared to modern life, they are no longer valid.
Dropping some of the language questions would counter the Google effect.
That would weigh it more towards logical, spatial, pattern identification and classification (stay clear of colours) type questions.
That would weigh it more towards logical, spatial, pattern identification and classification (stay clear of colours) type questions.
Creating good IQ tests is complicated. It's been years since I hung out in places where such was discussed in earnest on a regular basis, but I doubt it is quite that simple.
What if the sperm counts cause the IQ drop or vice versa?It's not clear how much of this research is male-only. I wonder if testosterone levels link the two.
The great endumbening is that we're still trying to measure intelligence with this IQ thing.
Works well enough for all practical applications, and we don't have anything better.
Why is it so many otherwise bright-enough individuals persist in the dogma that any single integer can meaningfully aggregate all the vastly diverse skills of a human brain -- when they would hesitate to do the same with an object as simple as a bottle of red wine?
This remains to me a deep mystery of human psychology, one I've pondered off and on for some years now.
This remains to me a deep mystery of human psychology, one I've pondered off and on for some years now.
We've been slowly transitioned from a life of creativism and questioning to a life of consumerism.
We're already cretins.
We're already cretins.
What else is there to do? Everyone is a creator now, and their creations never go away. Right up until the year 19nntp or so, your written creations were either adding to the world or they went out of print and were forgotten. Until the year 19youtube or so, your musical contributions either added to the world or they went out of production and were lost to the aether.
Now, everything is an endless library-cum-sewer filled with content, you can never run out of it, you can't clear out "worse" things, you can't meaningfully filter it - only on a superficial keyword match or vote score.
What point is there to be creative to add a drop to this ocean of content?
Why be creative when society says the purpose of it is to get followers and extract coins from them, and nothing more?
Now, everything is an endless library-cum-sewer filled with content, you can never run out of it, you can't clear out "worse" things, you can't meaningfully filter it - only on a superficial keyword match or vote score.
What point is there to be creative to add a drop to this ocean of content?
Why be creative when society says the purpose of it is to get followers and extract coins from them, and nothing more?
Been around the world and found
That only stupid people are breeding
The cretins cloning and feeding
And I don't even own a tv
If you do well on the test, you might get assigned to officer training which means an extra 6 months of service. Many people intentionally answer wrong to get home earlier. I certainly did.
Apart from that, I do believe there is a grain of truth in the article.