OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing.

[a425couple]

from
http://bigthink.com/brandon-weber/every-10-years-humans-got-smarter-thats-now-reversing

For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing.
June 14, 2018 by BRANDON A. WEBER
Article Image
The Flynn effect appears to be in retrograde. (Credit: Shutterstock/Big
Think)
There's a new study out of Norway that indicates our—well, technically,
their—IQs are shrinking, to the tune of about seven IQ points per
generation.

Scientists from Norway's Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research
analyzed 730,000 IQ tests given to Norwegian men before compulsory
military service from 1970 to 2009, and this is their conclusion.


If the trend continues—indeed, if it's even real—that means about 10
generations from now, we'll see a slow decline that actually means IQs
at the top end will drop from >130 ("Very Superior")," to <69
("Extremely Low"). Kinda terrifying, isn't it?


It's a reversal of what's known as the Flynn effect, named after the
psychologist who first noticed that IQs increased in at least the first
part of the 20th century.

There are a host of potential explanations that are still being
explored, all the way from environmental problems and diet to lack of
exercise and staring at screens.

But one that actually seems a more genuine culprit is this: IQ tests are
designed to rely more upon rote memorization whereas schools and even
electronic devices used by students rely on the ability to find things
via Google and other means, which may indicate there is no real change
in intelligence but rather in how younger people learn these days.

However, the scientists Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg have written a
paper making the strong case that the decrease is environmental (and one
of them actually talks about the IQ test possibility).

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ test.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA9079554711...@69.16.179.42>,

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ test.

Quite so.

Although ability to take an IQ test has *some*, though not
one-to-one, correspondence, with ability to do well in school.

I like to compare intelligence to the volumetric content of a
glass so transparent that you can't see it unless there's
something in it. Fill the glass up; when it won't hold any more,
you know how large it is.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[John Halpenny]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ test.
>

I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth as a person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of the world.

Having said that:

For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people with the goal of raising a family with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy and good-looking kids. More recently, large families have gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are left to produce a significant number of children. Discuss possible outcomes of this?

John

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 6/20/2018 2:55 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <XnsA9079554711...@69.16.179.42>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ test.
>
> Quite so.
>
> Although ability to take an IQ test has *some*, though not
> one-to-one, correspondence, with ability to do well in school.
>

Which has little correlation with the ability to do well in life.

> I like to compare intelligence to the volumetric content of a
> glass so transparent that you can't see it unless there's
> something in it. Fill the glass up; when it won't hold any more,
> you know how large it is.
>

Too many people fill it up with something alcoholic.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Intelligence of parents does not correlate with the intelligence of
their children.

[James Nicoll]

In article <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85...@googlegroups.com>,

You had lots of siblings?

I would expect a terrible plague of people posting thinly disguised
Marching Morons nonsense in the one group where people are likely to
recognize the source.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[Steve Dodds]

This is the plot of the movie "Idiotcracy"

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85...@googlegroups.com>,
John Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:

ObSF: Kornbluth, "The Marching Morons."

Clue: People who don't seem (to you) very intelligent might have
magnificant brains, but never had the opportunity for the
education with which to fill them.

Or (vide supra) don't judge a glass by its contents.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:pAn68...@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsA9079554711...@69.16.179.42>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ
>>test.
>
> Quite so.
>
> Although ability to take an IQ test has *some*, though not
> one-to-one, correspondence, with ability to do well in school.

Depends on the school. And many other factors.

>
> I like to compare intelligence to the volumetric content of a
> glass so transparent that you can't see it unless there's
> something in it. Fill the glass up; when it won't hold any
> more, you know how large it is.
>

Those who study intelligence scientifically now talk about there
being many different kinds of intelligence, many of which are
completely independent of each other. One can be, for instance, very
smart at dealing with people, but unable to navigate to the grocery
store down the street without a guide.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

John Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote in
news:6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ
>> test.
>>
> I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth
> as a person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of
> the world.

Declining IQ test scores is a sign of nothing more than declining IQ
scores. There is no other meaning to it at all.

>
> Having said that:
>
> For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have
> sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people
> with the goal of raising a family with perhaps five or ten
> intelligent, healthy and good-looking kids. More recently, large
> families have gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are
> left to produce a significant number of children. Discuss
> possible outcomes of this?
>

Discussion is impossible without first defining what you mean by
"intelligence." (If you can come up with one - and only one - that is
universally accepted, and has some objective meaning, you will be,
literally, the most brilliant researching in the history of the
field.)

