
IQ rates are dropping in many developed countries - onetimemanytime
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/iq-rates-are-dropping-many-developed-countries-doesn-t-bode-ncna1008576
======
Pepe1vo
This study seems to base its conclusions for the most part on a study from
2016[0] and a study limited to Norway[1]. Both of these studies base their
findings on data from 1995-2005 (with the exception of the Netherlands and
Britain which both span larger periods) this data itself is collected from
variety of experiments with varying sample size and testing methodologies.

There certainly appears to be something interesting here, but I'd be hesitant
to draw any conclusions from this data the way TFA does, which reeks a bit of
sensationalism. At best I'd call it something worth investigating more
thoroughly, at worst it's statistical noise.

[0]
[https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdf](https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdf)

[1] [http://differentialclub.wdfiles.com/local--files/assigned-
to...](http://differentialclub.wdfiles.com/local--files/assigned-topics-
iq/End%20of%20Flynn%20effect%202004.pdf)

~~~
jandrese
This is the kind of study where I expect in a few months to see headlines
about IQ NOT dropping, and then more headlines about how IQ is dropping and in
the end the whole thing is inconclusive.

The more attention grabbing the headline is the more skeptical I am of the
study.

~~~
magicnubs
Hasn't it only "fallen" by something like 1 point? That seems like it may
easily be due to some (potentially very hard to identify) confounder.

~~~
rocqua
If it fell 1 point per 10 years, but used to grow 3 points, that is a much
stronger change than the bare number suggests. (My numbers are made up and
unsourced)

------
fiftyfifty
Intelligence has been strongly linked with physical fitness, specifically
cardiovascular fitness. Is it any surprise as humans have become less active
that our intelligence has suffered as well?

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/quilted-
science/2009...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/quilted-
science/200912/cardiovascular-fitness-is-linked-intelligence)

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-
way/201...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-
way/201312/can-physical-activities-improve-fluid-intelligence)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2785721/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2785721/)

[https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/regular-exercise-
changes...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/regular-exercise-changes-
brain-improve-memory-thinking-skills-201404097110)

~~~
michaelmcmillan
How do you know that the causality is flowing in that direction and not the
other way? It could also be that we are getting physically worse because our
IQ is declining.

~~~
delecti
Or perhaps even more likely, that both are caused by things like good
nutrition.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
I don’t follow. Good nutrition doesn’t lead to poor fitness afaik.

~~~
nicoburns
The parent is possibly commenting on how nutrition standards in western
countries have (arguably) declined recently.

------
amval
If I had to take a bet, I would bet on a combination of a shortened attention
span and unknown long-term effects of technology on the brain development plus
environmental factors (for example, it seems like plastics are having an
impact in things such as fertility rates and our hormonal balance. This could
cause other unknown effects).

Interesting topic, in any case.

~~~
jqueryin
I would bet on too much screen time for the whole family; seen it first hand.
Parents sitting on their devices all evening and not interacting with their
children. It's a missed opportunity for learning, especially at a young age.

~~~
neilv
That's a disturbing image I hadn't considered. The parents I know (mainly CS
people) have talked for years about "limiting screen time" of the kids, but I
didn't consider that some other _parents_ might have too much screen time
themselves, to the point of shortchanging child early development.

------
s_r_n
I wonder if the drop in IQ is related to the increase in wealth inequality in
these past 50 years as well.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth))

More cohorts of people are entering the so-called "lower" classes and with
this likely comes factors that affect mental aptitude such as decrease in
quantity of healthy food consumed and unchallenging jobs.

This would agree with the study, which shows that families' IQs are getting
lower with each generation.

~~~
cryptica
I think it's because intelligence doesn't help when it comes to earning money.
The luck and social component is so strong that there is very little incentive
for people to be intelligent.

I also do think that wealth inequality correlates with lower average IQ. Rich
people want to keep the majority of people dumb; breed them like cattle, hook
them up to machines and milk them.

~~~
icedchai
Though it's not a guarantee, it certainly does help. I'd argue that
intelligence is part of that "luck." You lucked out and won the genetic
lottery.

~~~
jondubois
I don't buy the genetic argument. Intelligence is worthless.

In this society, a complete idiot with capital can achieve much more than a
genius can achieve without capital.

~~~
icedchai
An idiot with capital will, relatively quickly, lose all of his capital
through wasteful spending. You see this all the time with lottery jackpot
winners, those who receive a large inheritance, etc.

~~~
jondubois
Not so. The reality is that his family banker will invest the money in an
index fund like S&P500 for him and then he will see it compound a predictable
10% or so every year, becoming increasingly wealthy without ever having to
lift a finger or exercise a single neuron.

~~~
icedchai
More likely the banker will invest it in low performing actively managed
mutual funds and slowly drain 1-2% in additional "management fees" out of
him...

------
greendestiny_re
I recently managed to nudge my German cousin into reading. Having been raised
on consoles and Spongebob, he never enjoyed the written word and was more of a
thrillseeker, getting into trouble with a gang of his friends that landed him
in custody for a couple months. I started talking to him about Goethe's
"Faust", which I was reading at the time, and suggested he take it up. He told
me his probation officer nearly fell off her chair when he said he was reading
"Faust"; seasoned academics shy away from it.

Yesterday he said he read through 2 GoT books over the course of a weekend and
asked me if reading raises IQ. I cited that famous "Freakonomics" chapter that
correlates having books with high IQ but can't define a causal link between
the two. I told him reading allows us to see patterns in the world around us,
which is what IQ testing tests for, therefore if he can detect patterns
through reading that apply to the real world he'll be increasing his IQ by
reading.

~~~
pergadad
While the link to is might not be clear, it certainly has been shown to
improve empathy, which in itself is an important ability for success in life.
Alos of course knowledge, awareness of the world, expressiveness/language
skills/vocabulary, ...

------
kemiller2002
This is totally my opinion, but I always think articles like these are totally
bunk, laughably. I seriously doubt the world is getting dumber. I've seen
these assessments, my kids have had to participate in them. I've found them to
be either biased or subjective on several occasions. It depends on things like
the disposition of the person giving the assessment. (I saw this on when
seeing someone take the Stanford Binet assessment.) I'm not saying this
happens on all of them, but that along with wild claims about IQs "dropping"
makes me question their results.

~~~
whatshisface
If the biases are consistent on average then a change still matters. If I
added or subtracted a random number between 0 and 100 to every reported IQ
score in the world it would become virtually useless as a measure of each
person, but the global average IQ would hardly change.

~~~
watwut
Biases are not random nor evenly distributed

~~~
whatshisface
IQ is normalized so that the average is 100. Since the bias has to balance
between the people who read high and the people who read low, population-level
averages turn out OK so long as they are over a large enough population so
that the high readers and low readers are both present.

