[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.94 MB, 250x229, 1335796955957.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4725928 No.4725928 [Reply] [Original]

There is a negative correlation between IQ and fertility. i.e. stupid people have more kids. However when educated, women have both less kids and have them later. Does this a) mean that there is a downward trend on IQ, and will it be reversed at some point? And b) is the solution too population crisis to educate women?

Im interested in hearing what /sci/ thinks of this

>> No.4725937

It mean intelligence isn't wholly inheritable
OR
IQ doesn't measure inherited intelligence.

>> No.4725941

b) is obviously yes. One of the greatest ways to control birth rates is through education not only of women but also of men, like the pro and cons of having children, the responsibility you have to assume when you have one, anti-consceptive methods and stuff

>> No.4725951

>>4725941
Yeah thats what I thought. Is it reasonable to assume that as better education becomes more ubiquitous, the population will stabilize, and (at some point) begin to contract? or are there other factors to consider that I havent thought of?

>> No.4725955

>>4725928
Stop watching Idiocracy. The movie is a joke.

>> No.4725956

>>4725955
lol never watched it. this was speculation after reading a news article about a study in ireland relating to level of education vs fertility, and the recent fact that whites are no longer the majority in america, having been essentially out bred by unskilled immigrants

>> No.4725958
File: 151 KB, 400x537, ani_europe_2L.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4725958

>>4725951

Yes, it's hard to predict when, but that's a reasonable guess.

Image related

>> No.4725972

This same relationship exists in nature.

Animals small or stupid do generally have many offspring and don't care for nursing.

This is probably due to a limited ability to predict or control its surroundings and thus resort to a policy of genetic redundancy.

If this is true, conventional means of birth control may not be effective. On the other hand, genes are stupid and will know nothing more than that you got aroused and ejaculated. Just as planned.

>> No.4725993

I have studied this issue at great length. What happens is that people pass on instincts about how to survive in civilized society on to their descendants, some of which increase IQ of descendants. This counters the dysgenic effect to some degree.

However, society is accept tribalistic ideas as well. This could end the flynn effect. A good example of this is the Occupy Wall Street movement.

>> No.4726003

THERE IS NO POPULATION CRISIS

WAIT, NO, I'M ACTUALLY INCORRECT ABOUT THAT

THE POPULATION CRISIS IS THAT ADVANCED INTELLIGENT NATIONS ARE ACTUALLY HAVING >LESS< KIDS AND ARE ON A DECLINE (e.g. Japan, France), NOT OVERPOPULATION LIKE YOU SEEM TO THINK

>> No.4726069

>>4726003

less is an amount of a thing, not a number of things. you mean fewer kids, not less.

>> No.4726091

A secular increase in IQ brought on by improvements in education, nutrition, etc has been masking a decline in genotypic IQ. There is indication that the Flynn effect has stopped, or is even in reverse in some developed nations. Hopefully advancements in genetic engineering will prevent dysgenic decline from becoming a serious issue.

>> No.4726095
File: 72 KB, 315x449, dysgenics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4726095

<- Recommended reading

>> No.4726105

Would the flynn effect not indicate that IQ =! intelligence, but instead represent the capacity of an individual to use this specific method of approaching information?

>> No.4726131 [DELETED] 

>>4726105
>Would the flynn effect not indicate that IQ =! intelligence

The meaning of "intelligence" is completely irrelevant. IQ scores are considered useful based on their relationship with external outcomes, such as occupational obtainment, job performance, academic performance, pro-social behavior, etc. Some people might consider such outcomes indicative of what is intuitively understood as an "intelligent" person, but if others disagree it doesn't really. It still doesn't change the socio-political implications of psychometric research.

>> No.4726134

>>4726105
>Would the flynn effect not indicate that IQ =! intelligence

The meaning of "intelligence" is completely irrelevant. IQ scores are considered useful based on their relationship with external outcomes, such as occupational obtainment, job performance, academic performance, pro-social behavior, etc. Some people might consider such outcomes indicative of what is intuitively understood as an "intelligent" person, but if others disagree it doesn't really matter. It still doesn't change the socio-political implications of psychometric research.

>> No.4726148

And yet, having an IQ ± 5 or 10 points relative to your peers doesn't change a damn thing when it comes to actual performance.

Don't get too caught up in it.

>> No.4726151
File: 19 KB, 500x271, Citation Needed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4726151

>>4726148
>And yet, having an IQ ± 5 or 10 points relative to your peers doesn't change a damn thing when it comes to actual performance.

>> No.4726152

http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci708/cdocs/Schmidt_Hunter_2004.pdf
>The psychological construct of general mental ability (GMA), introduced by C. Spearman (1904) nearly 100 years ago, has enjoyed a resurgence of interest and attention in recent decades. This article presents the research evidence that GMA predicts both occupational level attained and performance within one’s chosen occupation and does so better than any other ability, trait, or disposition and better than job experience. The sizes of these relationships with GMA are also larger than most found in psychological research. Evidence is presented that weighted combinations of specific aptitudes tailored to individual jobs do not predict job performance better than GMA alone, disconfirming specific aptitude theory. A theory of job performance is described that explicates the central role of GMA in the world of work. These findings support Spearman’s proposition that GMA is of critical importance in human affairs.

>> No.4726158

>>4726151

How driven you are, experience in the field and a bunch of job-specific variables (Can you work in a team?) are far more important than a few IQ points.

>> No.4726160

>>4726158

See: >>4726152

>> No.4726162

>>4726158
>How driven you are, experience in the field and a bunch of job-specific variables (Can you work in a team?) are far more important than a few IQ points.

Personality traits like conscientiousness certainly matter. But you can lie your way through a personality test by giving the answers you know will be considered desirable. IQ tests don't have that disadvantage.

>> No.4726165

>>4726162

Interestingly enough Lynn shows in his book Dysgenics that conscientiousness is a heritable trait that is also negatively correlated with fertility.

>> No.4726167

>>4726134
Of course the meaning of intelligence matters, such as its relationship to genetics. If it represents the capacity to perform well in the aforementioned categories independent of innate biology then IQ is completely different from intelligence but instead represents the proficiency of individual in learning the culture IQ represents.

>> No.4726190

>>4726167
>Of course the meaning of intelligence matters, such as its relationship to genetics.

IQ matters in its relationship to genetics. It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a highly heritable and correlates with neurophysiological traits. Still, this doesn't change the fact that how you define "intelligence" has nothing to do with the value of IQ, because the value of IQ scores rest entirely in its operational utility.

>If it represents the capacity to perform well in the aforementioned categories independent of innate biology then IQ is completely different from intelligence but instead represents the proficiency of individual in learning the culture IQ represents.

This is a non-sequitur. The relative importance of social and genetic forces in contributing to ones IQ score has nothing to do with how you define "intelligence".

>> No.4726242

>>4726190
>This is a non-sequitur. The relative importance of social and genetic forces in contributing to ones IQ score has nothing to do with how you define "intelligence".

Essentially what >>4726167 is saying is that intelligence should be defined as genotypic IQ. If thats the definition he wants go by, thats fine. Though his rather heterodox definition made it hard to follow what he was talking about. So when he asked "Would the flynn effect not indicate that IQ =! intelligence", he was asking if the Flynn effect was proof that IQ is not genetic. Not even Flynn believes that the Flynn effect is proof that IQ is entirely the subject to environmental influence. It is a well-established fact that most of the variance in IQ amongst adult populations in developed nations is the product of genetics.

>> No.4726402

>>4726162
>But you can lie your way through a personality test by giving the answers you know will be considered desirable.

That will help GET you the job, but that doesn't mean you'll be any GOOD at the job.