Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday June 14 2018, @08:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the tv-and-video-games-cause-brain-rot dept.

A Norwegian study published Monday found a seven-point dip in IQ test scores per generation among men born from 1962 to 1991. The results suggest a reversal in the Flynn effect, an observed increase in IQ scores throughout the 20th century in developed countries.

Coverage from The Week adds:

The reasons for the Flynn effect and its apparent reversal are disputed. "Scientists have put the rise in IQ down to better teaching, nutrition, healthcare and even artificial lighting," says The Times.

But "it is also possible that the nature of intelligence is changing in the digital age and cannot be captured with traditional IQ tests", adds the newspaper.

"Take 14-year-olds in Britain. What 25% could do back in 1994, now only 5% can do," Shayer added, citing maths and science tests.

More from The Daily Mail:

Two British studies suggested that the fall was between 2.5 and 4.3 points every ten years.

But due to limited research, their results were not widely accepted.

In the latest study Ole Rogeburg and Bernt Bratsberg, of the Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research in Oslo, found that Norwegian men's IQs are lower than the scores of their fathers when they were the same age.

The pair analysed the scores from a standard IQ test of over 730,000 men – who reported for national service between 1970 and 2009.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Thursday June 14 2018, @01:27PM (12 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Thursday June 14 2018, @01:27PM (#692871)

    What kool-aid have you been drinking? IQ test are notoriously sensitive to cultural differences.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=2, Overrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by ChrisMaple on Thursday June 14 2018, @05:48PM (10 children)

    by ChrisMaple (6964) on Thursday June 14 2018, @05:48PM (#693042)

    The makers of IQ tests have been sensitive to the charges of cultural bias for decades, and have done a lot of work to make the tests culture-neutral (within the limits imposed by using a single language.) Your claim is obsolete.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 14 2018, @06:29PM (9 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday June 14 2018, @06:29PM (#693089)

      Sensitive to and capable of actually addressing are not the same thing.

      Just as have done a lot of work is no guarantee of positive progress.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Thursday June 14 2018, @08:04PM (8 children)

        by curunir_wolf (4772) on Thursday June 14 2018, @08:04PM (#693145)
        Numbers don't lie. IQ, as measured by IQ tests, is the single best predictor of success ever developed. It works across cultures and races and genders. It doesn't matter if people FEEL like they are unfair, or biased, or don't measure the wrong thing. The fact is, that IQ score is a reliable determinant for success in school and in future career endeavors, for everyone, except the tiny minority and the far edges of the bell curve.
        --
        I am a crackpot
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @08:35PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @08:35PM (#693159)

          But in the postmodern world, feelings and personal perspective are more important than numbers which are culturally and sexually defined.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @08:46PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @08:46PM (#693170)

          That might speak more to the brutally competitive nature of human society. There are many negative feedback loops that widen the gap between someone with 100 IQ and someone with 120. It begins in the school system where if a student falls behind in 2nd grade and does not receive remedial help then that trend will often get worse and their future prospects will go along with it. That doesn't mean the person isn't capable of holding a normal job and be a successful contributing member of society.

          This entire thread is so full of blind assumptions based on how society IS that most people can't imagine what society COULD be.

          Once we automate away all the menial jobs we'll get a society with the rich smart people on top and the dumb people on some sort of nightmarish welfare which will lead to revolution. That is with our current system anyway.

          Even if you went the eugenics route that so many users on here obviously dream of you will likely cause other problems. Smart people tend to be more prone to mental disorders and delusions of grandeur (eugenics) which could lead us into mass sterility or even worse genetically engineered problems. Hell, even without those you'd end up in some cutthroat society where the best aspects of humanity such as compassion and courage get trampled into dust.

          The self-styled bigoted geniuses around here are too smart for their own good. They hide behind logic, reason, and numbers; but forget that the numbers are the result of a complex system that no human can completely understand. Not to Godwin, but the Nazis tried to go down the route of superior genetics and that is regarded as one of the worst atrocities in human history. You sure following "the numbers" is a good idea?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @02:51AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @02:51AM (#693306)

            If you have high IQ you can do piss all till you are 14, then spend a summer studying for GED. You will probably be smarter at that point than most of your peers. My IQ is not that high, because I only figured this out when I wan well into my late 20s. I wasted so many years "learning" like all the other lemmings.

          • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Saturday June 16 2018, @02:03PM

            by curunir_wolf (4772) on Saturday June 16 2018, @02:03PM (#693942)

            That might speak more to the brutally competitive nature of human society. There are many negative feedback loops that widen the gap between someone with 100 IQ and someone with 120.

            It's not human society, it's all of nature. The distribution you're describing, where small differences in ability, first-mover status, resource access or pure luck lead to huge differences in productivity was first discovered in pea plants. I believe it's referred to as the pareto principle or pareto distribution. Human society actually strives to mitigate those effects of nature, NOT to exacerbate it.

            Your premise is false. These are natural outcomes. Of course we want to create a society that works for everyone, and helps those that are weak or vulnerable. But, in western society at least, we also want to ensure that people that are more capable and productive are rewarded more for their efforts. That's fair and helps everyone. We don't make rock stars out of people with no musical talent (usually), and we don't want people that can't do simple math writing computer software we rely on for critical tasks. Sure, there's corruption that harms those outcomes that we value, and corruption is something we should fight against. But for the most part we want the most capable people to be the most valued.

            --
            I am a crackpot
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 14 2018, @09:18PM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday June 14 2018, @09:18PM (#693185)

          success in school

          Means very little, other than you can do what the instructors want you to do to get the best scores - which (at the highest levels) is as much a social skill as it is correlated with mastery of the subject of the class/course. What I'm saying here is that teachers/professors are human, and while _on average_ they tend to correlate grades with mastery of the subject, there is a great deal of human noise (prejudices, personalities, randomness) in the score - and that shows up heavily when you hit the top of the scale.

          and in future career endeavors

          I have found that depends almost entirely upon the career pursued. Again, in the middle, on average, drones being processed through HR departments for placement in the average job pool, yes... IQ has a strong correlation, but even more than school, there's tremendous human noise in the process - luck/timing of placements, who you happened to get as a boss, what your group/department/company/industry experienced in the broader market, all have a very strong bearing on success. Then there are entire fields (Sales, especially Real Estate Sales for one) where intelligence seems to be a neutral if not negative asset due to the social aspects of the jobs.

          except the tiny minority and the far edges of the bell curve.

          If you're calling the top and bottom ~10% the "far edges," and 20% the "tiny minority" for highly successful low IQs and lowly successful high IQs, then, maybe we're in agreement.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @09:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @09:24PM (#693191)

            and while _on average_ they tend to correlate grades with mastery of the subject

            No. You forget that the average school is abysmal. On average, they tend to correlate grades with one's ability to rote memorize information about the subject and spew it back on tests and homework assignments.

        • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @09:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @09:22PM (#693189)

          is the single best predictor of success ever developed.

          And what does that have to do with intelligence? Stop relying on faulty social 'science'; it rots your brain.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Immerman on Friday June 15 2018, @01:15PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday June 15 2018, @01:15PM (#693463)

          >IQ, as measured by IQ tests, is the single best predictor of success ever developed.

          No. You're thinking of parent's wealth.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 15 2018, @07:05AM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday June 15 2018, @07:05AM (#693361) Homepage
    What decade are you living in? You're repeating the complaints from the 60s and 70s, when IQ tests were plagued with lots of language-related question, that have since been purged.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves