𧾠Flynn effect and birth rates
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:38:13 UTC No. 16245779
Average IQ in 1900 : 70
Birth rate 30.1 TFR 3.56
Average IQ in 1950 86
Birth rate 37.0 TFR 5.0
Average IQ in 2000 100
Birth rate 14.8 TFR 2.8
Why do birth rates seem to decline as people become more intelligent and educated? Is the solution to this giving a certain number of people lobotomies or forcing them to avoid education so they reproduce? It seems like people's IQs need to be kept around 86. This seems to be the solution to save the West
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:48:13 UTC No. 16245793
>>16245779
>Why do birth rates seem to decline as people become more intelligent and educated?
Because they are more intelligent and educated.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:50:01 UTC No. 16245797
>>16245793
What if humans weren't meant to have IQs above a certain level because this prevents reproduction
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:08:41 UTC No. 16246009
>>16245797
>What if humans weren't meant to have IQs above a certain level
Literally inevitable with naturally curious and intelligent beings as Homo sapiens. A true impossibility, given sufficient time.
Perhaps our "purpose" is that, to deduce the "game", and prevent further "players" from entering the "trap".
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:17:55 UTC No. 16246025
>IQ 70
Build Shelter to protect from elements.
>IQ 86
Build Shelter to last lifetime and raise family in.
>IQ 100
Build Shelter to pass laws to make it harder for others to build more shelters, then flip said shelter as financial asset to young couples who want to raise a family so they can be in debt for 30 years.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:44:20 UTC No. 16246135
>>16245797
I consider this a plausible reason for what the madmen did. Basically, the more active the neocortex, the lower your IQ.
I think the crazy people (who rule over us) posdibly interpreted it thatas animals were evolving to be smarter, they started having trouble reproducing above a certain threshold, which limited their intelligence, until the neocortex resolved this conundrum by supressing intelligence under normal circumstances, and only letting it work in emergencies. So they decided it will be best for everyone if they destroy the neocortex, so that people can be smart all the time. (and reach the stars)
The real explanation is that you are of course dumb as hell without it, and IQ measures the pattern matching and statistics that people use to compensate (normally known as "guessing").
Bump All Frog Threads at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:46:49 UTC No. 16246143
Once you reach a certain IQ you're capable of seeing that creating a human life is a selfish act of cruelty.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:14:30 UTC No. 16246171
>>16245779
>Why do birth rates seem to decline as people become more intelligent and educated?
Let's call this the IQ theory of birth rates.
We could apply the same logic with the following:
The culture theory: the more "progressive" a zeitgeist is, the lower the birthrate since pregnancy is considered inhuman and a torture.
The economic theory: more prosperity (in particular thanks to technological innovation) means lower birth rates since the population doesn't feel threatened.
Which one is the right theory?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 21:27:45 UTC No. 16246263
>>16245779
>>16245797
This explanatory variable (birth rates) is not purely exogenous since it is influenced by the IQ scores.
With fewer children, parents might invest more resources per child, enhancing educational outcomes and IQ scores. Similarly, societies with higher average IQs might prioritize education and career advancement, leading to delayed or fewer childbearing decisions.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:04:10 UTC No. 16246314
>>16246171
"Dysgenic fertility means that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and number of children. Its presence during the last century has been demonstrated in several countries. We show here that there is dysgenic fertility in the world population quantified by a correlation of â 0.73 between IQ and fertility across nations. It is estimated that the effect of this has been a decline in the world's genotypic IQ of 0.86 IQ points for the years 1950â2000. A further decline of 1.28 IQ points in the world's genotypic IQ is projected for the years 2000â2050. In the period 1950â2000 this decline has been compensated for by a rise in phenotypic intelligence known as the Flynn Effect, but recent studies in four economically developed countries have found that this has now ceased or gone into reverse. It seems probable that this ânegative Flynn Effectâ will spread to economically developing countries and the whole world will move into a period of declining genotypic and phenotypic intelligence. It is possible that âthe new eugenicsâ of biotechnology may evolve to counteract dysgenic fertility."
