IQ and the wealth of nations (Split from Craps betting to impress stupid women)
Quote: Neutrino
Sometimes you play to impress a stupid girl (aka standard American), .
What the hell is that supposed to mean. American
women are some of the best educated in the world.
Quote: EvenBobWhat the hell is that supposed to mean. American
women are some of the best educated in the world.
I was just wondering that myself....
Quote: EvenBobWhat the hell is that supposed to mean. American
women are some of the best educated in the world.
That may have been true in the good old days, but I fear that may not be 100% unabashedly true of the modern day and age. I find the education system at primary and secondary levels in the US as not being very strong at all......this is just my opinion of course.
I wonder, per capita, which country contains the smartest people in the world?
Quote: geoffThe US is tied for 19th on average IQ. The highest average in the world is Hong Kong, South Korea, then Japan.
Do you have a source for this info? IQ tests are not regularly administered in most countries (including the US), so it's hard to see how this could be accurate.
In theory, they should, but in reality, they don't. It's no different than people repeating the same mistakes throughout history over and over again.Quote: AxelWolfWith the access to information we have nowadays. I have a feeling kids will far exceed the intelligence of the kids in the "good old days".
Here's part of an 8th grade test from 1912. I doubt anyone on this forum would ace the complete exam.
Quote: Beethoven9thIn theory, they should, but in reality, they don't. It's no different than people repeating the same mistakes throughout history over and over again.
Very well stated, thank you.
Quote: geoffThe US is tied for 19th on average IQ. The highest average in the world is Hong Kong, South Korea, then Japan.
The highest average IQ's are always going to
be in countries that have almost 100% native
populations. The US is not in that demographic.
Did you see that 8th grade test in a previous post?? I doubt any 8th grader today (or any of the forum members here) would ace that test!Quote: AxelWolfI'm saying that if you took the average 13 year old kid form the 1940's and put him VS a 13 year old kid from 2014. the kid from 2014 would run circles around the kid from 1940 and have him pissing in his pants in every aspect.
Quote: Beethoven9thDid you see that 8th grade test in a previous post?? I doubt any 8th grader today (or any of the forum members here) would ace that test!
Unless they accept stick figures, I'm certainly failing the sketching question.
It's funny because you reposted that 8th grade test, yet I don't think you bothered to read it. In the "Civil Government" section, almost none of those questions are "unimportant".Quote: endermikeThis test is made artificially difficult because it is about a century old. What is important today will, for the most part, be unimportant 100 years from now.
Again, I don't think you read my previous post:Quote: endermikeThis test is focusing on memorized facts and lacks any critical thinking...That is why your comparison is invalid.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/17132-usa-v-canada-split-from-dont-hate-betting-systems/3/#post330417
*facepalm*Quote: endermikeIt is nonsensical to say that folks who know how to do antiquated skills are "smarter" because they have those skills.
No one even made such a claim.
Unfortunately, there is ZERO evidence to support that belief, only anecdotal evidence (which is irrelevant).Quote: endermikeI would wager for the reasons I stated, on average children born since 1990 are in fact smarter than those born before 1950.
Advances in prenatal and postnatal care. Historically, large numbers of pregnant women behaved in ways we now know reduce intelligence in kids (smoking, drinking, and lack of vitamins). There are far fewer kids who don't go to school today as compared to the past. These are incontrovertible facts.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: Quote: endermike
I would wager for the reasons I stated, on average children born since 1990 are in fact smarter than those born before 1950.
Unfortunately, there is absolutely ZERO evidence to support that.
I would take that wager, Beethoven, if I were you.
Quote: endermikeAnswer this:
Advances in prenatal and postnatal care. Historically, large numbers of pregnant women behaved in ways we now know reduce intelligence in kids (smoking, drinking, and lack of vitamins). There are far fewer kids who don't go to school today as compared to the past. These are incontrovertible facts.
OK, then the earth is round, and the sky is blue. There are incontrovertible facts. (How this has anything to do with kids being smarter today than 100 years ago is beyond me...)
Quote: endermikeAnswer this:
Advances in prenatal and postnatal care. Historically, large numbers of pregnant women behaved in ways we now know reduce intelligence in kids (smoking, drinking, and lack of vitamins). There are far fewer kids who don't go to school today as compared to the past. These are incontrovertible facts.
I would answer you in some detail, but it's a difficult subject (eugenics) for people on this board to look at dispassionately. I'm not interested in posting information that will get attacked and picked apart for emotional reasons.
Quote: Beethoven9thUnfortunately, there is ZERO evidence to support that belief, only anecdotal evidence (which is irrelevant).
Actually, there is evidence to support this. It's called the Flynn effect. One theory is that it's caused by the iodization of salt.
