 |
| Researchers say Western IQs dropped 14 points over last century |
We are devolving!
Half kidding aside, I'd be interested to know in more detail how they ensured consistency of methodology, and whether the statement "on average... those populations measured dropped by 1.23 points per decade" reflects only a comparison of data from the individual years 1889 relative to 2004, or whether it can be trusted to reflect all the years between.
For instance, I might have a big pot of oatmeal with blueberries in it. Suppose I plunge a spoon in at the far left side and come out with four blueberries, but only find three blueberries when I plunge the spoon in on the right. The bigger that bowl was, the more dubious would be my claim that a pattern could be predicted throughout that bowl based on the plunging of my spoon in just two places.
Further, I'd like to ask how they took their sample group, how they selected persons to participate in the testing. Did they advertise at the mall? Did they randomly call persons from the phonebook? Did they select college students in attendance? Whatever method they used, even if it might appear very similar in our general description to what the Victorians recorded themselves as having done, what effect would the changes within those institutions have on the kind of sample group a person might get from using them?
If, for instance, they made it geographical, perhaps particular to a certain neighborhood or town or county, is there a way to account for how changes in the economy of that area may have influenced migration in or out of the area by more educated or intelligent citizens? In America, you might have a stark contrast comparing I.Q.'s of persons in Detroit, MI or Silicon Valley, CA from 1950 and 2010, and for obvious reasons. As major industries HQ-ed in those places, or as their economies cratered, migrations of skilled workers would effect the average intelligence of the population.
Questions of methodology and how to assure reliable data aside for a moment, I should wonder at the assertion that, essentially, dumb women have lots of children. I find that offensive and dubious, as my wife and I would like to have a large family, and I wonder whether such a conclusion is easily grasped for to soothe a Western society which is preparing now for a population contraction due to such low average birth rates? In other words, is there a bias towards suggesting that intelligent women have fewer children?
