5 ms·

IQ scores in most of the Western world began reversing sometime from the 90s to early 00s. [1] That link is for the US but similar stuff has also been observed

IQ scores in most of the Western world began reversing sometime from the 90s to early 00s. [1] That link is for the US but similar stuff has also been observed in most of every Western/OECD nation. By contrast they're still rapidly increasing in the 'Global South'. You'd expect this to manifest in reduced test scores and reduced quality of outcomes across a breadth of fields over time paired with the inverse happening in countries seeing gains. And that does not seem inaccurate. Why this is, is an interesting question but it hits on too many taboo topics. Though perhaps rational discussion becoming taboo is itself a part of the reason. When you accept reality, whatever it gives you, you're obviously going to have a far more rational population and better outcomes than one that insists on bending reality to fit a desired narrative, even when it obviously does not. After all this is precisely what brought Greater Arabia from the center of education and learning in the world to rather the opposite. It wasn't religion, but letting ideology dominate reality instead of the other way around. [1] - https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-...

karmakurtisaani 1mo ago
I get the feeling you want to blame "woke" ideologies for this decline. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In my opinion we just have it too easy nowadays. Too much entertainment, screens and not enough challenges to keep kids thinking they need to be as sharp as they can be.
- wongarsu 1mo ago
  The "Fox News" right is just as guilty of letting ideology override reason as the "woke" left. As are many other groups (most of Western politics is a bit more complicated than the US's left/right split)
  - qmmmur 1mo ago
    As far as I can see most left wing political platforms at least have a plan to fund education unlike right wing parties which constantly seek austerity measures and general defunding of humanities and education.
- gfrecvh 1mo ago
  I think you nailed it with "too much entertainment", it's a shame your comment comes bundled with other stuff that's getting it downvoted.
  - karmakurtisaani 1mo ago
    Well the OP was being vague and I wanted to clarify what they meant. Blaming woke is one of my pet peeves, since it's one of the most intellectually lazy things you can do.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
DataDaoDe 1mo ago
> IQ scores in most of the Western world began reversing sometime from the 90s to early 00s. [1] That link is for the US but similar stuff has also been observed in most of every Western/OECD nation. I wonder to what extent demographic shifts account for the observed reversal? It would be interesting to tease out what happens where composition remains constant, i.e. Poland. Though I doubt this explains the entire effect. > By contrast they're still rapidly increasing in the 'Global South'. seems like the Flynn effect doing its thing just as it did in western countries in the 20th century.
- tptacek 1mo ago
  In what manner are you suggesting demography would be at issue here?
  - adrianN 1mo ago
    Intelligence is probably at least partially inheritable. If intelligent people have fewer children you expect intelligence to go down eventually.
    - tptacek 1mo ago
      Just because smart people tend to have fewer children (because, for instance, they delay it due to schooling and career demands) doesn't mean genes for intelligence are necessarily being selected against.
      - gfrecvh 1mo ago
        I dont understand what this phrase means. In the context of evolution, if something causes fewer copies of a gene, that's what selected against means.
        tptacek 1mo ago
        There's several reasons why this might not be the case, including that our premise is simple heritability and not genetic determinism, which is a different concept. I get where you're coming from now though.
Daishiman 1mo ago
> Why this is, is an interesting question but it hits on too many taboo topics. Though perhaps rational discussion becoming taboo is itself a part of the reason. I'm sure you fail to see the contradiction in claiming that "rational discussion" is a taboo while clearly not stating your hypothesis. In the same vein, your hypothesis obviates the fact that "rational discussion" in topics of interpreting social studies requires building out on a ton of assumptions that are weakly held and the reason why the social scientists abstain from giving clear-cut answers is because the topic has too much depth and nuance to make strong statements with confidence.
- somenameforme 1mo ago
  Western social sciences are completely dysfunctional. Various fields within it, like social psychology, have a replication rate in the 20% range. [1] And mind you that that's for leading and formerly reputable journals like the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. That leads to the rather odd scenario that if you take anything that social science says is significant, and assume it is not, then you'd be you'd be vastly more likely to be correct than not. The whole field is rife with ideology, poor logic, and bias confirming experiments. One of the very few highly replicable, predictive, and valuable aspects of the social sciences is IQ, which the modern more pseudo-science oriented work actively seeks to undermine. It's a remarkable display of academic and intellectual decline, while people simply look on impassively. At this point all we need is some fires and a fiddle. So for instance with all Western work on the reversal of Flynn Effect they will go out of their way to insist that it doesn't mean people are becoming less intelligent, even though every single measurement we have that correlates to such (such as test scores) suggests that is exactly what is happening. And they will go one step further and work to actively undermine issues that are obviously in play like dysgenic fertility. Two well accepted facts are that (1) intelligence is highly heritable and (2) intelligence is inversely correlated with fertility. Put the two together and what do you get? Dysgenics, on a scale that can play out very rapidly. But no.. people aren't becoming less intelligent, they're merely becoming less capable at everything intelligence is associated with. And dysgenic fertility? Nah impossible. FFS. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psycholo...
watwut 1mo ago
IQ is literally designed to always average at 100. And tests are calibrated to always give that result. So, not so much taboo as "a bullshit".
JeremyNT 1mo ago
> Why this is, is an interesting question but it hits on too many taboo topics. What are those "taboo topics?" Can you state this plainly rather than obliquely?
- friendzis 1mo ago
  I LOVE the irony that is the top response, Michelin level gourmet
delis-thumbs-7e 1mo ago
See how in your own link one of the authors says indeed how the decline in results is because we have gone too woke: Dworak, a research assistant professor at Northwestern University and one of the authors on the study, is very clear that these results don’t necessarily mean Americans are getting less intelligent. “It doesn’t mean their mental ability is lower or higher; it’s just a difference in scores that are favoring older or newer samples,” she said in a press release. “It could just be that they’re getting worse at taking tests or specifically worse at taking these kinds of tests.” And, it should be said, there has long been debate over how accurately IQ tests are able to gauge overall intelligence and potential for success in society in the first place. No wait, they say nothing of the kind. And it seems people are getting better at 3D-thinking and decline is not the same in every topic measured so… Man, your referencecreally does not support the narrative to which you are trying to bend the reality.
- somenameforme 1mo ago
  You're reading into things as you want to read into them. I am saying that the rejection of reality, which includes but is certainly not limited to 'woke', is the problem. IQ is full of examples in this domain because it tends to provide measurable data that regularly contradicts ideological views. I think the author's own response is a perfect example. She finds that people are scoring significantly worse on most measurable aspects of IQ and so she concludes that they may simply be getting worse at taking tests? Let's imagine in a parallel world (or China...) she did the same study and found that scores were increasing. Would she have suggested it may simply be because people are getting better at taking tests? Almost certainly not, because it's a highly improbable explanation with no foundational basis whatsoever. If you don't think the tests you're using to evaluate something are evaluating that thing, then why would you use those tests? So why would she make the claim in one scenario, but not the other? Because of ideology. We obviously want IQs to be going up, and so the ideological value is given at least equal weighting, if not more, against the significantly more probable 'natural' explanation when the 'natural' explanation goes against ideological desires.
  - delis-thumbs-7e 1mo ago
zackmorris 1mo ago
When you accept reality, whatever it gives you, you're obviously going to have a far more rational population and better outcomes than one that insists on bending reality to fit a desired narrative, even when it obviously does not. Uh, this is Hacker News, we literally reject others's realities and substitute our own. When it comes to gains, you're probably thinking of average outcomes (which don't reflect wealth inequality) instead of median outcomes. In no universe does ignorance benefit one's financial situation, unless we're talking about looking the other way when it comes to exploitation. In which case, yes, ignorance helps the wealthy tremendously.

