World decline of IQ to borderline retarded
- Thread starter android
- Start date
android said:
Android, it's actually embarassing that you would post crap like this on SCI-FORUM! Do you have any Idea what you're talking about NO! Please do some research on reverse brain-engineering. After that, I'm sure you would be to embarrased and humiliated to ever return this site again. I would start here www.kurzweiai.net
Ok. Let's get down to some nitty gritty.
First of all. This is a bit of an old link and the links to the original data are not working. I've searched and found them here: Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations.
The paper is written about a theorized correlation between national IQ scores and GNP. The article linked by Android only takes a portion of this data. Specifically the national IQ's.
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/7-a1.asp
There is, of course, a fallacy right off the bat here.
The numbers are IQ scores.
The title suggests intelligence.
There are multiple disclaimers, of course. But, it must be stressed that IQ tests are highly controversial. Such strong language as is taken in the title "Intelligence and the Wealth and Povery of Nations" is unwarranted and should be looked upon with a leery eye.
That said, let's get to the meat of the relevant page in the article.
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/3.asp
So:
First:
We? Are you Robert Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen, or perhaps Ole Eichhorn? Or are you one of those who feel that you, as a human being, deserve the accolades for all human achievement? (A sentiment that would (or should) be out of character for you, I'd think. A nihilist, aren't you? Or did you give that up when you went from Anus to Corrupt?)
Anyway. Mouse in your pocket aside.
It would seem from the above quote that the specific method is unclear.
FIrst it mentions using the British norm, but then it says that it uses the American norm and then adjusts by 2 to make it the British norm.
Hmm.
I'm not a statistician and am not sure of all the ramifications of the above number-jumbling.
I can say that this whole article gives off a touch of a biased odor though. But that's just a hunch.
Anyway.
So. All these national IQ's are then compared to the British IQ mean of 100. (The British mean of 1979, that is. And then adjusted for the Flynn Effect... More shifty business, if you ask me. Why not use more current data?)
From this, the author of the link originally provided, Ole, makes several assumptions and does his little dance.
The assumptions are that the populations of different countries will not mix. (A ludicrous notion, in my opinion.)
And that the measured IQ in each country will remain stable. (Another ludicrous notion even without the Flynn Effect. Developing nations have vast room for improvement and at least some will rise significantly. Especially India, a country that is growing in technological knowledge in leaps and bounds.)
Another assumption, unstated, is that population growth rates will continue at present-day trends.
All the assumptions are very precarious.
The main jist of the article is that, given todays National IQ's and today's population growth rates, the 'dumb' countries will outbreed the 'smart' countries and thus the world's IQ, compared to the 1979 British national IQ, will diminish.
It's not saying that America is getting dumber.
It's not saying that Britain is getting dumber.
It's not saying that any country whatsoever is getting dumber (or smarter, for that matter.)
It's saying that the ignorant breed like rabbits.
There is a recent article in Science on this population trend, by the way.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5782/1894
You need to be a member to view it, I'm afraid. But I did swipe this illustration:
Fraggle,
The tests used in this 'study' were the Raven Progressive Matrices which test visual intelligence rather than verbal. They are purported to be less culturally biased than verbal tests, but one has to wonder about this as it seems that there is a huge cultural divide.
Perhaps all the nations that scored poorly really are borderline retarded...?
I agree.
This reminds me of research done on aboriginal indians in Brazil that have never developed a number system that counts more than two or three. They're not stupid, but they don't understand the concepts of counting. They have no sense of precision.
It's been awhile, but I could dig up the references to the two journal articles I have in mind.... Interesting stuff, really.
Mensa is, of course, hanging on to a precarious position themselves.
IQ is not necessarily all that it's made out to be. Yet, Mensa members derive quite a bit of satisfaction from being in the 'upper two percent of the population'.
However. I don't see how they could refuse to accept IQ renormalization. It's part of the definition of IQ. 100 is the mean IQ of a given population.
Heh.
While looking into some of this stuff, I came across an interesting anecdote.
By having two legs, you have a larger than average number of legs. Did you know that?
The mean is not the median. Smart kids are in there throwing off the curve. (What do dumb kids do to the curve, I wonder?)
Android,
Embarrassed?
Jump to conclusions a lot, do you?
By the way. If every population that has taken the test has a mean score of 100 for their 'norm'. Then wouldn't this, on the whole, indicate a mean score of 100 for the population of the Earth as a whole?
