Biggest things that have helped me have been paying attention to endocrinology (avoid things / activities that deplete your testosterone), supplementing things like magnesium, heavy workouts, and good diet / sleep. Avoid screen time as much as possible. Read more books, etc.
Want to share any tips? It feels like a big problem in my life. Sleep disruption is a bigger issue, not sure the root cause but the outcome is dreadful.
As I understand, heavy workouts, supplement Vit D and magnesium, take creatine, avoid flaxseed, any others?
Sleep is critical.
Sunlight is too, also supplement D3 if you’re not getting enough.
Get your levels checked quarterly. (I’m writing for men, I know nothing about women’s health. Not trying to exclude anyone, I just haven’t researched it.)
If you’re in your 20s, T levels below 700 should be a cause for concern. My T is naturally decently high so I choose not to use TRT and focus on all natural things (diet, exercise, sleep, sunlight, etc.)
Watch your macros. Keep carbs lower than fat and protein. Adjust based on your level of activity.
Don’t drink any sodas or fake drinks whatsoever. Coffee and water, tea, natural juices in moderation (watch your sugar). Red wine is good. Dark chocolate if you must. Avoid sugary cocktails and beer.
Supplements: whey (after lifting, watch out for fillers and soy), D3, fish oil, mg, multivitamin, the occasional caffeine pill, turmeric, athletic greens.
Walk 10k steps a day, do some kind of combat sport if you can (boxing, BJJ, etc.)
That’s my basic regimen. There’s a lot I don’t know and you have to find what works for you but this is how I stay happy and high energy.
Semen retention is life changing, that's all I can say. Imagine feeling 10-15% better everyday (assuming you indulge often and feel depleted).
If interested, start here: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/doing-what-you-evolved-to-do
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: [very nervous] Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen... tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Jack D. Ripper: [somewhat embarassed] Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence
> the patient adhered to the daily 30 g. dose of flaxseed 93 days out of a possible 112 days during the observational period.
> A significant decrease in androgen levels was observed, with a 70% decrease in total serum testosterone, an 89% decrease in free serum testosterone, and a 65% decrease in the % free testosterone observed.
Free business idea: stop trying to make biodiesel and instead harvest omega 3 from algae. Sell it to the whole world at $8/gallon. Make the world a smarter, calmer place in the process.
If it comes from mercury- or other toxin-laden areas, the omega-3 may cross the blood-brain barrier and deposit whatever it's laden with in the brain.
Asking as a female.
Also, I'm supplementing to levels normal for young men. And young, I am not. So there's zero chance that I'd have adequate testosterone now, even if I'd never used a supplement, or had some disorder that reduced testosterone production.
I am aware of increased health risks. Especially for testosterone-dependent tumors, such as prostate cancer. So I get screened frequently. Also cardiovascular stuff.
If your hormones are out of balance - it makes sense that your brain isn't going to be working optimally. That being said, I believe it's a hormonal deficiency issue - and not a gender issue. So it's going to be rare for most people to be affected by this.
 - https://www.webmd.com/men/features/how-low-testosterone-affe...
I'm not looking to pick at the trope argument here. I just really don't know if these kinds of evidence are evidence enough to use such research to support oneself in one's own sense of what it means to take care of oneself. When you lead with a statement that is an absolute, with a citation to a respectable publication, I mean, the conclusion in the publication simply is not an absolute, and there are many reasons given as to why that is the case.
When there's barely anything to go on, I think that can be one of those instances where you can be simply, overloaded with the sheer amount of information available and sheer amount of information you've tried to work with. People exhaust their own minds trying to go through all of that, because there's probably a real issue they are really dealing with and don't know how to fix.
This is a kind of tolerance(?) I've developed by growing up with family of people who either have total careless attitudes about health or a level of hypochondria that death often seems preferable to (but isn't, but can really seem preferable than looking forward to a lifetime of 'find problem/solve problem' for literally everything - missing out on the whole everything else of life, perfectionism yo-yoing with "i do not care about anything"). I'm like my family in many ways as well, probably similar to your friends in person. I just know that what looks 'stupid' isn't always, and likewise, what looks like intelligence, isn't always.