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:pgekh1$2r5$3...@dont-email.me:

> On 6/20/2018 3:21 PM, John Halpenny wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an
>>> IQ test.
>>>
>> I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth
>> as a person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of
>> the world.
>>
>> Having said that:
>>
>> For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people
>> have sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking
>> people with the goal of raising a family with perhaps five or
>> ten intelligent, healthy and good-looking kids. More recently,
>> large families have gone out of style and only the "less
>> favoured" are left to produce a significant number of children.
>> Discuss possible outcomes of this?
>>
> Intelligence of parents does not correlate with the intelligence
> of their children.
>

There appears to be some genetic component to potential, but nurture
and environment are far more important

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <pgekh1$2r5$3...@dont-email.me>,

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 6/20/2018 3:21 PM, John Halpenny wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ test.
>>>
>> I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth as a
>person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of the world.
>>
>> Having said that:
>>
>> For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have
>sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people with the
>goal of raising a family with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy
>and good-looking kids. More recently, large families have gone out of
>style and only the "less favoured" are left to produce a significant
>number of children. Discuss possible outcomes of this?
>>
>Intelligence of parents does not correlate with the intelligence of
>their children.

Except when it does. But sometimes it doesn't.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:pAn7t...@kithrup.com:

> In article
> <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85...@googlegroups.com>, John
> Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an
>>> IQ test.
>>>
>>I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth
>>as a person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of
>>the world.
>>
>>Having said that:
>>
>>For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have
>>sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people
>>with the goal of raising a family with perhaps five or ten
>>intelligent, healthy and good-looking kids. More recently, large
>>families have gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are
>>left to produce a significant number of children. Discuss
>>possible outcomes of this?
>
> ObSF: Kornbluth, "The Marching Morons."
>
> Clue: People who don't seem (to you) very intelligent might have
> magnificant brains, but never had the opportunity for the
> education with which to fill them.

Or they are, in fact, very intelligent about things that Johnny is
very, very stupid at, and discounts the importance of because he
can't handle it. (This is, in fact, why IQ tests *cannot* ever
measure anything but the ability to take IQ tests. The mere fact
that it is a *written* test eliminates broad spectra of
intelligence from what it fails to measure.)

>
> Or (vide supra) don't judge a glass by its contents.
>

But in Johnny's case, we can certainly judge the contents by the
contents.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 6/20/2018 12:25 PM, a425couple wrote:
> from
> http://bigthink.com/brandon-weber/every-10-years-humans-got-smarter-thats-now-reversing
>
>
> For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing.
> June 14, 2018  by BRANDON A. WEBER
> Article Image
> The Flynn effect appears to be in retrograde. (Credit: Shutterstock/Big
> Think)
> There's a new study out of Norway that indicates our—well, technically,
> their—IQs are shrinking, to the tune of about seven IQ points per
> generation.

...

Ah, the premise for the awesome movie "Idiocracy":
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

"Private Joe Bauers, the definition of "average American", is selected
by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation
program. Forgotten, he awakes five centuries in the future. He discovers
a society so incredibly dumbed down that he's easily the most
intelligent person alive. "

I just want to know where I can buy the recliner with the builtin toilet
so I don't have to get up to go to the bathroom !

Lynn

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:pgembn$ch4$1...@dont-email.me:

> I just want to know where I can buy the recliner with the
> builtin toilet so I don't have to get up to go to the bathroom !
>

I suspect Amazon has them. Certainly, they exist. They're usually
called something like "gamer's chairs."

[John Halpenny]

I forgot that "intelligence" is a word that cannot be used without instantly getting some people upset. "Good-looking" is also pretty subjunctive, but most people at least know what it means for them. Is it at least safe to use "healthy"?

Children never turn out exactly like their parents, but they do resemble them.

John

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

John Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote in

news:cd2d59e2-d0be-4ccd...@googlegroups.com:

For values of "upset" that include me laughing at the moron.

> "Good-looking" is
> also pretty subjunctive, but most people at least know what it
> means for them. Is it at least safe to use "healthy"?
>
> Children never turn out exactly like their parents, but they do
> resemble them.
>

By and large, not because of genetics.

I'm still waiting for you to define intelligence. I'll be waiting a
long, long time, won't I?

[mcdow...@sky.com]

For those that don't buy into the "it's just a number" story, Wikipedia has a reasonable explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#General_factor_(g) that describes how what IQ tests measured was designed to be a common factor that statistics showed was correlated to ability at a variety of school subjects (one of the first examples of what I suspect was Principal Components Analysis). So it should be no surprise that people who score well in IQ tests tend to do well at academic subjects in school.