Or, do you think that the above average number of legs figures in to this somehow?
I suspect that the Flynn Effect adjusted numbers actually increased the bias.
The Flynn Effect is reaching a plateau in some parts of the world.
Seems to me that if the IQ tests were culturally unbiased, then we'd see that the Flynn Effect is reaching the plateau in most developed nations but not in the developing nations.
It seems to me that this:
I can't think of any reason why the Flynn Effect would need to be figured in for current tests, so it can only be that the 1979 figure is being artificially adjusted. (I suppose the current tests could be lowered by the number predicted by the Flynn Effect....)
Again. Why not use current data from Britain? Why use such old data? If current data were being used there would be absolutely no need to do all this artificial adjustment to compensate for the Flynn Effect.
Are you going to tell me that the most recent data set for Britain's IQ scores are from 1979?
Riiiiiiight.
So. The question is why are the particular data sets being used.
Blackrain,
Whatever you thought was there, is not there. Sure you got the right link?
First of all. This is a bit of an old link and the links to the original data are not working. I've searched and found them here: Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations.
The paper is written about a theorized correlation between national IQ scores and GNP. The article linked by Android only takes a portion of this data. Specifically the national IQ's.
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/7-a1.asp
There is, of course, a fallacy right off the bat here.
The numbers are IQ scores.
The title suggests intelligence.
There are multiple disclaimers, of course. But, it must be stressed that IQ tests are highly controversial. Such strong language as is taken in the title "Intelligence and the Wealth and Povery of Nations" is unwarranted and should be looked upon with a leery eye.
That said, let's get to the meat of the relevant page in the article.
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/3.asp
"METHOD
This study presents data for 60 countries for national IQs, per capita incomes in 1998, and economic growth 1950-1998 and examines their relationships by the statistical techniques of correlation and regression analyses.
National IQs
National IQs have been calculated from normative data obtained in 60 countries for the Colored and Standard Progressive Matrices. The reasons for using these data are that the Progressive Matrices is the most widely used test in cross-cultural research, is non-verbal and hence is likely to yield more valid cross cultural data than verbal tests which require translation, is among the best measures of g, and the rate of secular increase is well established. The data have been obtained from the bibliographies of Progressive Matrices studies compiled by Court (1980) and Court and Raven (1995), from the data given by Raven in a series of manuals and research supplements for the Progressive Matrices, and from the Raven archive.
The Standard Progressive Matrices was constructed in Britain in the 1930s and was first published in 1938 with norms for 6-15 year olds and adults. This was followed by the publication in 1947 of the Colored Progressive Matrices, a simpler test suitable for 5-11 year olds. The Standard Progressive Matrices was renormed for 6 to 15 year olds in Britain 1979. A norm table is provided by Raven (1981) giving percentile equivalents of raw scores for half year age groups. The procedure for calculating the IQ of a country in which norms have been obtained for the Standard Progressive Matrices is to read off the raw scores of the 50th percentile from the norm table and obtain the British 1979 percentile. This is then converted to the British IQ equivalent using a conversion table. The raw score of the 50th percentile is the median IQ rather than the mean. Several studies have provided mean raw scores in addition to the medians and these show that means and medians are virtually identical. In most countries in which Progressive Matrices data have been collected norms have been given for a number of age groups. IQs are calculated for each of these and averaged to give a single national IQ. This IQ is then adjusted for the secular rise of the IQ which has been 2 IQ points per decade for the Standard Progressive Matrices in Britain over the period 1938-1979 (Lynn and Hampson, 1986). All national IQs are therefore expressed in relation to a British IQ of 100.
Norms for the Standard Progressive were collected for adults for Britain in 1992 and for the United States for 1993. The norm table for the United States provided by Raven, Court and Raven (1996) gives the most detailed information consisting of the percentile equivalents of raw scores. Less information is provided for the British standardization which gives only the raw score equivalents of the 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles. The British medians have been converted to American IQs by the use of the American norm table. The result of this calculation is that the British IQ is 102 on the American norms. Data for adults from other countries are converted to American IQs and then adjusted to British IQs by the subtraction of 2 IQ points.
There are no norms giving detailed percentiles for the Colored Progressive Matrices for Britain, the United States or elsewhere. To deal with data for the Colored Progressive Matrices, raw scores are converted to those of the Standard Progressive Matrices using the conversion table provided by Raven, Court and Raven (1995) and the IQs calculated in the way set out above.
