Average IQ in France lowered 4 points within a decade

[Ruprecht]

cliffs: genetics has the most to do with IQ by a large margin. Poverty does not have much at all to do with it.

^ Real science, not BS propaganda.

So you either didn't read or didn't understand the article. Wonderful. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Bagatur]

lol that is how averages work. you bring in low numbers, the average drops.

 

[cincymma79]

im generally siding with the guy posing arguments that IQ measurements by race are generally full of shit. (a brain is a brain imo)

however, even though the immigrants may have the capability of assimilating to "high IQ", you cant teach an old dog new tricks.

they arent going to be as motivated to swap cultures on a dime, and that lack of motivation will reflect itsself to some degree in IQ measurements.

A brain may be a brain, but what are you basing this on? There could be differences.

 

[Renard]

Better living conditions in the west have eliminated factors which reduce brain size and function such as malnutrition, infectious diseases, parasites, heavy metal contamination, etc, which have eliminated environmental influences to IQ and allowed people to maximize their genetic potential for intelligence. That's the Flynn effect. The problem with that is that after the initial jump in IQ, the pristine living conditions allow for people of sub-standard intelligence to reproduce whereas they would have been naturally culled in the past, that's the Woodley effect. In other words, Flynn effect is better fertilizer in the soil, Woodley effect is the genetic quality of the plants. The genetic quality of people in the west has been going down. Also it's unclear whether the third-world migrants Europe is now taking in have a good genetic potential for intelligence; they most likely don't. Their children will be smarter due to better living conditions, but genetics is still the hard-cap. Which is why I always say you should only accept well-educated immigrants, those who have proven they have something to offer.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

So you either didn't read or didn't understand the article. Wonderful. Thanks for sharing.

You are not supposed to just post links....right? How about you give a brief summary of your point and then post your article? Sorry I can't read your mind to know what the point of your post was. My point remains....that it is genetics and not poverty that is the overwhelming determinant in IQ.
See, I actually posted my position and backed it up with a video.

If that article is agreeing with me it is right. If it is not then it is wrong. SCIENCE!!!

 

[Goonerview]

We should be encouraging those with above average intelligence to have more children. We could do this through tax incentives, assuring job security to women through their pregnancy, and assistance with childcare.

Our we could just end the welfare state.

Stop subsidizing dumb people having too many children and taxing smart people who actually work and run society.

That would be a start.

 

[Ruprecht]

Better living conditions in the west have eliminated factors which reduce brain size and function such as malnutrition, infectious diseases, parasites, heavy metal contamination, etc, which have eliminated environmental influences to IQ and allowed people to maximize their genetic potential for intelligence. That's the Flynn effect. The problem with that is that after the initial jump in IQ, the pristine living conditions allow for people of sub-standard intelligence to reproduce whereas they would have been naturally culled in the past, that's the Woodley effect. In other words, Flynn effect is better fertilizer in the soil, Woodley effect is the genetic quality of the plants. The genetic quality of people in the west has been going down. Also it's unclear whether the third-world migrants Europe is now taking in have a good genetic potential for intelligence; they most likely don't. Their children will be smarter due to better living conditions, but genetics is still the hard-cap. Which is why I always say you should only accept well-educated immigrants, those who have proven they have something to offer.

The paper itself says that migration can't account for the results. Especially when looking at the broader context of nations experiencing a similar effect.
Australia has seen a drop off (although smaller) despite the fact that our migration has been overwhelmingly skilled migration, and skilled migration primarily from the UK (which has also seen a decline), India and China. The average IQ for skilled migration from India has been measured at 115 and there's no reason to believe skilled migration from China would be lower than their national average IQ (just the opposite), so it can't account for it (it should in fact raise the average IQ). In fact to account for the rate of decrease given the proposed IQ distribution and levels of heritability, everyone with an IQ over 110 would have had to have 0 children (or something of equivalent effect). That's why they are looking for other factors, including sampling error.

 

[Ruprecht]

You are not supposed to just post links....right? How about you give a brief summary of your point and then post your article? Sorry I can't read your mind to know what the point of your post was. My point remains....that it is genetics and not poverty that is the overwhelming determinant in IQ.
See, I actually posted my position and backed it up with a video.

If that article is agreeing with me it is right. If it is not then it is wrong. SCIENCE!!!

You're not allowed to make threads with just links or videos.
Read above. Also you should look up the Flynn effect. Even though the proportional heritability of IQ is disputed, if it was as high as some proposed it still doesn't account for the Flynn effect. It's clear evidence that even if measured IQ is mostly a heritable trait, changes in population IQ aren't.

