Marshafamiliaroenright asks if under this criteria a Newton could have been above 140

I'm curious to find out what you come up with. It might merit its own post.
I am basing my comment on experience. First off, most people I have had as tenants are nice people.
But, every once in awhile one gets in and believe me they figure out how to use the system. Almost always, this is someone that has moved in with a current tenant. Discussions with them are at the same level as many here on the Gulch, only lacking any moral fiber, and for the purpose of mooching. The lawyers they resort to are mirror images of themselves.

I don't know that many of them are actually "smart," but there is a strong tendency to "learn" such behavior as welfare dependency from parental or other example.

I think I'll see what I can dredge up about current patterns of reproduction and intelligence.

Agreed, but mean test scores, before they are normalized, have been rising at a rate of 3 points per year. This has been causing them to have to factor gross tests scores down an average of three points per year. This is what the article is actually referring to. Check this out: http://www.wsj.com/articles/smarter-ever...

By definition IQ's can't rise, they are normalized to 100, and that is what my 'first line' meant.

Love that film, although it makes me worry about the future. I suspect though you are making the same mistake I made for a lot of years. Ambition and Intelligence are two completly separate things. I have been a landlord for along time and it took me all of this time to realize a lot of the people you are talking about are "Smart", they just use us to support them. They manipulate the system, while we support them.

People lower in intelligence tend to have the most children, which conveys something of a temporary evolutionary advantage, until the Darwin effect kicks in. I recommend watching the film "Idiocracy."

I have been doing some research on this so I am going to disagree with your first line. This was about IQ tests only. IQ scores in the US are rising faster than most of the rest of the world (again, I believe because we use more technology than anywhere else). Educational test scores are declining, but there is no such thing as standardized test scores (they keep changing the standard test) any more than Global warming data with non-standardized thermometers is valid. IQ test's primarily test for the "capacity to learn" and make quick decisions. They lean heavily on "response time"; hence the use of the stop watch. The mind is a programable computer; Garbage in, Garbage out. I regularly have to match wits with lazy moochers. Many of them are very sharp, although in my opinion a pathetic waste. The rest of your comments are spot on. Having a more capable computer loaded with poor software doesn't make for a usable system.

Nice feel good story, but what does it mean? IQ "scores" have not been rising, by definition, so the headline is false.
Is there correlation between getting more correct answers on IQ tests and productivity, inventiveness, looting, laziness ?
I think if this was done on the US testing only from 1960 to date the answer would be considerably different.
As I understand it, standardized testing has been made less challenging in the US pretty steadily since the mid 60s. It probably doesn't matter for those at the ends of the bell curve, but for the mass in the middle this relaxation of standards and test scores does matter.
I think the reports of this 'study' gives the impression that average ability to think rationally and to reason has improved when the truth is it has declined.
And it's G-A-L-T.