Slashdot Mirror


Loss of Applied IQ Among UK Youth?

Baldrson writes "The UK Times Online reports that: 'After studying 25,000 children across both state and private schools Philip Adey, a professor of education at King's College London confidently declares: "The intelligence of 11-year-olds has fallen by three years' worth in the past two decades."' 3 years loss at age 11 is an IQ of 100*8/11 or 73 -- a massive loss of 27 points. Although the test measures, not general IQ per se, but general IQ applied to scientific and technical reasoning, it nevertheless appears to blow 'a gaping hole' in what has been called The Flynn Effect: that IQs have been rising in most parts of the world -- particularly the developed countries."

54 of 594 comments (clear)

  1. Wait, I know this one: by Thunderstruck · · Score: 4, Funny

    Loss of scientific and technical reasoning eh... so folks are saying "I don't care, I just want it to WORK!"

    Man, where have I heard that before?

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
  2. Only a drop of 27 points? by payndz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What with Celebrity Big Brother, the Crazy Frog and chav culture, I'm amazed it's that few!

    --
    You must think in Russian.
    1. Re:Only a drop of 27 points? by arivanov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Err...

      Is it this or mashing biology, chemistry and physics into a half baked mash called "Science"?
      Or the complete liquidation of any homework and any home assignments in primary school?
      Or the idiotic laws that force the parents to babysit their offspring till they are 14 years old removing any sense of reason and responsibility? I remember that at the age of 7 I had to travel across one quarter of a 10 million city alone to school every day. And I was not the only one to do so. In fact there was not a single parent dropping off or picking up children after the first week. Frankly, before we get to the crazy frog, shooting all the MP critters who pushed this stupid law followed by a selective school run cull may be a better place to start.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:Only a drop of 27 points? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Location: London on a night bus.
      Time: Last January
      Subjects: A thicket of Chavs.

      The one started doing a 'Rap' to impress his 'friends' and the chavettes that were with them. The lines of the end of his rap went like this.

      You think you so smart because you went to University.
      Well I gots more intelligence than you and me.

      I think that sums it up.

    3. Re:Only a drop of 27 points? by igb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What was that about primary school homework? My wife and I recall there being no homework while we were at primary school (1969 onwards) while our children appear to receive quite a lot. ian

    4. Re:Only a drop of 27 points? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I started getting homework when I was 10 or 11. Kids get it now at about 6.

      Personally, I think it's wrong. At that age, kids are better off playing with their friends and exploring their world.

  3. Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're not stupid... We're advanced.

    That obselete test just fails to keep up with modern applications of science and math. Like manipulating them to support your point, or redefining them for political reasons.

    1. Re:Misleading by bigpicture · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would not be so sure that the study is misleading or bunk. In my personal experience, it took my kids three years longer to graduate, than it did myself.

      I don't think it is because they have any less aptitude, it is just that in the present education system there seems to be less of an emphasis and reward for smart, and more tolerance for stupid. (maybe these are not politically correct words any more, I may be behind the times here)

      In other words it used to be that there were classes for the more gifted, and different classes for the less gifted. Now that this distinction is no longer politically correct, somebodies feelings might get hurt, so they just bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator in one class. Is this not the experience with the public education system, and the cookie cutter unionized teachers?

      The price will have to be paid for this in the long run, because it is a fact of nature that different people have different aptitudes and capabilities. You can't completely ignore the natural order of things. Equal human rights does not mean equalize their education and capacities to the lowest level.

  4. From the links below the article by mccalli · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the links below the article.

    Also in this section:

    • Brain or bimbo?
    • Bad girl
    • Confessions of a middle-class pole dancer: 'It's permission to be sexy'

    Nice to see this particular section of the press doing their bit to keep standards high.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  5. Fair? by d2_m_viant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is IQ judged only on the basis of science & technical application?

    Is science the only field worth measuring an IQ on?

    1. Re:Fair? by zCyl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why is IQ judged only on the basis of science & technical application?

      Because artists don't conduct scientific studies of IQ. Ponder that for a while...

    2. Re:Fair? by TechieHermit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NO.

      An IQ test judges your reasoning and problem solving ability, i.e. your ability to solve abstract problems through logic. This is a measure of your ability to participate in the maintenance of civilization - your ability to handle technical, difficult tasks well.

      I recently passed a practical test (not an IQ test, mind you, but a practical for promotion within my technical field). I got an almost perfect score, and when it was adjusted for curve, ended up with a 102.5. The next runner up had a final score of 92. This is state-wide, mind you, not just within my agency.