 

[Renard]

The paper itself says that migration can't account for the results. Especially when looking at the broader context of nations experiencing a similar effect.
Australia has seen a drop off (although smaller) despite the fact that our migration has been overwhelmingly skilled migration, and skilled migration primarily from the UK (which has also seen a decline), India and China. The average IQ for skilled migration from India has been measured at 115 and there's no reason to believe skilled migration from China would be lower than their national average IQ (just the opposite), so it can't account for it (it should in fact raise the average IQ). In fact to account for the rate of decrease given the proposed IQ distribution and levels of heritability, everyone with an IQ over 110 would have had to have 0 children (or something of equivalent effect). That's why they are looking for other factors, including sampling error.

It is posited that the trend may have a partially biological cause, stemming from dysgenic fertility and, to a lesser extent, replacement migration.

Dysgenic fertility refers to low-quality people reproducing at higher rates due to lack of natural selection pressures e.g. Muslim family with 7 kids living in a Paris ghetto.

 

[Ruprecht]

It is posited that the trend may have a partially biological cause, stemming from dysgenic fertility and, to a lesser extent, replacement migration.

Dysgenic fertility refers to low-quality people reproducing at higher rates due to lack of natural selection pressures e.g. Muslim family with 7 kids living in a Paris ghetto.

Like I said, it can't account for the cessation of the Flynn effect let alone the supposed decrease in France or it's comparitive decrease in regards to other nations.
They explicitly deny that it's likely due to the higher fertility rate of immigrants.

Replacement migration in France involving populations exhibiting lower means of IQ and higher rates of total fertility, such as Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians and Roma (Čvorić, 2014 and Lynn and Vanhanen, 2012) may be increasing the rate of secular losses at the level of g, consistent with speculations advanced in Dutton and Lynn (2015), however the additional loss in g due to this process is anticipated to be very small. Based on a simulation, Nyborg (2012)estimates that in Denmark, replacement migration may be reducing heritable g by .28 points per decade, which would increase the overall loss in gto 1.51 points per decade ( Woodley of Menie, 2015), this still being only 37.75% of the loss observed in the French cohort.

 

[Lord Coke]

You're not allowed to make threads with just links or videos.
Read above. Also you should look up the Flynn effect. Even though the proportional heritability of IQ is disputed, if it was as high as some proposed it still doesn't account for the Flynn effect. It's clear evidence that even if measured IQ is mostly a heritable trait, changes in population IQ aren't.

So we have evidence that the Illuminati has used its GMOs to intentionally dumb down the population so that it can bring in one world government?

 

[Goonerview]

Those who deny race and IQ relationship. Look at Austrailia and the differences between aborigines and Austrailians of English/Irish stock.

Aborigines in Austrailia have average IQ of 62.

 

[Hard To Tell]

But look at all these doctors, teachers, scientists and engineers that France has been bringing in

What rich, vibrancy they have brought with them. IQ is just a social construct, diversity is our greatest strength.

 

[Ruprecht]

So we have evidence that the Illuminati has used its GMOs to intentionally dumb down the population so that it can bring in one world government?

Other than dysgenics, diet is one of the proposed possibilities. Overall though, the evidence is still weak that it's even happening. Another strange factor in the changes they noticed, was that it wasn't a decrease in all areas of measured intelligence. Some were static and others actually increased.

 

[Thames]

You think it is impossible for genetics to play any role in general intelligence? If genetics do indeed play some role (however small or large) in general intelligence, it could also follow that certain genes correlated with that intelligence vary between populations. If that were true, it shouldn't influence public policy or cause reasonable persons to pursue extreme eugenics programs.

I think the inheritability of intelligence is a fascinating topic, but, due to its misapplication in the past, is probably the most taboo topic in science to study.

? Where did I imply that?
On the contrary I think it's indisputable that genetics plays a part in intelligence.
I just don't see any evidence that those genetics are dependent upon race.

If you standardize for socioeconomic status and environment, variance in intelligence between races become insignificant.

Another reason it's a dead subject in academia, is because there really doesn't exist any scientific definitions on different human races. Human races is a vague concept at best.
Add that to the whole complexity about quantifying intelligence, and you got yourself a non-subject in academia at least.

What Nyborg theory builds on is simply the idea that because Nordic races had to survive cold winters, we have developed a higher intelligence than races from warmer climates.
Seriously. That is his theory.
Which not only ignores statistics of the present, but of course completely ignores history.
E.g. while we were marvelling about the magic of bonfires in some cave, they were building advanced civilisations in present day India and the middle east.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

? Where did I imply that?
On the contrary I think it's indisputable that genetics plays a part in intelligence.
I just don't see any evidence that those genetics are dependent upon race.

If you standardize for socioeconomic status and environment, variance in intelligence between races become insignificant.

Another reason it's a dead subject in academia, is because there really doesn't exist any scientific definitions on different human races. Human races is a vague concept at best.
Add that to the whole complexity about quantifying intelligence, and you got yourself a non-subject in academia at least.