I doubt any normal person then or now would come close to Acing that test. Even if kids back then were taught to memorize the answers, it dose not mean they know what it means. Its like learning a song or something you know the words but have no clue what it means.Quote: Beethoven9thDid you see that 8th grade test in a previous post?? I doubt any 8th grader today (or any of the forum members here) would ace that test!
I don't think being able to memorize and answer a bunch of questions properly makes someone smart, being able to understand, reason and solve problems.
Don't know if that applies here since endermike already stated that he doesn't believe in comparing test scores from previous generations.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceActually, there is evidence to support this. It's called the Flynn effect. One theory is that it's caused by the iodization of salt.
Well, you can also say that about kids today. Just because they have access to a ton information, it doesn't necessarily follow that they know what it means.Quote: AxelWolfEven if kids back then were taught to memorize the answers, it dose not mean they know what it means.
Quote: Beethoven9thOK, then the earth is round, and the sky is blue. There are incontrovertible facts. (How this has anything to do with kids being smarter today than 100 years ago is beyond me...)
Wow, that is a statement which misses my point. I will break it down for you in small, easy steps:
1) There are behaviors which reduce a child's intelligence. Examples: a pregnant mother smoking or drinking. (given by science)
2) These behaviors occurred in children before we knew of them, pre 1950 to be safe. (given by evidence from witnesses)
3) These behaviors occur less than they used to. (given by data collected by current doctors)
4) More kids born before 1950 will be effected by these bad behaviors. (result of 2 and 3)
5) More kids born before 1950 will have their intelligence lowered. (result of 1 and 4)
QED
Quote: endermikeWow, that is a statement which misses my point. I will break it down for you in small, easy steps:
[snip]
How does a reduction in the intelligence of baby Johnny lead to a reduction in the intelligence of baby Suzie?
Quote: Beethoven9thDon't know if that applies here since endermike already stated that he doesn't believe in comparing test scores from previous generations.
Just another data point showing you are wrong.
Quote: MeWhile we don't have a controlled study,
My point was we did not have a time machine and perfectly controlled test taken in parallel. I do believe in the Flynn effect.
Quote: Beethoven9thHow does a reduction in the intelligence of baby Johnny lead to a reduction in the intelligence of baby Suzie?
It does not nor did I claim it does. Please read the 5 steps of my argument and address them.
Quote: endermikeJust another data point showing you are wrong.
Nope, not at all. You already stated that you don't believe in comparing 1912 8th grade tests with 2014 8th grade tests.
Quote: Beethoven9thNope, not at all. You already stated that you don't believe in comparing 1912 8th grade tests with 2014 8th grade tests.
False. I do believe in the power of statistics. (read a few of my other posts in other threads and I think that will be clear)
Quote: endermikeFalse. I do believe in the power of statistics.
Um...have you read your OWN posts? You specifically rejected comparing the 1912 test to today's tests.
I'm glad you've rejected that claim now, although you still don't get it, do you?Quote: endermikeIt does not nor did I claim it does. Please read the 5 steps of my argument and address them.
To use an analogy, let's say the Chilean national basketball team moved away to form their own country (with a population of 12) and called it Shili. Then someone asked, which country has better basketball players, the USA or Shili? Most people would understand the spirit of the question and would answer "the USA". But your answer would be "Shili" because of the 300+ million Americans who would bring the average down for the USA.
I guess if you're intent on winning this debate on a technicality, that's fine, but most people aren't going to say that kids in 2014 are smarter than kids in 1912 just because more kids back then had some sort of defect in their intelligence.
However,
there is also evidence that the social and intellectual challenges we are facing today are far more demanding than they were in the past and human development and education cannot keep up with the pace human civilization is advancing. We have been facing this rapid development since about 400 years and the solution has traditionally been a major war or genocide every couple of decades. This is not gonna happen in the western civilization anytime soon though (waging wars in other regions doesn't count), so I am afraid things might become a lot worse a lot longer this time around.
One indication of this is that we have to resort to drugs to still be able function, Cocaine for the adults, Ritalin for the kids and Xanax for everybody. Yes there was always drug use in human history, but it used to be recreational.
In my lifetime, I have seen the western democracies turn more and more into oligarchies, we are almost back to feudalism; but this time around it seems the people chopping a few heads off and proclaiming a republic isn't anywhere on the horizon. [At this point, let me welcome the NSA and GCHQ to this thread.] Why yes, we can still vote, but so can the people in North Korea, it means nothing. Romney or Obama? Rubio or Clinton? (Yes, you heard it first on the WoV forums.) Don't kid yourself, it matters not.
