
Did the Victorians have faster reactions? - nabla9
https://mindhacks.com/2018/04/03/did-the-victorians-have-faster-reactions/
======
aborington
See the following paper for why they are is no strong evidence for a decrease
in reaction times.

"Is there any evidence of historical slowing of reaction time? No, unless we
compare apples and oranges"
([https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001281))

>In this paper, we reconsider a tendency of historical slowing of simple
reactions to visual stimuli declared by Woodley et al. (in press). We begin by
reconstructing a pendulum similar to that used by Galton and question whether
such an instrument could indeed be appropriate for purposes of RT measurement.
Next, we screened the other studies used in Woodley's meta-analysis and note
the important properties of these studies that make the RTs that they report
incomparable to each other. We claim that there is no evidence of the trend of
historical increase in RT after these differences between studies are taken
into account. Overall, we conclude that any cross-study comparison of RTs is
uninformative and cannot provide any evidence for speculating on the topic of
historical change in intelligence.

another interesting paper on this topic is:

"The magical numbers 7 and 4 are resistant to the Flynn effect: No evidence
for increases in forward or backward recall across 85 years of data"
([https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001512))

> Based on Digit Span Forward (DSF) and Digit Span Backward (DSB) adult test
> scores across 85 years of data (respective Ns of 7,077 and 6,841), the mean
> adult verbal STMC was estimated at 6.56 (± 2.39), and the mean adult verbal
> WMC was estimated at 4.88 (± 2.58). No increasing trend in the STMC or WMC
> test scores was observed from 1923 to 2008, suggesting that these two
> cognitive processes are unaffected by the Flynn effect.

------
Houshalter
The papers abstract is a bit more interesting than this summary. It looks like
they compared 14 studies of reaction time over decades, not just Galtons:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470)

>The Victorian era was marked by an explosion of innovation and genius, per
capita rates of which appear to have declined subsequently. The presence of
dysgenic fertility for IQ amongst Western nations, starting in the 19th
century, suggests that these trends might be related to declining IQ. This is
because high-IQ people are more productive and more creative. We tested the
hypothesis that the Victorians were cleverer than modern populations, using
high-quality instruments, namely measures of simple visual reaction time in a
meta-analytic study. Simple reaction time measures correlate substantially
with measures of general intelligence (g) and are considered elementary
measures of cognition. In this study we used the data on the secular slowing
of simple reaction time described in a meta-analysis of 14 age-matched studies
from Western countries conducted between 1889 and 2004 to estimate the decline
in g that may have resulted from the presence of dysgenic fertility. Using
psychometric meta-analysis we computed the true correlation between simple
reaction time and g, yielding a decline of − 1.16 IQ points per decade or −
13.35 IQ points since Victorian times. These findings strongly indicate that
with respect to g the Victorians were substantially cleverer than modern
Western populations.

It's not terribly convincing just by itself. He's done newer work showing that
other proxies for IQ like vocabulary have also decreased over time:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4404736/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4404736/)
And math SAT scores have dropped over time:
[https://brainsize.wordpress.com/tag/michael-a-
woodley/](https://brainsize.wordpress.com/tag/michael-a-woodley/) But we are
only just starting to be able to test for genes that correlate with
intelligence to see if they have decreased over time.

~~~
iguy
One complaint IIRC was that the Victorian sample might have been more skewed
towards the elite than the current ones -- people attending science lectures,
or something.

I haven't read the paper linked, Woodley-teNijenhuis-Murphy, but do they
address this?

~~~
AstralStorm
Oh boy, where do we even begin... Let's try this:
[http://archive.is/YcIDb](http://archive.is/YcIDb)

------
jaggederest
Interesting, and perhaps indicative of different environmental conditions now?

I wonder if there's a toxicological or immunological explanation, or whether
it's simply due to differing recreational and activity choices.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
Reaction times are strongly correlated with IQ which, in turn, has strong
inverse correlations with many of the characteristics for people who are, and
have been, reproducing the most. The paper proposes this, 'dysgenic
fertility', as a possible explanation. As an aside this is not an implicit
reference to e.g. Africa. This problem exists on an international and
intranational level. E.g. in the US people who have household income of less
than $10,000 have a fertility rate 150% that of those with a household income
greater than $200,000 with a surprisingly smooth fertility:income gradient
between the two. [1]

Crucially, the heritability of IQ seems to be only increasing the more we
learn about it. Older studies showed it to 'only' be around 60% with more
modern research indicating it is upwards of 80%. [2] One peculiar, and
confounding effect, here is how IQ behaves on youth. In young age
environmental conditions can play a more substantial role in IQ, yet as youth
approach adolescence and beyond their IQ tends to approach their 'genetic
expectation.'

\---

And all the above assumes something many do not seem aware of (based on a
different thread). IQs in the developed world seem to have started to
substantially decline with no viable convenient explanation. Environmental or
educational conditions achieving diminishing returns are what we would like to
believe, yet of course if that was the case we'd expect to see an asymptotic
_decline of growth_ approaching 0. Instead we are seeing an actual decline in
IQ. [3] One conflicting bit here is that most evidence indicates this decline
started happening sometime in the mid 90s. Prior to that IQs had been
increasingly, though more slowly over time - but that _decline of growth_ is
to be expected.

[1a] - [https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-
fam...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-
income-in-the-us/)

[1b] -
[https://www.census.gov/topics/health/fertility.html](https://www.census.gov/topics/health/fertility.html)
(the statista graph presents this data in a cleaner format - adding this as
just a more reliable source than random internet site)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ)

[3] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_progression)

~~~
Joeri
_IQs in the developed world seem to have started to substantially decline with
no viable convenient explanation._

Maybe what's happening is that IQ has been declining for a longer time, but
the gains in health and nutrition were offsetting the effect. An interesting
variable to compare to is life expectancy, which is a proxy for health. Its
growth in western countries has been slowing and in the US it has even started
declining. Studies have shown a link between IQ and life expectancy. Those
studies generally looked towards a reason why higher IQ would lead to higher
life expectancy, but perhaps the causation is reverse.