------
kazinator
It seems obvious to me that the proliferation of mobile devices is going to
make people dumber.

People offload to these things tasks that were previously given to the brain.

Some of those tasks were mundane; yet, even mundane tasks exercise the brain
better than no tasks.

The device substitutes for memory, both short term and long term. Why try to
remember something? Snap an image, stupid! Lost? Doh, turn on GPS, crack open
Maps. Why bother knowing anything by heart? The Wikipedia has your back; you
can instantly access a detailed article featuring more than you'd ever want to
know on almost any topic in any knowledge area. Skimming through text to find
something? Just use search! Alphabetically searching through a paper
dictionary? You're kidding, right? Paper magazine? Holy crap, why: you can't
click on the table of contents. You have to read a number, then hold it in
your head while finding a page that has the same number in the corner! Why
would you do that to yourself?

Devices can easily be turned into tools to boost cognition; that's just not
fun though, and not how most people use them. Some games are good for certain
cognitive skills. There are applications for learning. Mobile devices are
great for foreign language learning: you can train your vocabulary, or review
audio-visual materials, anywhere.

~~~
atdt
Why stop there? Maybe the decline started with the invention of writing.
Here's Socrates:

 _But when it came to writing Theuth said, 'Here, O king, is a branch of
learning that will make the people of Egypt wiser and improve their memories;
my discovery provides a recipe for memory and wisdom.' But the king answered
and said, 'O man full of arts, to one it is given to create the things of art,
and to another to judge what measure of harm and of profit they have for those
that shall employ them. And so it is that you, by reasons of your tender
regard for the writing that is your offspring, have declared the very opposite
of its true effect. If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their
souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is
written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but
by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for
memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your
disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without
teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part
they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom but with the conceit of
wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.'_

(from Phaedrus)

~~~
kazinator
But did the king have data showing that IQ's are dropping alongside the
adoption of reading and writing?

Being able to scribble memos to yourself probably does bring neglect to
memorization; if you do nothing else with your literacy than replace your
short and long term memory with writing, it's possible that your memory will
stagnate.

When we introduce literacy, people read a lot more than they write, and they
remember a lot of what they read. That boosts their memory and learning, even
if writing down notes is otherwise detrimental.

In the modern age, you don't have to remember what you read, just the search
engine keyword or piece of URL to find it again (and for the latter, there are
bookmarks). Basically it's down to just remembering _that_ you read something.

------
grenoire
Air pollution is also known to be a potential reason why the Flynn effect
(newer generations of test-takers performing substantially better on older
tests, accounting also for test familiarity) is declining; with the "IQ curve"
over time plateauing. We know that increased presence of CO and CO2 reduces
cognitive capacity on many areas.

~~~
khrbrt
Ashes Ashes did a podcast on this:
[https://ashesashes.org/blog/episode-07-last-
gasp](https://ashesashes.org/blog/episode-07-last-gasp)

And a related episode on air pollution in general:
[https://ashesashes.org/blog/episode-38-dead-
air](https://ashesashes.org/blog/episode-38-dead-air)

~~~
beenBoutIT
IIRC, the off gassing from carpet that most of us recognize as 'new suburban
home smell' takes 10 points off of a kid's IQ.

------
anon1m0us
"It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by
eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the
habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case.
Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we
can perform without thinking about them. "

\-- Alfred North Whitehead

What he is saying is that as civilization advances, the amount we need to
think to survive decreases. We don't need high IQ's to survive anymore. While
being smart is a selective criterion in a mate, other criteria will tend to
overweight IQ when the amount of IQ needed to survive decreases.

Thus, IQ will decrease as civilization advances past a certain threshold.
Perhaps we have passed that threshold.

~~~
User23
Not really. He’s talking about the power of mathematical formalism. With a
good formalism you just push symbols around following easily memorized rules
without thinking about what they mean until you reach your final result.

~~~
anon1m0us
I disagree. I think the quote is more generally applicable than _just_
mathematics. For example, we can now almost drive a car without thinking about
it. We can order groceries just by saying, "hi alexa, please order me some
groceries." You don't even have to think about where the car keys are or even
how to drive.

~~~
helen___keller
What does that have to do with IQ though?

~~~
anon1m0us
IQ is a measure of one's ability to think, speed of thought, capacity of
thought, memory, predictions of the future. A century ago you had to be
smarter to survive than now because there were more problems to be solved by
the individual. People still built their own homes back then. Grew their own
food. Fixed their own cars.

There were more constraints, so people had to be more clever to survive.

~~~
User23
Plato tells us this is why Socrates eschewed writing. He considered the
written word a crutch and just like walking with crutches all the time would
atrophy your legs, writing atrophies the memory.

------
lohszvu
Rich people are choosing to not have children. Poor people have a lot of
children. Mass immigration of less-educated populations.

~~~
claudiulodro
> One potential explanation was quasi-eugenic. As in the movie “Idiocracy,” it
> was suggested that average intelligence is being pulled down because lower-
> IQ families are having more children ("dysgenic fertility" is the technical
> term). Alternatively, widening immigration might be bringing less-
> intelligent newcomers to societies with otherwise higher IQs.

> However, a 2018 study of Norway has punctured these theories by showing that
> IQs are dropping not just across societies but within families. In other
> words, the issue is not that educated Norwegians are increasingly
> outnumbered by lower-IQ immigrants or the children of less-educated
> citizens. Even children born to high-IQ parents are slipping down the IQ
> ladder.

~~~
mattnewport
> _Even children born to high-IQ parents are slipping down the IQ ladder._

It is expected that the children of high IQ parents have lower IQs than their
parents (and that children of low IQ parents have higher IQs than their
parents). That is just regression to the mean. How are they separating this
from that effect?

~~~
clairity
> "That is just regression to the mean."

that would certainly be true if IQ were independently and identically
distributed (iid), but the point here is that IQ is hereditable (not
independent nor uniformly distributed) and so should show, in the long run,
measurable durability in those differences across lineages. it's likely not
reversion to the mean (or more to the point, the mechanism is not simply
statistical in nature).

~~~
ctlby
You're confusing concepts. Regression to the mean doesn't depend on any IID
assumption. Conditional expectations are right in the definition! In the
bivariate normal case (height, intelligence, etc), it's a necessary
consequence of a correlation coefficient < 1.

------
rb808
My first thought was that kids are spending more time on schooling and
homework, and less on creative play and unsupervised time outdoors. Childhoods
today are very different than 50 years ago.