      My coworkers all failed the test. None of them had a passing score (70). Eventually, someone said "Well, he's just good at taking tests, that's all." And that person basically assumed he would NEVER do well on the test, and stopped trying.

      The test itself was basically a very difficult practical exam. You had to bench-test source code written in a made-up language (whose specifications were provided). You had to solve IQ-type problems involving logical deduction. You had to work through some analysis problems. All in all, I found it a horribly difficult, thoroughly enjoyable test that judged the actual skills a programmer needs on the job.

      Now, why did I find the test challenging but enjoyable, but the others found it impossible?

      And why did they assume that I was just "good at taking tests", rather than good at my job?

      I submit to you that the answer is that when you're good at the skills the test measures, you won't have a problem with the test. When you AREN'T good at the skills the test measures, you'll have a rotten time. And the REAL reason one person does well and another does not is the difference in their actual SKILLS, which of course is what the test is meant to measure.

      I.Q. tests measure logical reasoning and problem solving abilities. Being "good at IQ tests" indicates that you're good at what the test is trying to measure -- so the test is doing it's job perfectly.

      My .02...

  6. Correlation: Food vs. IQ? by reporter · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As the population has grown, humankind has resorted to increasing use of pesticides, cow-based feed (for other cows), and other extreme measures to grow the food supply. When I say, "cow-based feed", I am referring to rendering cow carcasses into foodstuffs that is fed to other cows. Some scientists suspect that cow-based feed may be the catalyst behind mad-cow disease.

    Also, "other extreme measures" include farming fish, like salmon, in confined ponds where heavy metals and other chemicals can accumulate because the farmer does not bother to clean the water. Numerous government studies show that farmed salmon had much higher concentrations of toxic metals and chemicals than wild salmon like that in Alaska.

    The key question is whether there is a correlation between the increasing contamination of our food and the behavior of the brain. Has anyone noticed the increasing amounts of psychotherapeutic drugs consumed by people in developed countries? What is happening to our brains? Did people in 1850 need to consume Prozac just to cope with their own lives?

  7. Rise of technology... by TriezGamer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The internet is a vast information resource available to a large portion of the civilized world, but I don't think kids today are interested in learning anything. As parents (and people in general, I think) have become more selfish as time goes by, this is the only behavior our children see, leading them to behavior that isn't interested in learning. All they really want is to be entertained. In this regard, the electronic age might be our worst enemy. Instead of using computers and the internet as a tool to expand thier world, they use them as a crutch -- for entertainment when needed, and to do the thinking for them when presented with things like math problems, spelling and grammar. If being smart is no longer 'cool', what's the incentive to learning anything? Money in the form of 'future income' is not enough of an incentive for many kids -- Future income means future work, and many of these kids will settle for a job at a fast food restaurant (despite those jobs being incredibly stressful and low-wage) because they don't want to put forth the effort to learn anything and/or find another job.

  8. I'm stunned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This guy really had to study 25,000 kids to determine that people are getting dumber at a worrying rate? All he had to do was turn on MTV for a half hour and watch what they consider entertainment nowadays.

  9. Re:Flynn (whover he is) is an idiot by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't mistake a "drop" in IQ with rising IQs elsewhere.

    Recall that places like India and China have, for various reasons, not been the best places to foster intellect in recent times (the last two or three hundred years). The people there are just as intellectually capable as anyone from a Western nation, but did not have many of the advantages that Western society was able to offer due to its better economic position, and so forth.

    But times have changed, and education is far more available in places like India and China, in addition to many other developing countries. So it's no wonder that the comparative IQ gap between Western and Eastern cultures is closing, and closing quickly. It's not because people in the Western world are becoming stupider; it's because the people in the East are now able to take advantage of better educational opportunities.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  10. Re:Correlation: Food vs. IQ? by thefirelane · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Did people in 1850 need to consume Prozac just to cope with their own lives?

    No, they had other problems that kept them from thinking of those things:
    • Starving to death
    • Cholera
    • Freezing during the winter
    • Smallpox
    People during those times were depressed too, they just used alcohol (that's what most medicines were then anyway) People who were rich enough that they didn't have to worry about the things listed above had the same 'problems' you allude to the general population having today. It is only that now enough people are well off enough to sit around and worry about such higher level problems.
  11. Re:IQ is linear with age? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Um, no.
    IQ = 100*MA/CA where MA = Mental Age and CA = Chronological Age. It helps to look things up rather than try to guess the meaning of a formula.