~~~
AstralStorm
We do not even have good enough data to support IQ results in a single
generation related to this... (there are problems when checking across
cultures) Additionally, the tests were modified over time.

Is the reaction test the same? Was it checked for reproducibility? Has an
alternative hypothesis of slower muscle speed been excluded?

So, drawing any conclusion from these numbers is very, very risky, even
riskier over time - unless you somehow invent time travel and give Victorian
era people the exact same test we give people now.

Remember, IQ tests are graded across average in a generation...

~~~
TangoTrotFox
One standard measurement of IQ is the Stanford-Binet exam. It's been around
since 1916 with extensive concern given to consistency in the 5 updates it has
received over the century. And that consistency is determined through
thousands of trials with demographically representative samples to avoid
predictable issues like a self selection bias in testing.

But like you mention the tricky part is that IQ is measured across an average
in a generation. The mean is normalized to 100 with a standard deviation of
about 15 points. An IQ of 115 does not mean you 'scored' 115 in a vacuum, it
means you performed better than 84% of people. The idea that IQ would
substantially increase or decrease for an entire population over very short
periods of time ( _thus changing the meaning, in a vacuum, of e.g. 115 IQ over
short periods of time time_ ) was surprising, and that's precisely what the
Flynn Effect [1] is. However that change is precisely measurable and enables
researchers to produce comparable values between generations.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)

------
Gatsky
Not this bullshit research again... Woodley is a dishonest crank. Anyone
conducting research in bad faith should be exiled to deep space, it’s
incredibly damaging. Andrew Wakefield is another one
([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield)).

------
polski-g
Interview with the author of that paper:
[https://youtu.be/7XAzSfqrzPg](https://youtu.be/7XAzSfqrzPg)

------
fallingfrog
I would be interested in trying modern people with the original measuring
equipment. I'll bet that when the timer starts there is some _tactile_ click
that allows for a quicker reaction than visual or auditory. I'll bet what is
really being measured here is the difference in reaction times between
different sensory paths.

------
hymen0ptera
The Victorians.

Kind of an artificial make-believe people set.

Better to suppose "some" and not generalize for the universe of all possible
people.

Furthermore, nowhere is the process of measurement, or quality measured,
noted. Is it simple reflex tests (tapping the knee with a small rubber mallet)
or something else?

~~~
iguy
You can read the original description of the apparatus here:

[http://galton.org/bib/JournalItem.aspx_action=view_id=180](http://galton.org/bib/JournalItem.aspx_action=view_id=180)

It's a pendulum which is released (either silently or with a click), and a
button for the subject which records the angle at which it was pressed.

~~~
hymen0ptera
It doesn't sound like they actually compared apples to apples by performing
the same test as a modern replication of results though.

A similar apparatus is not named or sited, when noting the modern equivalent.
Does that matter? Couldn't there be side-effects for measure reation time to
different stimuli?

Also, did modern 1941 measurements operate with the benefit of newer
advancements, such as high-speed cinematography to produce objective slow-
motion footage?

------
scythe
Nobody between 1890 and 1989 produced a reliable assesment of reaction times?
Really?

~~~
AstralStorm
It is suspicious. I think the author is guilty of cherry picking.

------
solotronics
people are taller and signals travel through nerves at the same rate

~~~
mszczepanczyk
There was a study that included height into equation and found no correlation.

[https://mindhacks.com/2018/04/03/did-the-victorians-have-
fas...](https://mindhacks.com/2018/04/03/did-the-victorians-have-faster-
reactions/#comment-493979)

------
dang
Url changed from [https://kottke.org/18/07/the-reaction-time-
problem](https://kottke.org/18/07/the-reaction-time-problem), which points to
this.

------
jlebrech
Vaccinations have probably let the weaker and slower people survive.

~~~
flukus
Some vaccines prevent diseases (like smallpox) that can disproportionately
affect young and healthy people:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome)

> It is believed that cytokine storms were responsible for the
> disproportionate number of healthy young adult deaths during the 1918
> influenza pandemic, which killed 50 to 100 million people.[12] In this case,
> a healthy immune system may have been a liability rather than an asset.
> Preliminary research results from Hong Kong also indicated this as the
> probable reason for many deaths during the SARS epidemic in 2003.[13] Human
> deaths from the bird flu H5N1 usually involve cytokine storms as well.[14]
> Cytokine storm has also been implicated in hantavirus pulmonary syndrome.

------
Ruglamptree
Does anyone have access to the paper referenced in the quote about the
measurement inaccuracy "deemed unlikely"? I'm calling B.S. unless they can
quantify that bold claim

~~~
polski-g
Use sci-hub.tw

------
ScientistX
It's increasingly becoming clear that at least some part of the IQ is
inheritable and that IQ has been falling for last 2 decades or longer as if
the high IQ populace has lost their reproductive edge, probably artificially?
Contraceptives are increasingly being used and women have the equal right so
no one can force a woman to bear his child. Countries being analyzed have some
form of welfare, so no one dies starving. Vaccines and expert help are easier
to come by and the internet also helps here a lot. All this means, high IQ
probably can help you earn millions but low IQ does not mean you die. Also,
today high IQ populace is easier to discover, reward and keep busy with
exciting work, so maybe they are no longer finding time to reproduce. And the
ones who do not possess high IQ have plenty of time to have kids and take care
of them. We've drastically changed the environment in which we live, so
obviously, there will be some consequences. Then also our environment has
evolved enough that we no longer need high IQ to survive.