~~~
masklinn
Were that the case, the highly regimented asian educational system would have
yielded significantly sub-standard average IQs.

~~~
magduf
In Asia, kids regularly go outside without supervision. In Japan, kids as
young as 7 or 8 walk themselves to school without their parents.

That kind of thing is illegal in America.

~~~
zone411
It's not illegal: [https://www.fastcompany.com/3055107/federal-law-now-says-
kid...](https://www.fastcompany.com/3055107/federal-law-now-says-kids-can-
walk-to-school-alone). But it is frowned-upon by the society.

~~~
magduf
It's frowned upon, and a federal law isn't going to stop local cops from
hassling parents. Remember, cops don't actually have to follow or enforce the
laws, they can basically do what they want, and if you don't like it, your
only recourse is to sue.

~~~
zone411
Right, but your original claim was that it's illegal and that's what I was
responding to.

------
screye
Is it possible that the IQ decline has to do with a reduction in sampling
bias?

In previous decades the group of people taking IQ tests might have belonged to
a resource rich group.

Now that IQ tests are more commonplace, we might finally be getting more
signal from the below median side of the bell curve.

The article didn't mention if these biases were accounted for, and it is a
critical detail to leave out.

~~~
xyzzyz
Unlikely. We’ve had very good data from conscription registers, especially in
the Nordics.

~~~
nwah1
Only for men, though. And in the case of Sweden, specifically, IQ and
fertility were positively correlated for men who were born in the postwar
period.

[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.035...](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.0359)

------
rnernento
I wonder when we're going to collectively realize that this epidemic of
stupidity is by far the greatest threat facing humanity. It's the reason we're
having so much trouble addressing all our other problems, e.g. corrupt
government, climate change, etc...

~~~
bshipp
I can't agree with that conclusion. There are plenty of brilliant idiots and
idiotic geniuses in the world and it can often be more difficult to change the
mind of a "smart" person who has drawn the wrong conclusions than a simple
person who has done the same. Individuals who draw their sense of self-worth
from their perceived intelligence a more likely to stand their ground, argue
semantics, and log every cheap rhetorical grenade they can until they are blue
in the face.

For evidence of the irrationality of intelligent people, I proffer the example
of every pointless university faculty departmental meeting, ever.

------
ramblerman
Oof, this is a can of worms... Can you properly analyze the reasons behind
this without going into ethnic differences in IQ? Is it happening in China for
instance?

I don't think we should entertain those studies personally, but I'm not sure
you can honestly conclude anything about this without that data.

~~~
ggdG
> Can you properly analyze the reasons behind this without going into ethnic
> differences in IQ?

The article mentions a Norwegian study [1] measuring an IQ decline _within_
families.

So it looks like the cause must be environmental.

My pet theory is that reading as an activity has been replaced by the
consumption of audiovisual content.

[1]
[https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/26/6674.full.pdf](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/26/6674.full.pdf)

~~~
precisioncoder
See my comment above, the data in the Norwegian study is VERY suspect

~~~
ggdG
Thanks for the heads-up. Yes this difference in sampling method changes
everything.

------
sergiomattei
Well, what can I say? We have access to all human knowledge at the palm of our
hand, but we don't have the discipline to use it wisely.

1\. The rise of social media is a huge contributing factor to misinformation
and shortening attention spans.

2\. Consumption, consumption, consumption. Most consume but don't create.

3\. The unknown effects of technology on our brains. We're all just primates
playing with extremely complicated toys. We don't know their effects on us.

The next decades will be interesting...

~~~
ahje
> 2\. Consumption, consumption, consumption. Most consume but don't create.

That's where I'd put my money. All of a sudden, the need to consume crappy pop
culture has exploded around us, and people simply don't do things any more --
"Netflix and chill" has simply pushed other activities aside.

This is, of course, nothing new; it's just that modern streaming services
deliver makes it so much more available than it was 30 years ago.

~~~
sergiomattei
Yeah, unfortunately for most people creative leisure doesn't exist anymore.
Then again, this also has other factors (work taking over most of our time).

~~~
jddj
This resonates with me, and I want to get on board.

But was leisure so much more creative with television and work rather than
Netflix and work?

I've had some conversations recently about how [my generation and
socioeconomic group] would go outside more often as children because we only
really had an hour or two of cartoons in the morning before the telemarketing-
disguised-as-content started, but I'm also cautious about drawing too many
conclusions because (purely based on my own experiences) I feel like people
will search for an opportunity to explore or be creative if the environment is
at all conducive to it.

See: a lot of our early experiences with computers. Games (consumption)
existed, but that didn't stop us wanting to modify them or explore how they
worked.

~~~
ahje
Just do it. The level of entry is quite low, and depending on what you chose
to do, it doesn't really have to cost anything but time. The only downside
I've noticed is that other people won't understand why the hell you're doing
it, and they'll look at you like you're an idiot when you explain you haven't
watched movie X or TV show Y.

------
nwah1
Selection against intelligence should definitely not be ruled out, although
there are various environmental issues that could be solved.

Female obesity is known to lead to preganancy complications which cause
cognitive deficits.

Obesity in general is known to cause systemic inflammation which affects
cognition and speeds up dementia.

The opioid crisis and various other types of drug abuse lead to brain damage.

Various nutritional deficiencies could play a role. Historically, iodine
deficiency caused the condition of cretinism, but sub-clinical deficiencies
can lead to more subtle effects.

Sleep deprivation is known to cause cognitive deficits, and electronic lights
and jobs with nocturnal schedules are more common now. Light pollution and
spending too much time indoors during the day throws off our circadian
rhythms.

We still have various types of neurotoxins plaguing our environments. More
people are living in urban environments now, which causes greater exposure to
automobile exhaust. Coal plants are still spewing neurotoxins. Lead pipes are
still common in many cities.

High indoor CO2, from poor ventilation, is known to cause cognitive deficits.

~~~
013a
The most interesting part is that it hasn't affected the US (yet). The US is
probably the leader among developed nations in bad environmentalism, blue
screens, bad sleep, opioid addiction, etc... so unless there's a reporting
issue in the US, that kind of rules out a lot of those conclusions.

~~~
lopmotr
Perhaps because the US imports a lot of its intelligence and is the number one
preferred destination for people wanting to be the most successful?

------
kkwteh
One huge assumption no one has challenged is the notion that IQ is a valid
measure of intelligence. One reason to doubt this is that above a low
threshold (80 IIRC), IQ has no correlation with salary.

~~~
WillPostForFood
If you look at socioeconomic success (education and occupation), there is an
extremely high correlation with IQ.

[http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-
content/uploads/Intellige...](http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-
content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-
of-longitudinal-research.pdf)

There are a lot of reasons you would expect divergence when just looking at
salary. A Reporter is averaging 41k, a Postdoctoral Research Associate is
averaging under $48k while a nurse makes $65k and a elevator repairman is
making 79k. Higher status jobs don't necessarily pay more.

