Is humanity getting dumber and dumber? - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15211015
XogGyux wrote:We are just looking at a blip of human history and analyzing a tiny portion of the population. It's like an ant standing on leave and claiming the universe is green.


It happens to be that of the most developed economies, though. And the Norwegian paper did not have a "tiny portion" of its population.

XogGyux wrote:Here is a better question, are we truly measuring intelligence with an IQ test?


It seems to measure a specific form of it, yes.
#15211022
wat0n wrote:It happens to be that of the most developed economies, though. And the Norwegian paper did not have a "tiny portion" of its population.

Do you have access to the original papers? We might be able to read them through and evaluate them. Oftentimes authors put clues under "limitations of this study" and/or discuss possible reasons under the discussion sessions. Making assumptions based merely on the abstract is problematic. Methodologies make a difference. For instance, if for years 1960 to 1970 you test all highschoolers, but in 1973 you introduce new legislation that merges students with mental disabilities to participate into regular school and then you measure the years 1970-1980 you could potentially see a drop on averages because now you are measuring a new population. A population that always existed but you excluded priorly and gave you falsely elevated scores priorly.
Similarly, you could have the introduction of a new curriculum in 1992 that allows smart students to skip a grade, so you could find yourself in a situation in which you are not counting the smartest students because they moved on to another place so the average is again lowered.
I am not saying either of these scenarios happened, I am merely explaining how you can have biases created by methodology. I don't have access to the original complete papers, but perhaps more importantly, I am not a "peer" so I am not familiar with the bulk of literature that might have preceded these studies and/or the standards. But what I don't see, is a bunch of psychologists and neurologists crying on despair due to the evaporation of our IQ points. What little can be infered from the abstract, it seems that the authors are blaming their findings on various factors that do not imply an actual detriment of human intelligence.

It seems to measure a specific form of it, yes.

The one thing we know for sure a test is good for is to measure how good you are at taking said test. :lol:
#15211036
We cannot measure the IQ of people who lived hundreds of years ago, so presuming a higher IQ is simply quesswork, at best.
#15211052
XogGyux wrote:A graph that denotes changes of IQ vs Year is not a normal distribution chart, no matter how similar the shape is to that of a bell. Implying otherwise is just butchering basic statistics.


The X and Y axis are set according to the definitions of a hypothesis. No perfect distribution across time has been implied. Stating otherwise is butchering basic logic & misleading the topic with yet another strawman and second you have not shown or even argued any "butchering of statistics".

It's not a 'fault' that these scientists followed the exact same logic placing time on the X-axis as myself, in fact it is a verification of my logic. At no point have I claimed that the distribution across time is perfect. That is at no point have I claimed that the rise and loss of cognition is perfectly harmonious across time, rising by 1 point per year and then declining by precisely 1 point per year once the threshold has been crossed.

I'm sorry you lost this debate both on the grounds of logical arguments as well as on explicit scientific grounds. You now have a complete argument that is covered by both reason and science in tandem making my hypothesis airtight.

Semantics do not change this fact.

Xog wrote:I do not wish to discuss dysgenics or eugenics at all. There is no credible evidence and I'll leave it at that.


The American scientists of the study belonging to the American Academy of Science explicitly state that the dysgenic fertility effect is the number one cause for the decline in intelligence.

They argue that smart people are refusing to have children and consequently their intelligence is removed from the group leading to a decline in overall intelligence.

This is a moral and cultural issue rather than a genetic issue as you ridiculously try to paint it in order to avoid having a logical discussion about it.

You say there is "no evidence" but these scientists dealing with the subject certainly disagree with you which means that you would have to make an effort here rather than simply dismiss everything as per your usual contemptuous procedure.