karmakurtisaani 1mo ago

I get the feeling you want to blame "woke" ideologies for this decline. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In my opinion we just have it too easy nowadays. Too much entertainment, screens and not enough challenges to keep kids thinking they need to be as sharp as they can be.

wongarsu 1mo ago
The "Fox News" right is just as guilty of letting ideology override reason as the "woke" left. As are many other groups (most of Western politics is a bit more complicated than the US's left/right split)
- qmmmur 1mo ago
  As far as I can see most left wing political platforms at least have a plan to fund education unlike right wing parties which constantly seek austerity measures and general defunding of humanities and education.
gfrecvh 1mo ago
I think you nailed it with "too much entertainment", it's a shame your comment comes bundled with other stuff that's getting it downvoted.
- karmakurtisaani 1mo ago
  Well the OP was being vague and I wanted to clarify what they meant. Blaming woke is one of my pet peeves, since it's one of the most intellectually lazy things you can do.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

DataDaoDe 1mo ago

> IQ scores in most of the Western world began reversing sometime from the 90s to early 00s. [1] That link is for the US but similar stuff has also been observed in most of every Western/OECD nation. I wonder to what extent demographic shifts account for the observed reversal? It would be interesting to tease out what happens where composition remains constant, i.e. Poland. Though I doubt this explains the entire effect. > By contrast they're still rapidly increasing in the 'Global South'. seems like the Flynn effect doing its thing just as it did in western countries in the 20th century.

tptacek 1mo ago
In what manner are you suggesting demography would be at issue here?
- adrianN 1mo ago
  Intelligence is probably at least partially inheritable. If intelligent people have fewer children you expect intelligence to go down eventually.
  - tptacek 1mo ago
    Just because smart people tend to have fewer children (because, for instance, they delay it due to schooling and career demands) doesn't mean genes for intelligence are necessarily being selected against.
    - gfrecvh 1mo ago
      I dont understand what this phrase means. In the context of evolution, if something causes fewer copies of a gene, that's what selected against means.
      - tptacek 1mo ago
        There's several reasons why this might not be the case, including that our premise is simple heritability and not genetic determinism, which is a different concept. I get where you're coming from now though.