~~~
bjourne
Yes, but an even higher correlation between socioeconomic success and
socioeconomic status:

[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/money-academic-
su...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/money-academic-success-us-
college-intelligence-born-rich-genomics-new-york-university-a8585821.html)

~~~
WillPostForFood
The paper doesn't say IQ doesn't correlate to socioeconomic success, it just
notes that IQ tests may be biased by socioeconomic status. But even within
this study you could look at the lowest economic group, and the kids that have
better genetic markers go to college at ~5x the rate of kids in the same
socioeconomic group with poor markers. It also doesn't say much about access
to college today for lower socioeconomic groups because it is entirely looking
backwards at people born between 1905(!!) and 1964. It is not surprising that
the lowest quintile is much less likely to have attended college. In 1940, the
census bureau estimate is less the 5% of Americans had a bachelor's degree or
higher, so it would be expected that the educated 5% was very biased towards
the upper class.

------
sanxiyn
I didn't know about this and it is very interesting. Primary study of interest
is this: Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused.

[https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674](https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674)

------
bjourne
It is not true that dumber people have more children. At lest not generally:

Cognitive ability and fertility among Swedish men born 1951–1967: evidence
from military conscription registers "We examine the relationship between
cognitive ability and childbearing patterns in contemporary Sweden using
administrative register data. The topic has a long history in the social
sciences and has been the topic of a large number of studies, many reporting a
negative gradient between intelligence and fertility. We link fertility
histories to military conscription tests with intelligence scores for all
Swedish men born 1951–1967. We find a positive relationship between
intelligence scores and fertility, and this pattern is consistent across the
cohorts we study. The relationship is most pronounced for the transition to a
first child, and men with the lowest categories of IQ scores have the fewest
children. Using fixed effects models, we additionally control for all factors
that are shared by siblings, and after such adjustments, we find a stronger
positive relationship between IQ and fertility. Furthermore, we find a
positive gradient within groups at different levels of education.
Compositional differences of this kind are therefore not responsible for the
positive gradient we observe—instead, the relationship is even stronger after
controlling for both educational careers and parental background factors. In
our models where we compare brothers to one another, we find that, relative to
men with IQ 100, the group with the lowest category of cognitive ability have
0.56 fewer children, and men with the highest category have 0.09 more
children."

[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.035...](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.0359)

At lest for this group of men, higher iq correlated with more children. There
might be something to the belief that dumb people procreate more, but it might
also be a stereotype popularized by movies like Idiocracy.

~~~
jboles
> not generally:

> among Swedish men born 1951–1967: evidence from military conscription
> registers

What's that?

~~~
bjourne
What's what?

------
ncmncm
This is the comment that suggests, speciously, that many of the other comments
demonstrate the process presented in the article.

The key omission from the article was any hint of a number. Without numbers
there is no way to evaluate the claim. Is the purported decline within the
range of noise of the measurements?

The lack of numbers is usually a red flag indicating that the author does not
want readers evaluating his claims for themselves.

~~~
lopmotr
While in this case, I've heard it before and it seems to come from actual
scientists, so it's probably not just a journalist's imagination. But in
general, I agree that it's frustrating to read articles about trends which
don't show numbers, particularly graphs, making it difficult to judge. There
are so many articles making scary claims like "X has dropped to half what it
was a decade ago!" but it turns out that X fluctuates wildly anyway and the
recession or whatever had a massive temporary effect on it.

That said, my 2c is that high IQ causes people to become professionals and
being a professional reduces the number of children they have. From my
personal observations, poor people seem to have children as their purpose in
life while professionals have other purposes and don't feel as much need for
children.

Contrast this to most of the last couple of millennia where the highest status
men had lots of children to multiple mothers, and famines were common, which
would wipe out the poorest people. The poorest people would have included
those least able to climb the class hierarchy by being merchants or
intelligently winning the games of politics. There also wasn't social welfare
to enable the poorest people to support as many children as they want. It
sounds like a breeding ground for intelligence.

------
bluedino
_Lower skilled jobs, leaving the brain to atrophy_ is listed as a possible
cause.

I'd be curious as to what effect having a phone in your face for 6 hours of
the day has on IQ, compared to whatever the heck it was people did before
social media.

~~~
wil421
I think it depends on the content. I had a book in front of my face for about
6 hours a day for 13 years in grade school. Not counting college.

A majority of the content I watch on YouTube gives me more knowledge, from
Programming to Fishing. A chunk of what I look at is absolutely junk and I
feel like it rots my brain if I watch/read too much.

~~~
anoncake
> A majority of the content I watch on YouTube gives me more knowledge,

Knowledge isn't the same as intelligence though. Maybe having effortless
access to knowledge actually makes us less intelligent because we don't get to
practice figuring things out ourselves as much.

------
Circuits
How? If the majority of what determines an individuals IQ is genetic then how
could it possibly have declined in the span of a few decades? Worst case
scenario our predetermined genetic base line IQ is not improving as rapidly as
it use to in the past.

However, I don't think there is strong enough evidence to jump to that
conclusion. From what I understand a simple bad attitude can dramatically
alter an individuals test score. No, I think the testing methodology and the
scale of the testing would have to dramatically improve before a statement
like: "People are getting dumber." can be taken seriously.

~~~
horatiocain
There are tons of socioeconomic factors to consider, but I know a lot more
fairly average IQ couples with 4 kids instead of two, and I know a lot more
smart people who are either childfree or single than parents.

The ability to use birth control properly requires some intelligence.

The needs/career ambitions of a knowledge work career sometimes push aside the
desire for a family.

Not trying to be down on people who have lots of kids! There's just tons of
factors, some less obvious.

~~~
watwut
Is it possible that you associate things that correlate with rejection of
children with iq? Like ambitions and career - low ambition don't necessary
imply stupid. May be that wish for children tamper ambition and career.

------
drilldrive
>But don’t rush to celebrate American exceptionalism: If IQs are dropping in
other advanced countries but not here, maybe that means we’re not really an
advanced country (too much poverty, too little social support).

I couldn't help but laugh at this. Is the author trying to spin the USA as
second- or third-world? We are the top global economy!

~~~
computerex
Top global economy indeed! With people having to choose between life saving
medicine, food and rent. /s

America is a 3rd world nation in many aspects.

