/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1895809]

Is humanity getting dumber?

Say a man eith 120 iq marries a women with a 130 iq, what iq will the child have?

I assume on average that the child would have a 125 iq.
Do you think humans were smarter in the past?

Thic could explain why the ancients had so many geniuses even though their were few of them.

[Anonymous No.1895843]

The ancients didn't have "so many geniuses", it's just that the geniuses are the only ones we remember. And correct me if I'm wrong but IQ is at least partly environmental, and therefore IQs of the parents would not be the only factor in deciding the child's IQ.

[Anonymous No.1895841]

While sweeping generalizations and observations attempt to dispute this, the average IQ of children increases yearly.

[Anonymous No.1895850]

There weren't more geniuses in the past, it's just that there were fewer people as well so the true geniuses were able to excel and reach their full potential.

[Anonymous No.1895866]

>mfw all of my closest friends have a higher IQ than 99% of population (as do I)

[Anonymous No.1895877]

the average of 120 and 130 is not 125, since it's graded on a bell curve. I'd guess the weighted average to be around 123

[Anonymous No.1895882]

Natural selection these days favors people with lower intelligence. The average smart, white male will have 0-1 kids on average, while the dumbfuck mexicans and niggers have like 10 kids before theyre 18

[Anonymous No.1895900]

>>1895809
>>1895877
No.
Take into account the different deviations shown by male & female - male is greater.
For Op's example a male child should be smarter than Pa, but a female child will be dumber than Ma.

[Anonymous No.1896208]

>>1895809
The parents would have nothing to do with it, I could take a couples baby and raise it on bullshit, telling it all the wrong things and the opposite of right and it wouldn't matter who it's parents were it would still be dumb.

[Anonymous No.1896324]

>Say a man eith 120 iq marries a women with a 130 iq, what iq will the child have?

>I assume on average that the child would have a 125 iq.

Genetics don't work by averaging the nominal values of scantron tests.

[Anonymous No.1896359]

>>1895809
What does genetics have to do with the past? I mean, besides the obvious fact that genes have something to do with intelligence, you haven't made any claim about what this may have to do with differences between present and past populations.

[Anonymous No.1896408]

>>1895809
By your logic it's impossible for people to become taller because the parents' heights would be averaged. Darwin may have had some trouble explaining how this shit works but it's sorted now.

[Anonymous No.1896504]

>>1895809
IQ is measured on a bell curve. The statistical mean will always be 100.

[Anonymous No.1897965]

People are getting genetically dumber on average because there's no natural selection any more. However, a lot of it is balanced out by better education and nutrition. And, probably, before the dumb people overrun the planet, we'll have genetic engineering, sell smart genes to them, make their kids smart, problem solved.

[Anonymous No.1898663]

>>1897965

This is false on several points:

1. We're not getting dumber, the IQ curve shifts about 5-6 points every few years whenever they redo it. (Calibrate? Test for accuracy? NOt sure the best way to describe it)

2. Natural selection still occurs, it can't not occur. We haven't had any major jumps in a while because there's nothing majorly effecting our environment. It's pretty easy for a large amount of the population to survive more dangerous events.

3. Stop watching idiocracy

[Anonymous No.1898673]

>>1895866
It's too bad your still a bunch of annoying jerk-offs.

[Anonymous No.1898675]

>>1897965
We do still have natural selection. Its just that according to you the stupid people are being selected for because you arnt getting any pussy therefore only stupid people breed since you're smart.

[Anonymous No.1898679]

In other news, when a father is 6" and the mother is 5" tall, the kid is most likely to be 5'5".

Oh...

OP, serious question, how old are you?

[Anonymous No.1898686]

>>1897965

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/humans_are_no_longer_subject_t.php

silly rabbit.

[Anonymous No.1898691]

This thread is a perfect example of how most of you are complete idiots with unfounded superiority complexes

[Anonymous No.1898694]

>>1895809
We are smarter now than ever.

[Anonymous No.1898702]

The human population hasn't had enough time for us to evolve significantly in any direction, in the future generations it might. Health is way better now than ever so right now we're probably the highest intelligence we have ever been. The ancients had hardly any geniuses what are you on about? Its just that when they did have one they were so much better than everyone else they stood out.

You're mother father question is irrelevant, but yes intelligence has a very high heritability. On average intelligent people have intelligent children. But anyone can give birth to a genius. Its mostly luck.

[Anonymous No.1898711]

Intelligence isn't hereditary

[Anonymous No.1898717]

I've heard it said that those who hold IQ in high regard are losers.

[Anonymous No.1898719]

im not getting dumber i wen't to book school untill my grade nine and i got my streat smarts after that

you no what op; fuck you

stupid

[Anonymous No.1898743]

>>1898679
>In other news, when a father is 6" and the mother is 5" tall, the kid is most likely to be 5'5".

[Anonymous No.1898770]

>>1898679
wow

[Anonymous No.1898797]

>>1898743
>>1898770
He was paraphrasing OP.

[Anonymous No.1898807]

I personally think that our bodies just aren't ready.

[Anonymous No.1898842]

If you're saying we should be seeing more geniuses within the last 100 or so if we're really equivalent to earlier people, name all the geniuses you can off the top of your head between 100 and 200 CE. When you say "the ancients" it sounds like you're comparing recent history to ALL history and trying to get the same number. Larger sample times same rate of genius occurance equals larger number of occurances.
Math, bitch.

[Anonymous No.1898853]

If you're saying we should be seeing more geniuses within the last 100 or so years if we're really equivalent to earlier people, name all the geniuses you can off the top of your head between 100 and 200 CE. When you say "the ancients" it sounds like you're comparing recent history to ALL history and trying to get the same number. Larger sample times same rate of genius occurance equals larger number of occurances.
Math, bitch.

[Anonymous No.1898867]

>>1898807
Oh come on don't talk like that, baby! I got what you need.

[Anonymous No.1899646]

>>1898797
I gather that you don't understand imperial units either, yes?

never change, /sci/