If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Humans Invent)   If you score the people a century ago against modern norms, they would have an average IQ of 70. If you score us against their norms, we would have an average IQ of 130...so what's making us more intelligent?   (humansinvent.com) divider line 126
    More: Cool, cargo bikes  
•       •       •

3252 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Oct 2013 at 8:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



126 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-11 02:56:34 PM  

draypresct: endosymbiont: As a number of people said, +nuitrition and -lead. That's all you need.

That's right, the only two things the twentieth century did to improve IQs are +nutrition and -lead. And the increased schooling.

The only three things were +nutrition, -lead, +schooling, and reduced inbreeding.

Well, yes, reduced inbreeding, ok. So the only four things were +nutrition, -lead, +schooling, -inbreeding, and -infectious diseases during development. Of course we've reduced serious infections; nobody needs to mention that!

I've got this: the only things were +nutrition, -lead, +schooling, -inbreeding, -infection, and increased exposure to abstract concepts.

Right! So, aside from +nutrition, -lead, +schooling, -inbreeding, -infection, and +exposure to abstract concepts, the twentieth century has done nothing for improving IQs. Agreed?


No, many things have likely increased IQ. However, increased nutrition and decreased childhood exposure to lead were--in and of themselves--sufficient to increase IQs. Certainly, decreased inbreeding and improved health, as well as exposure to other accumulated knowledge including certain abstract concepts, also contributed. But I maintain that nutrition and less lead are "all you need" to explain it.
 
2013-10-11 03:32:35 PM  
It's largely impossible to design an "intelligence" test that really doesn't just boil down to a "knowledge" test.

People getting more education = higher "IQ" even though they might no smarter.
 
2013-10-11 03:58:33 PM  

cefm: People getting more education = higher "IQ" even though they might no smarter.


But then again, they might smarter.  They might a whole lot smarter indeed.
 
2013-10-11 04:16:03 PM  

cefm: It's largely impossible to design an "intelligence" test that really doesn't just boil down to a "knowledge" test.

People getting more education = higher "IQ" even though they might no smarter.


You know how I know that you have no idea what an IQ test is and that you've never taken a real one?
 
2013-10-11 04:18:08 PM  

vpb: Because we've gotten better at designing IQ tests?


psst.. IQ test are constantly being adapted to mirror changes in society and other factors.
 
2013-10-11 04:18:31 PM  
Cymbal:   149-154 here. But I was 160-165 when I was a kid. Must be all the drugs.

160 IQ would mean your IQ was higher than 99,997 out of 100,000 people.   That's pretty impressive.

Even a 145 IQ puts you higher than 99,865 out of 100,000 people.

/and yet you're on Fark?  Where you getting your dope?
 
2013-10-11 04:21:30 PM  

Richard C Stanford: Well, IQ doesn't always mean intelligence. Poor education could result in someone with a high IQ being really stupid.


IQ is a measure of though process, problem solving, and such.

No education = uneducated, not stupid.
 
2013-10-11 04:31:55 PM  

The One True TheDavid: Really we're getting dumber. They're just revising the curve so 80 is the new 100. Now everybody who can spell and define "antidisestablishmentarianism" is a SUPER-DOOPER genius.


that 100 mark is the median, so even if people get dumber, the "average intelligence" will still be 100.

Part of the article is trying to explain that the median from the past compared to today's median has changed.

So a today's score of 100 would be worth 130 in the older days.  Think of it as money, what 1$ was worth then (and what you could buy) to a dollar today and what you can buy with it... you need to adjust the value.


And that's the biggest error in Idiocracy.  If the population gets more stupid, their 100 mark would be the same as maybe 70 on today's scale, but it would still be 100 that would be the average for them.

Basically the same as this article but flip the timeline for the future instead of the past.

Does that mean people got smarter? Not really, the average stays the same, but the difference could be explained with the fact that higher scoring children were exposed to more stimulus, causing more development, hence better abilities.

Take a scenario with twins, one left in a savage environment, raised by wolves or something, while the other one is exposed to an highly stimulating environment.  I'd feel fairly certain that the stimulated one would score radically higher than the other child, even though their brains are fairly identical and both having the same capacity and potential.
 
2013-10-11 04:35:30 PM  

gu1tarjohn: Average IQ of 130?  REALLY?  RREEAALLYY??  Have these folks seen people on the freeway when it's time to merge?  Try 30, and that's optimistic.


As explained in other posts... you cannot have an average of 130, the average is 100, that is the median. so half the population is under 100 , the other over it.
 
2013-10-11 04:45:47 PM  

simkatu: Cymbal:   149-154 here. But I was 160-165 when I was a kid. Must be all the drugs.

160 IQ would mean your IQ was higher than 99,997 out of 100,000 people.   That's pretty impressive.

Even a 145 IQ puts you higher than 99,865 out of 100,000 people.

