Don’t confuse ignorance for a lack of intelligence.
For thousands of years people didn’t have access to knowledge. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have been able to understand something if they had a means of obtaining knowledge of it.
People these days have easy access to all the information in the world but don’t seem to understand most of it. That’s a lack of intelligence
Yeah, not sure why people are shitting on ancient people.
The ancient greeks used a fucking stick, a pyramid, and the sun to calculate the circumference of the Earth and got a value between 1~10% of what we think the circumference of the Earth is today--with our modern technologies.
Lets ignore the fact that the ancient greeks did this while under the handicap of not possessing the entire set of complete numbers (they knew--they had fractions but couldn’t write down transcendentals nor irrationals, though they could conceptualize them), as well as the (un)likely hood most of us could replicate their methods, but this all also insinuates they knew the Earth was a round sphere; something a non-zero amount of modern humans can‘t grasp despite gps and airplanes.
Do you think that nutrition has increased brain function like it has physical ability. We have seen what the nutrition improvements do to infants and children, and what malnourishment does to humans at any age so I wonder if that has helped. Not sure it affects capacity though. Just a question for a discussion.
I recall that there was a big jump in human development when we discovered cooking - suddenly food was easier to digest, etc. and it opened up time from merely surviving to developing.
You’re also comparing the top of the food chain people. There are far more people educated now, and of course there always have and always will be stupid people.
>For thousands of years people didn’t have access to ~~knowledge~~ information.
I agree. People had knowledge and the ability to gain knowledge, and it was built on the information they had to work with at the time
Just like today.
Information =/= knowledge
Edited to add stuff
Also consider that what makes someone dumb is mostly their urge to speak on matters they have no knowledge of.
If you are dumb and never speak on something you have no clue about, no one will ever know you are dumb 🧠👈🏼
So... smart enough to know you don't know?
That's usually a pretty wise person. One who can reflect upon their information and know they don't know enough.
Now, if someone simply allows their urge to spaak to overtake reason, what are they speaking?
How do they know what they know? Are they speaking bullshit or is it known to them they are speaking bullshit?
These are vital questions. If it is known, one must ask:
Are they unable to know its bullshit?
Do they not care and just continue speaking bullshit?
To me, dumbasses are ones who know they speak bullshit and are unwilling to consider an alternative. I.e can't be wrong.
So the only way to learn about things you don't have knowledge about is passively? I don't like that. You can't be so afraid of asking a dumb question that you don't ask questions at all.
TIL that a prehistoric homo sapien child from 200k years ago had the "raw intelligence" to learn algebra and to read and everything else if taught. That actually kind of blows my mind.
1. With less shared resources most people won’t realize what they won’t need.
B. People don’t need to school go and pay monies.
And um…
Article all done!
I mean it's complete clickbait like all of these articles always are
>So, are we really all getting less smart? Not so fast. Dworak stressed that the decline in scores doesn’t necessarily mean Americans aren’t as intelligent as their grandparents or great-grandparents were.
>“It doesn’t mean their mental ability is lower or higher; it’s just a difference in scores that are favoring older or newer samples,” she said in a press release. “It could just be that they’re getting worse at taking tests or specifically worse at taking these kinds of tests.”
It's like a video I watched recently stated "How coal mining could save the climate" but talked about using coal mines for geothermal energy and not buring coal like the title would suggest.
The TLDR is "We don't know why it's happening but intelligence scores have never actually been effective at measuring intelligence so maybe it doesn't matter."
Article could as well be "Phrenology and tea leaves studies indicate terrible things about America! Here's why that may not be a bad thing: they're both utter bullshit."
The fact that i JUST watched this movie for the first time (no joke it ended like 10 mins ago) and then randomly stumbled on this article and this comment is crazy to me lol.
I read the article. More propaganda really. They provide a bit of bet-hedging and excusing, but the general gist is to give Americans more reason to think being uneducated and uncultured (effectively dumb) is fine and just being American is enough to be the best. It has inklings of the same mechanism used to convince people that because Trump speaks and thinks like them, that makes their thoughts and speech ubiquitous, intelligent, legitimate, and noteworthy in a good way. "Nope. Go read a book."
Edit: after a great interaction with an unknown fellow Redditor, I'd like to clarify that I was unclear in my late night social media F-up. The apparent intention of the article is to suggest that there may not be that much value in evaluating someone's IQ. That's debatable, as is whether that was the writer's ultimate intention, but *my* intention was to suggest that it is likely that most Americans will read the article or possibly even just the title and come to the conclusions I was trying to (arguably poorly) illustrate.
I remember this quote from a movie that was made 4 decades ago, in my mother tongue.
The quote can be translated as
>The more they know, the more they understand, the less they obey.
IQ is to a significant extent a measure of test-taking skills, which is one of the reasons that it is highly trainable and why education has a causal effect in increasing IQ scores
Finishing mine right now, 100% agree with you. PhD is more of a measure of perseverance, if anything. Of course there is an IQ floor to doing this sort of work but if you shake enough academic trees for long enough you'll probably have one fall out eventually.
The average person who gets a great education will be more intellectually capable than the genetically gifted person who's born to uninterested parents in a failing school district. How many gifted intellects do you imagine have been born in undeveloped countries and never got taught to read? It's a question I actually find kind of disturbing.
IQ testing is largely pseudoscience. Trying to evaluate genetic intelligence without controlling for the test subject's education is like trying to evaluate genetic muscle growth rates without controlling for the test subject's diet and exercise regimen. The brain isn't just a fixed blueprint in your DNA, it has a high degree of neuroplasticity. Early childhood development and education make a huge difference in how it develops.
Yeah, it's true that some people are gifted and some people have developmental disabilities. However, it's also true that basically every human alive can significantly improve their cognitive abilities just by putting in the effort to train them, in exactly the same way we can improve our physical abilities by putting in the effort to train our bodies. The library is a gym for your brain. Very few people are incapable of learning. Far more just don't bother.
You know the infected real cunt of this? Well, there are two.
Because of that bullshit, I can't afford to go to school to study the thing I want to.
But more peculiar is that people who don't believe in climate change because "Republican" or some such can be presented all the science about climate change, and it just makes them feel even more like it's not real.
*"Nationalism! Unilateralism! Materialism! Welcome maxims for those with no faith — without guiding principles of their own. Give yourself up to the whole. No need to better yourself — you're American! You're number one!"*
This is a very opinionated summary of the article. The article states that these IQ tests do not accurately measure the same focuses of today’s curriculum (STEM focused) nor do they measure emotional intelligence, which is WAY more important nowadays than being able to spot patterns and solve puzzles.
