Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anybody believe that future generations will be less intelligent than people today? According to this information from wikipedia which seems to make sense less intelligent people have more children than more intelligent educated people.

    "Some of the first studies into the subject were carried out on individuals living before the advent of IQ testing, in the late 19th century, by looking at the fertility of men listed in WHO's WHO, these individuals being presumably of high intelligence. These men, taken as a whole, had few children, implying a negative correlation.
    More rigorous studies carried out on those alive during the Second World War returned different results suggesting a slight positive correlation with respect to intelligence. The findings from these investigations were consistent enough for Osborn and Bajema, writing as late as 1972, to conclude that fertility patterns were eugenic, and that "the reproductive trend toward an increase in the frequency of genes associated with higher IQ... will probably continue in the foreseeable future in the United States and will be found also in other industrial welfare-state democracies." But several reviewers considered the findings premature, arguing that the samples were nationally unrepresentative, generally being confined to whites born between 1910 and 1940 in the Great Lakes States. Other researchers began to report a negative correlation in the 1960s after two decades of neutral or positive fertility.

    In 1982, Daniel Vining sought to address these issues in a large study on the fertility of over 10,000 individuals throughout the United States, who were then aged 25 to 34. The average fertility in his study was correlated at -0.86 with IQ for white women and -0.96 for black women. In considering these results along with those from earlier researchers, Vining wrote that "in periods of rising birth rates, persons with higher intelligence tend to have fertility equal to, if not exceeding, that of the population as a whole.

    Regardless of the methodology employed, later research has generally supported that of Vining. In a 1988 study, Retherford and Sewell examined the association between the measured intelligence and fertility of over 9,000 high school graduates in Wisconsin in 1957, and confirmed the inverse relationship between IQ and fertility for both sexes, but much more so for females.

    In a 1999 study Richard Lynn examined the relationship between the intelligence of adults aged 40 and above and their numbers of children and their siblings. Data were collected from the 1994 National Opinion Research Center survey among a representative sample of 2992 English-speaking individuals aged 18 years. Findings revealed that weak negative correlations of -0.05 and -0.09, respectively were found. Further analysis showed that the negative correlation was present only in females. The correlation for females between intelligence and ideal number of children was effectively zero.

    In 2004 Richard Lynn and Marian Van Court attempted a straightforward replication of Vining's work. Their study returned similar result.

    To address the concern that the fertility of this sample could not be considered complete, Vining carried out a follow-up study for the same sample 18 years later, reporting the same, though slightly decreased, negative correlation between IQ and fertility."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

    Of coure I know that IQ can be increased with education and "brain training" but some people such as Einstein was for example are naturally more intelligent than others. If intelligent people continue to have less children then there will start to be a decline in the average intelligence of humanity and there will be eventually be a brain drain. This is because there will be less children from intelligent parents who will be motivated/pushed to become things such as lawyers, doctor, engineers and teachers resulting in there being a shortage of these people.

    Though the above is more of a social problem not a genetic one information from the site below and using it with the knowledge that more intelligent people have less children suggests that the children of intelligent people today may be less intelligent genetically. This is because they put off having children till later in life and the men pick up some genetic abnormalities due to cell damage and aging which they pass on to their children resulting in them being less intelligent.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...gent-kids.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I shouldn't stress over it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The fact that less intelligent people generally have more children doesn't mean that intelligent people don't have any. The average IQ may decrease, but we won't have less intelligent humans.

    Bear in mind that some will be more knowledgeable, as there is more knowledge to gain.

    Also consider that less intelligent people might be more likely to die from stupid actions.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    For a start, IQ is a rubbish way of measuring intelligence, so much so that I won't even begin to start ranting about it because I'll never stop. For seconds, the Flynn effect sort of contradicts the idea that intelligence will decrease, but who knows. Don't think too hard on something just because it "seems to make sense" though, especially if it's come off Wikipedia (ironic perhaps that I linked to Wikipedia too). Not only that, but the question of what intelligence actually is makes the search for an answer to your question rather futile. We tend to have split ideas about intelligence is... some see it as a wealth of knowledge*, some see it as the ability to solve problems quickly and efficiently, some people see it as the ability to formulate well-considered arguments, etc...

