Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the village-idiot dept.

IQ is rising in many parts of the world. What's behind the change and does it really mean people are cleverer than their grandparents?

It is not unusual for parents to comment that their children are brainier than they are. In doing so, they hide a boastful remark about their offspring behind a self-deprecating one about themselves. But a new study, published in the journal Intelligence, provides fresh evidence that in many cases this may actually be true.

The researchers - Peera Wongupparaj, Veena Kumari and Robin Morris at Kings College London - did not themselves ask anyone to sit an IQ test, but they analysed data from 405 previous studies. Altogether, they harvested IQ test data from more than 200,000 participants, captured over 64 years and from 48 countries.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31556802

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Interesting) by acid andy on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:21PM

    by acid andy (1683) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:21PM (#153484) Homepage Journal

    I was under the impression that IQ test scores are normalised so that the population median is 100. If that's the case, how can they compare test scores from generation to generation? I can understand an argument regarding the distribution becoming more skewed so that a greater proportion of the population have above median scores, but if the median moves that still doesn't prove the population as a whole is getting more intelligent.

    Maybe they got hold of data before normalisation but I'd argue that's even more meaningless unless all generations are being given exactly the same test questions. I'm sure this is all clear in their paper but I've not found that.

    --
    Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:36PM (#153555)

    You're entirely correct.

    However, they keep having to make successive tests more difficult because people are getting better at them. There have certainly been contributions from
    1) making fuel lead-free
    2) iodated salt (IIRC iodine deficiency used to be the #1 cause of preventable mental retardation)
    3) increased availability of food and
    4) more people receiving education to a higher level

    Probably also important were
    5) increased social pressure to do well in school and go to college
    6) a more carnivorous diet*
    7) vaccines and generally improved medical care in childhood (so the body spends resources on the brain instead of on infections, not to mention the direct damage they can do)
    8) a more stimulating environment (educational tv may suck, but it sure beats nothing)
    9) a society which is generally less hostile to disadvantaged minorities (e.g. if blacks always see themselves portrayed as stupid, it will affect their thinking)
    10) a feedback effect from all of the above, since more intelligent parents can take better care of and better stimulate their children

    * I know there are many loud voices claiming that you must eat only or almost only vegetables. Well, plants contain too little (or none) of several important nutrients (especially cobalamin) vital to brain function. A controversial claim which you are free to disagree with.