I also note since IQ is inheritable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ it is measuring something we evolved and it would be very odd for us to evolve something which had no other purpose than passing tests only invented millennia after the ability evolved.

[peterw...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85...@googlegroups.com>,
> John Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> >Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ test.
> >>
> >I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth as a
> >person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of the world.
> >
> >Having said that:
> >
> >For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have sought
> >out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people with the goal of
> >raising a family with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy and
> >good-looking kids. More recently, large families have gone out of style
> >and only the "less favoured" are left to produce a significant number of
> >children. Discuss possible outcomes of this?
>
> You had lots of siblings?
>
> I would expect a terrible plague of people posting thinly disguised
> Marching Morons nonsense in the one group where people are likely to
> recognize the source.
> --

It's not just from _The Marching Morons_; this idea was a major
premise of the whole eugenics movement. The Nazi party notoriously
adapted it into their own policies. Forced sterilization on eugenic
grounds has been carried out in western countries until surprisingly
recently.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Peter Trei]

We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our intelligence. There's
no way intelligence could evolve unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough
variant within the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren.
This is true for every evolved trait.

However, its clear that upbringing and education has a profound effect on
outcome, and also that intragroup variation is much larger than variation
between the averages of groups. It is thus invalid to judge individuals
purely on the basis of the groups they are in.

pt

[Robert Carnegie]

I don't think that ugly people are going to overwhelm
the likes of you (I assume you count yourself amongst
the good-looking). Well, unless they compensate
with high sexual availability. But wouldn't that
require being smart?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <f7b25245-73be-4cd6...@googlegroups.com>,

Wait a minute. "High sexual availability" is equated with "being
smart"???

Maybe, if you are male and equate "being smart" with "knowing
ninety-seven different ways of conning someone who doesn't want
to go to bed with you into doing so anyway."

If you are female, "being smart" equates to "examining all
possible mates for suitable characteristics", which include
"being able to support your kids into adulthood," which nowadays
equates to "reaching at least the age of eighteen, but preferably
finishing college and maybe graduate school."

Always assuming you don't live in a culture where your father can
trade you to another guy (whereupon you will have to go to bed
with his son and bear his grandchildren), in exchange for a cow
or something.

[Robert Carnegie]

No no no. I was responding to John Halpenny's concern
that stupid ugly diseased people will out-breed fine
specimens like you and me and he. He is overlooking the
fact that they won't find anyone to breed with, because
everyone wants to breed, or specifically to copulate,
with the healthy, good-looking, and possibly intelligent
people. But those people don't want to copulate with
him. Probably the stupid ugly diseased people also don't
want to, but whoever does may receive economic support
in return - for oneself as well as for offspring.

I meant to propose, but not seriously, that the inferiors
that John and I are speaking of would not achieve that
insight. But in fact it is not really a mysterious matter.

[Kevrob]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 12:22:32 AM UTC-4, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:

> I also note since IQ is inheritable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ it is measuring something we evolved and it would be very odd for us to evolve something which had no other purpose than passing tests only invented millennia after the ability evolved.

What would a graph of the scores look like if the tests didn't get
renormed periodically?

Average heights might seem to decline if one keeps redefining the metre
or foot.

Kevin R

[Kevrob]

With the advent of birth control technology, couldn't there
be a bias against early adapters and rigorous practitioners
of planned pregnancy to "underbreed" the less sophisticated,
who knock up/get knocked up by their partners and have children
they didn't plan on, and maybe more than the would have in a lifetime,
had they planned their breeding?

It's only one factor, and others, like frequency of abortion,
any bias towards higher infant or child mortality among these
self-same "reproductive dum-dums," etc., might well offset it.
The demographic transition model is built around the idea that
the more well-to-do are satisfied with fewer children who are
likelier to live than in past eras, to whose upbringing significant
resources can be dedicated, compared to turning out a lot of poor
kids, some of whom survive to care for Ma and Pa in old age.

Kevin R

[John Halpenny]

Birth control, modern medicine and expensive college have certainly changed the situation, but have they changed it enough? If I have one child and all of the advantages of modern technology, and you have 10 kids and 5 of then die, your kids still outnumber mine, and your grandchildren will outnumber mine by 25 to 1. Since I can't say that this is a good or bad thing, perhaps we shouldn't even talk about it.

It all boils down to Darwin's Law, which is, to paraphrase only slightly, "Whoever raises the most babies wins."

John

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <6fbe18e9-da5a-4b66...@googlegroups.com>,

Actuall, it's whoever has the most *grandchildren* lives.