In a few instances median raw scores fall below the 1st percentile of the British and American norm tables. The 1st percentile is equivalent to an IQ of 65. In these cases the countries are assigned an IQ of 64. For a number of countries Progressive Matrices data have been collected for two or more samples. These have been averaged to provide a single mean given to the nearest whole number."
This study presents data for 60 countries for national IQs, per capita incomes in 1998, and economic growth 1950-1998 and examines their relationships by the statistical techniques of correlation and regression analyses.
National IQs
National IQs have been calculated from normative data obtained in 60 countries for the Colored and Standard Progressive Matrices. The reasons for using these data are that the Progressive Matrices is the most widely used test in cross-cultural research, is non-verbal and hence is likely to yield more valid cross cultural data than verbal tests which require translation, is among the best measures of g, and the rate of secular increase is well established. The data have been obtained from the bibliographies of Progressive Matrices studies compiled by Court (1980) and Court and Raven (1995), from the data given by Raven in a series of manuals and research supplements for the Progressive Matrices, and from the Raven archive.
The Standard Progressive Matrices was constructed in Britain in the 1930s and was first published in 1938 with norms for 6-15 year olds and adults. This was followed by the publication in 1947 of the Colored Progressive Matrices, a simpler test suitable for 5-11 year olds. The Standard Progressive Matrices was renormed for 6 to 15 year olds in Britain 1979. A norm table is provided by Raven (1981) giving percentile equivalents of raw scores for half year age groups. The procedure for calculating the IQ of a country in which norms have been obtained for the Standard Progressive Matrices is to read off the raw scores of the 50th percentile from the norm table and obtain the British 1979 percentile. This is then converted to the British IQ equivalent using a conversion table. The raw score of the 50th percentile is the median IQ rather than the mean. Several studies have provided mean raw scores in addition to the medians and these show that means and medians are virtually identical. In most countries in which Progressive Matrices data have been collected norms have been given for a number of age groups. IQs are calculated for each of these and averaged to give a single national IQ. This IQ is then adjusted for the secular rise of the IQ which has been 2 IQ points per decade for the Standard Progressive Matrices in Britain over the period 1938-1979 (Lynn and Hampson, 1986). All national IQs are therefore expressed in relation to a British IQ of 100.
Norms for the Standard Progressive were collected for adults for Britain in 1992 and for the United States for 1993. The norm table for the United States provided by Raven, Court and Raven (1996) gives the most detailed information consisting of the percentile equivalents of raw scores. Less information is provided for the British standardization which gives only the raw score equivalents of the 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles. The British medians have been converted to American IQs by the use of the American norm table. The result of this calculation is that the British IQ is 102 on the American norms. Data for adults from other countries are converted to American IQs and then adjusted to British IQs by the subtraction of 2 IQ points.
There are no norms giving detailed percentiles for the Colored Progressive Matrices for Britain, the United States or elsewhere. To deal with data for the Colored Progressive Matrices, raw scores are converted to those of the Standard Progressive Matrices using the conversion table provided by Raven, Court and Raven (1995) and the IQs calculated in the way set out above.
In a few instances median raw scores fall below the 1st percentile of the British and American norm tables. The 1st percentile is equivalent to an IQ of 65. In these cases the countries are assigned an IQ of 64. For a number of countries Progressive Matrices data have been collected for two or more samples. These have been averaged to provide a single mean given to the nearest whole number."
So:
android said:
First:
We? Are you Robert Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen, or perhaps Ole Eichhorn? Or are you one of those who feel that you, as a human being, deserve the accolades for all human achievement? (A sentiment that would (or should) be out of character for you, I'd think. A nihilist, aren't you? Or did you give that up when you went from Anus to Corrupt?)
Anyway. Mouse in your pocket aside.
It would seem from the above quote that the specific method is unclear.
FIrst it mentions using the British norm, but then it says that it uses the American norm and then adjusts by 2 to make it the British norm.
Hmm.
I'm not a statistician and am not sure of all the ramifications of the above number-jumbling.
I can say that this whole article gives off a touch of a biased odor though. But that's just a hunch.
Anyway.
So. All these national IQ's are then compared to the British IQ mean of 100. (The British mean of 1979, that is. And then adjusted for the Flynn Effect... More shifty business, if you ask me. Why not use more current data?)