~~~
Wheaties466
In what aspects? I can't think of any that I would want to compare to a third
world country.

~~~
Bartweiss
\- Infant mortality in the Mississippi River delta is higher than in some
third world countries.

\- Roughly 1.5 million US households are living in 'extreme poverty' by
_global_ standards, meaning <$2 per day at ppp before government aid.

\- Hookworm is still a relatively common problem in parts of Alabama, because
sanitation is nonexistent; sewage is piped from homes but dumped untreated
nearby. Outside the US, it's viewed as an "underserved tropical disease" which
only goes untreated in the absence of functioning medical systems.

\- The UN Human Rights Commission sent a special reporter to the US to study
extreme poverty, who concluded that on many metrics like youth poverty rates
the US is more comparable to developing or underdeveloped nations than other
first world countries:
[https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22533)

This isn't just "we could help poor people more" or "things are less nice than
in Canada". Significant portions of the US, mostly in the rural Southeast and
West, are literally impoverished at the same rates as mid-rank third world
countries.

~~~
ncmncm
Infant mortality _overall_ is higher than in numerous third-world countries,
not just in the Mississippi delta.

~~~
CalRobert
Maternal mortality is pretty horrible too.

~~~
ncmncm
... and still rising. Also not accidental.

------
cityzen
Curious how working memory factors into this. We recently had our kids tested
for a bunch of things and although their IQ's were average their working
memory was off the charts. We had never really heard of working memory and
perhaps it's a new "thing" but it makes sense.

From this page: [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/keep-it-in-
mind/2010...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/keep-it-in-
mind/201012/working-memory-is-better-predictor-academic-success-iq)

"The study also found that, as opposed to IQ, working memory is not linked to
the parents' level of education or socio-economic background. This means all
children regardless of background or environmental influence can have the same
opportunities to fulfil potential if working memory is assessed and problems
addressed where necessary."

------
wayoutthere
Is it plausible that rising CO2 levels are slowly causing cognitive
impairment? I recall seeing studies showing a link between the two; and this
would be an outcome.

~~~
elefanten
The concentrations required for such effects are way higher than atmospheric
CO2 changes that'll happen any time soon.

~~~
dv_dt
If the general atmospheric concentration of CO2 is higher, what might the
effect be of indoor areas where one might be testing IQs. There was just a HN
discussion on how high CO2 might get say in a regular bedroom overnight. How
about a testing room with multiple people exhaling CO2, vs a slower diffusion
rate from the outdoors?

To what end effect, I don't know. But it's an open and interesting hypothesis
to explore.

~~~
iguy
I'm pretty sure it would be swamped by changes in precisely how big the
average testing hall is, and how its heating system works.

I would not be surprised if typical school-air CO2 level has changed by 50%
over the last century, but which direction I would struggle to guess. We have
more indoor space per person now, but also seal buildings tighter. Especially
in summer.

------
z3t4
Should not look too hard on these numbers. When I took the military "IQ" test
it consisted of 3d objects printed on paper - figuring out how the next
rotation should look like, and understanding _old_ /unusual words. I can guess
they are still using the same test.

~~~
robbiep
... you’re describing an IQ test?

------
Symmetry
One angle that seems to always get overlooked in these discussion is also the
one that's tended to be the most important historically: the environmental
bio-determinism angle. Eliminating malaria in an area, iodizing salt, reducing
lead exposure, encouraging people not to drink while pregnant, and things like
that have had very large effects on population IQ. Iodizing salt along
increased IQs by about 10 points in areas like Chicago without much iodine in
the water and where they didn't eat much seafood.

So when I see something like this, presuming it's real, I'd first look at
changes in diet, presence of environmental hormones from plastics, and things
like that to explain it.

~~~
Symmetry
Another obvious explanation. We know that large increases in the CO2 in our
indoor environments can decrease results on IQ tests. Is there a reason to
think that small increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn't produce a
proportionally smaller decrease in IQ scores? Or, hopefully, that better
insulation causing higher levels of CO2 indoors in testing places wouldn't
produce lower scores as another possibility.

------
ranprieur
IQ is not intelligence. IQ is a number determined by a culturally biased test.

The most likely reason scores are dropping, is that test-makers are not
keeping up with changes in culture. People are 2019-smart and getting lower
scores because they're not 1970-smart.

~~~
AlexTWithBeard
Sorry, I fail to see how asking to choose a specific geometric figure out of
four can be culturally biased.

Unless we embrace the culture of "there are no wrong answers".

~~~
ynot269
I had to take an IQ test as part of my adhd diagnosis. I was asked about
sherlock holmes, I have never read sherlock holmes, I haven't seen the series,
and I mentioned that when the test administrator asked me questions related to
it.

~~~
erentz
Are you sure that question was related to IQ specifically? I suspect it
wasn’t. Neuropsychological assessments usually administered to diagnose ADHD
include a _lot_ of things that aren’t related to IQ and many things that are
just there to guide the person administering the test on the subjects
capabilities in ways that don’t show up in results but to influence what
further tests they’ll administer.

------
jsjolen
I wonder if obesity can be at least partly to blame.

Anecdotally I've talked to some teachers who say that children's media
nowadays is simplified. Less 'difficult' words, always explaining (never
leaving things to be figured out by the consumer).

~~~
varjag
Obesity is hardly a factor in Norway, where one of the studies was conducted.

~~~
jsjolen
There has been an obesity increase in all western countries, including Norway.

Here's the best source I have on Norway:
[https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/hin/levevaner/overvekt-og-
fedme/](https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/hin/levevaner/overvekt-og-fedme/)

I wouldn't disregard it as a factor.

------
precisioncoder
Very interesting.

I started thinking about possible other reason's this could occur and checked
into the data about the Norwegian study. The data was all from mandatory
conscription so it couldn't be tainted could it?

Guess again.

At the same time that IQ started dropping Norway changed their conscription
policy...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Armed_Forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Armed_Forces)

"In practice recruits are not forced to serve, instead only those who are
motivated are selected.[14] In earlier times, up until at least the early
2000s, all men aged 19–44 were subject to mandatory service, with good reasons
required to avoid becoming drafted."

Hmmmm so IQ in the tested cohort started dropping when it was only tested in
people who chose to take part in Military service rather than all 17-18 year
old males?

That seems like it could have another explanation...

EDIT:

So it seems I missed some info ->

I went back and looked at the data in the study to see whether it used the
preliminary research or only for successfully recruited candidates and
discovered this:

"Cohorts born before 1962 were subject to a different scoring norm, and
cohorts born later than 1991 faced a radically different conscription process
with less than 50% invited for in-person testing after completing a web-
administered survey. As a result, representative data are not available for
later birth cohorts. Data for immigrants are excluded as information on full
family size and exact birth order is of lesser quality, while selection into
scoring is markedly different as immigrants typically do not face mandatory
conscription testing but need to self-select into conscription."