Take into account that if you have two children and they both live
to grow up and have children of their own, you're doing better than
if you have nine children and eight of them die young and the
ninth has one child before she dies.

This is why humans are so philoprogenitive. We were an endangered
species for a long time. The lion on the leopard and the hyena
and the Dinofelis and the plasmodium of malaria all wanted to have
us for lunch, and frequently did.

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <6fbe18e9-da5a-4b66...@googlegroups.com>,
j.hal...@rogers.com says...

>
> Birth control, modern medicine and expensive college have certainly changed the situation, but have they changed it enough? If I have one child and all of the advantages of modern technology, and you have 10 kids and 5 of then die, your kids still outnumber mine, and your grandchildren will outnumber mine by 25 to 1. Since I can't say that this is a good or bad thing, perhaps we shouldn't even talk about it.

Three things:

1) Genetics of intelligence, which still lacks a satisfactory
definition, are complicated.

2) Smart parents tend to have less smart children, and dumb parents
tend to have smarter children, because reversion to the mean is a
thing.

3) The elite have worried about the unchecked procreation of the
unwashed masses dumbing the population down for at least two centuries,
quite possibly a lot longer.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Dimensional Traveler]

4) People have been complaining about the decline and imminent fall of
civilization since Sumer was founded.

[John Halpenny]

>
> 4) People have been complaining about the decline and imminent fall of
> civilization since Sumer was founded.
>

Almost all of the civilizations since Sumer have declined and fallen. New ones have taken over, and then rewritten the history books to explain why they were so much better than the old ones.

John

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <2a1c43c1-a012-47ce...@googlegroups.com>,

Just as people have written books to explain why we mammals are
so much better than the dinosaurs were.

(Because back on the day of the asteroid, we were tiny furry
things that didn't need as much food to keep us alive.)

C. S. Lewis says (I think in _Suprised by Joy_), there have been
civilized people in all eras. And they have always been
surrounded by barbarians.

[James Nicoll]

In article <pAqH4...@kithrup.com>,

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <2a1c43c1-a012-47ce...@googlegroups.com>,
>John Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> >
>>> 4) People have been complaining about the decline and imminent fall of
>>> civilization since Sumer was founded.
>>>
>>Almost all of the civilizations since Sumer have declined and fallen.
>>New ones have taken over, and then rewritten the history books to
>>explain why they were so much better than the old ones.
>
>Just as people have written books to explain why we mammals are
>so much better than the dinosaurs were.
>
>(Because back on the day of the asteroid, we were tiny furry
>things that didn't need as much food to keep us alive.)
>

Having got pushed aside after the End Permian and the Carnian Pluvial Event's
Big Rain.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

mcdow...@sky.com wrote in
news:f3a0a27a-344b-4a0e...@googlegroups.com:

Well, wikipedia, the popularity contest for factoids, where actual
facts are not welcome.

Sure.

My poitn stands, unchallenged.

> has a reasonable explanation at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#General_facto
> r_(g) that describes how what IQ tests measured was designed to
> be a common factor that statistics showed was correlated to
> ability at a variety of school subjects (one of the first
> examples of what I suspect was Principal Components Analysis).
> So it should be no surprise that people who score well in IQ
> tests tend to do well at academic subjects in school.
>
> I also note since IQ is inheritable

It's not, by and large.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ it is measuring
> something we evolved and it would be very odd for us to evolve
> something which had no other purpose than passing tests only
> invented millennia after the ability evolved.
>

You are an idiot.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:67856068-af4e-45ef...@googlegroups.com:

You're dancing on the grave of the idea of how many different
definitions of intelligence there are.

>
> However, its clear that upbringing and education has a profound
> effect on outcome, and also that intragroup variation is much
> larger than variation between the averages of groups. It is thus
> invalid to judge individuals purely on the basis of the groups
> they are in.
>

Which is true for pretty much anything one might wish to judge
people on.

[Cryptoengineer]

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA9096C9749C...@69.16.179.43:

Absolutely. But regardless of what trait or traits make us
capable of thinking better than (for example) a dog, those trait(s)
evolved. Evolution requires inheritance.

So, however defined, 'intelligence' is inheritable.

pt

[Ahasuerus]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 1:25:46 PM UTC-4, a425couple wrote:
> from
> http://bigthink.com/brandon-weber/every-10-years-humans-got-smarter-thats-now-reversing
>
> For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing.

[snip-snip]

My robot tells me not to worry about it. After all, humans have
already created robots; anything else they might do would be a nice
but decidedly optional bonus. Humans might as well kick back, relax,
play computer games and watch (computer-animated) superhero movies.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA90A16157B...@216.166.97.131>,

Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>So, however defined, 'intelligence' is inheritable.

