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?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @HbdNrx
Are you looking brainstorming or careful analysis of their stats? Obv idea is that the combination of factors that make ppl good test-takers peaked, then declined
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @HbdNrx
The even-more-obv solution they claim to exclude (but idk how yet) is eugenic conditions became dysgenic post 1975
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @HbdNrx
(from the abstract they claim they excluded a selection effect but idk how - you can’t compare 1st/2nd kids for families that don’t have more kids)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
Siblings in the same family should average out to the same genetic potential IQ
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HbdNrx @QuasLacrimas
Isn't it true that firstborns are generally smarter than the rest of their siblings
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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)
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.