So it seems the preliminary examination does not include enough information or
the conscription in general has changed to radically for that information to
be reliable.

After more investigation it seems that basically they're saying that from 1980
- 1993 IQ rose, then fell again from 1993-2007 reaching roughly the same
levels as previously.

All data after that is tainted as too much has changed in the data source
(conscription).

However one very important point about this is that all data is pre-
smartphone.

~~~
nudq
> While 63,841 men and women were called in for the examination of persons
> liable for military service in 2012 (mandatory for men), 9265 were
> conscripted

Sounds like all men are tested, not all serve.

~~~
precisioncoder
Good catch... I wasn't reading thoroughly enough...

I went back and looked at the data in the study to see whether it used the
preliminary research or only for successfully recruited candidates and
discovered this:

"Cohorts born before 1962 were subject to a different scoring norm, and
cohorts born later than 1991 faced a radically different conscription process
with less than 50% invited for in-person testing after completing a web-
administered survey. As a result, representative data are not available for
later birth cohorts. Data for immigrants are excluded as information on full
family size and exact birth order is of lesser quality, while selection into
scoring is markedly different as immigrants typically do not face mandatory
conscription testing but need to self-select into conscription."

So it seems the preliminary examination does not include enough information or
the conscription in general has changed to radically for that information to
be reliable.

------
xorand
Happy ones those who don't notice. Look at what passes as interesting in the
media.

Seriously now, partial reason probably is that life quality does not correlate
with intelligence in the West. Maybe here there are some people reading this,
who could confirm or disagree with the following. Coming from the East, one of
my first persistent impressions was puzzlement when faced with barely human
intelligence in a rather wealthy aspect.

------
lunias
I realize that IQ is normalized, but have the tests themselves evolved to
better capture what it is that makes us "intelligent" in modern society?

Not to say that the usual pattern recognition type test is no longer valid,
but perhaps it is a lesser predictor of functional intelligence now that
computers have shouldered a large amount of the cognitive burden traditionally
placed on human brains?

I believe that there could be a lessening biological imperative to be
"intelligent" as more and more is provided to us rather than created / taken
by us. We are more likely to be controlled today (of our own volition) than to
seek out ways to control that which we currently do not.

"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." \- Thomas Gray (repurposed
as a slogan for culture in 2019 and beyond)

------
p_man
One reason could be that less intelligent people on average get more kids.
Especially here in Norway where you get generous support from the government
for child care.
[https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781845409852](https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781845409852)

~~~
mcbuilder
That's basically the main premise of the flawed, yet hilarious, movie
_Idiocracy_.

~~~
cwkoss
If anyone hasn't seen this movie, I highly encourage watching at least the
intro, it's one of the best movie expositions ever IMO.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unoMMru4-c0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unoMMru4-c0)

------
pseudolus
There was an Icelandic study that tended to provide some support for the
hypothesis to the effect that people with high educational achievement had
fewer children which led to an overall trend of decreasing educational
achievement in the population [0][1]. Proving the world is unjust, Mike Judge
wasn't listed as an author and didn't even receive an acknowledgement.

[0]
[https://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/E727](https://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/E727)

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/16/natural-
sele...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/16/natural-selection-
making-education-genes-rarer-says-icelandic-study)

~~~
Benjamin_Dobell
The article covers this:

> _One potential explanation was quasi-eugenic. As in the movie “Idiocracy,”
> it was suggested that average intelligence is being pulled down because
> lower-IQ families are having more children ( "dysgenic fertility" is the
> technical term)._

> [...]

> _However, a 2018 study[1] of Norway has punctured these theories by showing
> that IQs are dropping not just across societies but within families._

The studies would seem to contradict each other, which isn't all that
surprising.

[1]
[https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/26/6674.full.pdf](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/26/6674.full.pdf)

~~~
lazyjones
This seems to be data for males (conscripts) only. It seems they didn't
examine correlation with lower-IQ mothers, which may have been a factor.

~~~
ahakki
Norway conscripts men and women.

~~~
lazyjones
Since 1985 women can volunteer, mandatory conscription for women was
introduced in 2015. So at least historical data is definitely skewed.
Currently, there are 13% women in the Norwegian army...
[https://forsvaret.no/aarsrapport/statistikk/personell](https://forsvaret.no/aarsrapport/statistikk/personell)

------
8bitsrule
I'd look hard at the tests first. Apart from the question of validity of the
measures: it's possible that the standardized tests are not keeping up with
the changing ways we interact with the environment.

E.g., how many kids play with blocks these days? Building model skyscrapers,
log cabins, model railroads? Outdoor games? -Unstructured- play time?

Quite a bit different from Minecraft, physically and mentally.

Or, possibly the testmakers _are_ modifying the tests, but the new numbers are
not readily comparable to the old ones.

------
tuberelay
Premature infants have >10 IQ points drop, and as hospitals reduce their
threshold of viability to 24 or 23 weeks, these infants often have really
significant cognitive defects. Here in NZ around 1/3 of these infants will
fail the end of year exams at age 15, vs 10% of the non-premature population.
Fortunately this isn't "negative eugenics" it isn't a change in genes which
cause this.

------
rblatz
Isn’t IQ standardized around 100?

~~~
nprz
> And if you're thinking, "Isn't the test set up so that 100 is always the
> average IQ?," that's only true because researchers rescale the tests to
> correct for improving raw scores.

------
acd
Maybe smart phones are making the users so smart themselves?

Maps replacing spatial awareness in the brain. In other word if you drive by
GPS you do not have to remember the way, the gps device remembers. Social
media replacing real social interactions Automatic translation replacing
language abilities We are also increasingly disconnecting from the real world
senses through devices.

~~~
xvector
One day we'll be one with our devices. True long-term evolution for humanity
involves us taking the reins.

------
molticrystal
>Even children born to high-IQ parents are slipping down the IQ ladder.

In part, this is regression to the mean. They do not explicitly mention this
in the article.[0]

[0]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=IQ+regression+to+the+mean&ie...](https://www.google.com/search?q=IQ+regression+to+the+mean&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)

------
gridlockd
My hypothesis:

Sitting at a desk all day and getting no exercise makes you dumber and that's
exactly where the trend is _up_ :

[https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2016/images/sp-
so-2016-09-21...](https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2016/images/sp-
so-2016-09-21-graph2.gif)

------
paulpauper
If IQs are dropping so much and society is getting dumber, why is there so
much innovation and discovery lately in physics, math, and computer science?
Look at arxiv. Every week there are tons of complicated physics and quant
finance papers uploaded there. Just don't buy this narrative, sorry.