Sometimes.

Consider Isaac Asimov. He had two children. His daughter was a
nice normal person, went into social work. His son was, what's
the current polite term? Intellectually challenged?

Regression to the mean, as mentioned upthread.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA90A16157B...@216.166.97.131:

That is one type of intelligence. Dozens of other types have been
documented scientifically.

And most of them do not appear to have fuckall of a genetic
component.

>
> So, however defined, 'intelligence' is inheritable.
>

Not according to the peer reviewed research, for most of it.

Do you not believe in science?

--
Terry Austin

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:23:21 +0300, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

The elite are not necessarily any brighter than the unwashed masses,
either. Luckier, perhaps, but outside of Known Space that isn't a
heritable characteristic (although trust funds can be).

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Okay, it works now. Or at least it malfunctions in all the expected ways.
-- Mark Edwards, asr

[D B Davis]

Callidetic [1] genes may also play a role on Earth, where only males who
"get lucky" (so to speak) with the fairer sex are allowed to procreate.

Note.

1. "The Weapon Shops of Isher" (van Vogt) uses "callidetic" to describe
people with endemic, chronic, good luck. One of the things that's on my
back-burner is to figure out that word's etymology.
It originally struck me as a combination of calli + detic. Calli
comes from the Greek word Kallos 'beauty,' which left the suffix detic
behind as an enigmatic part of the puzzle.
This morning, a combination of callid + etic seems more plausible.
Although the callid prefix doesn't appear in my _Oxford Dictionary_, it
does appear online [1]. It means "characterized by cunning or
shrewdness; crafty." For our purposes, the suffix etic more-or-less
means "outside of society" or "outsider."
Following this line-of-thought, callidetic means "crafty outsider."
There's also a fly-in-the-ointment. The prefix comes from Latin while
the suffix comes from Greek. Does that sort of thing happen in the
English language?

Note.

1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/callid

✍

Thank you,

--
Don

[Robert Carnegie]

We /were/ talking about "hybrid words" quite recently. Me:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.arts.sf.written/lxn5QUWwz4Q/gd48z1EABAAJ>

[Kevrob]

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:34:56 AM UTC-4, D B Davis wrote:

> Following this line-of-thought, callidetic means "crafty outsider."
> There's also a fly-in-the-ointment. The prefix comes from Latin while
> the suffix comes from Greek. Does that sort of thing happen in the
> English language?
>
> Note.
>
> 1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/callid

This came up recently. Search on "barbarous neologism,"
or, less judgmentally, "hybrid word."

Television would be one example.

Kevin R

[D B Davis]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 June 2018 14:34:56 UTC+1, D B Davis wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> Note.
>>
>> 1. "The Weapon Shops of Isher" (van Vogt) uses "callidetic" to describe
>> people with endemic, chronic, good luck. One of the things that's on my
>> back-burner is to figure out that word's etymology.
>> It originally struck me as a combination of calli + detic. Calli
>> comes from the Greek word Kallos 'beauty,' which left the suffix detic
>> behind as an enigmatic part of the puzzle.
>> This morning, a combination of callid + etic seems more plausible.
>> Although the callid prefix doesn't appear in my _Oxford Dictionary_, it
>> does appear online [1]. It means "characterized by cunning or
>> shrewdness; crafty." For our purposes, the suffix etic more-or-less
>> means "outside of society" or "outsider."
>> Following this line-of-thought, callidetic means "crafty outsider."
>> There's also a fly-in-the-ointment. The prefix comes from Latin while
>> the suffix comes from Greek. Does that sort of thing happen in the
>> English language?
>>
>> Note.
>>
>> 1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/callid
>
> We /were/ talking about "hybrid words" quite recently. Me:
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.arts.sf.written/lxn5QUWwz4Q/gd48z1EABAAJ>

google doesn't work for me these days because it uses too many unknown,
and therefore untrusted, java scripts from all over creation. (You know
me :0) ) OTOH, a plain vanilla search of my personal usenet archive
seems to reveal the pertinent thread. This link may, or may not, work
from within a newsreader:

news:eec75cc7-4b81-410f...@googlegroups.com

In the end, a Roman-Grecian "hybrid word" is OK. With the disclaimer
that it's potentially a "barbarous neologism" according to Henry
Havelock Ellis (as Kevrob points out in his followup to my question).
Your own erudite contribution to that other thread didn't fully
register with me until now.