/and yet you're on Fark?  Where you getting your dope?


I don't do drugs anymore. Well, alcohol in moderation. But the damage is done.
 
2013-10-11 04:46:34 PM  

Cymbal: INeedAName: Arkanaut: vpb: Because we've gotten better at designing taking IQ tests?

FTFY

//134 IQ last time I took one

I generally fall between 132 and 136. Though I haven't taken one in years, and I'm pretty sure I've gotten dumber lately.

149-154 here. But I was 160-165 when I was a kid. Must be all the drugs.


I find it funny that so many farkers mention their "high" scores but yet, we have no flying cars, no cure for the common cold, cancer, a clean energy source, etc.

Personally, I can state that a high IQ isn't enough to evaluate full intelligence, as memory abilities, environment, society, upbringing, financial situation, etc. could prevent the next Einstein from ever getting his talent used to their full potential.

I'll shot myself in the foot by stating that for as intelligent I may be, as high as my IQ is, I've done quite more than the "average" and survived a very difficult life.  Had I had the opportunities and knowledge that I now have about life, I look back and know that I could have been a doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc. and possibly could have done a LOT more for human kind.  I can't complain really, behind the scenes I've done a lot of good for my country and my name won't go in history, but at least I know that I'll leave a mark, something that 99% of the population don't come close to doing.

But then again, we're on a grain of sand in the middle of emptiness, so the universe doesn't really notice.
/lowest mark I've had was 164
/being smarter only means that there's more stupidity to deal with, so it doesn't feel like a gift at times
 
2013-10-11 05:11:57 PM  

endosymbiont: draypresct: endosymbiont: As a number of people said, +nuitrition and -lead. That's all you need.

That's right, the only two things the twentieth century did to improve IQs are +nutrition and -lead. And the increased schooling.

The only three things were +nutrition, -lead, +schooling, and reduced inbreeding.

Well, yes, reduced inbreeding, ok. So the only four things were +nutrition, -lead, +schooling, -inbreeding, and -infectious diseases during development. Of course we've reduced serious infections; nobody needs to mention that!

I've got this: the only things were +nutrition, -lead, +schooling, -inbreeding, -infection, and increased exposure to abstract concepts.

Right! So, aside from +nutrition, -lead, +schooling, -inbreeding, -infection, and +exposure to abstract concepts, the twentieth century has done nothing for improving IQs. Agreed?

No, many things have likely increased IQ. However, increased nutrition and decreased childhood exposure to lead were--in and of themselves--sufficient to increase IQs. Certainly, decreased inbreeding and improved health, as well as exposure to other accumulated knowledge including certain abstract concepts, also contributed. But I maintain that nutrition and less lead are "all you need" to explain it.


OK. I personally think it's the accumulation of improvements in a large number of areas instead, but I have to admit I haven't seen anything research-wise to support that other than vague discussion in Wikipedia's Flynn effect article. I haven't checked out the original research.

/Upon re-reading my post, I'm a bit worried I came across as really sarcastic when I was trying for a badly-done Python routine.
//If I'm trying to avoid sarcasm, quoting Python is a really bad idea.
 
2013-10-11 08:14:00 PM  
The article is serious???
Having easier access to information has nothing to do with raw intelligence
 
2013-10-11 09:10:35 PM  
It wasn't unusual for kids to get one or more different life-threatening diseases every year they remained alive.  Scarlet fever, measles, German measles (rubella), mumps, smallpox, chickenpox, whooping cough, tuberculosis, rheumatic fever, multiple strains of influenza ... all of these can either attack the brain directly, can result in antibodies that cross the blood-brain barrier to trigger an autoimmune inflammation of brain tissue, can damage the brain with prolonged fever, clots, or periods of reduced oxygen.

Thanks to modern living conditions and vaccines, I was spared those.  I still got a strep infection which resulted in very minor (but life-altering) brain damage.  If I had a dozen such insults to my brain, I'd be far less functional than I am today.
 
2013-10-11 10:04:58 PM  

Doc Daneeka: But but....Idiocracy.  I've been assured by a million people on the internet that people are getting inexorably dumber over time.


They are.

Teabaggers, dude.
 
2013-10-11 10:36:15 PM  
steamingpile:  [P]eople have gotten good at hiding how dumb they are.

Don't look at me.

I SAID...
 
2013-10-11 10:40:27 PM  

Richard C Stanford: Doc Daneeka: But but....Idiocracy.  I've been assured by a million people on the internet that people are getting inexorably dumber over time.

Well, IQ doesn't always mean intelligence. Poor education could result in someone with a high IQ being really stupid.


I SAID 'DON'T LOOK AT ME!1!!'
 
2013-10-11 10:42:48 PM  

diaphoresis: Lack of oral sex from wives


You don't get any oral from your wife?

