←back to thread

256 points hirundo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
faeriechangling ◴[] No.35515288[source]
I agree it probably isn’t genetics alone, notably the increase in visual spatial skills I would suspect to have more to do with video games than genetics.

I have yet to read “the bell curve” said, but did they really use an argument that flew in the face of the abundant evidence of IQ increases unlinked to genetics as a result of better nutrition and education? Hell America gained a few IQ points nationwide from banning leaded gasoline alone so we also knew of environmental means to affect IQ levels. This was all known about and very well established at the time of authorship. Is there an excerpt?

replies(3): >>35515861 #>>35517142 #>>35517897 #
Izkata ◴[] No.35517897[source]
I haven't read it either, but even just a quick look at Wikipedia shows the other responders don't know what they're talking about:

> According to Herrnstein and Murray, the high heritability of IQ within races does not necessarily mean that the cause of differences between races is genetic. On the other hand, they discuss lines of evidence that have been used to support the thesis that the black-white gap is at least partly genetic, such as Spearman's hypothesis. They also discuss possible environmental explanations of the gap, such as the observed generational increases in IQ, for which they coin the term Flynn effect. At the close of this discussion, they write:

> > If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Part_III._The_N...

The part I find especially amusing is how often the Flynn effect is used to refute The Bell Curve, even though the term "Flynn effect" comes from The Bell Curve.

replies(2): >>35518094 #>>35522856 #
1. runarberg ◴[] No.35518094[source]
There are many ways to refute The Bell Curve. In addition to the Flynn effect, the science in it are plain bad, the policy proposals they enlist don’t necessarily follow their scientifically flawed results, it repeatedly cites a disgraced eugenicist as source, it was never peer reviewed etc. At this point, nothing in this book should be accepted as nothing more than a poor attempt at scientific racism. Let alone should anyone take any sort of scientific consensus. Other than the fact that it was wrong.

This YouTube video[1] does a fair job of summarizing the bulk of what is wrong with this book. But IMO very fact that the book is an apologia for eugenicists should be enough of a critique, you shouldn’t need any more.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo

PS. Regarding the naming of the Flynn effect:

> Flynn stated that, if asked, he would have named the effect after Read D. Tuddenham who "was the first to present convincing evidence of massive gains on mental tests using a nationwide sample" in a 1948 article