8 ms·

This blog post asserts that IQ scores didn't drop for the population as a whole, and that the drop for each individual group is due to changing composition of t

This blog post asserts that IQ scores didn't drop for the population as a whole, and that the drop for each individual group is due to changing composition of that group: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2023/03/new-study-didnt-really-show-iq-declines/ https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2023/03/new-study-didnt-really-... For example, if the % of people who do a postgraduate degree goes doubles, it's no longer such a select group, so you'd expect the average IQ of postgraduate degree holders to go down. This doesn't mean IQ scores are going down for the population as a whole. One more thing: why do so many papers that present charts that show how a mean or median changes over time, without also presenting charts that show how the distribution has changed over time?

ParksNet 4y ago
[flagged]
- jasonladuke0311 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- dang 4y ago
  We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
polski-g 4y ago
By just comparing TFR across income (read: IQ) groups, you can know that IQ is dropping.
tptacek 4y ago
It's worth looking up whose blog this is before trusting any of its analysis.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  A summary: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard
  - strken 4y ago
    I have very low trust in RationalWiki, so here's a related Wikipedia article instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych
  - joenot443 4y ago
    This site isn’t really any above EncyclopediaDramatica in its proximity to reality. It’s a meme pit for teenagers, not really somewhere to be taken seriously.
    - KingMachiavelli 4y ago
      Really? I've checked a range of topics and the Rational Wiki seemed spot on. Do you know of any topics it's completely wrong or unfair on? It of course takes side on some issues like Atheism, Religion but nothing unexpected for a site to be unapologetically rational/empirical.
      - hatefulmoron 4y ago
        I don't know how to substantiate this, so I won't try. My impression of the site is that it has a particular left-wing/pro-socialist political bias that creeps into articles, particularly about individuals. It doesn't usually have false information, but the language is often quite unfair. It's not wrong to have an opinion of course, but I assume it's opinions are an emergent property of its users and not the result of unapologetic rationality. This websites opinion aligns pretty closely with my impression: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/
itronitron 4y ago
What does it mean for a % of something to 'goes doubles' ?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  It means the sentence was edited before posting. Someone tried to replace "goes up" with "doubles", but forgot to delete the "goes".
verteu 4y ago
The blogger is wrong. Supplementary tables S10 and S11 [1] show IQ scores dropped as a whole (stratified by gender only). The result is statistically significant. [1] Pages 16 and 17 of the Word document under "Appendix A. Supplementary data" at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289623000156 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028962...
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  The interesting part is the partial conclusion: > The steepest slopes occurred for ages 18–22 and lower levels of education. So they're blaming faulty education for people being bad at the test. Now I want to see the RCT to prove this hypothesis. (With controls for experimenter effect.)
whimsicalism 4y ago
can we stop trying to launder these arguments over and over again here?

ParksNet 4y ago

[flagged]

jasonladuke0311 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
dang 4y ago
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

polski-g 4y ago

By just comparing TFR across income (read: IQ) groups, you can know that IQ is dropping.

tptacek 4y ago

It's worth looking up whose blog this is before trusting any of its analysis.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
A summary: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard
- strken 4y ago
  I have very low trust in RationalWiki, so here's a related Wikipedia article instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych
- joenot443 4y ago
  This site isn’t really any above EncyclopediaDramatica in its proximity to reality. It’s a meme pit for teenagers, not really somewhere to be taken seriously.
  - KingMachiavelli 4y ago
    Really? I've checked a range of topics and the Rational Wiki seemed spot on. Do you know of any topics it's completely wrong or unfair on? It of course takes side on some issues like Atheism, Religion but nothing unexpected for a site to be unapologetically rational/empirical.
    - hatefulmoron 4y ago
      I don't know how to substantiate this, so I won't try. My impression of the site is that it has a particular left-wing/pro-socialist political bias that creeps into articles, particularly about individuals. It doesn't usually have false information, but the language is often quite unfair. It's not wrong to have an opinion of course, but I assume it's opinions are an emergent property of its users and not the result of unapologetic rationality. This websites opinion aligns pretty closely with my impression: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/

itronitron 4y ago

What does it mean for a % of something to 'goes doubles' ?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thaumasiotes 4y ago
It means the sentence was edited before posting. Someone tried to replace "goes up" with "doubles", but forgot to delete the "goes".

verteu 4y ago

The blogger is wrong. Supplementary tables S10 and S11 [1] show IQ scores dropped as a whole (stratified by gender only). The result is statistically significant. [1] Pages 16 and 17 of the Word document under "Appendix A. Supplementary data" at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289623000156 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028962...

AstralStorm 4y ago
The interesting part is the partial conclusion: > The steepest slopes occurred for ages 18–22 and lower levels of education. So they're blaming faulty education for people being bad at the test. Now I want to see the RCT to prove this hypothesis. (With controls for experimenter effect.)

whimsicalism 4y ago

can we stop trying to launder these arguments over and over again here?