Besides there is evidence for dysgenic fertility in the US.
#15211054
noemon wrote:The bell curve is now graphic which is plain enough:

Image

This is not a “bell curve”, @noemon, as you call it; it’s just a curve which happens to go up and then down. A bell curve is a normal distribution, and there is absolutely no suggestion that the Flynn Effect, plotted as a function of time, follows a normal distribution. This is the point @XogGyux is making. Of course, this says nothing at all about whether this is a real phenomenon, or what its causes may be.
#15211055
Potemkin wrote:This is not a “bell curve”, @noemon, as you call it; it’s just a curve which happens to go up and then down. A bell curve is a normal distribution, and there is absolutely no suggestion that the Flynn Effect, plotted as a function of time, follows a normal distribution. This is the point @XogGyux is making. Of course, this says nothing at all about whether this is a real phenomenon, or what its causes may be.


:roll:

I did not claim that cognition follows a perfect bell curve across the X axis of time. I stated that if you map the intelligence of particular groups(.ie those responsible for Golden Ages) on the x-axis of time it would resemble a bell-curve instead of a linear progression as Xog claimed. And it does. It does go up and then down and not constantly up as Xog insisted.

I also stated that if people want to have a second bell curve(another up and down) and carry on their development they would have to identify their position as dumber, come to terms with it, obey the cardinal socratic rule, so that they can do something about it by changing the moral and social mores responsible for the decline.

QED.
#15211056
noemon wrote::roll:

I did not claim that cognition follows a perfect bell curve across the X axis of time. I stated that if you map intelligence on the x-axis of time it would resemble a bell-curve instead of a linear progression as Xog claimed. And it does.

It’s not a bell curve, @noemon, whether “perfect” or “imperfect”. It’s not a normal distribution, and is therefore not a “bell curve”, of any sort. There’s no theoretical reason why it would be. It’s just a curve which happens to go up and then down.
#15211058
Potemkin wrote:It’s not a bell curve, @noemon, whether “perfect” or “imperfect”. It’s not a normal distribution, and is therefore not a “bell curve”, of any sort. There’s no theoretical reason why it would be. It’s just a curve which happens to go up and then down.


You can semantically call it whatever you like if you dislike the term "bell-curve" on "technical grounds", it is a curve that proves my point to the T and disproves Xog's argument of a linear cognitive development.

Semantics do not prove Xog's argument nor do they disprove mine.
#15211060
noemon wrote:You can semantically call it whatever you like if you dislike the term "bell-curve" on "technical grounds", it is a curve that proves my point to the T and disproves Xog's argument of a linear cognitive development.

Any scientific argument requires the use of precise terminology. Calling any sort of curve which goes up and then down a “bell curve” is potentially misleading, because it implies that you think it follows a normal distribution.

Semantics do not prove Xog's argument nor do they disprove mine.

Indeed, as I pointed out. I am merely pointing out that @XogGyux’s objection to your use of the term “bell curve” to describe the plot of the Flynn Effect over time is a valid one.
#15211061
Potemkin wrote:Any scientific argument requires the use of precise terminology. Calling any sort of curve which goes up and then down a “bell curve” is potentially misleading, because it implies that you think it follows a normal distribution.


You are misleading the conversation because no such implication of a perfectly normal distribution across time has been made. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that the deterioration can be more rapid than the rise if an unsuitable moral set of affairs takes hold in a social group for which I used the example of Cuba and which is confirmed by these graphs.

Therefore when the definitions of the terminology have already been established in this topic, this can only be described as a strawman which is a logical fallacy and an invalid argument.

Potemkin wrote:Indeed, as I pointed out. I am merely pointing out that @XogGyux’s objection to your use of the term “bell curve” to describe the plot of the Flynn Effect over time is a valid one.


Changing the topic with a strawman is not a valid objection. It is a bad-faith tactic that the losing side employs to obfuscate that loss.

If you or Xog are having difficulties grasping the argument here it is one more time:

I argued that if you map the intelligence of particular groups(.ie those responsible for Golden Ages) on the x-axis of time it would resemble a bell-curve instead of a linear progression as Xog claimed. And it does. Cognition/intelligence does go up and then down and not constantly up as Xog insisted.