I have my own problems with self care, but I'm often feeling as though I am carefully treading a line that I would rather call a tightrope, than anything so simple as 'balanced'. Try to have a sense of humor about it, and sigh.
I don't know if the problem is just a problem of doubting oneself. I don't know if what I say helps. I know
understanding this aspect of it helps me feel less like my family is driving me insane, just having some tolerance for it, acceptance, and trust that they can deal with their own stuff as independent people, and if they need help, they'll ask.
I guess my point is having all of the science can be as good as having none, because that's what science is. Sometimes it doesn't know what it does. Sometimes all the research we've done simply isn't enough. That's not said with the attempt to rationalize 'go do crazy XYZ everything is fine ignore consequences etc all science is stupid'. It's just literally, what looks like having a lot of information can be comparable to having next to none, and what looks like having next to no information can actually be having a lot of information.
It's always puzzling though.
There is a tremendous amount of context that is critical to fully understanding a person’s situation. Most often, there is a lot that doesn’t get revealed. It’s extremely tough being in any condition mentally or physically that, even with our supposedly best tools and research, can’t yet be addressed. the weighty of that could also conceivably fuel a cycle of degrading the condition of the other (physical -> psychological -> physical etc..).
In the particular situations I’m thinking of, these considerations need to be made and the complexities explored. It can be tricky at times, but I try and take the time to understand what the context is that I might be missing. What problem are they really trying to address? What’s led them to seek X treatment? Were there negative experiences in the past that either failed them or complicated their situation? I say it can be tricky, because I never want to see them do harm to themselves or others, but what they’re doing might have potential to do that. Often times it is just a matter of realizing that this person is going through some struggle and trying to find something that works for them. I won’t fault a person for that. Trying new workout routines that I find on YouTube is something I do, but with no particular expectation that I can expect anything definitive from the variety of sources I’m using. Others, such as the hypothetical, but not unrealistic case of a Naturopath who might have sold a bill of goods to a cancer patient, leading them to go off radiation therapy and subsequently die, are a bit different.
Your attempt at finding a balance between the polar opposite and probably unhealthy approaches your relatives have taken is an admirable effort. It’s tricky to break habits you might have been raised with and I can definitely relate. My father has, to minimally variation, eaten peanut butter sandwiches on white bread, along with large fountain drinks and no doctor appointments for the last 20 years or so. If you’re a person who wants to improve your well-being, already you’re off to a good start. That keeps you above the extreme of not caring. If you’re a person who seeks information from multiple sources and can critically examine it, you’re likely to come across confounding evidence quite frequently, which is less likely to get you to the upper extreme of thinking that every problem can be addressed or that there is a definite solution at all. Things are not clear cut in this world.
Everyone has their own self-care problems. The best we can do as individuals is more than nothing but less than everything. Look for good information, and try to do well for yourself.
Lastly, I do get your point and agree that things are puzzling. Puzzles can be fun though.
It is tricky, because the person can be aware you are aware of this, as you are trying to help. They may have been aware of it the whole time. And with every attempt to 'fix' the issue, the problem just gets reinvented. I say fix as in 'direct, require, guide with an expectation, approve'.
Because that's what a person with a problem keeps doing. Over and over. And they eventually come to realize the way you see things. They could potentially be still hurting others or themselves. Over and over. But it can't be helped sometimes. You can try to control every detail and there's still that little room for improvement. Eventually it comes down to minutia - obsession with things that really have no relevance to the overall problem. The problem has instead turned into a dynamic of leading and following - one has to be right, the other has to approve of the information given by being 'fixed'.
And that's sometimes enough for a person to just want to constantly go 'fuck it', because it's completely ignorant to all the positives - both from the help you've provided, and the improvement they've made. And if you let them see that you've been helped in the process too, that's validating for them and that's validating to you too.
