Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely UNTRUE. People are NOT getting smarter. Its just that more of the general population is getting at least an average education.
IQ tests are terribly skewed, culturally and educationally. They rely heavily on stuff you learn in school, and how good your memory is. These are not the only types of human intelligence that matter.
A thousand years ago, you didn't need to be IQ-type smarter to survive - you had to be practical-skills smarter. This was true even 100 years ago. It is still often true today.
The Flynn effect has nothing to do with rising intelligence. It has only to do with rising IQ SCORES. From the wiki article you yourself quoted:
Quote:
There are numerous proposed explanations of the Flynn effect, as well as some skepticism about its implications.
When I was born in the 50s there were still a whole lot of people who stopped going to school in the 3rd grade, or at most by the 8th grade. That's pretty rare by now. In addition, the Flynn effect is NOT LIMITED to the USA, it is a world-wide phenomenon. The fact is that the US compares unfavorably in this regard with a LOT of other developed nations, and even some semi- or un- developed nations.
So while a generational difference in IQ scores may be measurable, it is NOT an "objective truth". That's just nonsense. The phenomenon has nothing to do with increasing intelligence. IQ scores are not objective, they are only comparative, as well as being a far from complete assessment of the entire range of human intelligences.
Throughout human history there was no government safety net and thus more intelligent people were more likely to have more surviving offspring than less intelligent people. Today in the richest nations the opposite is true: the higher the level of education and income a person has the fewer children they have on average. People who would not be able to afford a single child without welfare programs are enabled to have as many as they want.
It is reasonable to theorize that over time this trend will cause the national average IQ of today's richest nations to become lower over time. That means lower IQ voters electing leaders. Could this mean that eventually democracy will be unsustainable? Could it allow today's poor nations - that almost universally lack welfare programs - could surpass today's welfare states in level of development?
having large families that stick together, in the past was the way that societies had a good safety net. In fact it worked far better than anything we have now. people taking care of thier own, as a necessary social requirement , was the norm. We don't do that very well here.
you don' t have to be smart to have a large family. So you see, the combined abilities of the large family is what kept thier members alive. Not necessarily intellect. Intellect probably served to get a few people wealthy and help them deceive/ scam/ exploit enough plebes to become an elite. Kinda like today. (ok so that doesn't apply to every wealthy person lol).
The social safety nets are HELPING kids to get better nutrition and live in a safer, more livable place, therefore get better sleep, be healthier, more stable, have quiet time to do school work, and THUS DO BETTER IN SCHOOL.
Our country's population (usa)has many who are not well established, had severe disadvantages, and are isolated from family.
The poor usually don't own any kind of land now,not even a yard, nor a garage, which makes a huge difference, such as when average-intelligence farm families used to survive well and produce some surplus for market. And get all the health benefits of living in the country. 95% of the usa population used to live on farms. Now it's what, less than 5%.
Huge cities and landlessness are part of the problem. These people need fruit trees and a garden space. A few chickens. A place to live with low taxes and low cost of land.Perhaps set up a shop to do skilled artisan work or make thier own jobs somehow. Only in such places can the poor live a healthy life and go on to do more in terms of things like education, or better themselves. UNLESS you have government subsidies of food, shelter, and education etc. Because these people are resource-poor in the long term, have many disadvantages, and possibly their parents did as well.
It is to nobody's advantage to have a lot of struggling dying homeless endangered unhealthy kids or adults due to the greed and gross negligence of society. For innumerable reasons. Any decent society helps its lowest members to survive and get a bit of a leg up.
And btw i know people with super high IQ's who are nevertheless using government benefits. Most of them were battered kids or battered women. They just don't function well, are broken down people, and need some help, and have NO helpful family even though the families are at least middle class.
Wealthy and middle class families can be destructive to thier kids, depriving them of the things that normal good parents give to their children to help them get established in life. They received insufficient mentoring/ life prep as well, in common with the inner city ghetto kids who become welfare adults. They were not allowed to develop any helpful or supportive social connections. Their proper trust and ability to related to other humans was destroyed. Who would really do this? BAD PARENTS. They come in every social stripe and at every level of income.