✍

Thank you,

--
Don

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 15:35:05 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <g...@crcomp.net>
wrote:

>google doesn't work for me these days because it uses too many unknown,
>and therefore untrusted, java scripts from all over creation. (You know
>me :0) )

Have you tried duckduckgo for searching? They're of the same mind.
https://duckduckgo.com/

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
the Complete Works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know
this is not true." - Robert Wilensky, University of California

[Cryptoengineer]

Ninapenda Jibini <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA909E63DBB229...@69.16.179.43:

Sure, and if we have them more than other species, its because of
our inheritable genetic differences from them. The ability to learn
complex behaviours and patterns of thought from others is one of our
inherited skills, and enables a great deal.

> And most of them do not appear to have fuckall of a genetic
> component.
>>
>> So, however defined, 'intelligence' is inheritable.
>>
> Not according to the peer reviewed research, for most of it.
>
> Do you not believe in science?

Sure I do. You're making some very confident assertions. I assume
you can back them up. So, I'm calling your bluff:

Give the citations, in peer reivewed journals for 'dozens of other
types of intelligence', including the evidence that they 'do not
appear to have fuckall of a genetic component' (not sure what your
doing with the double negative there - I'm assuming you meant that
they are no inherited)

I'll make it easy for you: 'dozens' would be a lot of work. Can you
give even three?

Learned or acquired skills don't count. We can do those due to the
inherited ability to learn more more and complexly than other species.

Put up, or shut up.

pt

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA90AEF5F78...@216.166.97.131:

The longer you insist on trying to change the subject, the stupider
you will look.

That means this is a day that ends in "y."

[Cryptoengineer]

Ninapenda Jibini <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:XnsA90B5D8EC840t...@69.16.179.42:

Bluff called, Terry folds.

pt

[D B Davis]

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 15:35:05 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <g...@crcomp.net>
> wrote:
>
>>google doesn't work for me these days because it uses too many unknown,
>>and therefore untrusted, java scripts from all over creation. (You know
>>me :0) )
>
> Have you tried duckduckgo for searching? They're of the same mind.
> https://duckduckgo.com/

Do you remember scroogle.org? It sure was a hoot, while it lasted.
duckduckgo's actually my go-to search engine these days. But, it,
along with just about every other search engine, returns far too much
noise unless you include a double-quote "" somewhere in your search
phrase and lock it down to a worthy website with the site: argument
(eg site:freebsd.org). But even duckduckgo doesn't work too well with
usenet for me.

https://duckduckgo.com/html/&q="barbarous+neologism"+rec.arts.sf.written+site:groups.google.com

ultimately links to groups.google.com and its mandatory, unknown,
untrusted scripts.

https://duckduckgo.com/html/&q="barbarous+neologism"+site:rec.arts.sf.written.narkive.com
https://duckduckgo.com/html/&q="barbarous+neologism"+rec.arts.sf.written+site:narkive.com

also do not seem to work right, for me.

✍

Thank you,

--
Don

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 1:25:46 PM UTC-4, a425couple wrote:
> from
> http://bigthink.com/brandon-weber/every-10-years-humans-got-smarter-thats-now-reversing
>
> For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing.

> June 14, 2018 by BRANDON A. WEBER
> Article Image
> The Flynn effect appears to be in retrograde. (Credit: Shutterstock/Big
> Think)
> There's a new study out of Norway that indicates our—well, technically,
> their—IQs are shrinking, to the tune of about seven IQ points per
> generation.

Mine has been going down 7 points a year. I tried that "Double your IQ or no money back" offer, but it didn't help. At least I had a Groupon.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA90B70719C...@216.166.97.131:

Thank you for admitting I'm right, as usual, while preserving your
fragile, childish ego. We all knew that already, sure, but the
first step to treatment is to admit you have a problem.

I was talking about the many different kinds of intelligence, as
recognized by those who study such things scientificatlly. You said
something *stupid* - as you always do - and when I called you out
on it - as I always do - you demonstrated your childishness and
stupidity by trying to change the subject to one specific type.
Which I never denied existed, of course, despite your lying,
childish, cowardly implication that I had.

The way to get to the bottom of the hold, son, is to stop digging.
You *know* you can't win. You *know* you can't get the last word.
You *know* you're wrong, and you *know* that everyone else knows
it. You *know* you're full of shit - as usual. So give it up, and
STFU, or get used to your ass smarting - again.

Moron.

[mcdow...@sky.com]

Some recent science - article at https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-almost-1-000-new-genes-associated-with-intelligence claims to be reporting an article in Nature Genetics

An international team conducted a large-scale genetic association study of intelligence and discovered 190 new genomic loci and 939 new genes linked with intelligence, significantly expanding our understanding of the genetic bases of cognitive function.

