> There’s a bit of misconception here. IQ tests don’t require higher education, nor book reading. From the article: > [Article] These environmental factors co

> There’s a bit of misconception here. IQ tests don’t require higher education, nor book reading. From the article: > [Article] These environmental factors could include changes in the education system and media environment, nutrition, reading less and being online more, Rogeberg said. > [Article] The earlier rise in IQ scores follows the “Flynn effect,” a term for the long-term increase in intelligence levels that occurred during the 20th century, arguably the result of better access to education, according to Stuart Ritchie, a postdoctoral fellow in cognitive ageing at the University of Edinburgh whose research explores IQ scores and intelligence and who was not involved in the new study. > [Article] Access to education is currently the most conclusive factor explaining disparities in intelligence, according to Ritchie. In a separate study that has not been released, he and his colleagues looked at existing research in an effort to demonstrate that staying in school longer directly equates to higher IQ scores. > While I realize you’re talking about social investment here, the idea that TV and media are better investments of your time than earning a degree seems problematic at best. TV & media will, generally speaking, not help you get a better career, right? I'm saying that higher education has never been a worse investment. Not that it's a bad investment. It's just higher risk and higher cost than ever. > The Fed has published very recent stats in the US that people with a 4 year degree on average earn 2x the income of people without a degree. That's really tiny considering that it costs 4 years of income + potentially a huge amount of debt with serious compounding interest. > That seems like a pretty good investment, doesn’t it? It seems like it can be a fine investment for some people. If you're rich and won't take on debt it's a great investment.