If you don't understand their problem in entirety, you have no goalpost to define for them. And the problem might be that they just want to accept themselves without the identity of 'having a problem'. But they just might not have figured out the words to say that yet, or they may be afraid of letting go of that identity because what if bad things happen the way they've come to expect? They may have both awareness - that they need to let go of the identity of having a perpetual problem, but also, some of those fears go very deep, and it's not so much that 'having a problem' is an excuse, it's more that, they've had shitty experiences, and the past can't be rewritten. It takes time to heal, accept the past for what it is, and be able to persist through the present while letting go of whatever fears they have.
A lot of people with 'a problem' blame themselves. By trying to fix it for them, it doesn't allow them to see they can fix their own problems.
Thank you for your reply as well!
Take a look at:
Meditation also helps. Kabat-Zinn has some decent intro content.
I've personally noticed that seconds move faster now. When I was a child, seconds were slow a minute was an eternity.
Edit: should say outside of assigned readings for school work. Which tend to lean technical and are never fully read from cover to cover.
Count yourself lucky, I reckon I usually get at most 2 hours if I really force it and most nights hardly anything. We've family, kids, house, own business etc and that just eats away at everything else.
I’ve found that being sick and bedridden actually improves my productivity by a nice multiple (1.5x?). Being home and healthy gives a 3-4x boost.
The perfomance review scene in the Zero Theorem pretty much summarizes my opinion of open seating.
Back in the day, I used to be able to sit down in the comfort and isolation of my room and knock out a good 300 page novel in one sitting. Nowadays, I find I can scarcely make it through a chapter without finding myself distracted, wandering, and reaching for an electronic device.
This become one of the major reasons why I got rid of my cellphone. I found it incredibly disturbing.
Sometimes I need to do deep work and struggle to get into it. I'm quite disciplined at not being distracted but think a large part is I'm just not used to the big thinking any more.
I see the kids claiming they can multitask, they have their phones out, TV running in the background etc whilst supposedly working. Having anything which demands your attention inhibits you getting into the zone and can easily rip you our out it.
(Entirely my thoughts & viewpoint, nothing scientific here)
However, and despite me being prone to tell this as a funny anecdote, this might be a case of sample bias or other statistical imprecision.
Edit,and as the other person says, the reliability more than 2 standard deviations up is somewhat limited, so a person scoring within 4 points is reasonable.
It is worth noting that the recent meta-analysis (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24979188) showed no such effect across a wide variety of scales and countries.
However, the really interesting question here (which is possible to answer because of the size and sampling of the Norwegian data) is what is happening in Norway, for this effect to be occurring in what appears like a consistent fashion?
In other words, we should in general rely on meta-analyses rather than individual studies when looking at results like these.
The paper you link also specifically mentions the results from Scandinavia:
> Our study did not find evidence for the plateauing or decline of the Flynn effect in the United States, as has been documented in Norway (Sundet et al., 2004) and Denmark (Teasdale & Owen, 2008; Teasdale & Owen, 2005), respectively. Table 5.6 in the WAIS-IV manual (Wechsler, 2008) summarizes an excellent planned comparison of the WAIS-III (standardized in 1995) and the WAIS-IV (standardized in 2005) scores administered in counterbalanced order to 240 examinees. This table shows results similar to our meta-analysis, with average WAIS-III scores about 3 points higher than WAIS-IV scores. In addition, the effect was similar across age and ability level cohorts. To the extent that the United States and Scandinavia differ on at least the variables proposed to be related to the plateauing of scores in Scandinavia (e.g., family life factors [Sundet et al., 2004] and educational priorities [Teasdale & Owen, 2008; Teasdale & Owen, 2005]), we might anticipate the difference in IQ score patterns noted. For example, Scandinavia’s parental leave and subsidized childcare might be indices of optimal socioenvironmental conditions and are generous relative to the United States.
"The researchers also found some differences between family groups, suggesting that some of the decline might be due to environmental factors. But they also suggest that lifestyle changes could account for some of the decline, as well, such as changes in the education system and children reading less and playing video games more. Sadly, other researchers have found similar results."
"we show that the observed Flynn effect, its turning point, and subsequent decline can all be fully recovered from within-family variation. The analysis controls for all factors shared by siblings and finds no evidence for prominent causal hypotheses of the decline implicating genes and environmental factors that vary between, but not within, families."