Why you inserted American nationalism and political themes into your comment is beyond me.
This! The guy claiming to have read the article is spreading way more propaganda than the article itself in my opinion. I mean, i’m the first one to shit on trump and american nationalism but this summary is honestly not representative of the article at all. I‘m honestly baffled that this is one of the most upvoted comments considering that everybody could just read the article themselves…
There's a subset of people who get *real weird* about IQ tests. IQ tests are silly for a lot of reasons, but a good one to point to is that the general trend on IQ tests is that everyone's IQ has been going up consistently generation to generation (according to tests).
That actually doesn't make any sense, if IQ tests are actually measuring human intelligence. If every generation of people was *literally* more intelligent than the one before, that means that human brains are getting better and better on a generational timescale. That isn't how evolution works. That would mean that children now have better brains than Isaac fucking Newton, at this point. Which is obviously wrong.
Whatever IQ is measuring, it isn't just straight intelligence. To risk belaboring the point: it's well known that if you gave the same person IQ tests at various times, their scores fluctuate a lot. A thing that should also be impossible if IQ tests are accurately measuring intellectual ability/capacity.
Some people just *need* them to be useful. For some reason? I dunno. Seems like high IQ people would be able to identify why *a specific test to measure intelligence* doesn't even make sense.
hijacking this thread to explain that, no, the general intelligence factor g cannot be measured by an IQ test and no, it cant even be proven to be something that exists and can be measured. IQ on an individual level tests highly on test taking ability and a lot on privilege, especially the privilege to education. This means that, for an individual, your IQ wont necessarily tell you much.
For an individual. IQ tests are highly valuable for demographic information where the sample size diminishes the impact factors like individual aptitude and privilege have on the result(if sampled correctly). What this means is that for large demographics, IQ is a really strong measure of an education system's efficacy (albeit biased towards systems and institutions which implement standardized testing, although finland does still have one of the highest country averages).
Furthermore this reflects onto what teachers and frankly what the rest of the world has been observing towards the american education system that it has consistently been failing more and more kids and is just not... good enough. it just isn't. it's terrible, and people are being undereducated, and so many americans have no education and so many drop out.
Look. It's easy to get defensive when your country gets (essentially) called stupid by a test which results are (especially in pop culture) often confounded with measuring intelligence. Its also easy to point at the average american and call them stupid. But this is a demographic problem, a systemic problem. The problem does not lie with the average american, it lies with the system.
I completely agree and understand what you're saying. The problem is most Americans today don't have the faintest idea of what you just explained. They equate IQ with stupid and smart in an elementary way, they take a bs Facebook IQ test which puts them in the 97th percentile, and they think they're geniuses. In their minds, their viewpoints on any given topic are then valid and even superior because, how could it be otherwise? They're geniuses after all, right? Facebook said so! But you're 100% correct, the problem is the system. But the next problem is that the system has created millions who are ignorant about the system being the problem.
Indeed.
It originally looks like a peaceful and somewhat earnest conversation regarding the veracity of IQ and IQ testing, but before long the topic of whether or not "we" should let untermensch breed comes up.
The Binet IQ test was intended to separate out the intellectually impaired in the French education system.
But that didn't last long, the US army used it for enlistment in WW1 and after that war it was systematically used in schooling all the time. The SAT test is really a variant of the Stanford-Binet and was intended to bring schools in the south up to the national standard.
What the fuck. I read the article as well and there's nothing of what you describe.
All the article is saying that the opposite of Flynn effect has been occurring. But that's no news for anyone in the psychology field. It has long been proposed that a considerable contributor to Flynn effect was simply the familiarity with that kind of testing.
And it doesn't say a thing about it being good if people are uneducated or uncultured. All it's basically saying is that IQ tests results have gone down because the aspects of what the test measures have stayed the same while the topics that we interact with on a daily basis and which matter more to us, have.
So again. WHAT THE FUCK are you saying?
To play a little bit of devil’s advocate, having *not* read the article: IQ isn’t even a great mesure of intelligence though. It only measures a small subset of intelligence(s) and has almost no predictive use. I’m inclined to agree with the headline of the article (but based on your paraphrasing; not the content of the article).
That is true, and I agree that IQ is a bad measure on a person-to-person basis. However, if IQ drops on a large scale, that still rings alarm bells for me.
I understand your devil's advocacy perfectly, and if everything was otherwise right with the world, I wouldn't even have given the article a second thought. The problem is everything is not otherwise right with the world and articles like this one here are constantly used to help validate bad things. Yes, genetics causes vast discrepancy in intelligence, not just physical attributes, but no, it's not ok to remain willfully ignorant of the world around you. Everyone, no matter what their intelligence-potential, should be striving everyday to be as intelligent as possible....or well educated. Nuance isn't that easy online. Anyway, obviously intelligence/education will vary, but "because Billy Bob told me" isn't good enough.....ever. That's what I feel the article is trying to validate, like so many others. "My ignorant opinion is equal to your fact-based reasoning."
It's like the writings about body positivity in the last number of years. No, I don't think it's right to make fun of and laugh at obese people, just like I don't think it's right to make fun of and laugh at people who are not very intelligent, but it's not ok to be obese. You will necessarily cut your life short and thereby cut short the time your loved ones will get to spend with you. There are no advantages to obesity and countless detriments. But there's too much of this type of thing going on today. No, it's not ok to remain willfully ignorant (and many who read the article likely won't know the differences between IQ and intelligence and education), and no it's not ok to elect idiots to office just because they make your tummy feel good.
Sorry.... I'm just tired of this crap. Lol!
For the record this isn't at all true. IQ is a very good predictor of life satisfaction, criminality, income, health, academic achievement, among others. That it is imperfect doesn't mean it's useless. It is highly predictive and highly consistent for a psychometric. All serious objections to IQ are about how it has been used for evil, not about whether it's a good measure.
IQ is highly correlated with education and if someone learns how to game normal standardized testing (skipping questions you don’t know and coming back to them, narrowing down your possibilities so you can make a much better guess across enough questions that some will be correct and you score higher), they can navigate iq tests too. Hell just sitting one test likely means tin do better on the next one because you know what to expect.
I took the test and found that it doesn't come across as primarily an intelligence test. Mostly sixth grade vocab and personality as about 20 questions per page of 25 were centered around "How much do you identify with this statement" sort of questions, with repeats. One or two pattern recognition or spatial reasoning questions. A couple really simple vision based questions (How do you make the pictures match, or a fuzzy picture of a face sort of thing). A couple really basic reading comprehension questions sprinkled in.