    *Bizarrely, someone who has a wealth of knowledge about a certain period in history will usually be seen as more intelligent than someone who knows everything there is to know about football, despite the only difference being the subject rather than the quantity of knowledge.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People are assuming that less intelligent parents = less intelligent children in 100% of cases........
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Don't know and don't care. I don't see how it even matters? I agree with the post above me. Just because something seems to make sense it doesn't mean it is. Not everything in this world is built on logic. Something that makes sense might be a total load of garbage, which i suspect is the case here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nuodai)
    For a start, IQ is a rubbish way of measuring intelligence, so much so that I won't even begin to start ranting about it because I'll never stop. For seconds, the Flynn effect sort of contradicts the idea that intelligence will decrease, but who knows. Don't think too hard on something just because it "seems to make sense" though, especially if it's come off Wikipedia (ironic perhaps that I linked to Wikipedia too). Not only that, but the question of what intelligence actually is makes the search for an answer to your question rather futile. We tend to have split ideas about intelligence is... some see it as a wealth of knowledge*, some see it as the ability to solve problems quickly and efficiently, some people see it as the ability to formulate well-considered arguments, etc...

    *Bizarrely, someone who has a wealth of knowledge about a certain period in history will usually be seen as more intelligent than someone who knows everything there is to know about football, despite the only difference being the subject rather than the quantity of knowledge.
    Personally I'm tired of people always saying that IQ is a rubbish way of measuring intelligence. Generally it shows that people who are more intelligence score higher, sometimes this doesn't always work as the test arn't suited for everyone which is why people say they arn't very accurate and I agree with that but its unlikely a less intelligent person is going to score really highly and when you talk to people who have a higher IQ they do come across as more intelligent.

    Secondly the fact that the information comes from wikipedia doesn't make it false and also your question of "whats intelligence" sounds philosophical your trying to debunk my suggestions with an abstract answer when I'm sure that when we talk of intelligence most people will think problem solving, quantitive reasoning, spatial, linguistic and most other forms of intelligence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BillV3)
    People are assuming that less intelligent parents = less intelligent children in 100% of cases........
    Exactly, my parents and siblings are (in the nicest possible way) not exactly geniuses - and I'm already infinitely more intelligent in the traditional sense, ie academia.

    - don't get me wrong, they are vastly intelligent just in different ways.

    There are just so many more factors to take in account concerning 'intelligence' not just parentage.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unknown?)
    Personally I'm tired of people always saying that IQ is a rubbish way of measuring intelligence. Generally it shows that people who are more intelligence score higher, sometimes this doesn't always work as the test arn't suited for everyone which is why people say they arn't very accurate and I agree with that but its unlikely a less intelligent person is going to score really highly and when you talk to people who have a higher IQ they do come across as more intelligent.

    Secondly the fact that the information comes from wikipedia doesn't make it false and also your question of "whats intelligence" sounds philosophical your trying to debunk my suggestions with an abstract answer when I'm sure that when we talk of intelligence most people will think problem solving, quantitive reasoning, spatial, linguistic and most other forms of intelligence.
    About, your ancedotal evidence. Anyway, Terrence Tao and Hawkings said that IQ is rubbish. A good example is chess players, the top chess players don't correlated to IQ tests so whats the point of using IQ tests then? Certainly, what makes someone good at chess is very complex even though little children can be highly talented at it.

    On the second point. Wikipedia is crap espically if you look at maths pages. As pointed out most people have different view of what is intelligence, certainly I don't see how IQ can test creativity which is pretty important.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trefusis1234445)
    Exactly, my parents and siblings are (in the nicest possible way) not exactly geniuses - and I'm already infinitely more intelligent in the traditional sense, ie academia.

    - don't get me wrong, they are vastly intelligent just in different ways.

    There are just so many more factors to take in account concerning 'intelligence' not just parentage.
    My parents arn't intelligent either but if all the intelligent people have less kids and the less intelligent outbreed them then there will be a brain drain its logical. Intelligent children from less intelligent families may slow this down.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unknown?)
    My parents arn't intelligent either but if all the intelligent people have less kids and the less intelligent outbreed them then there will be a brain drain its logical. Intelligent children from less intelligent families may slow this down.
    Not really. Firstly, thats assuming intelligent people have a gene that isn't found in dumb people. Also, its assuming that genes don't skip generation. For example, people can have ginger hair if both parents don't have ginger hair but a grand parent does.

    I would say intelligence is more to do with environment and chance.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Unknown?)
    Personally I'm sick of people always saying that IQ is a rubbish way of measuring intelligence. Generally it shows that people who are more intelligence score higher, sometimes this doesn't always work as the test arn't suited for everyone which is why people say they arn't very accurate and I agree with that but its unlikely a less intelligent person is going to score really highly and when you talk to people who have a higher IQ they do come across as more intelligent.
    Unless I'm misunderstanding, what you've effectively just said is that IQ tests consistently show that one person is more intelligent than another (indicating that results are comparable), but they aren't suited for everyone (indicating that results aren't comparable). Or does that mean that people for whom IQ tests aren't suited are less intelligent than people for whom they are?