Intelligence is directly correlated with having fewer kids. As the world's average intelligence level increased, fewer people had less kids. More intelligent women also had lower birth rates.
Howerver, this will result in people becoming lower in genotypic intelligence naturally and thus the birth rate will increase again unless we go extinct or it happens through the Government taking action.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 02:14:40 UTC No. 16246625
>>16245779
>Average IQ in 1900 : 100
>Birth rate 30.1 TFR 3.56
>Average IQ in 1950 100
>Birth rate 37.0 TFR 5.0
>Average IQ in 2000 100
>Birth rate 14.8 TFR 2.8
ftfy
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 03:13:04 UTC No. 16246702
>>16245779
Itâs purely women being uppity. The higher your IQ, the bitchier you get about the fact your biological purpose is to be a baby factory. Itâs harder to cope that youâre a pussy with legs when youâre more intelligent. Only highly intelligent men, for that matter, think their way out of this sort of biological dissonance and accept their humanity. Both sexes experience it but women are almost never smart enough to make it over the hump of nihilism.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 03:54:02 UTC No. 16246783
>>16245779
Because the cerebellum is like the LLMs, and it begins to hallucinate as it gets too powerful. Which means that as animals evolved intelligent, at a certain point they could only balance intelligence with paranoia. Until a neocortex came to tone it down. It's more like the classical autoencoders, and don't suffer from this, and the bigger they get, the more of the latent space represents something real. By making the transformer operate on this restricted latents space, intelligence could grow further again.
Yes, as you see the person, it seems they dumb, unable to entertain certain ideas, and too conservative. But, that is the point. So that you are not crazy.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 04:24:37 UTC No. 16246811
>>16246702
seb on Twitter has linked to studies about this. Seems the fertility impact on men for high IQ is drastically smaller than for women. Smart women really don't want to have kids at all. It's sad, because I'm sure there is some genotype that, with the right education, could create women that are phenotypically smart and interested in having kids. They're not here now, though. Meanwhile, whichever genetic component of intelligence that is sex-specific will be depleted. I wouldn't be surprised if the 3 point (iirc) gap in Spearman's g between men and women is mostly attributable to negative selection for smart women. The difference in standard deviation is much worse, iirc men are twice as common as women at 130. We may have a surplus of genes that increase only the intelligence or men.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 04:50:02 UTC No. 16246852
>>16246811
You can't do it >>16246783, and there is really no reason why you would want to.
đď¸ Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:08:18 UTC No. 16246880
>>16246852
And, I think it could be maybe imagined like playing chess, and think that taking every piece is a good strategy, but it looks so unfair - you jumped at every opportunity, but everything was stacked against you, and the lazy people always won. It definitely looked like it had to be fixed so that you, the piece takers like you, can win as it should be, and the lazy non takers are left to dust. But there was a whole world hidden from you that you were unaware of.
đď¸ Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:11:06 UTC No. 16246889
>>16246880
And, I think it could be maybe imagined like playing chess, and thinking that capturing any piece that can be captured is a good strategy, but it looks so unfair - you jumped at every opportunity, but everything was stacked against you, and the lazy people always won. It definitely looked like it had to be fixed so that the piece takers like you win as it should be, and the lazy non takers are left to dust. But there was a whole world hidden from you that you were unaware of.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:12:08 UTC No. 16246892
And, I think it could be maybe imagined like playing chess, and thinking that capturing any piece that can be captured is a good strategy, but it looks so unfair - you jumped at every opportunity, but everything was stacked against you, and the lazy people always won. It definitely looked like it had to be fixed so that the piece takers like you win as it should be, and the lazy non takers are left to dust. But there was a whole world hidden from you that you were unaware of.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 07:41:17 UTC No. 16247064
>>16246263
>With fewer children, parents might invest more resources per child, enhancing educational outcomes and IQ scores. Similarly, societies with higher average IQs might prioritize education and career advancement, leading to delayed or fewer childbearing decisions.