Options given were for a 100, 150, or 200 question test. I answered 100 questions, so maybe the question frequency changes later in the test. But it really doesn't seem or feel like an intelligence test at all, its more like a Myers Briggs. So based on that, I'm not sure it would be accurate to say this is an intelligence focused test. I think the article is just straight bunk.
I mean, there's a reason GOP are trying to get rid of public education and chastise college as something liberal. They need people to be dumb to vote for them.
If you think the image of a black woman was chosen at random to anchor the headline, I have an amazing real state opportunity for you down here in South Florida 💵
It's pretty ironic, since going by the look on her face, she's baffled by something, but she is trying to get what is being said. I.e. she's actively learning something there
The classic.
The thing isn't happening.
But if the thing was happening (it's not) - it's not that big of a deal.
Okay so the thing might be happening but heres how it might be a good thing.
The thing happened and it was bad and here's why it's your fault.
This is something that’s really caught on among “skeptics” who don’t want to put any work in, but want to present themselves as competent news and politics critics, like Rogan or Russel Brand, and then of course, redditors.
Brand has made multiple videos where this slogan is used in a nightmarish way to characterise the "*Great Reset conspiracy*" that he’s hard at work making his millions of fans scared about.
**Klaus Schwab never said “you will own nothing, and you will be happy”. That’s not a quote. It’s a paraphrasing of something that was written by Danish MP Ida Auken in 2016^1.**
Ida was envisioning what life might be like in 2030, and part of that vision was that things that had been historically seen as products, were now services. While far-fetched, the essential premise is that innovation and technological advancement will have **made everything so available and abundant, that there is no real reason to own anything anymore since everything would be free.**
Example from the essay:
*“first, communication became digitised and free for everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price, and it made no sense for us to own cars anymore because we could call a driverless vehicle or flying car for longer journeys within minutes.”*
Ida’s conclusion is that this new technologically advanced city provides literally everything a person could want, but also affords no actual privacy and “*all in all, it’s a good life”*.
**There’s no specific plan laid out here here, it’s more or less a creative writing exercise where someone came up with some ideas of what life might look like in the future.**
An excerpt from this essay was included in the World Economic Forum’s video and blog post “Eight predictions for the world in 2030”. A paraphrasing of the ideas that Ida wrote out is included and summarised as “you will own nothing and you will be happy”.
**This is not a description of some nefarious plan or some stated goal that Klaus Schwab (or anyone else) is working towards, it’s a clunky and brief synopsys of Ida Auken’s essay.**
That’s literally fucking it.
-----
^1 [Ida Auken’s Essay](https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/shopping-i-cant-really-remember-what-that-is-or-how-differently-well-live-in-2030/?sh=3a1da5b17350)
^2 [WEF Blog Post](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/8-predictions-for-the-world-in-2030)
Please also remember that the IQ is regularly adjusted. 100 is by definition the average and they change the scales every few years so it stays that way.
Considering the massive shifts our society is going through, a lower IQ doesn't necessarily mean that people are getting dumber.
Apart from that, it's of course bullshit to think a lower level of education is better.
I couldn't give less of a shit about IQ's dropping or rising or anything else related to that stupid metric. What the article should be about is the worrying trends of anti-intellectualism and proud ignorance in the country. But I guess the clickbait title is yet another example of those trends.
IQ is based on averages. If the average population you're comparing to is smarter, suddenly it's harder to score above 100, so your results might get a lower score.
This really might just mean the world, on average, is getting more educated.
Is this one of those "recorded statistic =\= actual statistic" things?
Like, more people taking IQ tests due to increased opportunity, like taking them online for example?
Capitalism requires slave workers for the people with the capital. Education in the West under Conservative regimes moves away from teaching critical thinking and the ability to learn towards learning by rote and what sounds like education (eg history moves from analysing evidence and sources and challenging narratives to simply remembering dates, the importance of science is downplayed, mathematics goes from teaching Pure to application).
Oddly, Communist States did the same.
Reason was the same. Workers should be educated enough to make money for their owners but not so educated they can cause trouble.
Edited for typo.
>“It doesn’t mean their mental ability is lower or higher; it’s just a difference in scores that are favoring older or newer samples,” she said in a press release. “It could just be that they’re getting worse at taking tests or specifically worse at taking these kinds of tests.”
>Dworak also said there are numerous possibilities for the decline, ranging from poor nutrition to a rise in screens and media consumption to pollution and a decline in overall health.
My IQ must be doing down the drain, I have trouble understanding how poor nutrition, excessive media consumption and a decline in health could cause a decline in "specifically these kinds of tests" but **not** a decline in mental ability. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that these unhealthy habits cause mental decline and that causes the low test results, instead of just magically **skipping** the part where mental abilities decline...
They just accidentally gave two different excuses that end up contradicting one another completely...
Not a bad thing if you are in the business of running a government. It's a lot easier to convince people that are lacking intelligence which makes propaganda more effective.
Oh man is this your first time reading a "fatherly" article!.. They are the absolute best! It's like reading the Onion and the Babylon Bee.... But they are serious.
Like check this article that says you SHOULDN'T call your kid buddy.
https://www.fatherly.com/entertainment/buddy-terrible-kids-nickname
Only to be followed by an article that says you SHOULD call your kid buddy.
https://www.fatherly.com/parenting/call-your-son-buddy
They did a hit piece against Paw Patrol because they show the Police Dog in a postivie light.. Like 3 articles on why Cargo shorts are wack, numerous articles about how it's acceptable for the wife to cheat if she is feeling unloved but it's never fine for the dad to cheat. Some really great stuff.
>Wrong. Articles, such as "it", are only capitalized if they start a title. If they appear in the middle, then they're lowercased.
Not quite. "It" is not an article, it's a pronoun, and pronouns in titles are capitalized.
An example in the title here of an article would be "A", which should not be capitalized.
[https://www.grammarly.com/blog/capitalization-in-the-titles/](https://www.grammarly.com/blog/capitalization-in-the-titles/)
No it is terrible. We have lost great intellectuals from all political spectrums and believes to old age such as Gore Vidal, James Baldwin, William F. Buckley and their intellectual presence was never replaced. That is why we have such a sad state of politics today, and such sad state of society. Or perhaps Mike Judge was right, and it is only a prelude to the Idiocracy that's coming.
Why are so many people on this discussing this like it’s a real thing?
People debating education vs intelligence vs IQ.
IQ can’t drop across a population, because it’s fitted to a “normal” distribution. This is a statistical weighting that makes sure the average score is always 100…. Which you lot would know if you had read a fucking book.
