4 ms·

There seems to be a lot of negative bias around IQ tests based on social stigma. IQ tests are far from perfect and I think everyone agrees they are a woeful in

There seems to be a lot of negative bias around IQ tests based on social stigma. IQ tests are far from perfect and I think everyone agrees they are a woeful indicator of success. However, I think improving IQ testing for the purposes of documenting human evolution is just as important as documenting fluctuations in disease, addiction, obesity and the like. For example, there has been considerable scientific research that points to a noteable increase in IQ in America in the twenties due to increased iodine intake. If we are in-fact getting less intelligent, I think it would behove us to purse potential causes.

cm2187 8y ago
And it would be interesting too to correlate it with analysis of our DNA.
Lio 8y ago
It would be interesting to see how chemicals leached from plastics introduced in the 70s affect IQ. Then I guess you could also look at the removal of lead from car exhaust gases, (generally considered a good thing). I couldn’t read the full article due to the paywall and there’s no nice way to put this bit but is the drop in score due to a decline in the number of people with high IQ or because people with low IQ are surviving longer in childhood where previously they might not?
dnomad 8y ago
> IQ tests are far from perfect and I think everyone agrees they are a woeful indicator of success. I don't know many people that agree with this. At least in my bubble, the great majority regard IQ tests as bunk and the rest regard IQ as just a very roundabout way of measuring the education level of a child's parents. (There's some disagreement whether the father's level of education is the most important factor [1] or the mother's education level is [2]).) It's only in a select few internet forums dominated by a select few types of people where IQ is taken seriously and even obsessed over. Putting aside the wholly made-up g factor, what we've been seeing in the West for the last 30 years is rapidly increasing inequality in educational attainment. Severe cuts in education at both the public level and the private level (see, eg, the extraordinary rise of single mothers in both the US and EU and parents with multiple jobs) means that many children are simply getting less education than they did 30 years ago. Note that this does not apply to the knowledge elite who go to extraordinary measures to educate their children. It's quite likely that the children of today's elite are the most educated children in the history of the planet. I know a few parents who have budgeted a million dollars for the education of each of their children. The Flynn Effect was likely nothing more than the result of the extraordinary and broad-based increase in wealth we saw from 1900 to 1980. Since 1980 virtually all of the growth is being captured by the elites so it's not surprising at all that we'd see a similar reversal in the Flynn Effect. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/23/fathers-education-child-success-school https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/23/fathers-educ... [2] http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/mothers-education-level-at-time-of-birth-determines-her-childs-achievement http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/mothers-education-level-at-time...
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  “Putting aside the wholly made-up g factor” Why do you stoop to blatant lying? “Research in the field of behavioral genetics has established that the construct of g is highly heritable. It has a number of other biological correlates, including brain size. It is also a significant predictor of individual differences in many social outcomes, particularly in education and employment. The most widely accepted contemporary theories of intelligence incorporate the g factor.[1]” “The practical validity of g as a predictor of educational, economic, and social outcomes is more far-ranging and universal than that of any other known psychological variable. The validity of g is greater the greater the complexity of the task.[2][3]” [1] Neisser et al. 1996 [2] Jensen 1998, 270 [3] Gottfredson 2002
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
dschuetz 8y ago
I believe that foremost it's pattern recognition and abstraction that is tested in IQ tests. No matter in what field people who excel at pattern recognition or abstraction, or both are considered very talented. Yet, other peers in the same field might be competent enough for that field, but they lack talent, the ability to go beyond their general competency in that field. That means, you don't have to have genius level IQ to do well in science, formal training and determination are enough in most cases. High IQ in contrast does not guarantee that the person knows how to put their talents to use, without formal training that is. A bearer of a PhD diploma might still be dumb as a rock, but thanks to formal training, it doesn't seems as obvious. On the other hand, there are people who might be considered low IQ, because they were "too dumb" even for high school, but actually have genius level IQ. It wasn't obvious that they were intelligent, because their abilities weren't seen as such, as they couldn't solve the easiest stuff.

cm2187 8y ago

And it would be interesting too to correlate it with analysis of our DNA.

Lio 8y ago

It would be interesting to see how chemicals leached from plastics introduced in the 70s affect IQ. Then I guess you could also look at the removal of lead from car exhaust gases, (generally considered a good thing). I couldn’t read the full article due to the paywall and there’s no nice way to put this bit but is the drop in score due to a decline in the number of people with high IQ or because people with low IQ are surviving longer in childhood where previously they might not?

dnomad 8y ago

> IQ tests are far from perfect and I think everyone agrees they are a woeful indicator of success. I don't know many people that agree with this. At least in my bubble, the great majority regard IQ tests as bunk and the rest regard IQ as just a very roundabout way of measuring the education level of a child's parents. (There's some disagreement whether the father's level of education is the most important factor [1] or the mother's education level is [2]).) It's only in a select few internet forums dominated by a select few types of people where IQ is taken seriously and even obsessed over. Putting aside the wholly made-up g factor, what we've been seeing in the West for the last 30 years is rapidly increasing inequality in educational attainment. Severe cuts in education at both the public level and the private level (see, eg, the extraordinary rise of single mothers in both the US and EU and parents with multiple jobs) means that many children are simply getting less education than they did 30 years ago. Note that this does not apply to the knowledge elite who go to extraordinary measures to educate their children. It's quite likely that the children of today's elite are the most educated children in the history of the planet. I know a few parents who have budgeted a million dollars for the education of each of their children. The Flynn Effect was likely nothing more than the result of the extraordinary and broad-based increase in wealth we saw from 1900 to 1980. Since 1980 virtually all of the growth is being captured by the elites so it's not surprising at all that we'd see a similar reversal in the Flynn Effect. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/23/fathers-education-child-success-school https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/23/fathers-educ... [2] http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/mothers-education-level-at-time-of-birth-determines-her-childs-achievement http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/mothers-education-level-at-time...

throwaway37585 8y ago
“Putting aside the wholly made-up g factor” Why do you stoop to blatant lying? “Research in the field of behavioral genetics has established that the construct of g is highly heritable. It has a number of other biological correlates, including brain size. It is also a significant predictor of individual differences in many social outcomes, particularly in education and employment. The most widely accepted contemporary theories of intelligence incorporate the g factor.[1]” “The practical validity of g as a predictor of educational, economic, and social outcomes is more far-ranging and universal than that of any other known psychological variable. The validity of g is greater the greater the complexity of the task.[2][3]” [1] Neisser et al. 1996 [2] Jensen 1998, 270 [3] Gottfredson 2002
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

dschuetz 8y ago

I believe that foremost it's pattern recognition and abstraction that is tested in IQ tests. No matter in what field people who excel at pattern recognition or abstraction, or both are considered very talented. Yet, other peers in the same field might be competent enough for that field, but they lack talent, the ability to go beyond their general competency in that field. That means, you don't have to have genius level IQ to do well in science, formal training and determination are enough in most cases. High IQ in contrast does not guarantee that the person knows how to put their talents to use, without formal training that is. A bearer of a PhD diploma might still be dumb as a rock, but thanks to formal training, it doesn't seems as obvious. On the other hand, there are people who might be considered low IQ, because they were "too dumb" even for high school, but actually have genius level IQ. It wasn't obvious that they were intelligent, because their abilities weren't seen as such, as they couldn't solve the easiest stuff.