    (Original post by Unknown?)
    Secondly the fact that the information comes from wikipedia doesn't make it false
    I never said it did make it false, but it's certainly not entirely reliable, so it's always best to approach it with caution.

    (Original post by Unknown?)
    and also your question of "whats intelligence" sounds philosophical your trying to debunk my suggestions with an abstract answer when I'm sure that when we talk of intelligence most people will think problem solving, quantitive reasoning, spatial, linguistic and most other forms of intelligence.
    What do you mean by 'other forms of intelligence'? I don't see how asking what intelligence is is 'getting philosophical' and I certainly can't see how it debunks your suggestions, all it does is beg a little clarity (and on this note, what on earth is "quantitative reasoning"?). If you can't decide what intelligence is, how can you even begin to decide whether it's going to decrease in the future? And if you define it as problem-solving, linguistic ability, reasinoning and suchlike, then it will undoubtedly fluctuate over time, because problem-solving ability and reasoning are very culture-bound criteria (culture includes different historical periods as well as different social and geographic boundaries). If you're talking about general cognitive abilities, then it's likely that intelligence will stay roughly the same, but the areas in which it becomes used more will change. As a random example, I might be considered intelligent in the UK because I'm good at Maths, have done two A-levels in it and am doing pretty well. However, a hunter from Papua New Guinea or the Australian outback might not be considered intelligent over here, despite having the amazing ability of being able to pick up extremely subtle tracks for animals, water and suchlike... that is, something that I'd never be able to spot if I was given a lifetime to examine a landscape because I don't have that ability, no matter how much Maths I do. Are they truly less intelligent than me just because their skills are different? I doubt it, and therein lies the problem with IQ tests.

    In any case, I'm not trying to get philosophical, I'm trying to be realistic. The fact of the matter is that, in general, intelligence (in terms of cognitive capabilities) doesn't vary an awful lot between cohorts, cultures, generations and suchlike, but the type of intelligence does. There's been research to suggest, for example, that black people are on average 15 IQ points less intelligent than white people (Jensen 1969, 1998), but this has emerged because the research has used IQ tests that don't produce comparable results. The nature of IQ tests fits with the general Western idea that fast solutions to problems constitutes intelligence, when in a lot of cultures this just isn't the case. Some researchers experimented with this notion and pretty much exposed IQ tests' bias with their *****-100 test which was basically an IQ test designed for black people -- white people did worse in it than blacks, despite contradictory findings by Jensen! The reason I hate the notion of IQ tests is because findings like this can have serious social consequences, especially with regard to the eugenics movement and stuff like that, and people only stick up for them because they give some idea of differences in intelligence in one culture (our own).

    Basically, IQ tests aren't valid (they use limited, culturally- and historically-biased criteria to assess a much broader competence) or reliable (I could take 20 IQ tests and easily get 20 different scores, even if the tests were the same).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I read an article yesterday in the newspaper that said that better looking people have more children- does this mean that better looking people are also unintelligent? :eek: Hehe
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simplicity)
    Not really. Firstly, thats assuming intelligent people have a gene that isn't found in dumb people. Also, its assuming that genes don't skip generation. For example, people can have ginger hair if both parents don't have ginger hair but a grand parent does.

    I would say intelligence is more to do with environment and chance.
    I also think its also has to do with environmental factors. The problem I tried to show in my original post was that less intelligent children have more children, those children are less likely to be in an environment that would postively affect their intelligence. Whereas the children of intelligent parents who are more likely to be successful are going to be pushed and be in a better environment. But I think genes also factor into it. Some people are just more naturally intelligent than others and a good reason why this could be are genes. Just in the same way an athlete can have a naturally athletic body because of genes and is pushed into developing his body and becoming an athlete. Also since recessive genes can skip a generation then maybe a person can become intelligent while having less intelligent parents because their ancestors were intelligent.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Probably not.

    Despite what some might say, there is no impregnable evidence that "intelligence" is hereditary; IQ is a methodologically flawed indicator of the inherently subjective thing that we call "intelligence".
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unknown?)
    I also think its also has to do with environmental factors. The problem I tried to show in my original post was that less intelligent children have more children, those children are less likely to be in an environment that would postively affect their intelligence. Whereas the children of intelligent parents who are more likely to be successful are going to be pushed and be in a better environment. But I think genes also factor into it. Some people are just more naturally intelligent than others and a good reason why could be genes just in the same way an athlete can have a naturally athletic body because of genes and is pushed into developing his body and becoming an athlete. Also since recessive genes can skip a generation then maybe a person can become intelligent while having less intelligent parents because of their ancestors were intelligent.
    Firstly, I disagree with top bit. Certainly, Gauss the greatest mathematician ever came from a peasent family, Riemann had similar upbringing. Also, thats assuming that intelligent parents=intelligent children. Which, is not always correct.