Oh. Poor guy. From what I heard she's almost as good as my mom, from what I heard.
 
2013-10-11 10:45:33 PM  

Doc Daneeka: The "good old days" sucked. And history is full of barbaric, violent, selfish, incultured, uneducated, illiterate, and downright dumb people.


But so is the present. And most likely the future will be thus also.

So what's your point?
 
2013-10-11 11:09:09 PM  

RecentGrad: Our IQ's have gone up over time due to a variety of reasons, some of which have been mentioned.

Better nutrition, less exposure to heavy metals (lead from leaded gasoline lead to generations of people with higher than average rates of mental disorders, especially violent ones, and lower IQ), early childhood education that focuses rather heavily on problem solving abilities which are the foundation of human intellect, and also unfortunately 'teaching to the test'.

Overall, a modern child of the same age as someone from 100 years ago would on average be MUCH better at abstract problem solving thanks to these causes, though im guesstimating that a good 60% of that is due to mere early childhood education.

seriously, intelligence is only loosely linked to genetics. the major determining factor of a persons later life intelligence is the level of early childhood education, which just so happens to be much higher in middle and upper class families than the very poor...


This, somewhat.  Education is better than it was, in most places at least.  It's better because we know more, we've been able to study more because of certain advances(we know more of what to teach and how to teach).  Some is healthcare, food processing, etc etc.  It all adds up to more free time to study the abstract problems, and much less trying to scrape by, to merely survive.

Old wives tales passed for real intelligence.  Today, it makes you sound like a nutjob, or a politics tab farktard.

And if you look at remote societies or even disadvantaged sub-cultures, they face much of the same problems the whole world did 100+ years ago.

It's all about quality of life, and why raising it for the less fortunate is an admirable goal, as well as just a smart ideal for everyone.

Someone mentioned a peak.  It has peaked, for the time being.  There are always problem area's, but there are also constant advances which have a cumulative effect.  No single thing makes for a great improvement, but a lot of tiny ones have a large effect.

Even most of the poor in the US have cell phones, internet, and air conditioning(as per the fark thread yesterday or so, you can refer to that thread for related arguments).  This is a good thing for society at large.  A healthier society not struggling to survive advances the fastest.  Sure, stress can be a positive force, but can easily become a crippling consumer of potential.

Sure, we have our share of dipshiats and douchenozzles, but it's not going to start a plague.  Even most of those people find a niche to fill.  That's the price of specializing, we need ditchdiggers and sewer workers as much as the doctors and lawyers and software designers.  No matter how cool your career is, odds are you're a dipshiat or douchenozzle when it comes to knowing something else.
 
2013-10-12 02:30:52 AM  
You're not more intelligent.

Intelligence is measured as efficiency of the brain. Truly intelligent people can solve problems and work logic at astounding speeds. At almost all eras of human recorded history has the amount of "intelligent people" remained more or less constant.

Modern people have access to more readily available knowledge via science, schooling, libraries, the internet, and connectivity.

The modern dumbass is still as dumb as the roman dumbass, he just has the benefit of more media to correct his dumbass on hand.

It's like the internet. In the '80s and early '90s, the internet was a vast and lonely place, largely untraveled except by the very intelligent and very un-user-friendly. Now, every dumbass in the world is on the internet. People didn't get smarter over time. The internet got dumber. Your average internet user these days couldn't travel the internet "back then" anymore than they can use MS-DOS, write batch files, program C++, or read perl.
 
2013-10-12 03:59:34 AM  
It's gotta be the fluoride!
 
2013-10-12 07:20:00 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: 1) 3D printers
2) Private space colonies
3) Short lifespans


Nope it`s because by the time they are twenty everybody has lived so much longer these days...
 
2013-10-12 08:20:24 AM  

draypresct: I hadn't known that about Norway's conscription process. Thanks!

That does reduce or eliminate* the bias.

/*My only quibble on "eliminate" is that I don't know offhand if the definition of "able-bodied men of conscription age" has remained the same and had the same effect over the years. This is probably not something that had any real effect over the past couple of decades, though, so the study's conclusions are probably accurate.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure it has stayed relatively constant over time. There is a sampling bias in that you aren't evaluating anyone with mental or physical handicaps, but it shouldn't matter much in terms of getting a good estimate of your population in general.
 
2013-10-12 10:03:30 AM  
Simple, leisure time has increased. When people have to spend less time out at the farm or at the bottom of a coal mine they have more time for bettering themselves intellectually. Even if it might not seem like it because theyre in general being more flippant with their time. That's why agriculture was such an important development for humanity. It freed us from the constant need to hunt for our next meal to be able to contemplate our further existence. Automation of processes frees us to contemplate. Thats why we're smarter now than we ever were before.
 
2013-10-12 10:57:50 AM  
the whole thing is bullshiat
there are no tests of intelligence
 
Displayed 26 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report