yes, so, it's not only this effect:
>>16245793
...but it's also the fact that society has evolved from a socialistic and communal tribal society into urbanized hiper-competitive socieites, and so parents bet on a low number of offspring that they hope to make competitive with other parents' children, instead of having a large number of children who only had to learn how do forage for fruits, do some fishing, or some hunting, etc, skills that can be learned in a fair short amount of time. Not that those skills aren't noble or require some intellect, but it doesn't compare with the required 12 years of high-school, for example. Add four more years for college, etc, and it's obvious that the time and resources invested into competitive child rearing is tremendous.
We built a paranoid competitive society, enjoy the results!
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:53:51 UTC No. 16247486
>>16247064
>parents bet on a low number of offspring that they hope to make competitive with other parents' children, instead of having a large number of children
This doesn't combat phenomena like regression to the mean and random mutation. When we had large numbers of children, a fair proportion would die to environmental causes, usually in order of weakest to strongest. If you look at research, generally intelligence correlates with good health. In the end you'd still be managing two to four children, filtered to be the best ones. Now, if you give birth to a kid half as bright as you, you're stuck with the tab for another 18 years.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:58:36 UTC No. 16247494
>>16245779
Has nothing to do with IQ and more with population size, IQ has increased but the average amount of intelligent people has decreased leading to socioeconomic factors either fucking up lives for everyone who wants to start a family or just cockroaches (read:black people) mindlessly pumping out drones
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:00:52 UTC No. 16247498
>>16245779
>people become more intelligent and educated
people are not more intelligent, they're just more educated. this is the sign of a hedonistic society with lots of glut and parasites. real hard workers are being fleeced to the bones. for every 140+ IQ who is working hard and contributing positivily, there are 10 woman diversity hire or graduate sociology student, 10 black in the hood, 10 boomers who are chilling in their retirement yatch. the fleecing of productive members of society prevent them from having time or energy to reproduce.
unironically, china invading the west and give the west a century of humiliation might be the only chance to save western civilization.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:12:52 UTC No. 16247515
>>16246811
Donât underestimate the effect of hormonal birth control, either.
From experience, every women Iâve been involved with who was off the pill was baby crazy, and every woman who was* on the pill, was a catty bitch, regardless of IQ. I saw the brightest girl Iâve ever met go from âI donât want to go to college I want to be a housewifeâ (and she wasnât religious) to being a shut in loner recluse but with a cushy job. Her personality changed when she went on the pill.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:58:58 UTC No. 16247946
>>16247515
This definitely applies, however, consider what makes someone choose to go on the pill in the first place. Time preference is strongly related to intelligence; very few of the smart women I've met didn't want kids at all, it was usually a story of perpetual delay until it became impossible, or as in the case of a friend, it didn't matter because DNA damage and womb senility shaved a good 20-30 points off their three children's intellects. It's like the association between birth rates and education. Educational attainment is one of the strongest proxy measurements for the construct of intelligence after IQ. It's what they use for GWAS and other studies now that academia is gay and afraid of being called "fascist".
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:43:41 UTC No. 16248332
>>16247064
All right. I make a machine that can do high school math, you make a machine that can hunt or fish, whoever succeeds first wins
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:04:45 UTC No. 16248380
>>16245779
nature always finds its' local equilibrium. due to globalisation and open borders, this gets into differential equation bullshit, where everything overlaps.if you are a society with an IQ close to retard, then your whole society and living standard is retarded. no modern medicine, living in dirty and poor conditions. thus you have a high chance of kids spawning with 0 HP. so the evolutionary counter to that, is to be retarded enough, to not give a fuck about condoms or have a concept of a future where your kids will suffer by being poor and everything that comes with it. being educated makes you understand, that you dont want your offspring to suffer through being bound to government handouts. and you are smart enough to know how to use condoms. the ultra solution is to wall-off every local society equilibrium and contain it in its own cell, so the other local minimuns in the civilized world can stabilize and not be dragged down. but since politicians are ivory tower cocksuckers, this aint gonna happen. best thing you can do is find your own equilibrium and wall yourself off from other shit
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:19:47 UTC No. 16248410
>>16247946
>Educational attainment is one of the strongest proxy measurements for the construct of intelligence after IQ.
