Dysgenics (devolution): A threat or insignificant?

#1
Most of the focus on dysgenics in human populations in recent years has investigated the change in genotypic intelligence. Demographic studies generally indicate that the more intelligent and better educated women in affluent nations have much lower reproductive rates than the less educated, which has led to concern regarding the future of intelligence in these nations. The most cited work is Vining's 1982 study on the fertility of 2,539 U.S. women aged 25 to 34; the average fertility is correlated at -0.86 in IQ for white women and -0.96 for black women, and indicated a drop in the genotypic average IQ of 1.6 per generation for the white population and 2.4 points per generation for the black population. A 2004 study by Richard Lynn and Marian Van Court returned similar results, with the genotypic decline measuring at 0.9 IQ points per generation for the total sample and 0.75 IQ points for whites only.[9]

Richard Lynn suggests in Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, that the isolated effect of dysgenics may have been masked by the countervailing Flynn effect, the steady increase of IQ in Asian and Western nations during the 20th century, thought to be related to better diets and other environmental factors. Current research shows that the Flynn effect might have already ended around 1990 in several European nations. Teasdale & Owen (2005) "report intelligence test results from over 500,000 young Danish men, tested between 1959 and 2004, showing that performance peaked in the late 1990s, and has since declined moderately to pre-1991 levels." They speculate that "a contributing factor in this recent fall could be a simultaneous decline in proportions of students entering 3-year advanced-level school programs for 16–18 year olds."
So what we have here are two different mainstream (but controversial) theories:

The 1st and more optimistic theory is that we are dropping a bit under 1 iq point per generation.

The 2nd and most pessimistic theory is that the true rate of genetic iq drop is masked by better diet, technology, education, etc. and that our genetic iq is really dropping more rapidly.

Do you think we are experiencing dysgenics, and if so which of the two theories do you think is stronger? Also, what do you see for the future? If you and your significant other are raising an intelligent genetic line, what role in the world do you see for them? And will you be able to keep your kids from hooking up with an idiot?
 

6DollarDrunk

Put baby in container with snake
#2
You forgot this part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect (Has Progression Ended)

Genetic changes usually happen relatively slowly. For example, the Flynn effect has been too rapid for a genetic explanation.[25] Researchers have warned that constantly greater exposure to industrial chemicals shown to damage the nervous system, especially in children, in industrialized nations may be responsible for a "silent pandemic" of brain development disorders.
 
#3
Dude, I didn't say the Flynn effect was genetic. The second theory is based on the Flynn effect NOT being genetic. The second theory is that the positive effects of the Flynn effect are hiding a much stronger genetic decline. If the Flynn effect were adding .5 and the generational study was showing a lost of .8, that could mean there is a true genetic loss of 1.3 and the Flynn effect is masking it by .5.
 

LiddyRules

I Think I'll Eat An Apple
#4
This theory is un-American. We are just as awesome and kickass as we've always been if not more so. To say we are dumb is hating the troops. Go America!!
 

ginaf20697

Registered User
#8
All you need to do is go to Walmart to see the truth in this.
 

BCH

Doesn't need your acknowledgement on Twitter
Wackbag Staff
#9
 

ginaf20697

Registered User
#13
That story O&A were doing on the welfare ho having twins again is another fine example.
 
#17
1. ok how long has the IQ test been around....
2. how can you have a study that is supposed to evaluate intelligence and the loss there of over time when the test they are basing the results on has only been around for a generation...
 

Coffee Diva

Female? Nope. Meaty-breasted? You betcha!
#18
This sort of thing is why I'm all for gated communities and the Second Amendment.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
#19
i think they forgot a critical point to the theory, that statistically country's with a higher infant mortality rate make more baby's because they are too dumb to know how to care for them. country's in the west have lower infant mortality rates and lower birth rates, not to mention that more advance country's people generally live longer and take less people to do more work. so i have to disagree with the theory.

do "dumb" people have more babys, yes but do they live to adult hood? maybe not. i dont think its going to be a problem, and people need to stop thinking up bull shit theory's and not bother to take all variables into account, statistics lie, and lairs use statistics
 

ginaf20697

Registered User
#20
do "dumb" people have more babys, yes but do they live to adult hood? maybe not. i dont think its going to be a problem, and people need to stop thinking up bull shit theory's and not bother to take all variables into account, statistics lie, and lairs use statistics
I really don't think infant mortality really plays a role in this country. You have to be actively looking to kill your kid because SOMEONE will usually notice unless you live in a cave.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
#21
for the time being abortion is still legal and easy access, so in a way the mortality rate is masked, but still plays a part.
 
#22
The problem is the dumbest people, the ones who really SHOULD be having abortions, aren't. Like that chick with 3 sets of twins they played on the show last week. She was just too dumb to have an abortion.
 

Xyn

3 letters, 0 meaning
#23
There is no such thing as devolution. If the populace is getting dumber, it's becuase it doesn't have to be smarter to survice and reproduce.

So long as our civilization has at least a few smart people keeping it from imploding, it doesn't matter how retarded the rest are.

Of course, if we kill ourselves off, then we are just a dead end for some footnote in the worlds history.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
#24
You know, inherent in this is the idea that being smart is a GOOD thing.

Evolution isn't about achieving some kind of perfect human being. It's about survival, period. If being dumber than dirt becomes a survival trait, evolution will weed for stupidity.

That's it, that's all. Evolution isn't trying to turn us into a race of 6'5", blonde-haired, blue-eyed Supermen with IQs of 200+.

If anything, being "moderately bright" with an IQ of ~120 is more effective in society and in life than being a "genius" with an IQ of 160+. Most geniuses end up with shitty jobs that have them frustrated as hell.

I mean, think about how frustrating it is for a person of average (~100) intelligence to be around a retard with an IQ of around 60. An IQ of 60 is almost literally dumber than dirt. Well, that's about what it's like for a person with a genius IQ to be around "normal" people, except it isn't just being around a bunch of retards, but living in an entire world BUILT for and by retards. Being that pissed off and frustrated can make it hard for a lot of really bright people to actually accomplish anything.

I'm halfway convinced that ADD/HDD isn't so much a disorder as being bright enough to be completely fucking bored with the rest of society and the things that "normal" people can find interesting for long periods of time. Retards think watching a color test is fascinating, but "normal" folks aren't expected to keep watching it without getting bored. Why are really bright people expected to have a long attention span for the same drivel that makes "normal" people happy?
 
Top