Meanwhile, an ongoing longitudinal study from the University of Michigan suggests that people's empathy has been decreasing over the years:

http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/7724-em...

As a physician I have noticed a steep decline in the quality of patients' It's. It definitely feels like we are reversing survival of the fittest. One example was a a guy who kept getting drunk at a topless bar, and turning left into oncoming traffic. Darwin would have had him die the first time, but we patched him up and he did it twice more, the last time taking out an upstanding citizen. Net decline in IQ.

Beware of short summations of results. "Science Daily" called the results "hollow". Note they did not give a country by country breakdown. The prediction for the future is that the results, which are reset at 100 on a bell curve over the years, are actually showing less gain and have likely peaked. The "Daily Mail" says the European and Western (US) scores have actually dropped apx. 10 points. This would agree with studies I have read that shows the average IQ for a US teacher is now lower than several years ago. This goes for doctors as well. The "Science Daily" article credited preparing for test taking and narrow focus of the test as the reason for the general world so-called increase. In any case, the US has reason to jump for joy.

I have for the better part of 3 decades been for removing all warming tags and signs and allowing the problem to sort itself out.

Excellent movie.

I like IQ tests and encourage their use, in spit of the fact that they only test a certain type of intelligence and underrate individuals who do not test well. I want to have more objective metrics, not less. IQ tests have not been made simpler, they have been made more complex over the years - to keep everyone from scoring in the genius range (from a 1900's test).

Let me start by saying that I am quite fond of Darwinian evolutionary parameters - I say this because what I will say next will seem anti-Darwinian, but you must understand that my underlying premise is that we inherit our capacity for IQ.

Three points on IQ increase:

Firstly, while we inherit our IQ potential, we know that the ability to develop that intelligence is related to nutrition. If a brain lacks protein or vitamins whilst it is growing, the IQ of the individual will be lowered. And, while we complain about eating habits in the US, there are very few children who now do not get enough protein and vitamins in their diet. (This is a personal advantage that can be derived from 'feeding the world'. If we want warp drive, we will get it faster if all the children are well fed.)

Next is the environment in which we are raised. An interesting study posed this question (example - one of many) to people around the world: "All animals that inhabit polar regions have white fur. What color would a bear be if it lived in a polar region?" In existing primitive cultures, the people answered "I would have to see the bear." These were not dumb people (many were the chieftains of their tribes) - these were people who had never been trained in the logic of classes. We live in a world the complexity of which requires us to think in set theory (whether or not we are explicitly trained in it). Our ancestors, even our recent ones, were able to look at the world as series of individual events much more than we are; we find rules and paradigms for just about everything.

Lastly, the volume of information is incredibly different. I have read that 'the amount of information in a single Sunday edition of the NYTimes' approximates the amount of information that a 15th C farmer would have had access to in his Entire Lifetime. Our brains have become little data processing centers - it is not surprising that this shows up on tests.

So, I believe that these are the reasons the IQ is steadily increasing. These reasons do imply that there is a natural limit that will be reached. I personally suspect that by the time that is true, we will have chip augmentation and our capacity will be extended further.

Jan

If IQ's are rising, it sure isnt obvious here in Las Vegas. Perhaps they are rising, but people just dont use their brains as much.

As IQs rise, couldn't that also mean that the numbers no longer reflect the same intelligence quotient as they did in, say, 1970?

Hello skidance
And, a good short story, "The Marching Morons" by C.M. Kornbluth.

Another important variable is the testee's motivation to do well on the test. I've seen a number of minority individuals who just don't think the test is important and score in the "retarded" range! Subsequent testing, with my encouragement to do their best and confidence that they could do so, sometimes resulted in 20-point improvements in IQ scores. Sometimes even more than that.

If this were true why do we have so many school dropouts in this country and looney tunes people in the muslim world; that counts for a billion people. Just wait and see the number of cars burned in the event the cleveland cavaliers with the nba title. That will show the authors of the article how intelligent the weathiest country of the world has gotten to be.

They might be getting more intelligent, but if so they are also becoming more irrational. Thanks, but I'll take rational people any day to those who ignore their own intelligence in favor of their glands or emotions.

We the American people are not becoming more intelligent.
I submit as proof: the two-term presidency of The One.

I learned about that film here a few months ago.
I got a kick out of it.

"I recommend watching the film "Idiocracy.""
My wife and I first saw it a few months ago. We loved it. We laughed so much.

Just as in anything else, the bias of the person giving the test matters. Which makes me wonder why the test isn't programed into an application and given by a computer.

IQ (Intelligent Quotient) tests are just that, and are pretty standardized. Maybe a good way to describe these tests is that they indicate capacity. Education is supposed to be about what people have learned. Educational tests, that are anything but standardized and are changed by political whims probably don't really tell us much of anything useful.

This is confusing. We often hear about how America is dropping in the education of our people. However this article claims we are constantly getting smarter. Which one is it?

Did you know that those considered geniuses by their accomplishments don't necessarily score in the "genius" range? The floor for proven geniuses is a score of *116*! That's not even what doctors usually score at - 125! IQ does not test working intelligence, i.e. how do you use intelligence in your life, or creativity.

Also, I'm very doubtful it's as culture and knowledge free as is claimed. So that would have a big effect on the scores.

Anyone wish there was a test for "Common Sense"?

I wasn't promoting IQ tests, only pointing out that on average people are getting a little smarter as the years go by. Of course the test results doesn't show that they are getting any better on average. I haven't run across the 4-Sigma Society so will have to look them up. Thanks.

I agree with you that the idea of IQ tests make me nervous to. There have been numerous bills run through Congress to make them mandatory at different levels in school. You are right, bias is a extreme problem with the tests, and they don't compensate for different personality types (Analytical, Artistic, etc.). Of course I wasn't promoting them, the article simply points out that people are getting smarter ( within the limits of the test ) as the years go by.

No, I use it as a benchmark number to round backwards by. My point is, IQ tests make me extremely nervous. Not sure I trst there 's no bias and that children are not "trained " to them. Not to mention the highly creative who tend to read into questions and overthink them.

The whole standardized testing process makes me impatient and crazy. First, it's like a photograph - how this person answers these questions on this day.
Secondly - and more importantly - that that the further scores, or people are from the norm, the less reliable the tests are. The might say "you're smart', but when you get up in the 170's, 180's, exact measurements become more difficult. The Four-Sigma Society [assuming they still exist] tested for the top 2% of those generally labeled "gifted" - the 135 spot. The test is very interesting and one of the least "culturally biased" I've seen. I at least managed to understand the questions - I couldn't answer them, but I understood them!

The reference I found put him at 170 to 190. http://sirisaacnewton.info/isaac-newtons...
Although he certainly was never tested. I don't want to dispute your 140 number in light of the fact that I am sure that was the number I was familiar with before looking up this reference. I suspect the larger number has been "normalized" to compare with testing today.