←back to thread

256 points hirundo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.239s | 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 #
runarberg ◴[] No.35518147[source]
What is going on with Bell Curve apologists all of a sudden replying to this post. I thought the debate was slowly fading out and than I count 5 different account replying within an hour.
replies(2): >>35520333 #>>35520421 #
1. emmelaich ◴[] No.35520421[source]
Groupthink is increased when topic is controversial.

On both sides of course. One group will regard it as settled and the other refuted.