I also stated that if people want to have a second bell curve(another up and down) and carry on their development they would have to identify their position as dumber than before, come to terms with it, obey the cardinal socratic rule, so that they can do something about it by changing the moral and social mores responsible for the decline.

What is your stance on the actual point of the conversation?
#15211100
Godstud wrote:The information we have to learn is exponentially higher than what was needed even 100 years ago.

You cite this as if it was proof or our increasing intelligence. I say the opposite is true.

When I worked at the worst job of my life - at a call center for roadside assistance - we also had to handle insurance claims, home insurance purchases, and a host of other functions including legal information. Each type of client service intervention had its own electronic forms to fill out. And all of them had bugs that required work-arounds.

This list of work-arounds and codes and forms to seek... got so vast, that we all gained lots of weight, and were increasingly unable to tap into our instinctive intelligence. All we had left in our brains were hundreds of (otherwise) useless work-arounds.

IE:

"If you click on the third box, hit the return key three times, place an X at the beginning of the text (that you can later delete)... then, the system will allow you to enter the client's postal code.

For the premium amount and deductible, double all real amounts, and then go back and change them to the real amounts after you have completed the first half of the form (but not started the second half yet...."


Getting smarter yet?
#15211155
noemon wrote:You are misleading the conversation because no such implication of a perfectly normal distribution across time has been made. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that the deterioration can be more rapid than the rise if an unsuitable moral set of affairs takes hold in a social group for which I used the example of Cuba and which is confirmed by these graphs.

Therefore when the definitions of the terminology have already been established in this topic, this can only be described as a strawman which is a logical fallacy and an invalid argument.

It’s not an argument; I am merely trying to rectify the terminology being used. Calling something which is not a normal distribution a ‘bell curve” is simply wrong.

Changing the topic with a strawman is not a valid objection. It is a bad-faith tactic that the losing side employs to obfuscate that loss.

It’s not a strawman argument. In any scientific discussion, the terminology must be used correctly, otherwise misunderstandings can easily arise.

If you or Xog are having difficulties grasping the argument here it is one more time:

I argued that if you map the intelligence of particular groups(.ie those responsible for Golden Ages) on the x-axis of time it would resemble a bell-curve instead of a linear progression as Xog claimed. And it does. Cognition/intelligence does go up and then down and not constantly up as Xog insisted.

I also stated that if people want to have a second bell curve(another up and down) and carry on their development they would have to identify their position as dumber than before, come to terms with it, obey the cardinal socratic rule, so that they can do something about it by changing the moral and social mores responsible for the decline.

What is your stance on the actual point of the conversation?

You are still using the phrase “bell curve” to describe any curve which goes up and then down. This is wrong and is evidence of statistical illiteracy, as @XogGyux pointed out.
#15211162
Potemkin wrote:It’s not an argument; I am merely trying to rectify the terminology being used. Calling something which is not a normal distribution a ‘bell curve” is simply wrong.
It’s not a strawman argument. In any scientific discussion, the terminology must be used correctly, otherwise misunderstandings can easily arise.


Asserting something(.ie that it is not a strawman) without argument is a worthless opinion. I demonstrated why the argument is a strawman and a distraction.

You are still using the phrase “bell curve” to describe any curve which goes up and then down. This is wrong and is evidence of statistical illiteracy, as @XogGyux pointed out.


And I will keep using it for I have already defined the terminology of the bell-curve in so far as this topic is concerned.

Being unable to comprehend this simple sentence is evidence of functional illiteracy.
#15211164
noemon wrote:Asserting something(.ie that it is not a strawman) without argument is a worthless opinion. I demonstrated why the argument is a strawman and a distraction.



And I will keep using it for I have already defined the terminology of the bell-curve in so far as this topic is concerned.