This is why these headlines are somewhat misleading. Just because mean IQs are
falling does not mean that intellectual output must fall, so it's possible to
have simultaneously lower mean IQs but more output if for example low-IQ
populations have a higher fertility rate but otherwise tend to not procreate
with high-IQ populations due to assortative mating. The good news is mating
patterns are not random. People generally seek out partners of equal
intelligence.

The idea of a 'global iq' is somewhat fallacious. To take this fallacy to its
logical extreme, imagine including house pets and other animals as part of
such a score. suddenly, there should be no technology at all given that such a
mean would be probably 50 or so. Rather, we should be looking at IQ by
quantity for each 10-20 point interval of iq above 100, not by proportion.

~~~
lostmymind66
It's dropping, not dropped completely. It could take decades before we see a
drop in intellectual pursuits as a result in a drop of IQ rates.

------
dcre
There's no such thing as an IQ rate.

~~~
_emacsomancer_
Surely IQ increase/decrease over time would give an IQ rate.

------
arthev
Intelligence may have been dropping since Victorian times:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470)

------
stinkbreathmint
Can it perhaps be that people conducting such studies have reduced IQs
overtime so the structure of the study has lost its accuracy? I mean getting a
college degree is a lot easier than it used to be.

------
Nasrudith
Of course the IQ tests themselves are also long known to kinda suck at their
job, clarity towards what they are actually measuring and let alone the actual
causality.

IQ brings to mind "screen time" as a trendy but useless metric as it is even
worse than "print time" where the contents could be anything from pulp fiction
and comic books to advanced textbooks qnd latest articles and more.

Even the article lazily goes with the cliches of pop culture to blame
(certainly not calling the Kardashians and their associated personal image
cult/business venture anything but vapid) but this "issue" inevitably turns
into yet another choose your own useless scapegoat based upon preconceptions
fest based upon no evidence.

------
FabHK
IQ rates? I think journalist writing quotient rates are dropping, too.

------
lurker458
better insulation leading to poorer indoors air quality ? put enough people in
a closed room and CO2 will build up quickly leading to drowsiness, slower
thinking, etc.

------
usgroup
I’m quietly hoping that at some point folks will stop trying to make The world
compatible with the idea of IQ and do more of the converse instead...

------
elorant
I wonder if social media play any role in this. People tend to consume a lot
of crap which I guess make them less intelligent.

------
onesmallcoin
IQ tests just seem to be a scale of how quickly one can get boerd of
something, and stop trying.

------
stOneskull
fear is really bad for the mind. same with suppressing individuality for 'the
team' and its 'approved' viewpoints. learning the right things to say, fearing
thought police, etc, to the detriment of unique expression and problem-
solving.

------
crispinb
It's fascinating to see how many people jump apparently with little pause
feet-first with their pet theories, about which they seem to have no doubt.
And this is on HN, which is supposed to be a bastion of rationality.

Folks, it's OK to be uncertain. This is fairly recent research, the world is
complex, and we don't know everything.

------
frabbit
The title is proof of its own assertion: rates are changes with respect to
time units.

------
eof
Wait a second. IQ is a weighted average. IQs “raising” in developing countries
due to more modern problems to solve, would also manifest itself as “dropping”
IQs in developed countries.

This does not mean people are getting dumber, it just means there is a
narrowing gap, which is good, not bad, assuming you want the best for all
humanity.

------
Lanz
IQ is known to be genetic. Natural selection has been interfered with by
universal healthcare and social programs in many countries, where intelligence
and educational attainment have become negative predictors of reproductive
success, especially for women. The findings of this study should not be
unexpected.

------
ardit33
I am going out of a limb and say that there is a chance that immigration is a
factor as well.

Pre 1990, the immigration in Europe was very limited, and after the fall of
Communism there have been large immigration movements within Europe, and now
from outside it.

Two main reasons immigrants could cause IQ changes:

1\. Genetic variation (you are actually not measuring the same population in
the 80s, and the 2000's). eg, Denmark's minority/immigrant population has
changed a lot since the 80s, going from 3% to almost 12% today. That could be
affecting the score. You are not measuring just Danes, but 88% Danes, 8%
Turkish, and 4% others.....

2\. Lots of immigrants came either for economic reasons, or actually from WAR
(Yugoslav wars in the 90s). Early child trauma, lack of nutrition, and the
difficulties of restarting life somewhere could affect IQ scores, as we know
environment, especially in early childhood could affect the score

If these measurements are coming from the Army, but they are not actually
differentiating from first/second gen immigrants and original Danes, and then
they are not really indicating that the local (original) population is having
a decrease of IQ. Mostly than the newcomers have slightly lower IQs.

Since Denmark was mentioned in the article, here is a chart of their immigrant
population change over time, and it is pretty drastic. From a homogeneous
population to a more diverse one:

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emil_O_W_Kirkegaard/pub...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emil_O_W_Kirkegaard/publication/273063136/figure/fig1/AS:294935698919426@1447329558387/Immigrant-
population-size-over-time-in-Denmark.png)

~~~
inscionent
From the article: "However, a 2018 study of Norway has punctured these
theories by showing that IQs are dropping not just across societies but within
families. In other words, the issue is not that educated Norwegians are
increasingly outnumbered by lower-IQ immigrants or the children of less-
educated citizens. Even children born to high-IQ parents are slipping down the
IQ ladder."

~~~
iq-thrower1
One hypothesis which offers an explanation for this is the accumulation of
deleterious mutations over generations, caused by a less harsh environment
(e.g. medical care, technology) and advanced parental age, then accelerated by
cultural changes [1].

[1]
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0084-x](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0084-x)

------
mtnGoat
I feel like IQ testing is kind of junk science anyways. Depending on which
questions I get, my mood, mental sharpness on that say and such, Ive scored in
the top couple percentile a few times, but i don't think its indicative of
anything aside from i'm good at taking that kind of test.

~~~
colordrops
Maybe for an individual, but do large cohorts have "moods"? Even if IQ tests
only a narrow aspect of human intelligence, it's still something.

------
mattnewport
Evidence for this can be seen in the widespread misuse of the word _rate_.

~~~
floatboth
Any "widespread misuse" eventually turns into just "use". Linguistic
prescriptivism is terrible. What people actually say determines "correct"
usage.

~~~
mattnewport
> _Linguistic prescriptivism is terrible._

That seems rather... prescriptive.

There is no central authority that dictates the use of the English language
(that is both descriptive of reality and prescriptive in that I don't think
there should be).

Meaning is not purely a matter of emergent use however, it also derives from
the meta discussion around that use and the collective attempts to codify use
in dictionaries etc.

In this case I'm being prescriptive and saying this is a terrible way to use
rate and reflects typical journalistic mathematical illiteracy. Anyone and
everyone is however free to ignore my opinion of course.

------
petercooper
Since the mean IQ is fixed at 100 by definition, how does this work?

------
misiti3780
So, the Flynn effect is over?