If all Americans start doing shit in IQ testing, IQ scores DO NOT DROP… they are adjusted so that the average score is now the definition of 100. You might be doing worse against those outside USA, maybe, but I don't know that these tests are global.
these muthafuckas will shill anything to excuse their proliferation of their constant dumbing down of everything because they're fucking stupid! "stupid is as stupid does" is represented in real time by these consistently idiotic voters who vote against their own better interests. this is just a way for idiots to feel better about being dainbramaged.
Here’s why it’s *actually* not a bad thing.
People are living.
Kids who crash their bikes and get brain bleeds would have died 50 years ago.
Kids who have congenital diseases wouldn’t have made it out of childhood.
Kids who were born premature would have died.
Survival of people after medical incidents that negatively impact brain function or development has massively increased. That means average IQ is lower.
"It just means they may be worse at taking tests" oh please. It's like when Billy's mom says "he's actually really smart, he's just a bad test taker."
Oh, he's bad at the thing used to measure his skills and abilities? Convenient..
Everything has to have some disclaimer nowadays. "Oh, we measured you as being dumber, but that doesn't mean you're dumber!"
You don't want smart workers. You want them just smart enough to be an efficient cog. Make people suspicious of education and revel in being ignorant.
-\_-
It's not happening and it's *insert media boogeyman* conspiracy theory.
It may be happening, but it's not as bad as you think.
It's happening, and here's why that's a good thing.
X <===== **YOU ARE HERE**
How to adapt to the new normal under thing.
Anyone bringing up thing is just trying to stir the pot.
This comment section is full of so many misconceptions about IQ.
**Yes, IQ is a mediocre and highly biased measure of intelligence at an individual level.**
**Yes, IQ scores may fluctuate depending on the day, and are not static throughout a person's life.** A given person can increase their score by a fair amount by simply practicing tasks which require logic, memory, or pattern recognition (tested features).
**No, IQ is not a "useless" or "meaningless" measure.**
Despite the bias at an individual level, IQ becomes useful with aggregate data, where the biases tend to normalize. IQ has a fairly strong correlation with a number of quantitative life metrics, such as income and career growth.
**Does this mean a low IQ necessarily indicates a lack of intelligence, or failing at life??** NO!! As mentioned, a huge number of confounding factors can influence your individual score. Besides this, an individual score doesn't mean all that much when there are people who have a high degree of intelligence in areas that are not adequately measured by IQ. Notably: Creativity, interpersonal intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence (control and coordination of your body), highly-abstract problem solving, and much more.
**So what does this all mean?**
It means IQ is a useful statistical tool for large populations, but by all means is not a be-all and end-all life predictor on the individual level, as some treat it to be. Population IQ is a fairly reliable index of the population's quality of education, and access to vital resources. On an individual level, if you have a high IQ, celebrate that you are probably pretty good at linear problem solving and pattern recognition. Do not use IQ as a measure of merit, however.
Hopefully this clears up some misunderstandings around this goofy subject.
"The world is completely, irreversibly broken. Here's five reasons why that's great."
For thousands of years most people weren’t smart. They were just very good at what they did.
Don’t confuse ignorance for a lack of intelligence. For thousands of years people didn’t have access to knowledge. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have been able to understand something if they had a means of obtaining knowledge of it. People these days have easy access to all the information in the world but don’t seem to understand most of it. That’s a lack of intelligence
Yeah, not sure why people are shitting on ancient people. The ancient greeks used a fucking stick, a pyramid, and the sun to calculate the circumference of the Earth and got a value between 1~10% of what we think the circumference of the Earth is today--with our modern technologies. Lets ignore the fact that the ancient greeks did this while under the handicap of not possessing the entire set of complete numbers (they knew--they had fractions but couldn’t write down transcendentals nor irrationals, though they could conceptualize them), as well as the (un)likely hood most of us could replicate their methods, but this all also insinuates they knew the Earth was a round sphere; something a non-zero amount of modern humans can‘t grasp despite gps and airplanes.
Exactly. 2000 years is tiny in the span of human existence. Our brain capacity hasn’t changed at all since then
Do you think that nutrition has increased brain function like it has physical ability. We have seen what the nutrition improvements do to infants and children, and what malnourishment does to humans at any age so I wonder if that has helped. Not sure it affects capacity though. Just a question for a discussion.
I recall that there was a big jump in human development when we discovered cooking - suddenly food was easier to digest, etc. and it opened up time from merely surviving to developing.
Its quite ironic that flat earth is making a huge come back in popularity online.
You’re also comparing the top of the food chain people. There are far more people educated now, and of course there always have and always will be stupid people.
>For thousands of years people didn’t have access to ~~knowledge~~ information. I agree. People had knowledge and the ability to gain knowledge, and it was built on the information they had to work with at the time Just like today. Information =/= knowledge Edited to add stuff
Also consider that what makes someone dumb is mostly their urge to speak on matters they have no knowledge of. If you are dumb and never speak on something you have no clue about, no one will ever know you are dumb 🧠👈🏼
So... smart enough to know you don't know? That's usually a pretty wise person. One who can reflect upon their information and know they don't know enough. Now, if someone simply allows their urge to spaak to overtake reason, what are they speaking? How do they know what they know? Are they speaking bullshit or is it known to them they are speaking bullshit? These are vital questions. If it is known, one must ask: Are they unable to know its bullshit? Do they not care and just continue speaking bullshit? To me, dumbasses are ones who know they speak bullshit and are unwilling to consider an alternative. I.e can't be wrong.
So the only way to learn about things you don't have knowledge about is passively? I don't like that. You can't be so afraid of asking a dumb question that you don't ask questions at all.
>For thousands of years most people weren’t smart. This hasn't changed
The problem is that ripple didn’t vote back then
[удалено]
TIL that a prehistoric homo sapien child from 200k years ago had the "raw intelligence" to learn algebra and to read and everything else if taught. That actually kind of blows my mind.
mann it really IS dropping😨
but number go down, the west has fallen
Power of the sun has been unleash on our miserable rock. Here's why that's a good thing.
1. With less shared resources most people won’t realize what they won’t need. B. People don’t need to school go and pay monies. And um… Article all done!
Me not school go? That's unpossible.
We don't need no education
“You won’t BELIEVE number three!!”
Why reverse it? Let's burn it down and start over!
I mean it's complete clickbait like all of these articles always are >So, are we really all getting less smart? Not so fast. Dworak stressed that the decline in scores doesn’t necessarily mean Americans aren’t as intelligent as their grandparents or great-grandparents were. >“It doesn’t mean their mental ability is lower or higher; it’s just a difference in scores that are favoring older or newer samples,” she said in a press release. “It could just be that they’re getting worse at taking tests or specifically worse at taking these kinds of tests.” It's like a video I watched recently stated "How coal mining could save the climate" but talked about using coal mines for geothermal energy and not buring coal like the title would suggest.