From this, the author of the link originally provided, Ole, makes several assumptions and does his little dance.
The assumptions are that the populations of different countries will not mix. (A ludicrous notion, in my opinion.)
And that the measured IQ in each country will remain stable. (Another ludicrous notion even without the Flynn Effect. Developing nations have vast room for improvement and at least some will rise significantly. Especially India, a country that is growing in technological knowledge in leaps and bounds.)
Another assumption, unstated, is that population growth rates will continue at present-day trends.
All the assumptions are very precarious.
The main jist of the article is that, given todays National IQ's and today's population growth rates, the 'dumb' countries will outbreed the 'smart' countries and thus the world's IQ, compared to the 1979 British national IQ, will diminish.
It's not saying that America is getting dumber.
It's not saying that Britain is getting dumber.
It's not saying that any country whatsoever is getting dumber (or smarter, for that matter.)
It's saying that the ignorant breed like rabbits.
There is a recent article in Science on this population trend, by the way.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5782/1894
You need to be a member to view it, I'm afraid. But I did swipe this illustration:
Fraggle,
The tests used in this 'study' were the Raven Progressive Matrices which test visual intelligence rather than verbal. They are purported to be less culturally biased than verbal tests, but one has to wonder about this as it seems that there is a huge cultural divide.
Perhaps all the nations that scored poorly really are borderline retarded...?
I agree.
This reminds me of research done on aboriginal indians in Brazil that have never developed a number system that counts more than two or three. They're not stupid, but they don't understand the concepts of counting. They have no sense of precision.
It's been awhile, but I could dig up the references to the two journal articles I have in mind.... Interesting stuff, really.
Mensa is, of course, hanging on to a precarious position themselves.
IQ is not necessarily all that it's made out to be. Yet, Mensa members derive quite a bit of satisfaction from being in the 'upper two percent of the population'.
However. I don't see how they could refuse to accept IQ renormalization. It's part of the definition of IQ. 100 is the mean IQ of a given population.
Heh.
While looking into some of this stuff, I came across an interesting anecdote.
By having two legs, you have a larger than average number of legs. Did you know that?
The mean is not the median. Smart kids are in there throwing off the curve. (What do dumb kids do to the curve, I wonder?)
Android,
Embarrassed?
Jump to conclusions a lot, do you?
By the way. If every population that has taken the test has a mean score of 100 for their 'norm'. Then wouldn't this, on the whole, indicate a mean score of 100 for the population of the Earth as a whole?
Or, do you think that the above average number of legs figures in to this somehow?
I suspect that the Flynn Effect adjusted numbers actually increased the bias.
The Flynn Effect is reaching a plateau in some parts of the world.
Seems to me that if the IQ tests were culturally unbiased, then we'd see that the Flynn Effect is reaching the plateau in most developed nations but not in the developing nations.
It seems to me that this:
"This IQ is then adjusted for the secular rise of the IQ which has been 2 IQ points per decade for the Standard Progressive Matrices in Britain over the period 1938-1979 (Lynn and Hampson, 1986). All national IQs are therefore expressed in relation to a British IQ of 100."
means that the procedure is to take the median score of present-day IQ tests in the varous countries and derive the 'National IQ' from this. They then compare this with the 1979 British score which is adjusted for the Flynn Effect.I can't think of any reason why the Flynn Effect would need to be figured in for current tests, so it can only be that the 1979 figure is being artificially adjusted. (I suppose the current tests could be lowered by the number predicted by the Flynn Effect....)
Again. Why not use current data from Britain? Why use such old data? If current data were being used there would be absolutely no need to do all this artificial adjustment to compensate for the Flynn Effect.
Are you going to tell me that the most recent data set for Britain's IQ scores are from 1979?
Riiiiiiight.
So. The question is why are the particular data sets being used.
Blackrain,
Whatever you thought was there, is not there. Sure you got the right link?
Last edited:
www.kurzweilai.net
In the coming decades, a radical upgrading of our body's physical and mental systems, already underway, will use nanobots to augment and ultimately replace our organs. We already know how to prevent most degenerative disease through nutrition and supplementation; this will be a bridge to the emerging biotechnology revolution, which in turn will be a bridge to the nanotechnology revolution. By 2030, reverse-engineering of the human brain will have been completed and nonbiological intelligence will merge with our biological brains.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=5#662
ANDROID, BEFORE YOU CALL HIM A CRAZY LOONIE! READ THIS FIRST!
