

Human intelligence is declining according to Stanford geneticist - ttar
http://rt.com/usa/news/intelligence-stanford-years-fragile-531/

======
a_bonobo
The paper this article is based on is quite old already, and many problems
with Crabtree's arguments have been pointed out.

Here's some reading material:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/grrlscientist/2012/nov/14/...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/grrlscientist/2012/nov/14/1)

And there's the last HN-thread with a lot of debunking going on:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4818441>

And of course, the Flynn effect completely contradicts this, mostly because
the Flynn effect is actually based on data (IQ-tests in this case) and not
just assumptions like Crabtree did it.

~~~
gwern
Some additional reading material:
[https://plus.google.com/106808239073321070854/posts/jUGVSEg5...](https://plus.google.com/106808239073321070854/posts/jUGVSEg5RUt)
comments include my criticism, link to Cochran's criticism, and link to
Mitchell's criticism.

------
mmanfrin
There was literally zero stated evidence for this in the article. He mentions
that intelligence is 'genetically fragile', then promotes the idea that
because we don't live in hostile environments any more, that those 'fragile
genetics' must be going away, and we are therefore less intelligent.

Paradoxically, though, this 'Stanford geneticist' seems to be evidence for his
own findings.

------
kqr2
This is in contrast to the Flynn effect:

    
    
      The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained 
      increase in intelligence test scores measured in many 
      parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day
    

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect>

~~~
will_work4tears
Hmm, so as we adapt and excel at our new surroundings we lose skills that are
no longer necessary?

~~~
a_bonobo
I know it sounds logical, but it's not proven that we loose things that are
not needed. You might _randomly_ loose features, but you'll also randomly
acquire features. Especially intelligence is such a complicated trait,
influenced by so many factors, that randomly loosing intelligence would be
based on the random loss of a lot of factors, which is in my opinion highly
unlikely.

Just look at all the vestigial crap we still carry around [1]: appendix,
tailbone, wisdom teeth, inside corner of the eye, etc. We don't use these yet
we don't loose them. And loosing these is propably much, much easier than
intelligence, because the development of things like the appendix is
controlled by much fewer factors than intelligence.

[1] Which might still have a purpose that we don't know yet, for example the
appendix might be important in immune response:
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-
th...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-
of-t)

------
thebear
For anybody who feels that there may be something to this, I highly recommend
the movie "Idiocracy" with Owen Wilson.

~~~
rdouble
Luke Wilson.

~~~
thebear
I stand corrected.

------
odin1415
A link to the article for those with access
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952512...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952512001588)

~~~
jclos
for those without access <http://ge.tt/6UxoSsY?c>

------
n3rdy
Well on the bright side, this would still close the gap between artificial
intelligence and human intelligence a little more.

------
datz
Bullshit.