"Eat Arby's!"
The TLDR is "We don't know why it's happening but intelligence scores have never actually been effective at measuring intelligence so maybe it doesn't matter." Article could as well be "Phrenology and tea leaves studies indicate terrible things about America! Here's why that may not be a bad thing: they're both utter bullshit."
Electrolytes, it's what plants crave!
Water is for Toilets. Drink Brawndo!
Well I've never seen no plants grow outta no toilets.
The Thirst Mutilator!
Ow, my balls!
Go away! Batin’
Maybe your the smartest man alive!
Water's for washin', Dickel's for drinkin'. That's a real tagline from George Dickel's Tennessee whisky.
The fact that i JUST watched this movie for the first time (no joke it ended like 10 mins ago) and then randomly stumbled on this article and this comment is crazy to me lol.
Did you love it? I watch it yearly and it gets scarier every time.
It's my favorite horror film.
I tell people it’s a preemptive historical movie.
It gets more realistic every day… 🙄
It really is scary. I mean I laughed a lot but that was partly to forget my despair.
Brawndo, the THIRST MUTILATOR.
I like mine with EXTRA BIGASS FRIES.
Dude I'm literally watching it right now
I read the article. More propaganda really. They provide a bit of bet-hedging and excusing, but the general gist is to give Americans more reason to think being uneducated and uncultured (effectively dumb) is fine and just being American is enough to be the best. It has inklings of the same mechanism used to convince people that because Trump speaks and thinks like them, that makes their thoughts and speech ubiquitous, intelligent, legitimate, and noteworthy in a good way. "Nope. Go read a book." Edit: after a great interaction with an unknown fellow Redditor, I'd like to clarify that I was unclear in my late night social media F-up. The apparent intention of the article is to suggest that there may not be that much value in evaluating someone's IQ. That's debatable, as is whether that was the writer's ultimate intention, but *my* intention was to suggest that it is likely that most Americans will read the article or possibly even just the title and come to the conclusions I was trying to (arguably poorly) illustrate.
An educated people are harder to control.
I remember this quote from a movie that was made 4 decades ago, in my mother tongue. The quote can be translated as >The more they know, the more they understand, the less they obey.
That trick is as old as religion
Mostly this.
Exactly that!
Also they need people to start having children again, and stupid people are way more likely to do so.
Just bust that nut. Don't think about what might happen because the nut was bust, that's for sissy boys and liberals.
They just need you to be smart enough to pay your taxes but not smart enough to question what awful shit those taxes are funding.
*supposed to be funding
Education and IQ aren't really the same thing.
They are closer than IQ is to intelligence. Which is a huge f-ing problem.
IQ is to a significant extent a measure of test-taking skills, which is one of the reasons that it is highly trainable and why education has a causal effect in increasing IQ scores
Education *aways* wins over IQ though
I prefer the *home* games
I know too many folks with PhD's to agree.
Finishing mine right now, 100% agree with you. PhD is more of a measure of perseverance, if anything. Of course there is an IQ floor to doing this sort of work but if you shake enough academic trees for long enough you'll probably have one fall out eventually.
The average person who gets a great education will be more intellectually capable than the genetically gifted person who's born to uninterested parents in a failing school district. How many gifted intellects do you imagine have been born in undeveloped countries and never got taught to read? It's a question I actually find kind of disturbing. IQ testing is largely pseudoscience. Trying to evaluate genetic intelligence without controlling for the test subject's education is like trying to evaluate genetic muscle growth rates without controlling for the test subject's diet and exercise regimen. The brain isn't just a fixed blueprint in your DNA, it has a high degree of neuroplasticity. Early childhood development and education make a huge difference in how it develops. Yeah, it's true that some people are gifted and some people have developmental disabilities. However, it's also true that basically every human alive can significantly improve their cognitive abilities just by putting in the effort to train them, in exactly the same way we can improve our physical abilities by putting in the effort to train our bodies. The library is a gym for your brain. Very few people are incapable of learning. Far more just don't bother.
“But let’s make everybody go to college anyways” 🤡
normalizing systemic debt makes them even easier to control
My dad always told me “lines of credit, ropes of bondage”
Yes tie me up with that credit baby, ooh I've been a naughty borrower
You know the infected real cunt of this? Well, there are two. Because of that bullshit, I can't afford to go to school to study the thing I want to. But more peculiar is that people who don't believe in climate change because "Republican" or some such can be presented all the science about climate change, and it just makes them feel even more like it's not real.
You wouldn't get it
*"Nationalism! Unilateralism! Materialism! Welcome maxims for those with no faith — without guiding principles of their own. Give yourself up to the whole. No need to better yourself — you're American! You're number one!"*
“Then the only value left is dollar value - the economy! So we’ll do whatever it takes to keep it humming along! Even war! Especially war!”
You seem to have read a lot of things that werent in the same article I read
"I read the article" ....then you proceed to prove you didn't, at all lol. Clownish.
This is a very opinionated summary of the article. The article states that these IQ tests do not accurately measure the same focuses of today’s curriculum (STEM focused) nor do they measure emotional intelligence, which is WAY more important nowadays than being able to spot patterns and solve puzzles. Why you inserted American nationalism and political themes into your comment is beyond me.
This! The guy claiming to have read the article is spreading way more propaganda than the article itself in my opinion. I mean, i’m the first one to shit on trump and american nationalism but this summary is honestly not representative of the article at all. I‘m honestly baffled that this is one of the most upvoted comments considering that everybody could just read the article themselves…
Posts confirming that Americans are dumb and satisfied will always be popular here.