Ray Kurzweil was the principal developer of the first omni-font optical character recognition, the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, the first CCD flat-bed scanner, the first text-to-speech synthesizer, the first music synthesizer capable of recreating the grand piano and other orchestral instruments, and the first commercially marketed large-vocabulary speech recognition. Ray has successfully founded and developed nine businesses in OCR, music synthesis, speech recognition, reading technology, virtual reality, financial investment, cybernetic art, and other areas of artificial intelligence . All of these technologies continue today as market leaders. Ray's Web site, KurzweilAI.net, is a leading resource on artificial intelligence.
Ray Kurzweil was inducted in 2002 into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, established by the U.S. Patent Office. He received the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize (view the video), the nation's largest award in invention and innovation. He also received the 1999 National Medal of Technology, the nation's highest honor in technology, from President Clinton in a White House ceremony. He has also received scores of other national and international awards, including the 1994 Dickson Prize (Carnegie Mellon University's top science prize), Engineer of the Year from Design News, Inventor of the Year from MIT, and the Grace Murray Hopper Award from the Association for Computing Machinery. He has received twelve honorary Doctorates and honors from three U.S. presidents.
http://www.kurzweiltech.com/aboutray.html
That's why you shouldn't post the crap you're posting. Only people with racial segreationist agendas would think on such a low and divisive plane.
In the coming decades, a radical upgrading of our body's physical and mental systems, already underway, will use nanobots to augment and ultimately replace our organs. We already know how to prevent most degenerative disease through nutrition and supplementation; this will be a bridge to the emerging biotechnology revolution, which in turn will be a bridge to the nanotechnology revolution. By 2030, reverse-engineering of the human brain will have been completed and nonbiological intelligence will merge with our biological brains.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=5#662
ANDROID, BEFORE YOU CALL HIM A CRAZY LOONIE! READ THIS FIRST!
Ray Kurzweil was the principal developer of the first omni-font optical character recognition, the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, the first CCD flat-bed scanner, the first text-to-speech synthesizer, the first music synthesizer capable of recreating the grand piano and other orchestral instruments, and the first commercially marketed large-vocabulary speech recognition. Ray has successfully founded and developed nine businesses in OCR, music synthesis, speech recognition, reading technology, virtual reality, financial investment, cybernetic art, and other areas of artificial intelligence . All of these technologies continue today as market leaders. Ray's Web site, KurzweilAI.net, is a leading resource on artificial intelligence.
Ray Kurzweil was inducted in 2002 into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, established by the U.S. Patent Office. He received the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize (view the video), the nation's largest award in invention and innovation. He also received the 1999 National Medal of Technology, the nation's highest honor in technology, from President Clinton in a White House ceremony. He has also received scores of other national and international awards, including the 1994 Dickson Prize (Carnegie Mellon University's top science prize), Engineer of the Year from Design News, Inventor of the Year from MIT, and the Grace Murray Hopper Award from the Association for Computing Machinery. He has received twelve honorary Doctorates and honors from three U.S. presidents.
http://www.kurzweiltech.com/aboutray.html
That's why you shouldn't post the crap you're posting. Only people with racial segreationist agendas would think on such a low and divisive plane.
Blackrain,
Hmm.
Well.
That's all well and good. But it's pretty much pie in the sky, yes?
It might happen. It might not.
There's a long way to go before we're at that poing.
In terms of nanotechnology and in understanding neuronal processes and cognition.
You can dream, but that's all you're doing.
Anyway. What exactly, in your post, defeats the racism you see in Android's?
You think that nanotechnology will bring the races to mental equality? Doesn't that sort of imply that the nations with poor IQ scores really are dumb and need nanotechnology to give them that extra help they need to catch up?
Hmm.
Well.
That's all well and good. But it's pretty much pie in the sky, yes?
It might happen. It might not.
There's a long way to go before we're at that poing.
In terms of nanotechnology and in understanding neuronal processes and cognition.
You can dream, but that's all you're doing.
Anyway. What exactly, in your post, defeats the racism you see in Android's?
You think that nanotechnology will bring the races to mental equality? Doesn't that sort of imply that the nations with poor IQ scores really are dumb and need nanotechnology to give them that extra help they need to catch up?