Abused/neglected kids and adults often carry a lot of damage around with them and suffer pain with every movement. They tend to develop medical problems due to the prior abuse and neglect. Their affluent parents damaged them but rarely ever pay for it except in taxes (which they gripe loudly about). They do nothing to help their victims, even leaving them homeless. NOBODY usually holds them accountable.
You would do well to read Dickens. We do NOT need to go back to Victorian days of "ignorance and want" that lead to high crime and destruction of lives.
Last edited by 2bpurrfect; 07-22-2018 at 02:47 AM..
Lyndon Johnson knew exactly what he was doing back in 1964 when he established the grand society. He knew exactly what he was doing in Vietnam along with his buddy McNamara. He was building the Democrat Party of today.
Throughout human history there was no government safety net and thus more intelligent people were more likely to have more surviving offspring than less intelligent people. Today in the richest nations the opposite is true: the higher the level of education and income a person has the fewer children they have on average. People who would not be able to afford a single child without welfare programs are enabled to have as many as they want.
It is reasonable to theorize that over time this trend will cause the national average IQ of today's richest nations to become lower over time. That means lower IQ voters electing leaders. Could this mean that eventually democracy will be unsustainable? Could it allow today's poor nations - that almost universally lack welfare programs - could surpass today's welfare states in level of development?
Wow. OP, your first sentence is so false and inaccurate that there is no reason to carry on this discourse. I would invite you to Google confirmation bias.
The welfare state is more a symptom than a cause. And yes, there is a correlation.
Just because socialism *seems* to be working in Sweden or Norway, does not mean it will work in enormous and diverse America. The evidence here is that the welfare state has been a disaster in the USA.
And yes, IQ tests do measure intelligence. There is little to zero racial component, and no they do not tend to rely heavily on what you learned in school.
Sweden is higher than the USA in Math and Reading and provides free college, free health care, pensions, social security, and more.
Let’s clear that up a little. As is the case EVERYWHERE, nothing is free! Sweden’s personal tax rate is 61.85%!!! Are you willing to work for 40 cents on the dollar? The only people getting anything truly free are the ones not working, just like here.
Let’s clear that up a little. As is the case EVERYWHERE, nothing is free! Sweden’s personal tax rate is 61.85%!!! Are you willing to work for 40 cents on the dollar? The only people getting anything truly free are the ones not working, just like here.
I’d rather be taxed heavily and have the Scandinavian style safety than have what we have now in the USA.
The welfare state is more a symptom than a cause. And yes, there is a correlation.
Just because socialism *seems* to be working in Sweden or Norway, does not mean it will work in enormous and diverse America. The evidence here is that the welfare state has been a disaster in the USA.
And yes, IQ tests do measure intelligence. There is little to zero racial component, and no they do not tend to rely heavily on what you learned in school.
You are clearly NOT competent to make this judgment, because it is demonstrably false. IQ tests are well-known to be a poor indicator of human intelligence. They only measure a handful of skills, and most of those revolve around education, not innate intelligence. They are CLEARLY racially, culturally, and gender biased. This is a fact. Ignoring it only makes one an ignoramus.
The welfare state is more a symptom than a cause. And yes, there is a correlation.
Just because socialism *seems* to be working in Sweden or Norway, does not mean it will work in enormous and diverse America. The evidence here is that the welfare state has been a disaster in the USA.
And yes, IQ tests do measure intelligence. There is little to zero racial component, and no they do not tend to rely heavily on what you learned in school.
Explain why it is then that IQ scores don’t tend to stabilize until children are around 5-6, once they start school? My old state agency served individuals with developmental disabilities and for intellectual disabilities, the minimum age of acceptance was age 5. That was because the IQ prior to that point was heavily based on how enriching your environment is up until that point as well as certain social aspects that are racially based. My state did have a free preschool program for all, so by age 4, all students had access to preschooling.
There’s no correllation at all...in fact, countries with much great safety nets rank higher than the USA in education.
Um, the top countries are very homogeneous, so I don't think the fact that homogeneous countries that have the same goals as the US can really be applied.
Just common sense tells us that higher welfare in the US will indeed lower our national IQ, since the poorest and less educated have the most kids. No study really needed other than a statistic that shows less educated have more children than more educated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