Is this bad reporting or am I mis-understanding the conclusion of the authors?
EDIT: I think I was misunderstanding the conclusion of the authors. They believe they have shown that environmental factors are the main cause (from skimming the full paper's discussion).
> According to a 2006 article by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, contemporary psychological research often did not reflect substantial recent developments in psychometrics and "bears an uncanny resemblance to the psychometric state of the art as it existed in the 1950s."
A crude example would be these days people are less reliant on memorising information as they were 30 years ago because search engines enable the individual to find answers quickly. So you adapt your approach to a particular subject to learn how to search for answers instead of how to memorize those answers.
As an aside, since we are heading at pace to a future where our memory is augmented by the internet; if for the internet offline for whatever reason humanity could be thrown into the dark ages again with vasts sums of knowledge lost.
US education is an atrocity.
That said College Board is a very big risk factor, because its process and scoring is opaque.
US education is problematic because (inner city) children are not thaught the value of education. When parents are crazy, it's hard to teach the kids.
"When even role models tell us we're born to be felons
We're never gettin' into Harvard or Carnegie Mellon
And we gon' end up either robbin' somebody or killin'
It's not fair that's all they can tell us
That's why you hustle hella hard, never celebrate a holiday
That'll be the day I coulda finally hit the lottery
I refuse to ever lose or throw my shot away
Or chalk it up as just another one that got away."
It's not their fault that they are trapped, but the fact is still that. They incorrectly under value long term goals like staying out of jail (the overused example of making quick bucks by selling drugs), just like almost all people, they just pay for it much more, since they happen to be poor.
Standardization itself isn't the problem per-se, it's that schools get put in the uncomfortable position of having to hit certain metrics or they lose funding. What they do to maintain funding is eject under-performing kids so they don't drag down their average.
This is what happens when you have metrics that encourage the wrong outcome and turn the entire education system into a game that has a meta.
They're saying it doesn't differ between families, which means parental upbringing is not the issue, it's some issue which affects society in a broad swathe.
"More rigorous studies carried out on Americans alive after the Second World War returned different results suggesting a slight positive correlation with respect to intelligence."
Critically these children are often had latter in life making studies based on younger age cohorts give different results.
Higher education also has a negative impact.
IQ slightly increases male reproduction but massively reduces female reproduction. This may select for dimorphism in the long term, which does not seem like a good outcome.
We will have the means to select for high IQ with embryo selection or iterated embryo selection. Hopefully we are not so in denial about what we are losing that we fail to allow this technology to be used.
I know China and Korea will not shun it.
I hope I won't be downvoted crazy for this, but wasn't feminism offered as an answer to this? Better educated women have a bit more trouble having babies and keeping their career, since lots of men find it offputting to be dependent on their wives, due to traditional gender roles. Some developed countries have experienced normalization of fertility rates, and I've heard that more gender equality was a possible good explanation for this - more women can have both the baby and the career... This would also fit with the phenomenon you describe, of educated men having more kids, but educated women having less.
Speculative: Infant mortality, for instance, is not much of a concern anymore in developed economies. Knowledge in the mean time is a far more valuable commodity than ever. In such an economy, it makes more sense to concentrate parenting resources (which include far more schooling than in earlier times) on a smaller set of offspring. I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad thing personally.
Also speculative: For women, the conflict between career and parenting is indeed very significant, especially in countries which do not seem to value work-life balance very much (inflexible work schedules, lack of priority on child services, etc.) and/or still have a lot of the traditional parenting roles in place. Motherhood has shown to be a significant explanation of the gender pay gap for instance. I would not be surprised if the negative penalty for fertility for intelligent women is largely due to this phenomenon as well. It would be interesting to see if this "intelligence penalty" for women does indeed lessen in countries with more family friendly employment policies.
Source please. It could very well be the other way around or more likely a mixture of both.
So the bias would be toward that way.
