The Age Of Stupid Confirmed!!!

image

I often make fun of insanely stupid thoughts and idea, often from the climate nutters.  But, it always amazed me that people would believe their sophistry.  But, as I’ve stated before, we’re breeding stupid.  Today we see further confirmation……

Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time

Abstract

The Victorian era was marked by an explosion of innovation and genius, per capita rates of which appear to have declined subsequently. The presence of dysgenic fertility for IQ amongst Western nations, starting in the 19th century, suggests that these trends might be related to declining IQ. This is because high-IQ people are more productive and more creative. We tested the hypothesis that the Victorians were cleverer than modern populations, using high-quality instruments, namely measures of simple visual reaction time in a meta-analytic study. Simple reaction time measures correlate substantially with measures of general intelligence (g) and are considered elementary measures of cognition. In this study we used the data on the secular slowing of simple reaction time described in a meta-analysis of 14 age-matched studies from Western countries conducted between 1884 and 2004 to estimate the declining that may have resulted from the presence of dysgenic fertility. Using psychometric meta-analysis we computed the true correlation between simple reaction time and g, yielding a decline of − 1.23 IQ points per decade or fourteen IQ points since Victorian times. These findings strongly indicate that with respect to g the Victorians were substantially cleverer than modern Western populations.

For a clearer explanation ……

Study co-author Dr. Jan te Nijenhuis, professor of work and organizational psychology at the University of Amsterdam, points to the fact that women of high intelligence tend to have fewer children than do women of lower intelligence. This negative association between I.Q. and fertility has been demonstrated time and again in research over the last century.

But, we can quit playing with words.  The truth is that many western cultures pay women to have babies.  Further, underperforming cultures and peoples breed more than properly performing cultures and peoples.  Another paper….

The decline of the world’s IQ

Dysgenic fertility means that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and number of children. Its presence during the last century has been demonstrated in several countries. We show here that there is dysgenic fertility in the world population quantified by a correlation of − 0.73 between IQ and fertility across nations. It is estimated that the effect of this has been a decline in the world’s genotypic IQ of 0.86 IQ points for the years 1950–2000. A further decline of 1.28 IQ points in the world’s genotypic IQ is projected for the years 2000–2050. In the period 1950–2000 this decline has been compensated for by a rise in phenotypic intelligence known as the Flynn Effect, but recent studies in four economically developed countries have found that this has now ceased or gone into reverse. It seems probable that this “negative Flynn Effect” will spread to economically developing countries and the whole world will move into a period of declining genotypic and phenotypic intelligence. It is possible that “the new eugenics” of biotechnology may evolve to counteract dysgenic fertility.

 

h/t Townhall

This entry was posted in Education. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to The Age Of Stupid Confirmed!!!

  1. kim2ooo says:

    Ahhhh….how did they study general population Victorians?

    1; They are dead.
    2: Which test Stanford binet? [ 1905 ]

    The decline might be proved since 2008 with Leftists electing Mr Obama .:)

  2. omnologos says:

    forgive me suyts but…whoever believes in cross-century IQ reduction, confirms the hypothesis 🙂 🙂 🙂

    ps richer women had fewer babies but fewer still of their babies died

  3. DirkH says:

    a) they postulate a link between a simple reaction time test and IQ. It’s the first time I heard of that. What I heard was that a simple test of short term memory ( how many facts you can memorize quickly) correlates well with IQ ; but it is new to me that a simple reaction time test does the same.

    b) Most genes responsible for intelligence are on the X chromosome. As a woman has two of them, of which one is switched off in each cell – but not the same in each cell – women tend to have less phenotypic IQ variance than men. (15 % of men are idiots; 15% are geniuses; in women, only 1 % are idiots and only 1 % are geniuses – these are the ones where both X chromosomes have strong tendencies towards the same thing)

    This explains BTW the small female prison population as well as the small number of female Nobel price winners.

    Due to the X chromosome redundancy in women, they can well give birth to geniuses without showing above average intelligence themselves.

    Women hate it when I explain this to them, but they really shouldn’t. They still have a 1% chance of being idiots.

    • DirkH says:

      And what I wanted to get to is that you can have a very unremarkable proletarian population yet in the next generation, miraculously, some of the children will be geniuses. It is simply not true that you have a deteriorating gene pool; ESPECIALLY the IQ EXHIBITED by the mother does not allow such conclusions.

    • tckev says:

      It does bring to mind that old joke –
      Marilyn Monroe meets Albert Einstein and makes a proposal –
      “You know we should get married Albert. Just think of the children! With my looks and your brains we’d have the greatest family,” she simpered at him.
      He looked at her admiring her beauty, then replied “Ah, my dear girl, what if they had my looks and your brains?”
      ______________________________________
      Still I think he should have tried the experiment. 🙂
      ______________________________________

    • kim2ooo says:

      Women hate it when I explain this to them, but they really shouldn’t. They still have a 1% chance of being idiots.

      Snickerin 🙂

  4. Lars P. says:

    Idiocracy! Have you seen it?

    • omnologos says:

      Lars – come to think suyts might be right but evidence isn’t in reaction times, rather the fact there’s no Victorian equivalent of Nutticelli. Idiocracy is upon us!!!!

      • DirkH says:

        Nuccitelli.

      • DirkH says:

        And besides, the Victorians had Malthus, Galton, Huxley and Darwin.

        • DirkH says:

          And Ruskin. And Cecil Rhodes.
          It would take a book to describe the nuttyness of all these people.
          I don’t know if the Ur-Fabians still count as Victorians but they’re right up there as well.

        • DirkH says:

          As for Darwin (No I don’t dispute evolution; but I see Darwin as a plagiarist of epic proportions with no knowledge about genetics whatsoever), his INTERESTING book is “The Descent Of Man”, I quote:
          “Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts—and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ‘struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.””

          which can be found here
          http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.2&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

          So he had, like his cousin Galton, the inventor of the term Eugenics, some, ahem, interesting views.

        • gator69 says:

          “And besides, the Victorians had Malthus, Galton, Huxley and Darwin.”

          And we have Mann, Hansen, Gore and Obama.

  5. tckev says:

    Apart from the very dubious idea of attempting to test IQ across historic and current time periods, and very different socioeconomic eras, and all the many statistical problem that kicks up (error ranges, etc.)
    Then they say –

    Western countries conducted between 1884 and 2004 to estimate the declining that may have resulted from the presence of dysgenic fertility.

    Surely at best this can only show correlation but not necessarily causation. They happily witter-on about Flynn Effect without actually knowing how and why it happens. Has the diet of most middle and lower class people got worse over time? Has the education of children within these demographic groups got worse? No they say it’s genetics, I say it’s bullcrap!

    No the whole thing appears to be a plea to put scientific gloss on the idea human eugenics.

    • DirkH says:

      We need more human test subjects.
      Recently, it has emerged that during the time of the DDR, the DDR regime made deals with West German pharma companies who needed to test new medication. Of course, they just used some of their population without telling them and kept the money.

      Which makes me wonder if currently any such deals are going on with North Korea…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s