Which is why so many employers started requiring a university degree once the Supreme Court outlawed IQ tests for most employment. It served as a good proxy. But any metric that can be manipulated will be and the cargo cultists started equating the status of having a university degree with the intelligence required to earn one. Once that happened, the intelligence required was constantly reduced and now we have literal Downs Syndrome students getting university degrees.
When was the last time a major study was conducted to compare intelligence with educational attainment? While there likely is still a positive correlation, it wouldn't be surprising if it were much weaker than it used to be.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:25:02 UTC No. 16248423
>>16248410
well the next proxy of intelligence is having the scientists in that department have a personal interview with you. which might give them some estimate of your retardation and on how valid your degree seems to be
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:41:51 UTC No. 16248446
>>16246314
>It seems probable that this ânegative Flynn Effectâ will spread to economically developing countries
That seems like a bit of a stretch. As far as I'm aware, the Flynn effect is generally attributed to economic development, so as those developing countries develop the average IQ will rise and fertility will drop. Treating the reduction in strength of the Flynn effect as some sort of social contagion that can affect a country regardless of its level of development seems strange. Is there any data to support that viewpoint?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:44:44 UTC No. 16248454
>>16248410
>Which is why so many employers started requiring a university degree once the Supreme Court outlawed IQ tests for most employment. It served as a good proxy
>this is what IQ cultists actually believes
Reminder that East Asian countries which had a longer history of testing and had no issues with IQ tests in relation to discrimination switched over to university degrees for employment too.
It's because corporations just like everything else wanted to export expenses including general training. So now that training is on the civilians/ governments dime.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:59:56 UTC No. 16248461
>>16248410
The correlation still holds and is robust enough to tease out effects in those GWAS. Those downies aren't getting graduate degrees. Normal Joe and Jane Blow's are seldom going beyond a bachelor's or an associate's degree, and they generally won't hold multiple degrees. iirc educational attainment is graded by what tier of education you achieved, and how many tiers total (in the case of say, two engineering master's degrees). Even a graduate in some made up shit like kinesiology is probably above dead average.
>>16248446
The negative Flynn effect is probably entirely separate in etiology from the original. Selection against intelligence remains quite high, possibly higher than before. Dumb people are having more kids. Karlin the infamous faggot also wrote about how there appears to be a specific breeder phenotype, of middling intellect, exemplified by Mormons. The general social and cultural pressure against reproduction in developed countries has become so severe that you have to possess an innate kind of crazy to reproduce intentionally, as opposed to incidentally, like absolute retards do.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 00:02:45 UTC No. 16248466
>>16246783
you should try studying a subject instead of watching ted talks and vsauce videos for once
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 00:36:45 UTC No. 16248511
>>16248454
And now they complain that workers coming out of college know nothing and are ill prepared for the workplace. They discovered a temporary market inefficiency that they could exploit but now are left without a good tool to determine potential or existing ability. Currently they're thrashing about, putting candidates through an increasingly long hiring pipeline and still ending up with poor results in their hiring process.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 00:43:13 UTC No. 16248517
>>16248461
Only about 13% of the US population has an advanced degree and many of those are in Humanities fields that are awarded for completing the process, not for novel insights. If you restrict it to STEM degrees, there's only about 100,000 US residents earning an advanced STEM degree per year. That's quite the small hiring pool for an entire nation of 335 million.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 00:47:00 UTC No. 16248522
>>16245779
>Average IQ in 1900 : 70
There really is something fundamentally wrong with IQ tests for this to be the case.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 02:46:36 UTC No. 16248650
>>16248517
I wasn't talking about hiring pools.
