I'm surprised by this recent Norway IQ study. Before 1975, later born children within a family scored higher. After, later born children scored lower. Unless I'm missing something, dysgenics shouldn't play a role here. What happened?
-
-
i fall for frequentist traps all the time but: if i have a family, 1 kid, iq=x, and the avg iq of families that have >1 kid =y, shouldn’t reversion put 2nd kid’s iq b/w x & y ?
-
Not sure what you mean. What I meant is that kid 1 and kid 2 should receive some random assortment from the same set of genes so aside from the possibility of more mutational load in kid 2 their expected IQ from genetics should be the same.
-
but under eu/dys-genic conditions, the mere fact that there is a second kid provides you with additional info about mean familial traits
-
ok I see what you mean. Sure, the people with more kids may be dumber, but this is still comparing kid 1 to kid 2 to kid 3 within each family. If we take kid 1 minus kid 2 for each family, we get a set like +5,-7,+3 etc. If we average that out we expect approx zero
-
Or maybe it could go like this: All parents have 100 IQ Every set has one kid. 50% 120 IQ, 50% 80 IQ. All parents with 120 IQ kid have another. Parents with 80 IQ kid stop. Second kid has same probabilities. Data set averages to 20 point drop from kid 1 to kid 2
-
yes, def - but note, you’re assuming no connection bw heredity and iq, which is what they claim to prove
-
I'm assuming it's all genetic here for simplicity
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn't it true that firstborns are generally smarter than the rest of their siblings
-
Apparently not in the pre-1975 set here. In any event, the genetic potential should be almost the same (with maybe a small effect from increasing mutational load in later borns)
-
Interesting. Hm. Now I am curious.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.