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
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 ?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HbdNrx
but under eu/dys-genic conditions, the mere fact that there is a second kid provides you with additional info about mean familial traits
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
( @tcjfs , @toad_spotted , am i talking nonsense?)
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.