>>16248522
g probably hasn't changed much. Some people cite reaction time studies from the era of Galton as proof it has actually declined.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 02:57:53 UTC No. 16248661
>>16248522
It hasnt. The gains are on less g-loaded items. If you look at the most brutish markers of g like vocabulary, reaction time and digit span, performance has deteriorated considerably.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 03:02:08 UTC No. 16248666
>>16248661
Tonexpand on this, full scale IQ can be compared to being "book smart" i.e. being efficient at solving logical or technical tasks. The g factor is more related to function and speed of the nervous system and the brain, or rather "intuitive", "raw" intelligence.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 03:02:27 UTC No. 16248668
>>16246009
what if there were intelligent alien civilizations out there in the past, but they all died out due to this exact phenomenon? as their IQ increased due to evolution, their reproduction levels went down until their population could no longer be maintained.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 03:02:54 UTC No. 16248669
>>16245779
>Let's take a regression of the entire world AND lie about the numbers
This is a bait thread but we already know the solution: artificial wombs OR rolling back of all policies toward women taken in living memory.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 03:31:18 UTC No. 16248696
>>16248665
>Carrying capacity has been stable since 1850
>Even though crop yields are up 2200%
Humans on just this planet have a 12 digit "carrying capacity" *at the most conservative possible estimate*. That's without eugenics and IQ improvements.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 03:38:51 UTC No. 16248707
>>16248696
It's been shown that carrying capacity for social animals exists not just in food production, but societal structures. If we stuffed 5000 men and women in a jail, but fed them well, I doubt the birth rate would be very high.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 03:53:03 UTC No. 16248722
>>16248707
I assume you mean some hypothetical specifically organized mouse utopia, not literal jail (where the birth rate for coed systems is quite high in the absence of birth control and low average IQ).
Not only is the term "carrying capacity" not applicable, it's just absurd as applied here. The "carrying capacity" applies to environments, not merely species. By this misapplication, the "carrying capacity" of *any* species *immediately* becomes zero the second they e.g. go into a Fisherian runaway from female sexual misbehavior, regardless of their fitness. Hell, in such a case even an interplanetary species would have their 'carrying capacity' instantly set to zero and the true environment biologists should be considering is the social media feeds of teenagers.
This entire conversation is just a pointless culture masturbation though since humans won't even be a sexual species following artificial wombs, which is way more realistic than any sociopolitical solution ever being implemented.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 05:12:16 UTC No. 16248776
>>16248707
Not that anon but what is the explanation for China and India then? How did they both get to +1 billion? How is their carrying capacity different to the west?
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 05:14:22 UTC No. 16248780
>>16248380
>>16248446
The west was built when the average IQ was below 70.
>>16248410
>>16248666
When was the last time IQ was compared with intelligence? What you see in fact is that the system is working, it's IQ that doesn't. They're the human Jack Russels. They are dumb as hell, but easily trainable. They are like that because they CAN'T think, so they are eager to get taught, and follow without understanding, as in cargo cult.
>>16248423
That doesn't work either, it's a selection of tests where retards do give the "correct" answers. Not only IQ, but the informal tests as well.
>>16248466
I don't really watch either.
>>16248511
Everything is designed so that only high IQ people may pass, but IQ is wrong.
>>16248522
>>16248650
>>16248666
I believe it's the Raven's matrices that increased the most. It's a retard way of thinking, a retard doesn't understand something, so he looks for a pattern that could explain it. (then he gets mad at things and people for not following whatever pattern he saw) So they are really used to thinking that way, and can answer the questions easily.
>>16248668
see >>16246135