[Greg Goss]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

>We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our intelligence. There's
>no way intelligence could evolve unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough
>variant within the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren.
>This is true for every evolved trait.

Neanderthal braiins were bigger than Cromagnon brains (though laid out
very differently) and average Cromagnon brains were bigger (slightly)
than average modern brains.

To some, that latter point supports the marching morons hypothesis
already.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>John Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:

>>It all boils down to Darwin's Law, which is, to paraphrase only
>>slightly, "Whoever raises the most babies wins."
>
>Actuall, it's whoever has the most *grandchildren* lives.

I have no children, but have four nieces and nephews. At 0.25
relatedness (assuming that everyone was faithful) times four, that
means that my Darwin Number would be 1.0 = breakeven.

Unless you insist on that "grandkids" level. Two of them don't have
kids and the other two are still too young to have had kids yet.

[Greg Goss]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

>In article <2a1c43c1-a012-47ce...@googlegroups.com>,
>John Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> >
>>> 4) People have been complaining about the decline and imminent fall of
>>> civilization since Sumer was founded.
>>>
>>Almost all of the civilizations since Sumer have declined and fallen.
>>New ones have taken over, and then rewritten the history books to
>>explain why they were so much better than the old ones.
>
>Just as people have written books to explain why we mammals are
>so much better than the dinosaurs were.
>
>(Because back on the day of the asteroid, we were tiny furry
>things that didn't need as much food to keep us alive.)

I've seen claims that re-entering crud from the splash set pretty much
the entire planet's sky on "bake". So the only things that survived
were ones that were in burrows or under water. AND were small enough
to live on restricted food supplies.

(And that was a minor extinction to the one a quarter billion years
ago.)

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 4:19:52 PM UTC+10, Greg Goss wrote:
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our intelligence. There's
> >no way intelligence could evolve unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough
> >variant within the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren.
> >This is true for every evolved trait.
>
> Neanderthal braiins were bigger than Cromagnon brains (though laid out
> very differently) and average Cromagnon brains were bigger (slightly)
> than average modern brains.
>

What were the body sizes though?
The ratio of brain size to body size seems to be a slightly less inaccurate indicator of intelligence than brain size alone.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

More likely our brains have gotten more efficient. Brain tissue is
expensive, so smaller, more efficient brains would be a pro-survival
trait.

Brain efficiency varies a lot. Look at parrots or crows -- they're
much, much smarter than any mammalian brain that size.



--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <26fc9185-327f-4b75...@googlegroups.com>,

Well, I can't give you numbers. But one of the BBC documentaries
(_Walking with Cavemen_, probably) has a sequence where a
contemporary (that is, _H. sapiens_) primatologist is standing in
the African landscape with am ealy hominin CGI'd next to him.
The hominin comes up to about mid-forearm on him, and he's one of
the small-brained types ... but he has enough-brains that when he
sees the CGI'd predator stalking him, he runs away.

This is all very vague; it's been a while since I've seen the
program and it's early in the morning. I'll try watching the DVD
this afternoon and re-post with better details.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <fpe4jf...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>John Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>>It all boils down to Darwin's Law, which is, to paraphrase only
>>>slightly, "Whoever raises the most babies wins."
>>
>>Actuall, it's whoever has the most *grandchildren* lives.

True. And one of the things that hominins developed over time
was longer lifespans so that an individual too old to reproduce
can still help take care of the grandchildren.

I'm doing that now, in fact; Hal and I live with our daughter and
son-in-law and are daycare for our grandson. (We have another
grandson, but he lives in New York and we've yet to meet him.)

>I have no children, but have four nieces and nephews. At 0.25
>relatedness (assuming that everyone was faithful) times four, that
>means that my Darwin Number would be 1.0 = breakeven.
>
>Unless you insist on that "grandkids" level. Two of them don't have
>kids and the other two are still too young to have had kids yet.