Anyway, kids these days are pretty clever and extremely socially competent, but we have developed a great system to turn them into your standard-issue idiot arsehole human being by the time they reach adulthood - you've guessed it, it is called schooling or education or parenting.
Well, I rather enjoyed this little rant. Is insulting the human race a suspension-worthy infraction?
Quote: Beethoven9thI'm glad you've rejected that claim now, although you still don't get it, do you?
To use an analogy, let's say the Chilean national basketball team moved away to form their own country (with a population of 12) and called it Shili. Then someone asked, which country has better basketball players, the USA or Shili? Most people would understand the spirit of the question and would answer "the USA". But your answer would be "Shili" because of the 300+ million Americans who would bring the average down for the USA.
I guess if you're intent on winning this debate on a technicality, that's fine, but most people aren't going to say that kids in 2014 are smarter than kids in 1912 just because more kids back then had some sort of defect in their intelligence.
This data works for the medians (average kids) as well. At the population level the mean and the median are essentially the same for this type of data. You know the difference right? Median Mean
Quote: CanyoneroThere is indeed conclusive scientific evidence that humans are getting smarter with each generation, i.e. IQ gets significantily higher if measured by the standards of previous generations.
I guess the problem I have is that some people here want to compare some tests to those from previous generations, but not others. In other words, they just want to cherry pick to suit their needs.
So who has the better basketball players—the USA or Shili?Quote: endermikeThis data works for the medians (average kids) as well. At the population level the mean and the median are essentially the same for this type of data.
Like I said before, most people would understand the spirit of the question and answer "the USA", but your answer would be "Shili" because of the 300+ million Americans who would bring the average down for the USA.
Quote: Beethoven9thTo use an analogy, let's say the Chilean national basketball team moved away to form their own country (with a population of 12) and called it Shili. Then someone asked, which country has better basketball players, the USA or Shili? Most people would understand the spirit of the question and would answer "the USA". But your answer would be "Shili" because of the 300+ million Americans who would bring the average down for the USA.
I guess if you're intent on winning this debate on a technicality, that's fine, but most people aren't going to say that kids in 2014 are smarter than kids in 1912 just because more kids back then had some sort of defect in their intelligence.
Your comparison is invalid. You argument is only worried about the extremes of the distribution.
Ask people who is better at basketball: the average person in the USA or the average person in "Shili?" The answer would be clear. We are talking about population averages.
Now are you ready for a bet?
Quote: endermikeI am willing to admit I was mistaken on that fact.
Thank you.
Quote: Beethoven9thThank you.
Are you ready for a bet?
But that wasn't the question. You keep trying to insert technicalities in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong.Quote: endermikeIf you asked people who is better at basketball: the average person in the USA or the average pesron in Shili?
I'll say it again, most people would understand the spirit of the question and would answer "the USA". But your answer would be "Shili" because of the 300+ million Americans who would bring the average down for the USA.
I'll say this much...if we asked 100 people, "How many states are there?" all 100 would answer 50.
OTOH, you would argue that 31 is a correct answer because that's how many states are in Mexico. *facepalm*
Quote: endermikeAre you ready for a bet?
Why? So you can slither out of it on some sort of technicality? lol
Quote: Beethoven9thI'll say it again, most people would understand the spirit of the question and would answer "the USA". But your answer would be "Shili" because of the 300+ million Americans who would bring the average down for the USA.
When people say "kids today blah blah blah," are they referring to kids in general or a specific one? The phrasing only makes since base on population based numbers.
Quote: endermikeWhen people say "kids today blah blah blah," are they referring to kids in general or a specific one? The phrasing only makes since base on population based numbers.
Ask people yourself. I doubt any of them will give the same answer as you.
Quote: Beethoven9thI'll say this much...if we asked 100 people, "How many states are there?" all 100 would answer 50.
OTOH, you would argue that 31 is a correct answer because that's how many states are in Mexico. *facepalm*
I do respect tenacity. You are grasping for straws here and trying to build me into a straw man. However this is the point where it is clear that you have no facts to stand on. I do.
Quote: endermikeHowever this is the point where it is clear that you have no facts to stand on. I do.
Um...no, you don't. People can go back and see for themselves.
Quote: Beethoven9thAsk people yourself. I doubt any of them will give the same answer as you.
Bandwagon: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/assets/FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg
Although based on the input I've seen in thread you are wrong on that count too.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceActually, there is evidence to support this. It's called the Flynn effect. One theory is that it's caused by the iodization of salt.
Quote: AxelWolfWith the access to information we have nowadays. I have a feeling kids will far exceed the intelligence of the kids in the "good old days". They also won't remain stuck in the "good old days" Fatter yes dumber no.