I'm talking about the genetic markers for intelligence, if any. That, in of itself, is a taboo topic because of the possible links to eugenics it would entail. If there are genetic causes for intelligence, then it could follow that certain populations of people possess those particular genes in higher percentage levels than others. Whether you want to call it 'races' or not doesn't really matter. I don't think we can say to what degree genetics plays in intelligence yet, but your admission of your belief that it does indeed play a role yet then dismissing any variance between groups of persons as 'insignificant' seems odd. The question seems unanswered.

Let's say scientists manage to identify the genes responsible for general intelligence. If there was a discernible (statistically significant) difference between the possession of these genes across populations of people, should scientists ignore this or outright lie about it? Of course, variance within groups will likely be much higher than variance across groups.

 

[Squarechoke]

It's hard to know how much of differences is genetic and how much comes from other issues. Even things like color vision is directly dependent on how you live. We've found small cultures that were entirely cut off from the rest of the world and found that they lacked the ability to differentiate blue and green. There was no lack in their physical make up, it was dependent on the requirements of their way of life.

The same of course goes by IQ, and anyone that's made serious IQ tests, and a bunch of them, will know from experience that you can improve by training. It won't help an idiot become a genius, but it certainly can affect scores and training is done seriously by those that compete in that area.

 

[Goonerview]

It's hard to know how much of differences is genetic and how much comes from other issues. Even things like color vision is directly dependent on how you live. We've found small cultures that were entirely cut off from the rest of the world and found that they lacked the ability to differentiate blue and green. There was no lack in their physical make up, it was dependent on the requirements of their way of life.

The same of course goes by IQ, and anyone that's made serious IQ tests, and a bunch of them, will know from experience that you can improve by training. It won't help an idiot become a genius, but it certainly can affect scores and training is done seriously by those that compete in that area.

IQ tests are actually pretty accurate.

The US military uses them to put new recruits into tracks. They also don't let anyone in under a certain level.

In the field of psychology, IQ is one of the most accurately testable, scientifically reliable concepts.

They use large samples when collecting information on men/women, race and ethnicities. The writing is on the wall.

 

[Thames]

I'm talking about the genetic markers for intelligence, if any. That, in of itself, is a taboo topic because of the possible links to eugenics it would entail. If there are genetic causes for intelligence, then it could follow that certain populations of people possess those particular genes in higher percentage levels than others. Whether you want to call it 'races' or not doesn't really matter. I don't think we can say to what degree genetics plays in intelligence yet, but your admission of your belief that it does indeed play a role yet then dismissing any variance between groups of persons as 'insignificant' seems odd. The question seems unanswered.

Let's say scientists manage to identify the genes responsible for general intelligence. If there was a discernible (statistically significant) difference between the possession of these genes across populations of people, should scientists ignore this or outright lie about it? Of course, variance within groups will likely be much higher than variance across groups.

This is the second time you just fabricate some non-existent point in my post. Do you find this productive?

Try to re-read my post, and pay more attention to what I regarded as insignificant.

It has been quite well established that environment (and to a lesser extent nutrition) is the most significant factor when it comes to developing intelligence.
Of course you shouldn't hide it if you find specific genetic markers that plays a role in developing intelligence.
But unless this genetic marker is something that can predict if your children becomes severely mentally retarded, then I don't see it as playing any role.

Eugenics programs were widespread in the late 19th century and early 20th century, among different European countries (including my own) and certain U.S states.
Setting ethics aside, they did not alter intelligence level of future generations at all.

Even if some genetic markers get isolated, then what? Realistically what could be achieved? Obviously not much. If you look at the current and historic intelligence trends in the world, it's quite clear that we are not going to reach some high intelligence utopia through genetic programs.

 

[Goonerview]

This is the second time you just fabricate some non-existent point in my post. Do you find this productive?

Try to re-read my post, and pay more attention to what I regarded as insignificant.

It has been quite well established that environment (and to a lesser extent nutrition) is the most significant factor when it comes to developing intelligence.
Of course you shouldn't hide it if you find specific genetic markers that plays a role in developing intelligence.
But unless this genetic marker is something that can predict if your children becomes severely mentally retarded, then I don't see it as playing any role.

Eugenics programs were widespread in the late 19th century and early 20th century, among different European countries (including my own) and certain U.S states.
Setting ethics aside, they did not alter intelligence level of future generations at all.

Even if some genetic markers get isolated, then what? Realistically what could be achieved? Obviously not much. If you look at the current and historic intelligence trends in the world, it's quite clear that we are not going to reach some high intelligence utopia through genetic programs.

The black death plague was kind of a "natural eugenics programme" ... all of the smart people got out of the cities and towns and all of the dumb people stayed and died.

Over 30% of the European population died from this plague ... this created a "genetic bottleneck" for all of the smart people left over.

It was also a "genetic bottleneck" for strong genes against diseases.