[ExI] The Anti-Flynn

[rex]

Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> [2015-05-01 20:52]:
>

>   ### The level of illiteracy in the US has not massively changed
>   since 1850 - it dropped from about 20 to about 0.5% so this
>   confounder does not have the magnitude to significantly change the
>   results.

Looking it from another POV, if the value of a variable increased by a factor
of 40, would you still claim it had not changed enough to significantly
change the results? 

>   However, it is reasonable to think that the spread of literacy was
>   caused at least in large part by reaching the most remote or
>   neglected sections of the population, who should not significantly
>   differ in IQ from the general population, therefore their impact
>   on the Ngram test should be neutral.  The reference to older
>   texts is only to adjust the sigma parameter for word age.

Why do you assume the remote and neglected groups do not differ in IQ?
The default assumption should be the opposite.

>   ### The cause of the demographic transition is still not entirely known.
>   The expectation of a dysgenic trend is however not dependent on the cause
>   of transition but rather on the verifiable negative correlation between IQ
>   and fitness since about 1850.

The high IQ fraction of the population has historically had a lower birth rate
than the lower IQ fraction, but it does not logically follow that there will
be a dysgenic trend. This rather astonishing result is established in the paper
referenced at the URL.

http://www.nosyntax.net/cfwiki/index.php/Differential_Breeding

Who would have guessed that it's possible for population IQ to
increase while the low IQ fraction breeds at a higher rate than the
high IQ fraction?

-rex
-- 
"Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair,                                           
even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen                                           
acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and                                             
corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To                                         
take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to                                         
life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's                                             
self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the                                             
courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to                                         
fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not                                         
to think at all." -- Michael Rivero