←back to thread

American IQ scores have rapidly dropped, proving the 'Reverse Flynn effect'

(www.popularmechanics.com)
256 points hirundo | 4 comments | 10 Apr 23 13:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.836s | source
Show context
faeriechangling ◴[10 Apr 23 15:04 UTC] No.35513202[source]▶
Could this have to so with smart people increasing pursuing hedonism over reproduction? Maybe Idiocracy was right all along.

From a strict evolutionary perspective I have doubts that a high IQ is useful anymore.

replies(6): >>35513534 #>>35513691 #>>35514025 #>>35514331 #>>35519826 #>>35520396 #
ZeroGravitas ◴[10 Apr 23 15:46 UTC] No.35513691[source]▶
The point of the original Flynn effect being a big deal was that the changes were faster than was possible with genetics alone.

A big part of "The Bell Curve" was arguing that no interventions could change IQ except genetics and so any money spent on low IQ people (African-Americans in the book, but the author followed up by attacking poor people more generally) was a pointless waste.

It turns out he wasn't just an asshole, he was also wrong.

replies(6): >>35515288 #>>35517718 #>>35517876 #>>35517948 #>>35518147 #>>35518534 #
1. HDThoreaun ◴[10 Apr 23 21:57 UTC] No.35517876[source]▶
Absolutely not what Murray said in the bell curve. It's not a very hard book to attack, so I'm not sure why people always go for strawmen. Please post anything from the book that comes anywhere close to saying IQ is 100% genetic.
replies(1): >>35523261 #
2. ZeroGravitas ◴[11 Apr 23 10:44 UTC] No.35523261[source]▶
I didnt say they said it was 100% genetic. I said:

> A big part of "The Bell Curve" was arguing that no interventions could change IQ except genetics

So its like a "climate change denier" who says "oh I dont deny climate change, its just that I oppose every commonly accepted way to combat it and therefore am in complete policy alignment with actual climate change demiers (who all love my work despite a literal reading being that I’m saying they are wrong)."

replies(1): >>35525037 #
3. HDThoreaun ◴[11 Apr 23 13:44 UTC] No.35525037[source]▶
"no interventions could change IQ except genetics" and "IQ is 100% genetic" are the same statement.
replies(1): >>35525171 #
4. ZeroGravitas ◴[11 Apr 23 13:54 UTC] No.35525171{3}[source]▶
And yet here we are discussing The Bell Curve, a book that simultaneously claims that "it is agnostic" as to whether racial IQ gaps are environmental or genetic, but thinks that there's no point in any interventions to reduce or eliminate low IQs.

I think they're liars that at the very least want you to believe the gap is mostly genetic. But they've carefully avoided ever directly stating that, because of the Nazi eugenics vibe that would give off.

So to try to avoid being accused of misrepresenting these disingenuous liars, I stated not that they believe it's 100% genetic, but rather that they believe no interventions would help.

It's their logical inconsistency, not mine.