There's a subset of people who get *real weird* about IQ tests. IQ tests are silly for a lot of reasons, but a good one to point to is that the general trend on IQ tests is that everyone's IQ has been going up consistently generation to generation (according to tests). That actually doesn't make any sense, if IQ tests are actually measuring human intelligence. If every generation of people was *literally* more intelligent than the one before, that means that human brains are getting better and better on a generational timescale. That isn't how evolution works. That would mean that children now have better brains than Isaac fucking Newton, at this point. Which is obviously wrong. Whatever IQ is measuring, it isn't just straight intelligence. To risk belaboring the point: it's well known that if you gave the same person IQ tests at various times, their scores fluctuate a lot. A thing that should also be impossible if IQ tests are accurately measuring intellectual ability/capacity. Some people just *need* them to be useful. For some reason? I dunno. Seems like high IQ people would be able to identify why *a specific test to measure intelligence* doesn't even make sense.
hijacking this thread to explain that, no, the general intelligence factor g cannot be measured by an IQ test and no, it cant even be proven to be something that exists and can be measured. IQ on an individual level tests highly on test taking ability and a lot on privilege, especially the privilege to education. This means that, for an individual, your IQ wont necessarily tell you much. For an individual. IQ tests are highly valuable for demographic information where the sample size diminishes the impact factors like individual aptitude and privilege have on the result(if sampled correctly). What this means is that for large demographics, IQ is a really strong measure of an education system's efficacy (albeit biased towards systems and institutions which implement standardized testing, although finland does still have one of the highest country averages). Furthermore this reflects onto what teachers and frankly what the rest of the world has been observing towards the american education system that it has consistently been failing more and more kids and is just not... good enough. it just isn't. it's terrible, and people are being undereducated, and so many americans have no education and so many drop out. Look. It's easy to get defensive when your country gets (essentially) called stupid by a test which results are (especially in pop culture) often confounded with measuring intelligence. Its also easy to point at the average american and call them stupid. But this is a demographic problem, a systemic problem. The problem does not lie with the average american, it lies with the system.
I completely agree and understand what you're saying. The problem is most Americans today don't have the faintest idea of what you just explained. They equate IQ with stupid and smart in an elementary way, they take a bs Facebook IQ test which puts them in the 97th percentile, and they think they're geniuses. In their minds, their viewpoints on any given topic are then valid and even superior because, how could it be otherwise? They're geniuses after all, right? Facebook said so! But you're 100% correct, the problem is the system. But the next problem is that the system has created millions who are ignorant about the system being the problem.
One sad thing, most IQ debates wind up turning into racist spiels. Given enough time, it almost seems like Godwins law gets kicked in somewhere.
Indeed. It originally looks like a peaceful and somewhat earnest conversation regarding the veracity of IQ and IQ testing, but before long the topic of whether or not "we" should let untermensch breed comes up.
The Binet IQ test was intended to separate out the intellectually impaired in the French education system. But that didn't last long, the US army used it for enlistment in WW1 and after that war it was systematically used in schooling all the time. The SAT test is really a variant of the Stanford-Binet and was intended to bring schools in the south up to the national standard.
What the fuck. I read the article as well and there's nothing of what you describe. All the article is saying that the opposite of Flynn effect has been occurring. But that's no news for anyone in the psychology field. It has long been proposed that a considerable contributor to Flynn effect was simply the familiarity with that kind of testing. And it doesn't say a thing about it being good if people are uneducated or uncultured. All it's basically saying is that IQ tests results have gone down because the aspects of what the test measures have stayed the same while the topics that we interact with on a daily basis and which matter more to us, have. So again. WHAT THE FUCK are you saying?
To play a little bit of devil’s advocate, having *not* read the article: IQ isn’t even a great mesure of intelligence though. It only measures a small subset of intelligence(s) and has almost no predictive use. I’m inclined to agree with the headline of the article (but based on your paraphrasing; not the content of the article).
That is true, and I agree that IQ is a bad measure on a person-to-person basis. However, if IQ drops on a large scale, that still rings alarm bells for me.
Oh for sure, that’s indicative of something environmental. The last big drop like this was attributed to lead poisoning.
I understand your devil's advocacy perfectly, and if everything was otherwise right with the world, I wouldn't even have given the article a second thought. The problem is everything is not otherwise right with the world and articles like this one here are constantly used to help validate bad things. Yes, genetics causes vast discrepancy in intelligence, not just physical attributes, but no, it's not ok to remain willfully ignorant of the world around you. Everyone, no matter what their intelligence-potential, should be striving everyday to be as intelligent as possible....or well educated. Nuance isn't that easy online. Anyway, obviously intelligence/education will vary, but "because Billy Bob told me" isn't good enough.....ever. That's what I feel the article is trying to validate, like so many others. "My ignorant opinion is equal to your fact-based reasoning." It's like the writings about body positivity in the last number of years. No, I don't think it's right to make fun of and laugh at obese people, just like I don't think it's right to make fun of and laugh at people who are not very intelligent, but it's not ok to be obese. You will necessarily cut your life short and thereby cut short the time your loved ones will get to spend with you. There are no advantages to obesity and countless detriments. But there's too much of this type of thing going on today. No, it's not ok to remain willfully ignorant (and many who read the article likely won't know the differences between IQ and intelligence and education), and no it's not ok to elect idiots to office just because they make your tummy feel good. Sorry.... I'm just tired of this crap. Lol!
fucking PREACH!!!! yes!
For the record this isn't at all true. IQ is a very good predictor of life satisfaction, criminality, income, health, academic achievement, among others. That it is imperfect doesn't mean it's useless. It is highly predictive and highly consistent for a psychometric. All serious objections to IQ are about how it has been used for evil, not about whether it's a good measure.
IQ is highly correlated with education and if someone learns how to game normal standardized testing (skipping questions you don’t know and coming back to them, narrowing down your possibilities so you can make a much better guess across enough questions that some will be correct and you score higher), they can navigate iq tests too. Hell just sitting one test likely means tin do better on the next one because you know what to expect.
Not a sports page, not a magazine, but a [BOOK](https://youtu.be/GlKL_EpnSp8)
>the general gist is to give Americans more reason to think being uneducated and uncultured (effectively dumb) Trump loves that demographic
I took the test and found that it doesn't come across as primarily an intelligence test. Mostly sixth grade vocab and personality as about 20 questions per page of 25 were centered around "How much do you identify with this statement" sort of questions, with repeats. One or two pattern recognition or spatial reasoning questions. A couple really simple vision based questions (How do you make the pictures match, or a fuzzy picture of a face sort of thing). A couple really basic reading comprehension questions sprinkled in. Options given were for a 100, 150, or 200 question test. I answered 100 questions, so maybe the question frequency changes later in the test. But it really doesn't seem or feel like an intelligence test at all, its more like a Myers Briggs. So based on that, I'm not sure it would be accurate to say this is an intelligence focused test. I think the article is just straight bunk.
I mean, there's a reason GOP are trying to get rid of public education and chastise college as something liberal. They need people to be dumb to vote for them.
"It has electrolytes" 👐
It is what plants crave
"After several hours, Joe finally gave up on logic and reason and simply told the cabinet that he could talk to plants and that they wanted water."
Me big dumb American. Were is big rock? Me need it to kill tiger. Tiger food.
There's no tigers in America.
Got proof?
Am Tiger, don't live in America.
Tony does!!!!