~~~
sanxiyn
Yes. There has been LOTS of studies reporting the end of Flynn effect.

------
29athrowaway
100 points of IQ is the mean. If scores consistently fall so will the mean.

------
dfilppi
Or put another way, "human IQ test taking ability is declining".

------
hansflying
Socialist countries are responsible for this. Smart people work a lot, have no
children and pay HUGE taxes, but dump people stay at home and make a lot of
children + receive money from Government. Recipe for disaster.

Every socialist Country will fail earlier or later, just like USSR did.

~~~
nikanj
Yeah, that's why countries like Sweden and Finland are at the very bottom of
all the PISA rankings /s

------
joshsyn
A great time to be a capitalist.

------
nudq
On the other hand, in a few years you won't need even _basic literacy_ to
thrive in developed countries.

It'll be enough to _grunt_ in the general direction of the nearest piece of
smart furniture. Amazon will know everything about your physical, mental and
emotional state needed to know what has to be dispatched, cost deducted
automatically from your UBI account.

~~~
TomMarius
Is this really the future we want for humankind?

~~~
Nasrudith
The thing is short of being responsible for human extinction you never get to
choose the future for humankind - only expand or limit their options.

To give an absurd example your descendants may decide for some bizzare reason
it would be awesome to keep pet dodos fenced in their yards. Given that dodos
are long extinct immediately it is impossible. But if their biotech advanced
enough to recover the DNA and clone them and either manually reconstruct or
mutate the cloned base until an acceptable genepool was produced operation
"yard-dodo" would once again be a possibility - although very remote.

------
challenger22
One claim I imagine that no sociologist will ever be able to prove (or
disprove)-

If we are living in a crisis of confidence about society- one in which people
are plagued by pessimism about too many humans causing global warming, secular
stagnation, overpopulation, where all the low hanging fruits are already
picked, lack of moral purpose, with the impression that humans are a plague
upon the world-

Won't the average pessimistic person care less about trying hard to do
anything? And won't this manifest as less effort to be smart and just?

~~~
malvosenior
I think it's really hard to be creative when you spend your time worrying
about all of that stuff. Most of my peers spend an inordinate amount of time
stressing out about every item you list. They get locked into ways of thinking
that are nearly identical to each other and that lockstep voice bleeds out
into other unrelated areas. There's a lot of group think.

I don't worry about any of that stuff and have a lot of extra energy to
explore random topics and generally more positivity to power my endeavours.

It seems the like overt consumer marketing of the 20th century has morphed
into a social/political marketing in the 21st century. Because this is a new
phenomena people don't seem to realize it's happening and instead blindly
contribute their mind the borg, so to say.

------
Creationer
The good news is that molecular biology is rapidly advancing to the point
where we can identify specific genes contributing towards certain traits eg:

Intelligence:

[https://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/more/articles/22-gene...](https://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/more/articles/22-genes-
have-been-linked-to-intelligence)

And aggression:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A)

As we continue to research, and hopefully one day allow embyro selection and
gene insertion/deletion for genes linked these traits, we can resume the
increase in IQ.

Epigenetics complicates things:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics)
but it just means we have more research to conduct!

~~~
inciampati
This may be more remote than you imagine. These conclusions treat complex
multicellular organisms as additive linear functions of (a very low resolution
image of) their genomes.

We aren't close to understanding intelligence as it relates to cellular or
molecular biology.

------
5trokerac3
They tell us that we lost our tails

Evolving up from little snails

I say it's all just wind in sails

Are we not men?

We are Devo

Are we not men?

D-E-V-O

------
gregoryexe
I would dare to add, "All according to plan"

------
rc_kas
This is all caused by advancement in medical technology. So many people are
alive now that should have died during birth. So many should have died at
younger ages that are kept alive due to medicines (that people depend on for
life). Pain reduces your ability to think. So many people are alive but living
in pain. In past decades those people would obviously not be alive.

~~~
timdiggerm
Why do you use "should" instead of "would"?

~~~
bthrn
The optimistic interpretation is that it was meant as "should have died <were
it not for the advancements>"

------
itamarst
This article is full of very explicit racism.

~~~
foolrush
You aren’t wrong, and yet you get downvoted.

SAT tests are rooted in eugenics theory. IQ testing, despite the original
developer warning of incorrect application, was weaponized in that direction.

Yet here you find yourself getting voted down.

[https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=h...](https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.ca/&httpsredir=1&article=1270&context=law-
review)

[https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Intelligence-
Testing-a...](https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Intelligence-Testing-and-
the-Beginning-of-Eugenics)

[https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/01/assessment](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/01/assessment)

~~~
fromthestart
So, hypothetically, if objective measures of intelligence show correlations
with ethnicity, we should just ignore them because they're inconvenient? Isn't
that a little irrational? How can you make any use of intelligence measures if
you cherry pick according to your preconcieved notions of what you _want_ them
to show? What then is the point in practicing any sort of psychology or
sociology at all, if your conclusions are so unscientific?

~~~
cameronbrown
We don't even know if ethnicity and IQ are the common factors here. I have a
hunch is it's far more weighted on culture than genetics but I don't have any
evidence to back that up.

~~~
vixen99
Tend to agree and here's some telling evidence.
[https://youtu.be/SzHd5bmEdU4](https://youtu.be/SzHd5bmEdU4)

------
hairytrog
I wouldn't worry too much. There is a feedback loop. Modern industrial society
has a few core components like welfare, addiction, extreme individualism,
inequality, and short term thinking that do not select for high IQ and are not
amenable to fostering high IQ - we end up with DINKs and idiocracy and people
just don't have to be that smart to survive and operate. There's very little
need today to plan ahead, to figure things out, to do new things. But the
assumption is that modern society needs some high IQ to operate. At some
point, IQ drops to the point where modern industrial society fractures, and
selection forces reemerge to favor IQ friendly environments.

You should worry that about the possibility that recent tech has sidestepped
the IQ feedback loop. That is, the tech is good enough without human input
that it can sustain a low IQ society. In that case, it's downhill from here.

Interesting read:
[http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com](http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com)

~~~
comboy
It seems to me that many people who have kids early (and often have many kids)
are those who got them, even if not by an accident, then at least without
thinking much about it. Those who try to learn as much as possible first,
often decide that it overwhelms them. Planning ahead also seems to be
correlated with better use of birth control.

I agree that there is some evolutionary negative feedback loop but we are
doing are best to work against it because that seems like a right thing to do.

The feedback loop we haven't handled yet is automation which is increasing
minimum IQ required to get a job.