Quote: CanyoneroThere is indeed conclusive scientific evidence that humans are getting smarter with each generation, i.e. IQ gets significantily higher if measured by the standards of previous generations.
Quote: Beethoven9thPeople can go back and see for themselves.
Correct.
Please summarize your argument to give everyone a clear picture of how flawed it was.
Haha...completely ignored everything I said. Figures. :DQuote: endermikeAlthough based on the input I've seen in thread you are wrong on that count too.
I already did like 3 times. Go back and reread the thread.Quote: endermikePlease summarize your argument to give everyone a clear picture of how flawed it was.
If in fact this is true, what we lack in education, we make up for in freedom, creativity and opportunity. People from most other countries would die to live in the good old USA.Quote: TomspurThat may have been true in the good old days, but I fear that may not be 100% unabashedly true of the modern day and age. I find the education system at primary and secondary levels in the US as not being very strong at all......this is just my opinion of course.
I wonder, per capita, which country contains the smartest people in the world?
Quote: AxelWolfIf in fact this is true, what we lack in education, we make up for in freedom, creativity and opportunity. People from most other countries would die to live in the good old USA.
Def falling in the freedom category. I'd die to leave in New Zealand. Its supposed to be one of the freest countries and great for hiking.
1) You stated something.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: AxelWolf
With the access to information we have nowadays. I have a feeling kids will far exceed the intelligence of the kids in the "good old days".
In theory, they should, but in reality, they don't. It's no different than people repeating the same mistakes throughout history over and over again.
2) It was (and is) wrong. That was pointed out to you.
Quote: AxelI'm saying that if you took the average 13 year old kid form the 1940's and put him VS a 13 year old kid from 2014. the kid from 2014 would run circles around the kid from 1940 and have him pissing in his pants in every aspect.
3)You then tried to argue for it with falacies:
3A)Something anecdotal
Quote: Beethoven9thDid you see that 8th grade test in a previous post?? I doubt any 8th grader today (or any of the forum members here) would ace that test!
A single test proves nothing. Further, we don't know that kids back then aced the test.
3B) A false analogy
Quote: Beethoven9thTo use an analogy, let's say the Chilean national basketball team moved away to form their own country (with a population of 12) and called it Shili. Then someone asked, which country has better basketball players, the USA or Shili? Most people would understand the spirit of the question and would answer "the USA". But your answer would be "Shili" because of the 300+ million Americans who would bring the average down for the USA.
The point is the averages when we talk about groups of kids. You analogy does not apply.
3C) You appealed to bandwagon
Quote: Beethoven9thAsk people yourself. I doubt any of them will give the same answer as you.
I then showed even that was wrong.
Did I miss anything?
Oh brother, you're going to disagree about people making the same mistakes over & over???? Clearly, you have not studied history.Quote: endermikeQuote: Beethoven9thIn theory, they should, but in reality, they don't. It's no different than people repeating the same mistakes throughout history over and over again.
It was (and is) wrong. That was pointed out to you.
To be honest, the rest of your post isn't even worth responding to since you'll just ignore it the same way you've ignored all my previous posts. People can go back and reread the thread for themselves instead of your (cherry picking) summary.
Here's something else you ignored: "So who has the better basketball players—the USA or Shili? (Like I said before, most people would understand the spirit of the question and answer "the USA", but your answer would be "Shili" because of the 300+ million Americans who would bring the average down for the USA.)"
And you also ignored this: "If we asked 100 people, "How many states are there?" all 100 would answer 50. OTOH, you would argue that 31 is a correct answer because that's how many states are in Mexico."
*facepalm*
Quote: Beethoven9thOh brother, you're going to disagree about people making the same mistakes over & over???? Clearly, you have not studied history.
No, I'm disagreeing about people getting dumber. That is what your post from February 21st, 2014 at 3:45:12 PM (the 11th in the thread) referenced. Go back and change your post if you would like to change your argument.
Quote: Beethoven9thHere's something else you ignored: So who has the better basketball players—the USA or Shili? (Like I said before, most people would understand the spirit of the question and answer "the USA", but your answer would be "Shili" because of the 300+ million Americans who would bring the average down for the USA.)
Here is my response to your arguments immediately above:
Your comparison is invalid. You argument is only worried about the extremes of the distribution. When people say "kids today blah blah blah," they referring to kids in general, not a specific one. In your BBall example, the question asks for the measure of the elite. In the discussion we have had the question asks for the average. This discussion has been about the average (or median) the whole time.
If you would rather focus on "the 12 smartest 8th graders in 1934" versus "the 12 smartest 8th graders in 2013," I have much less interest. But based on the numbers of children in the US and the fact that with more observations the most extreme values observed become more extreme, I think you will lose there too.