1) X can be morally desirable and yet yield as a consequence effect Y, without thereby vitiating X. That is, the problem clearly isn't 'gender equality'. If you think there really is a problem - and I'm doubtful because it's more than offset by environmental factors - then it's on account of something else: the fact that women have to choose between work and home life, the anti-social work ethic forced upon everyone by capitalism, etc.
2) Some early feminists argued in favour of the pill because of its dysgenic potential. They believed it could be used to lower the birthrate of racial/class inferiors. 'Feminism' is an incredibly diverse ideology.
No, it's not. It's a matter of measure and perspective. The pareto principle guarantees that lower IQ men in aggregate, have more kids (with similar IQs). Regardless of other trends.
PS: Do you really think the sub 60 IQ population which is about the same size as the 140+ IQ population has more kids?
I'm sorry, what? I am familiar with the Pareto principle but I do not see how this follows from it. Could you elaborate?
Many things affect IQ, one of them being nutrition. If a couple with median income has 10 kids, compared to 2 kids, their ability to provide proper nutrition to those 10 kids, or the time to ensure those 10 kids are properly fed will not be as good.
Fertility rates have to do with many things. Historically, fertility rates were higher because infant mortality rates were higher: fewer live births, and lower survival rate through childhood. Also, culture and religion. Some religions are against contraception of any kind and promote abstinence as the main form of birth control.
Birth control requires certain form of exposure to sex education. If you had no access to education, or if your education was provided by a religious organization, it is likely you will have no proper sex ed and your risk is higher.
Also, Norway has been a popular country for migrants for decades. If you come from a less developed country where, for instance, the quality of food and health care (factors relevant to IQ) aren't as good as in Norway then this surely influenced the IQ of your predecessors and hence you. If the share of such migrants is big enough to influence the average (I don't know!) then this could be an explanation.
I can't access the full study, somehow it's not published yet for me. But it doesn't appear like migration played a role.
"Stupid people have more kids" is exactly such a prominent causal hypothesis.
"It is in our I.Q. testing that we have produced the greatest flood of misbegotten standards. Unaware of our typographic cultural bias, our testers assume that uniform and continuous habits are a sign of intelligence, thus eliminating the ear man and the tactile man."
If IQ tests make tacit assumptions of this kind, could the shift in the dominant media forms be playing a role?
Example: California native Americans (Chumash) did not have to be smart. Every day was a great day, food and water were everywhere from the ocean to the valleys whereas in south America things were more difficult. Spaniards were stunned by the Aztec capital being larger and more advanced than anything in Europe. The Aztecs had astronomy, math, and domesticated turkeys for food. They created all that because they had too.
Food in Mesoamerica: http://tlmorganfield.com/food-mesoamerica-domesticated-food-...
Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan: https://www.livescience.com/34660-tenochtitlan.html
hardly convincing since IQ tests usually don't depend on your level of training or knowledge.
Not only are there different types of intelligence but more importantly, the current methodology is actually a test of one's ability to solve a very narrow type of puzzles. This can be practised effectively increasing your score significantly.
Does becoming good at puzzles mean I got any wiser?
Said another way, if you had to hire somebody sight-unseen and you were only allowed to know one piece of information about them, IQ would be the strongest predictor of performance.
(I want to be very clear: that's not to say that the person with the highest IQ will always be the best performer; it's just to say that if you had no other information, and you had to hire based on just one piece of information, IQ would be your best bet.)
For example, If I wanted to hire a doctor I would prefer to know if the applicant had medical degree over their IQ.
> it's just to say that if you had no other information, and you had to hire based on just one piece of information, IQ would be your best bet.
You might prefer to know if they have a medical degree, but that knowledge is already excluded.
Perhaps to help clarify your thoughts on this, imagine the case where you don't even know the job requirements.
That said, IQ tests are not as flawed as people think -- they measure a particular set of abilities, and there is evidence that those abilities correlate to aptitudes that are useful in some areas of life.
For instance, the Advanced Raven Matrices test (a "culture-free" test used by Mensa and other organizations) measures visual-spatial skills and does it fairly well at that (as long as it is not gamed -- it is possible to study for an IQ test and do well in it -- but then again any test can be gamed).