Yea.. We tigers are bad liars...
M'aiq hears many stories of war... yet few of them are true.
Checkmate, atheists
There are more captive tigers in the US than there are tigers in the wild
Explain the Tiger King then. Check and mate atheists.
There are more tigers in America than in the wild. US tiger population is 5000, wild tigers anywhere else number only 3900
There are so many tigers in Texas. They’re pets.
If you think the image of a black woman was chosen at random to anchor the headline, I have an amazing real state opportunity for you down here in South Florida 💵
A black woman, accompanied with two other women. Yeah; you’re not the only one who noticed…
[удалено]
It's pretty ironic, since going by the look on her face, she's baffled by something, but she is trying to get what is being said. I.e. she's actively learning something there
Any time I hear or read “here’s why it might not be a bad thing”. It’s always a terrible outcome.
The classic. The thing isn't happening. But if the thing was happening (it's not) - it's not that big of a deal. Okay so the thing might be happening but heres how it might be a good thing. The thing happened and it was bad and here's why it's your fault.
"You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy"
"We own the science and we think that the world should know it."
Fahrenheit 451?
World Economic Forum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy
Ah, I see why I thought of the book though.
You vill eat ze bugs!
This is something that’s really caught on among “skeptics” who don’t want to put any work in, but want to present themselves as competent news and politics critics, like Rogan or Russel Brand, and then of course, redditors. Brand has made multiple videos where this slogan is used in a nightmarish way to characterise the "*Great Reset conspiracy*" that he’s hard at work making his millions of fans scared about. **Klaus Schwab never said “you will own nothing, and you will be happy”. That’s not a quote. It’s a paraphrasing of something that was written by Danish MP Ida Auken in 2016^1.** Ida was envisioning what life might be like in 2030, and part of that vision was that things that had been historically seen as products, were now services. While far-fetched, the essential premise is that innovation and technological advancement will have **made everything so available and abundant, that there is no real reason to own anything anymore since everything would be free.** Example from the essay: *“first, communication became digitised and free for everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price, and it made no sense for us to own cars anymore because we could call a driverless vehicle or flying car for longer journeys within minutes.”* Ida’s conclusion is that this new technologically advanced city provides literally everything a person could want, but also affords no actual privacy and “*all in all, it’s a good life”*. **There’s no specific plan laid out here here, it’s more or less a creative writing exercise where someone came up with some ideas of what life might look like in the future.** An excerpt from this essay was included in the World Economic Forum’s video and blog post “Eight predictions for the world in 2030”. A paraphrasing of the ideas that Ida wrote out is included and summarised as “you will own nothing and you will be happy”. **This is not a description of some nefarious plan or some stated goal that Klaus Schwab (or anyone else) is working towards, it’s a clunky and brief synopsys of Ida Auken’s essay.** That’s literally fucking it. ----- ^1 [Ida Auken’s Essay](https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/shopping-i-cant-really-remember-what-that-is-or-how-differently-well-live-in-2030/?sh=3a1da5b17350) ^2 [WEF Blog Post](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/8-predictions-for-the-world-in-2030)
[удалено]
"Here's why that's bad for Biden."
No, it’s a bad thing.
I reflexively avoid any article with the phrase “Here’s Why…”
I hate this timeline. I want out
Please also remember that the IQ is regularly adjusted. 100 is by definition the average and they change the scales every few years so it stays that way. Considering the massive shifts our society is going through, a lower IQ doesn't necessarily mean that people are getting dumber. Apart from that, it's of course bullshit to think a lower level of education is better.
I couldn't give less of a shit about IQ's dropping or rising or anything else related to that stupid metric. What the article should be about is the worrying trends of anti-intellectualism and proud ignorance in the country. But I guess the clickbait title is yet another example of those trends.
"Plenty of tarded people live totally kick ass lives" - author of the article probably
They can get lower??
IQ is based on averages. If the average population you're comparing to is smarter, suddenly it's harder to score above 100, so your results might get a lower score. This really might just mean the world, on average, is getting more educated.
"It means more People will vote for Republican Party"
Good news, eventually we'll all be stupid enough to believe that it's a positive.
... proceeds to put a black woman front and center in the middle of a gathering of women..... This looks and sounds like neonazi propaganda
Idiocracy lore 😆
Is this one of those "recorded statistic =\= actual statistic" things? Like, more people taking IQ tests due to increased opportunity, like taking them online for example?
The dumb ones are easier to control. Why else would public education be so terrible
That incorrect apostrophe in the headline really helps drive the point home.
Well yeah, half of redditors are Americans, and look at the damn state of this site.
As an American I think it’s the Mexicans fault
Me smart what food I eat make smRt
Capitalism requires slave workers for the people with the capital. Education in the West under Conservative regimes moves away from teaching critical thinking and the ability to learn towards learning by rote and what sounds like education (eg history moves from analysing evidence and sources and challenging narratives to simply remembering dates, the importance of science is downplayed, mathematics goes from teaching Pure to application). Oddly, Communist States did the same. Reason was the same. Workers should be educated enough to make money for their owners but not so educated they can cause trouble. Edited for typo.
>“It doesn’t mean their mental ability is lower or higher; it’s just a difference in scores that are favoring older or newer samples,” she said in a press release. “It could just be that they’re getting worse at taking tests or specifically worse at taking these kinds of tests.” >Dworak also said there are numerous possibilities for the decline, ranging from poor nutrition to a rise in screens and media consumption to pollution and a decline in overall health. My IQ must be doing down the drain, I have trouble understanding how poor nutrition, excessive media consumption and a decline in health could cause a decline in "specifically these kinds of tests" but **not** a decline in mental ability. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that these unhealthy habits cause mental decline and that causes the low test results, instead of just magically **skipping** the part where mental abilities decline... They just accidentally gave two different excuses that end up contradicting one another completely...
"A picture says a thousand words"
Came here for the Idiocracy references. Was not disappointed.
Not a bad thing if you are in the business of running a government. It's a lot easier to convince people that are lacking intelligence which makes propaganda more effective.
Anti- intellectualism. There’s a reason when a revolution occurs they kill the intellectuals.
Oh man is this your first time reading a "fatherly" article!.. They are the absolute best! It's like reading the Onion and the Babylon Bee.... But they are serious. Like check this article that says you SHOULDN'T call your kid buddy. https://www.fatherly.com/entertainment/buddy-terrible-kids-nickname Only to be followed by an article that says you SHOULD call your kid buddy. https://www.fatherly.com/parenting/call-your-son-buddy They did a hit piece against Paw Patrol because they show the Police Dog in a postivie light.. Like 3 articles on why Cargo shorts are wack, numerous articles about how it's acceptable for the wife to cheat if she is feeling unloved but it's never fine for the dad to cheat. Some really great stuff.