    Secondly, for example you mention Einstein in your first post. However, Einstein had a speech disorder as a child and was considered lazy by a lot of people as a child. Leonardo da vinci had similar problems as a lot of people notably a king said that he was lazy and there is some evidence he suffered from ADHD.

    Obviously, this doesn't prove anything. However, unlike athletic abillity you can't really objectively see genius. See you can say look at someone run fast and see that this person will become a great runner. However, you can't really see that a person is going to become a great mathematician.

    P.S. Anyway, so yeah its rubbish. Espically when IQ is rubbish.
    P.P.S. Also, another problem espically with athletic abillity like for example tennis is that you could have the genes to become a good tennis player but if your country doesn't really play tennis then that potential is lost. Chess has that problem to, as alot of evidence shows that you can't become a top chess players if you haven't started playing chess when young e.g. 8 or below.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nuodai)
    Unless I'm misunderstanding, what you've effectively just said is that IQ tests consistently show that one person is more intelligent than another (indicating that results are comparable), but they aren't suited for everyone (indicating that results aren't comparable). Or does that mean that people for whom IQ tests aren't suited are less intelligent than people for whom they are?

    I never said it did make it false, but it's certainly not entirely reliable, so it's always best to approach it with caution.

    What do you mean by 'other forms of intelligence'? I don't see how asking what intelligence is is 'getting philosophical' and I certainly can't see how it debunks your suggestions, all it does is beg a little clarity (and on this note, what on earth is "quantitative reasoning"?). If you can't decide what intelligence is, how can you even begin to decide whether it's going to decrease in the future? And if you define it as problem-solving, linguistic ability, reasinoning and suchlike, then it will undoubtedly fluctuate over time, because problem-solving ability and reasoning are very culture-bound criteria (culture includes different historical periods as well as different social and geographic boundaries). If you're talking about general cognitive abilities, then it's likely that intelligence will stay roughly the same, but the areas in which it becomes used more will change. As a random example, I might be considered intelligent in the UK because I'm good at Maths, have done two A-levels in it and am doing pretty well. However, a hunter from Papua New Guinea or the Australian outback might not be considered intelligent over here, despite having the amazing ability of being able to pick up extremely subtle tracks for animals, water and suchlike... that is, something that I'd never be able to spot if I was given a lifetime to examine a landscape because I don't have that ability, no matter how much Maths I do. Are they truly less intelligent than me just because their skills are different? I doubt it, and therein lies the problem with IQ tests.

    In any case, I'm not trying to get philosophical, I'm trying to be realistic. The fact of the matter is that, in general, intelligence (in terms of cognitive capabilities) doesn't vary an awful lot between cohorts, cultures, generations and suchlike, but the type of intelligence does. There's been research to suggest, for example, that black people are on average 15 IQ points less intelligent than white people (Jensen 1969, 1998), but this has emerged because the research has used IQ tests that don't produce comparable results. The nature of IQ tests fits with the general Western idea that fast solutions to problems constitutes intelligence, when in a lot of cultures this just isn't the case. Some researchers experimented with this notion and pretty much exposed IQ tests' bias with their *****-100 test which was basically an IQ test designed for black people -- white people did worse in it than blacks, despite contradictory findings by Jensen! The reason I hate the notion of IQ tests is because findings like this can have serious social consequences, especially with regard to the eugenics movement and stuff like that, and people only stick up for them because they give some idea of differences in intelligence in one culture (our own).

    Basically, IQ tests aren't valid (they use limited, culturally- and historically-biased criteria to assess a much broader competence) or reliable (I could take 20 IQ tests and easily get 20 different scores, even if the tests were the same).
    I was trying to say that in general IQ tests do prove intelligence of certain people but not everyone. I understand that the system is not suitable for everyone because an intelligent person may score lower than a less intelligent person and thats because peoples brains work differently. With your reference to those black/white IQ tests I think that the average intelligence across people and cultures like your talking about currently is the same and your environment specializes that intelligence to where its best needed (I never took a musical instrument as a child I'm not going to be good generally with instruments than a person who is musical and that person can be thought of as more intelligent than me in that area) but I think that its possible that the average cognitive abilities of people may decrease in the future because of the reasons I've stated.

    If you weren't trying to be philosphical with your "whats intelligence" question then then I take it back, you seem to be more logical than I thought lol. :o: I've just had discussions with other people and they would give a type of answer similar to yours trying to be philosphical and it gets annoying. :woo:

    Quanitive reasoning is jut another way of saying numerical skills, you can type it in google and see.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.