No, it means that intelligence will become non-biological. And race and class will be non-existent in the next 50 years. You indicated that understanding neuronal processes and cognition, is nothing but a dream. But you're wrong. Currently there's Parkinsons Disease patients that have Cochlear implants in their brains. These implants can detect the electro-magnetic pulse of an synapsing neuron. These implants can cause, and supress the neuron from firing. Ray talks about this technology exstensively on his site. And our understanding of the human brain will grow exponentially. We've sucsessively reversed engineerd 2 hemispheres of the Brain. The visual and auditory cortex. Each and everyday Magnetic Reasonance Imaging is improving. Allowing us to get more detailed scans of the human brain. I suggest you read a few of Rays Articles! He's called the Thomas Edison of our time.
So people like Android who love to debate racial superiority, will have no platform in the comming decades. The rate of our technnological progress is doubling every decade. Ray has mathematical models on this site that clearly indicates the exponential growth of information technology. And how it's going to radically change our lives. And I'm not saying some races need technology to compete. Every Asian person isn't more intelligent the every White person. And every White person isn't smarter then every Black person.
So people like Android who love to debate racial superiority, will have no platform in the comming decades. The rate of our technnological progress is doubling every decade. Ray has mathematical models on this site that clearly indicates the exponential growth of information technology. And how it's going to radically change our lives. And I'm not saying some races need technology to compete. Every Asian person isn't more intelligent the every White person. And every White person isn't smarter then every Black person.
Last edited:
May. May become non-biological.
Not at all. I indicated that understanding neuronal processes and cognition is in its infancy. It has a long, long way to go. And at the present level of knowledge, there is no way to predict what will be possible and what will not.
Any attempts to predict, at present, can be no more than wishful thinking.
The theoretical underpinning is just not present.
Yet.
This sort of technology is crude and like hitting the brain with a large wooden mallet.
It's nowhere near the sort of technology you're talking about.
Not yet.
...
The hell are you talking about?
You realize that we're in the middle of a paradigm shift in brain function? That for years and years there has been a functional brain schemata? You know. The Broddman areas and all that? Broca's Area? Wernicke's Area? Left brain for language and right brain for visual and artistic?
All these old paradigms are being thrown out the window.
And part of the reason for this is because we're moving from studying diseased brains (mostly epileptics prior to surgery) to actual functioning brains under fMRI and other techniques?
Reverse engineer?
Any schemata of the brain is just that. A schemata.
One with little likelihood of matching reality...
Thomas Edison was a no-good prick.
Tesla all the way, baby.
And again you come to this...
I just don't get you.
This is like a huge non-sequitur. The only way that I can make any sense of it is if you're saying that the 'inferior races' will get a hands-up through this upcoming technology...
Then why are you even bringing in technology?
I recently saw an article showing that in a 100 year period the world's average IQ will have dropped from 92 to 86. In another 50 years, the world's average IQ will have dropped below 84. Within this time period of 150 years, extremely short by any evolutionary standard, an incredibly significant change in this key metric will have occurred.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000953.html
Meanwhile, Koko the gorilla is said to have an IQ between 70 and 95, slightly lower than the average human intelligence of 100.
Meaning: soon humans will be two IQ points above chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas. Our future can survive any number of natural disasters, wars, bad politics, etc. but we if we are changed into a species of morons, we will lack the ability to do all that makes us human and soon lapse into irrelevance.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000953.html
Meanwhile, Koko the gorilla is said to have an IQ between 70 and 95, slightly lower than the average human intelligence of 100.
Meaning: soon humans will be two IQ points above chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas. Our future can survive any number of natural disasters, wars, bad politics, etc. but we if we are changed into a species of morons, we will lack the ability to do all that makes us human and soon lapse into irrelevance.
Explain how "IQ is normalized to a "local" population." This is news to me.
Further, an IQ test is NOT a measure of intelligence, creativity, or knowledge. An IQ test measures the results of the questions that are on an IQ test - nothing more. It does not measure creativity, nor does it measure the accumulation of knowledge that lead to creative neurological connections and ideas that lead to novel increases in knowledge.
I supposedly have an IQ of 140! Can you believe that? I don't. I consider myself to be one of the stupidist persons on the face of this Earth and I am being constantly proven that fact by the much more superiorly intellectual folks on sciforum, including many of the much more superiorly intellectual respondents above.
An IQ does not measure intelligence, nor can it be used to predict future patterns of intelligence in human population demography.