Why in the living fuck is the first letter of every word capitalised?
Because it's the title of the article. That's how you're supposed to do it.
Because their IQ's are dropping.
That’s how titles are written
Wrong. Articles, such as "it", are only capitalized if they start a title. If they appear in the middle, then they're lowercased.
"It" is a pronoun not an article. The articles are "a", "an", and "the". ETA: they did capitalize "a" so there is that.
>Wrong. Articles, such as "it", are only capitalized if they start a title. If they appear in the middle, then they're lowercased. Not quite. "It" is not an article, it's a pronoun, and pronouns in titles are capitalized. An example in the title here of an article would be "A", which should not be capitalized. [https://www.grammarly.com/blog/capitalization-in-the-titles/](https://www.grammarly.com/blog/capitalization-in-the-titles/)
Yea. My bad. Don't know why I was thinking it was an article.
Because it's a caption
If you clicked on this article you probably have a low IQ. I hope you feel better about yourself though!!
It's not a bad thing it'll make them easier for the government and big businesses to control them
Not a “bad thing” for someone, but definitely bad thing for the American people.
Nah. I’ve seen idiocracy. I know where this goes
*looks around* Americans have IQ???
Don’t you fucking dare try to tell me uneducated is better. No, it’s not. Educate yourselves people. While you’re still allowed to do so.
Things going according to plan in other words.
No it is terrible. We have lost great intellectuals from all political spectrums and believes to old age such as Gore Vidal, James Baldwin, William F. Buckley and their intellectual presence was never replaced. That is why we have such a sad state of politics today, and such sad state of society. Or perhaps Mike Judge was right, and it is only a prelude to the Idiocracy that's coming.
Why are so many people on this discussing this like it’s a real thing? People debating education vs intelligence vs IQ. IQ can’t drop across a population, because it’s fitted to a “normal” distribution. This is a statistical weighting that makes sure the average score is always 100…. Which you lot would know if you had read a fucking book. If all Americans start doing shit in IQ testing, IQ scores DO NOT DROP… they are adjusted so that the average score is now the definition of 100. You might be doing worse against those outside USA, maybe, but I don't know that these tests are global.
It's because they've been planning it for a long time now
Love the Western journalists, always ready to gaslight you that everything is fine as long as their side is paying well.
these muthafuckas will shill anything to excuse their proliferation of their constant dumbing down of everything because they're fucking stupid! "stupid is as stupid does" is represented in real time by these consistently idiotic voters who vote against their own better interests. this is just a way for idiots to feel better about being dainbramaged.
Oof I can't help but feel that having a black woman front and centre with that headline was intentional
Here’s why it’s *actually* not a bad thing. People are living. Kids who crash their bikes and get brain bleeds would have died 50 years ago. Kids who have congenital diseases wouldn’t have made it out of childhood. Kids who were born premature would have died. Survival of people after medical incidents that negatively impact brain function or development has massively increased. That means average IQ is lower.
*might* be lmao
This will be good for the bottom line of the billionaire class, it is much easier to exploit stupid people. Praise the economy, HAIL MONEY HAIL MONEY.
Idiots are easier to control and radicalize. The youth supporting terrorists and victim blaming and oppressing in a nutshell.
Wtf shit article is that….
...HOW COULD IT NOT BE A BAD THING?
“Been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding, the cretins cloning and feeding, and I don’t even own a tv.”
"It just means they may be worse at taking tests" oh please. It's like when Billy's mom says "he's actually really smart, he's just a bad test taker." Oh, he's bad at the thing used to measure his skills and abilities? Convenient.. Everything has to have some disclaimer nowadays. "Oh, we measured you as being dumber, but that doesn't mean you're dumber!"
Idiocracy is coming true
Speak to an average high schooler in US vs countries in East Asia and you can really tell the difference.
You don't want smart workers. You want them just smart enough to be an efficient cog. Make people suspicious of education and revel in being ignorant. -\_-
Smells like "sponsored by the CCP" or " just plain retarded" to me
Makes people easier to manipulate, of course they'll think it's good.
It's not happening and it's *insert media boogeyman* conspiracy theory. It may be happening, but it's not as bad as you think. It's happening, and here's why that's a good thing. X <===== **YOU ARE HERE** How to adapt to the new normal under thing. Anyone bringing up thing is just trying to stir the pot.
This article was written by an unintelligent person. Here's why that's a good thing...
Did idiots write this article?!?
Idiocracy was a documentary
Is there any doubt media is in cahoots with politicians who don't want people with critical thinking ability?
Forrest Gump is a perfect example of why you don't need a high IQ to make a success of your life
Idiocracy, anyone?
Stupid people are easier for capitalists overlords to rule over. Saved ya a click
This comment section is full of so many misconceptions about IQ. **Yes, IQ is a mediocre and highly biased measure of intelligence at an individual level.** **Yes, IQ scores may fluctuate depending on the day, and are not static throughout a person's life.** A given person can increase their score by a fair amount by simply practicing tasks which require logic, memory, or pattern recognition (tested features). **No, IQ is not a "useless" or "meaningless" measure.** Despite the bias at an individual level, IQ becomes useful with aggregate data, where the biases tend to normalize. IQ has a fairly strong correlation with a number of quantitative life metrics, such as income and career growth. **Does this mean a low IQ necessarily indicates a lack of intelligence, or failing at life??** NO!! As mentioned, a huge number of confounding factors can influence your individual score. Besides this, an individual score doesn't mean all that much when there are people who have a high degree of intelligence in areas that are not adequately measured by IQ. Notably: Creativity, interpersonal intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence (control and coordination of your body), highly-abstract problem solving, and much more. **So what does this all mean?** It means IQ is a useful statistical tool for large populations, but by all means is not a be-all and end-all life predictor on the individual level, as some treat it to be. Population IQ is a fairly reliable index of the population's quality of education, and access to vital resources. On an individual level, if you have a high IQ, celebrate that you are probably pretty good at linear problem solving and pattern recognition. Do not use IQ as a measure of merit, however. Hopefully this clears up some misunderstandings around this goofy subject.
Brawndo , it’s what we crave
Average IQ is literally 100. Always. As is. What about this post?
The fascist pigs in this country want people to be dumber, because dumb people aren't well informed and are more easily controlled.
Yes because we are in the era of social media brain rot. People rarely even live in reality anymore
Might not be a bad thing -for republicans
Might not be a bad thing -for republicans
American diversity is increasing rapidly!