You never know; the younger ones might make you a great-uncle
yet.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Or we're evolving more efficient brains.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

mcdow...@sky.com wrote in
news:4d057f55-9631-4b67...@googlegroups.com:

And nurture is still far more important.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[David Johnston]

On 2018-06-26 8:42 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <26fc9185-327f-4b75...@googlegroups.com>,
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 4:19:52 PM UTC+10, Greg Goss wrote:
>>> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our intelligence. There's
>>>> no way intelligence could evolve unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough
>>>> variant within the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren.
>>>> This is true for every evolved trait.
>>>
>>> Neanderthal braiins were bigger than Cromagnon brains (though laid out
>>> very differently) and average Cromagnon brains were bigger (slightly)
>>> than average modern brains.
>>>
>> What were the body sizes though?
>> The ratio of brain size to body size seems to be a slightly less
>> inaccurate indicator of intelligence than brain size alone.
>
> Well, I can't give you numbers. But one of the BBC documentaries
> (_Walking with Cavemen_, probably) has a sequence where a
> contemporary (that is, _H. sapiens_) primatologist is standing in
> the African landscape with am ealy hominin CGI'd next to him.
> The hominin comes up to about mid-forearm on him, and he's one of
> the small-brained types ... but he has enough-brains that when he
> sees the CGI'd predator stalking him, he runs away.

Neanderthals and Cromagnons aren't early hominids. But they weren't
notably bigger than modern humans. It's likely though that the extra
brain size was devoted to a relatively superior ability to process
sensory input.

[Ahasuerus]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:41:38 AM UTC-4, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
[snip]

> Some recent science - article at
> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-almost-1-000-new-genes-associated-with-intelligence
> claims to be reporting an article in Nature Genetics
>
> An international team conducted a large-scale genetic association
> study of intelligence and discovered 190 new genomic loci and 939
> new genes linked with intelligence, significantly expanding our
> understanding of the genetic bases of cognitive function.

The abstract is available at
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0152-6

ObSF: It will be interesting to see how recent biological advances
(there have been quite a few in the last couple of decades) will
affect SF. IT advances have more immediate impact on SF because they
are easy to see and project into the future, but in the long run
biological advances may be just as important.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pgtql6$19gq$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

Here's an interesting discussion of current theories:

http://www.tested.com/science/life/454072-why-bigger-neanderthal-
brains-didnt-make-them-smarter-humans/

https://tinyurl.com/pydjxj4

TL;Dr: Neandertal's brains developed in areas that enhanced
individusla survival, Cromagnon's brains developed in areas that
enhanced cooperative survival. Which is why we're still around, and
they're not. (Evoplution doesn't give a shit about individual
survival, only the ability to procreate.)

[Dimensional Traveler]

>> Some recent science - article at
>> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-almost-1-
>> 000-new-genes-associated-with-intelligence claims to be
>> reporting an article in Nature Genetics
>>
>> An international team conducted a large-scale genetic
>> association study of intelligence and discovered 190 new genomic
>> loci and 939 new genes linked with intelligence, significantly
>> expanding our understanding of the genetic bases of cognitive
>> function.
>>
> And nurture is still far more important.
>

"The beatings will continue until intelligence improves." (Though
probably not in a way the beater will like.)

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:pgtubk$hm$1...@dont-email.me:

There's a masturbation joke in there somewhere ("beating off"),
but I'm too busy with the T-1 Upgrade From Hell (and too lazy) to
dig for it.

[Dimensional Traveler]

The original line was supposed to be a joke about how companies treat
their employees, "The beatings will continue until morale improves" but
you've given that a whole new spin now.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in

news:pgu3kj$4n4$1...@dont-email.me:

Yeah, I got that.

> but you've given that a whole new spin now.
>

I live to serve.

[Greg Goss]

Lawrence Watt-Evans <misencha...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:19:38 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:


>>Neanderthal braiins were bigger than Cromagnon brains (though laid out
>>very differently) and average Cromagnon brains were bigger (slightly)
>>than average modern brains.
>>
>>To some, that latter point supports the marching morons hypothesis
>>already.
>
>More likely our brains have gotten more efficient. Brain tissue is
>expensive, so smaller, more efficient brains would be a pro-survival
>trait.

Nerves are damned slow. If you can make things work with a smaller
brain, then the intra-brain links speed up dramatically. Smaller
brains are not JUST more energy efficient.

>Brain efficiency varies a lot. Look at parrots or crows -- they're
>much, much smarter than any mammalian brain that size.

Parrot / Crow brainpower has always bothered me. There's no way a
brain that size should be that smart.

[Greg Goss]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>>I have no children, but have four nieces and nephews. At 0.25
>>relatedness (assuming that everyone was faithful) times four, that
>>means that my Darwin Number would be 1.0 = breakeven.
>>
>>Unless you insist on that "grandkids" level. Two of them don't have
>>kids and the other two are still too young to have had kids yet.
>
>You never know; the younger ones might make you a great-uncle
>yet.

The eldest of the four is getting married in a month and a half. That
will likely change the odds dramatically.