Further, an IQ test is NOT a measure of intelligence, creativity, or knowledge. An IQ test measures the results of the questions that are on an IQ test - nothing more. It does not measure creativity, nor does it measure the accumulation of knowledge that lead to creative neurological connections and ideas that lead to novel increases in knowledge.
I supposedly have an IQ of 140! Can you believe that? I don't. I consider myself to be one of the stupidist persons on the face of this Earth and I am being constantly proven that fact by the much more superiorly intellectual folks on sciforum, including many of the much more superiorly intellectual respondents above.
An IQ does not measure intelligence, nor can it be used to predict future patterns of intelligence in human population demography.
Intelligence could become non-biological, but that's a far cry from will.
And if it does, no need for a body... or a human.
Good luck, Nexus, but you don't understand logical argument. You're awash in contradictions that even diligent googling cannot fix.
And yes, you can reach me at http://www.corrupt.org/ - try it!
And if it does, no need for a body... or a human.
Good luck, Nexus, but you don't understand logical argument. You're awash in contradictions that even diligent googling cannot fix.
And yes, you can reach me at http://www.corrupt.org/ - try it!
More like you're running away from the discussion now that your numbers are shown to be sketchy, at best. All I 'googled' was the methods behind the numbers your linked article used.
It would seem that it is you who don't understand logical arguing. Seeing as how you have none. "You're awash in contradictions" is not argument. It's concealed cowardice.
Bye, bye, baby.
It would seem that it is you who don't understand logical arguing. Seeing as how you have none. "You're awash in contradictions" is not argument. It's concealed cowardice.
Bye, bye, baby.
Last edited:
invert,
I admire your patience and dedication. Android's argument wasn't even worthwhile thorning into pieces...!
...
You probably enjoyed it...
I admire your patience and dedication. Android's argument wasn't even worthwhile thorning into pieces...!
...
You probably enjoyed it...
I thing it might be that, the size of his thing, was above average intelligence.superluminal said:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Well, excuse me. My ability to understand the mode of calculation used by the author of the article is doubtless a result of my own plummeting IQ.
He presents a bunch of population growth curves. He then makes the astounding assumption that the average IQ of the inhabitants of any country will remain unchanged in response to changes in the physical, cultural and educational environment of that country. So, if the population growth is concentrated in countries with low IQs the then the average IQ must fall!
What startling insight. One is constrained to ask if the IQ of this particular author has suffered an individual and catstrophic reduction recently. This is undoubtedly one of the finest examples of how to distort reality beyond breaking point with the use of statistics.
He presents a bunch of population growth curves. He then makes the astounding assumption that the average IQ of the inhabitants of any country will remain unchanged in response to changes in the physical, cultural and educational environment of that country. So, if the population growth is concentrated in countries with low IQs the then the average IQ must fall!
What startling insight. One is constrained to ask if the IQ of this particular author has suffered an individual and catstrophic reduction recently. This is undoubtedly one of the finest examples of how to distort reality beyond breaking point with the use of statistics.
I shall repeat a post i made in this thread:
The IQ test is apparently only normalized once in a while. Hence it can drop over time. Until it is normalized again.At least that is how i interpret it.
The IQ test is apparently only normalized once in a while. Hence it can drop over time. Until it is normalized again.At least that is how i interpret it.
Ironically a recently active thread has been missed by the thread starter entirely.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56270
We would like to blame it on dropping IQs but then we remember what IQ is.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56270
We would like to blame it on dropping IQs but then we remember what IQ is.
It's interesting that it this article keeps being brought up by the forum racists...
When searching for the original article, I found it mentioned at Stormfront as well as other places.
More evidence of bias in the numbers?
When searching for the original article, I found it mentioned at Stormfront as well as other places.
More evidence of bias in the numbers?
invert_nexus said:
I'm bringing in Technology BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY WILL MAKE RACE AND CLASS NON-EXISTENT!! So bringing up IQ tests, that racists use to jusitfy their prejudices is ignorant. Information Technology is becomming more intimate by the day. So I'm siding with Ray Kurzweil, Bill Joy, Eric Drexler, etc.
These guys are leaders in this field. And based off of what I've read, and the technological trends I evaluated. I've come to the conclusion that the EXPERTS have the most accurate vision of the future. Which includes exponential growth of AI, and the man and machine merger.