If a particular task/job requires heavy visual-spatial skills, chances are that people who score well on visual-spatial tests will tend to do well there. Visual-spatial skills are a type of intelligence.
It's not the only type, but it is one type. You need to understand what the test is measuring.
This is to be expected, because even smart folks have wildly different interests and talents. I'm not doubting those arithmetic-failures weren't 'mensa material'. I doubt they took an interest in that subject.
'General intelligence' has been well studied (though I admit I don't know much about it myself) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
However, whether "wisdom" an "intelligence" should be considered to be the same, is debatable. There is the view that intelligence should be an attribute that doesn't change during one's lifetime, but actually wisdom is the one that's useful in our lives.
Perhaps people just take a mandatory military exam less seriously than they did during the cold war.
Also the culture of Norway is much less homogeneous than it was in the 70s and it's impossible to completely remove cultural biases from IQ tests--not to mention far more people who don't speak the language natively.
I took an IQ test once. One of the questions that I couldn't answer was to spot what was missing in a picture. It was the hat band. I can't tell you exactly what kind of hat it was, but it was worn by a man and looked like something I might perhaps see in an old film. One of the questions that I could answer was to spot the odd one out in a list that looked something like: spondee, dactyl, trochee, ... If people have got worse at answering those two questions then I am not surprised.
Full disclosure: I do very well on pattern recognition tests. I also am often accused of “reinventing the wheel.” I think these are related; but then, I would.
It is usually lack of certain empathy, overabundance of xenophobia or other kind of bias.
The people I've known who take an interest in conspiracy theories seem more open-minded and flexible in their beliefs than the general population. They may argue vehemently in favour of a particular theory now, but in six months' time they will probably have moved onto something else. But perhaps we're thinking of different groups of people. For me a typical "conspiracy theory" involves UFOs.
And so on. There's no big difference, or at least very short paths from one to the other. There and back again.
Everyone has biases. But some try to work around them, to maximize their own rationality.
For proper definitions and treatment of the subject there's of course lesswrong and the whole grey tribe (rationalists): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Peo8jAyjGL9kWoYAH/conspiracy...
The main problem is that people don't like to carry multiple models with them (after all, there's a very real cost to keeping multiple models updated, and evaluating them simultaneously and then checking which one is better over time according to some meta-goal), but that's the problem with these fat tail distributed events, like doomsday scenarios, conspiracy theories, "low probability + huge impact" happenings. Sometimes they do happen, but they are very rare and thus unlikely, and (!) in case of conspiracy theories it's very unlikely that people will notice it beforehand, because they are not derivable from first principles like an asteroid impact, or sentient runaway machine intelligence turning itself into an army of killing robots. So, our best bet against conspiracies should be systemic, built into our everyday lives, like anti-cartel regulations, whistleblowing protection, government and corporate accountability and transparency and so on.
There’s still debate over whether this correlation points to anything meaningful though.
No, because IQ (as much as any other concept denoted by a label in language) does really exist, and there isn't just a single test (“questionnaire”) for measuring it.
> The analysis controls for all factors shared by siblings and finds no evidence for prominent causal hypotheses of the decline implicating genes and environmental factors that vary between, but not within, families.
My first thought was the decline might be due to rising number of immigrants, but this suggests that is not true. Instead it appears the decline is due to some broader environmental factor that is common across all families. It also suggests that this is likely occurring in the rest of the developed world as well, since I can't think of anything obvious that's occurring in Norway that isn't also occurring in the rest of the developed world.
100 the average, 130 top 2% etc.
Sure intelligence can change, but wouldn't IQ scores adjust to that?
IQ used to go up a couple points each decade (known as the Flynn Effect), but this result shows that in more recent times it has been going down.
I believe the posted study is discussing the reason why this trend of increasing scores might no longer hold.
If all these people have tried one IQ test they're likely to perform better on the older tests. just because they have a little more practice.
Is the population simply culturally drifting 'out from under' the norm for the test? Perhaps they could ask more video-game-related questions, and renormalize. "Which NPC is likely to give you a quest?" kind of thing.