Daishiman 1mo ago

> Why this is, is an interesting question but it hits on too many taboo topics. Though perhaps rational discussion becoming taboo is itself a part of the reason. I'm sure you fail to see the contradiction in claiming that "rational discussion" is a taboo while clearly not stating your hypothesis. In the same vein, your hypothesis obviates the fact that "rational discussion" in topics of interpreting social studies requires building out on a ton of assumptions that are weakly held and the reason why the social scientists abstain from giving clear-cut answers is because the topic has too much depth and nuance to make strong statements with confidence.

somenameforme 1mo ago
Western social sciences are completely dysfunctional. Various fields within it, like social psychology, have a replication rate in the 20% range. [1] And mind you that that's for leading and formerly reputable journals like the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. That leads to the rather odd scenario that if you take anything that social science says is significant, and assume it is not, then you'd be you'd be vastly more likely to be correct than not. The whole field is rife with ideology, poor logic, and bias confirming experiments. One of the very few highly replicable, predictive, and valuable aspects of the social sciences is IQ, which the modern more pseudo-science oriented work actively seeks to undermine. It's a remarkable display of academic and intellectual decline, while people simply look on impassively. At this point all we need is some fires and a fiddle. So for instance with all Western work on the reversal of Flynn Effect they will go out of their way to insist that it doesn't mean people are becoming less intelligent, even though every single measurement we have that correlates to such (such as test scores) suggests that is exactly what is happening. And they will go one step further and work to actively undermine issues that are obviously in play like dysgenic fertility. Two well accepted facts are that (1) intelligence is highly heritable and (2) intelligence is inversely correlated with fertility. Put the two together and what do you get? Dysgenics, on a scale that can play out very rapidly. But no.. people aren't becoming less intelligent, they're merely becoming less capable at everything intelligence is associated with. And dysgenic fertility? Nah impossible. FFS. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psycholo...

watwut 1mo ago

IQ is literally designed to always average at 100. And tests are calibrated to always give that result. So, not so much taboo as "a bullshit".

JeremyNT 1mo ago

> Why this is, is an interesting question but it hits on too many taboo topics. What are those "taboo topics?" Can you state this plainly rather than obliquely?

friendzis 1mo ago
I LOVE the irony that is the top response, Michelin level gourmet

delis-thumbs-7e 1mo ago

See how in your own link one of the authors says indeed how the decline in results is because we have gone too woke: Dworak, a research assistant professor at Northwestern University and one of the authors on the study, is very clear that these results don’t necessarily mean Americans are getting less intelligent. “It doesn’t mean their mental ability is lower or higher; it’s just a difference in scores that are favoring older or newer samples,” she said in a press release. “It could just be that they’re getting worse at taking tests or specifically worse at taking these kinds of tests.” And, it should be said, there has long been debate over how accurately IQ tests are able to gauge overall intelligence and potential for success in society in the first place. No wait, they say nothing of the kind. And it seems people are getting better at 3D-thinking and decline is not the same in every topic measured so… Man, your referencecreally does not support the narrative to which you are trying to bend the reality.

somenameforme 1mo ago
You're reading into things as you want to read into them. I am saying that the rejection of reality, which includes but is certainly not limited to 'woke', is the problem. IQ is full of examples in this domain because it tends to provide measurable data that regularly contradicts ideological views. I think the author's own response is a perfect example. She finds that people are scoring significantly worse on most measurable aspects of IQ and so she concludes that they may simply be getting worse at taking tests? Let's imagine in a parallel world (or China...) she did the same study and found that scores were increasing. Would she have suggested it may simply be because people are getting better at taking tests? Almost certainly not, because it's a highly improbable explanation with no foundational basis whatsoever. If you don't think the tests you're using to evaluate something are evaluating that thing, then why would you use those tests? So why would she make the claim in one scenario, but not the other? Because of ideology. We obviously want IQs to be going up, and so the ideological value is given at least equal weighting, if not more, against the significantly more probable 'natural' explanation when the 'natural' explanation goes against ideological desires.
- delis-thumbs-7e 1mo ago

zackmorris 1mo ago

When you accept reality, whatever it gives you, you're obviously going to have a far more rational population and better outcomes than one that insists on bending reality to fit a desired narrative, even when it obviously does not. Uh, this is Hacker News, we literally reject others's realities and substitute our own. When it comes to gains, you're probably thinking of average outcomes (which don't reflect wealth inequality) instead of median outcomes. In no universe does ignorance benefit one's financial situation, unless we're talking about looking the other way when it comes to exploitation. In which case, yes, ignorance helps the wealthy tremendously.