Being unable to comprehend this simple sentence is evidence of functional illiteracy.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” :lol:
#15211166
Potemkin wrote:“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” :lol:


Standard scientific & legal practice to define the words of the terminology used in the context of a paper. I defined the terminology of the bell-curve several pages ago.

If you had issues with the definition of the terminology you should have raised them at the start as is proper, and not at the end.

Redefining a terminology at the end of the discussion after the theory(with its attendant terminology) has been proven, is a strawman, Humpty.
#15211168
noemon wrote:Standard scientific & legal practice to define the words of the terminology used in the context of a paper. I defined the terminology of the bell-curve several pages ago.

If you had issues with the definition of the terminology you should have raised them at the start as is proper, and not at the end.

Redefining a terminology at the end of the discussion after the theory(with its attendant terminology) has been proven, is a strawman, Humpty.


:lol:
#15211169
Potemkin wrote::lol:


Are you having issues with following arguments that are written out instead of in bullet points? That is also functional illiteracy.
#15211171
XogGyux wrote:Do you have access to the original papers? We might be able to read them through and evaluate them. Oftentimes authors put clues under "limitations of this study" and/or discuss possible reasons under the discussion sessions. Making assumptions based merely on the abstract is problematic. Methodologies make a difference. For instance, if for years 1960 to 1970 you test all highschoolers, but in 1973 you introduce new legislation that merges students with mental disabilities to participate into regular school and then you measure the years 1970-1980 you could potentially see a drop on averages because now you are measuring a new population. A population that always existed but you excluded priorly and gave you falsely elevated scores priorly.
Similarly, you could have the introduction of a new curriculum in 1992 that allows smart students to skip a grade, so you could find yourself in a situation in which you are not counting the smartest students because they moved on to another place so the average is again lowered.
I am not saying either of these scenarios happened, I am merely explaining how you can have biases created by methodology. I don't have access to the original complete papers, but perhaps more importantly, I am not a "peer" so I am not familiar with the bulk of literature that might have preceded these studies and/or the standards. But what I don't see, is a bunch of psychologists and neurologists crying on despair due to the evaporation of our IQ points. What little can be infered from the abstract, it seems that the authors are blaming their findings on various factors that do not imply an actual detriment of human intelligence.


You can read it at PNAS:

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674

Data.
The data cover the full birth cohorts from 1962 through 1991 and include a cognitive ability stanine score from military conscription testing at age 18–19 y for the vast majority of Norwegian-born males. We use a pseudonymous personal identifier to link records across administrative data registers and identify family relationships and siblings born to the same mother and father. To account for family background and family structure, we restrict the analyses to native-born individuals with two native-born parents. Cohorts born before 1962 were subject to a different scoring norm, and cohorts born later than 1991 faced a radically different conscription process with less than 50% invited for in-person testing after completing a web-administered survey. As a result, representative data are not available for later birth cohorts. Data for immigrants are excluded as information on full family size and exact birth order is of lesser quality, while selection into scoring is markedly different as immigrants typically do not face mandatory conscription testing but need to self-select into conscription. Finally, we restrict the analyses to those present in Norway on their 18th birthday, leaving us with an overall sample of 817,611 observations, of which 736,808 (90.1%) have a valid ability score; see SI Appendix, Table S1.


XogGyux wrote:The one thing we know for sure a test is good for is to measure how good you are at taking said test. :lol:


Indeed, that's one problem. But making the jump that the test doesn't measure anything even though IQ correlates with e.g. educational attainment, that's way too big of a leap. Even bigger than Mao's :)
#15211218
wat0n wrote:You can read it at PNAS:

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674

I was initially referring to the original article by Sundeta et. al. that reported the reversal initially. (Sundet, J.; Barlaug, D.; Torjussen, T. (2004). "The end of the Flynn effect?: A study of secular trends in mean intelligence test scores of Norwegian conscripts during half a century". Intelligence. 32 (4): 349–62. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.004.) Which is the #9th citation in the study that you provided. The reason why I would consider reading these is to obtain the background information because it is useful for context. I am not planning on doing this for several reasons. For one, I have said many weeks ago that attempting to measure intelligence is problematic, especially when considering people from different time periods. Another issue, this week I am working (I work 7d on 7 days off) so I am swarmed and don't have time for extensive review of published material on the topic at hand.
However, we can point out a few notable things with this study and similar. The population evaluated is a population of male conscripts age 18-19. So we are talking about a very specific population. Generalization is an issue.

Interpretations is something that should be done careful, with expertise, background knowledge (when possible) and peer reviewed. I am hesitant to venture too far into this, apart from basic general "truisms" because I could fall victim of the same sort of distorted views that a layman person can when trying to interpret a COVID study paper, and we know how bad that can turn out. But, Since we are on this topic, let's put some things into perspective.

Take for instance the data points. Did you notice the graph that plots IQ points vs Year? Did you see anything weird in it?
Why is it, that the Y axis starts at the number 99 and finish in the number 103? Isen't that range a bit odd to you?
They provide some numbers down in their paper. In fact they mention :
The average IQ score from these tests rose from 99.5 for the 1962 birth cohort to 102.3 for the 1975 cohort, after which it declined to 99.4 for the 1989 cohort (then rising slightly to 99.7 for the 1991 cohort; Fig. 1A).

So we can actually play a little bit with these numbers.
If we use the same range on the y axis as the researchers we get a similar graph.
Image
But. What happens if we use a more appropriate range. After all, to get ~99% of the population, you would need 4 standard deviations below and above the mean. Four standard deviations includes the values between 70 and 130. Now this graph looks like:
Image
But since we have some visual learners that like graphs, let's consider another point. The Flynn effect was observed since the 1930's. We have ~90 years of data, lets round up to 100 for simplicity. These 100 years represent less than 2% of human recorded history (~5000 years).
This is a graph of the last 20 years of the S&P:
Image
This is the same information, but now we are looking at the last 6 months which is roughly more than 2% of the data:
Image
Do you see the problem that I am hinting at?
And this is not all, not only we have a minuscule snapshot of history, but we are also looking at only 1 country, only 1 gender. Are you ready to call your fellow modern humans morons now? :lol:
We don't really understand why the flynn effect is there. Speculating about the reason for its reversal, is just that, speculation. Furthermore, even this reversal is controversial. I already sent you the study in france, but here there is a meta-analysis of 285 studies and apparently they did not find that the effect is diminishing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... %20version.
But again, even if it is not diminishing... can you imagine the absurdity of 0.3 increase on average IQ point / year? Going back ~200 years to napoleon would put him at an IQ of 40, going back to the times of Newton, and his IQ would be ~-10 :lol: So clearly there is a problem with this idea.
Indeed, that's one problem. But making the jump that the test doesn't measure anything even though IQ correlates with e.g. educational attainment, that's way too big of a leap. Even bigger than Mao's :)

I am not saying that the measurement is useless or any of the sorts, I am simply pointing out to the limitations of the tools that we have and possible pitfalls when using them (and/or missusing them).
The Flynn effect suggests a 0.3IQpoints/year. So, presumably, an average human born in 1922 would have 100- (100years*.3/year) = 70 IQ. 70IQ we are talking about intellectual disability range. Some of you might have a grandparent alive today, that assuming was an average individual, is a clinically mentally disabled person by today's standard if we are to apply the Flynn effect.
While I do believe it is possible that due to education, nutrition, quality of life, etc modern humans might exhibit a slight advantage on what we would call "intelligence", I honestly could not imagine that such difference would be large enough as to justify these large changes in IQ in just a few decades. I strongly believe that at least a large portion of the effect is attributable to testing methodology and any potential reversal might also be for the same reason.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]