I haven't searched very hard, but it isn't clear how the conscription/selection criteria has evolved over the years. These would be very hard variables to properly control for.
Since not everyone was given the test, there are indeed large selection effects. The main technical contribution of the paper we are discussing (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/06/05/1718793115) is to try to estimate what the selection effect is.
They use a comparison of siblings. By comparing the score of brothers who were both given the test, one can can create a model to estimate the score of one brother from the score of the other. Then by comparing families where one brother was given the test and the other was not, one can estimate how the the probablility of the test board administering the test depends on the IQ of the testee. Then given that curve, one can estimate the average IQ of the entire population from the available test scores.
Their result is that selection bias hides some of the effect. That is, as the Norwegian military got smaller, the selection board got pickier and tested fewer (smarter) people, so if you just look at the average score you will not see the full drop.
Please make sure you all pay attention to your physical state while trying to concentrate etc (for the people who’ve been seeing dips in performance and/or getting “in zone”).
Only yesterday I noticed that I had somehow formed the habit of holding my breath when reading/learning/absorbing anything complex.
Seems pretty ridiculous but I went from having a hard time understanding some high mathematics to - when regulating breath appropriately - breezing through.
Alternatively, you could just say that historically college students were disproportionately the "best students" during primary education, and increasing the size of the pool would result in more people who were not as good students attending college.
The first chart in this link shows why: https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/innvbef/arkiv/...
Doesn't seem as if immigration played any role in this study.
The bit about fish eating makes me think this might relate to omega-3/omega-6 fat balances in our diets?
See? I can speculate baselessly too.
And generally if it was a matter of shifting cultural environments I'd hope that would be obvious from looking at the subtest scores.
It sounds like Norway's national service is just getting dumber by comparison.
It's like selling an "elevator pass". Too easy.
In any case, I agree with you in spirit. It's just bragging rights. I think a lot of people renew just so they can say they are a member. But that's stupid. It proves nothing. Nobody else cares. Nobody else is impressed. Want to show yourself to truly be an ass? Pull out your Mensa card.
I truly don't give a f*ck. I was in for one year. Their journal and discounts were not worth the price of membership. I already have friends and don't need any more. It would have been a waste of money to renew.
As another example, it is simultaneously true that world manufacturing output kept increasing even as Michigan's manufacturing diminished. There's no contradiction between those two facts.
Radiation from cell phones
Increased screen time for children
More pesticides in our diets
The fact that we have to think about a greater variety of things through the course of a day has caused our brains to structure themselves for better context-switching at the expense of a little bit of focus
Also, does Spain only administer IQ tests to members of the military?
Or are you saying that members of the military have a lower IQ than the rest of the population?
The commenter should not be down voted.
Different ethnic groups have measurably different IQ's.
Ethnicity represents genes, but also a myriad of other behaviours, attitudes, perspectives: all of the 'possible differentiators' mentioned in the article could easily be accounted for simply by ethnicity. Westerners more likely to play video games, some other group more or less likely to sleep, yet another group may or not value reading or eduction. In some groups women don't play any sports, maybe the lack of activity causes differences.
Most immigrants to Spain come from poor countries with low levels of education and generally lower IQs.
Though it's a really uncomfortable bit of reality, and we don't want to provide cover for bold racism - the position that 'immigrants might be lowering (or improving, even) the IQ results' is a reasonable hypothesis on the face of it.
Look at a map of IQ by countries. It's not East-Asians immigrating to Spain.
Do you have any reason other than Xenophobia for expecting this?
Do you have any reason to suggest all nations have the same average IQ?
It also stands to reason that there is no reason to assume Spain is at the top of the chart when it comes to national average - so they are most likely also having immigration from countries with a higher average. This would mitigate the effect of countries with a lower average, would it not?
Returning to the original point:
Because immigration usually entails an amount of merit and ability - the successful immigrants are usually at the higher end of the capability spectrum of the originating countries population.
Doesn't it stand to reason immigration would have either a minuscule or positive effect on national average IQ?