←back to thread

256 points hirundo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
faeriechangling ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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. moonchrome ◴[] No.35517948[source]
> 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 should be self-evident that you can lower IQ through environment (injury, developmental issues, malnourishment, etc.). So even if you believe there's a genetic ceiling to IQ, Flynn effect (and reverse) don't contradict that.