  12. Society is decadent its the Romans all over again! by WebWeasel2006 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Western society has become decadent. Everything is provided for you so you dont need to work. I see it all the time here in Britan everyone acts like they are a celebrity and are born with the right of everything being handed to them on a plate. The work ethic is left to us few....

    --
    Sometimes I get lost inside my head....
  13. 3 years? by baadger · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well thank heavens for that. We're still up on the U.S.

  14. Chavs today, punks yesterday. by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's nothing special about the chav "movement" of today. It's much like the punks of the late 1970s. They wear different clothes, but the attitude is still the same.

    Even then, it's something that they'll be forced to grow out of. If any of them wish to obtain and retain jobs, even as custodians or trash collectors at McDonalds, they won't be able to act like chavs or punks. And if they don't conform, then they'll likely turn to crime, and end up dead or in prison.

    The basic economics of living, and the criminal justice system after that, acts as the good parents that these kids didn't have.

    Nevertheless, those with intellectual talent do almost always manage to succeed, even in the fact of punkism or chavism. There won't be a shortage of British scientists or researchers, for instance.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Chavs today, punks yesterday. by turgid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's nothing special about the chav "movement" of today. It's much like the punks of the late 1970s. They wear different clothes, but the attitude is still the same.

      Chavs are nothing like the punks of the late 1970s.

      The punks were politically-motivated and rebelling against the Establishment, and even the establishment in popular culture.

      Chavs are just brain-dead zombies. They're apathetic, ignorant, uneducated, and wouldn't know what Politics were if the Sun or News of the World attempted to explain to them. As for culture, they're at the forefront of the establishment of pop culture. Just look at BBC Top of The Pops. Those orange whingers in the top 10 are just what your average(sic) chav is "in to."

    2. Re:Chavs today, punks yesterday. by FyRE666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that chavs and chavettes in the UK are rewarded for their lives of crime and sponging with nice free handouts from the dole office, cash for their bastard kids, free housing any any other benefits these parasites can grab. Thus, they have plenty of time to spawn more idiot children than intelligent people, holding down jobs to pay for this vermin. Since the idiots are spawning idiot sprogs much faster than intelligent people are producing normal offspring, it drags the average IQ down.

      I think everyone who is able to work should receive no money whatsoever from the government until they've worked continuously for at least 5 years. Give them food and clothes plus shelter for the night, but that's it. It's time the culture of laziness, expecting people to bail them out was over.

    3. Re:Chavs today, punks yesterday. by heinousjay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everyone thinks their particular movement was the only real one, and the reality is that all youth movements have boiled down to getting fucked up on some particular type of drugs, and having lots of sex. Don't fool yourself into believing there was a higher purpose - it's all about what justification the group uses for abdicating responsibility, and the vast majority always grow out of it.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  15. standards in the UK by salparadyse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Speaking as a parent in the UK I have to agree with the general sentiment of the article, though I can't speak about the percentages, not being in possession of the statistics. One only has to listen to the Universities saying "we now have to set basic literacy and numeracy tests for all 18 year olds as part of the entrance process" to know that something is very wrong.
    It's the "all shall have prizes" culture where children aren't told "that's wrong, go and do it again" lest we scar them for life and someone brings a law suit.

    1. Re:standards in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let me give you an example. When I was in college (Computer Studies), we had what I can only describe as a remedial course in maths. This stuff was taught in secondary school to all thirteen year-olds, I don't know how people got out of school without learning it or why it was the college's job to catch them up at the expense of everybody else's time and money. Very few people paid attention in the classes. We got to the end-of-year exams, and three or four of us got 90%+ for this particular module. The pass rate was 40%. Everybody else got 30-40%.

      So these imbeciles, who have shown themselves incapable of learning basic maths not once but twice, should have to resit the exams or fail the course, yes? No. Because it was very unlikely that they could pass, and because failing them would mean cancelling the second year of the course and screwing the rest of us, the pass rate was lowered so that everybody passed.

      I finished college, and went on to university. Guess what? A huge part of the first year was dedicated to repeating stuff that I had spent the last two years sitting in classes for. Why? Because half the people on my course (Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence) had never written a program before in their life. And you know what? By the end of the year, they still hadn't. Not even Hello World. In all our programming assignments, we were given complete programs and told to change a couple of things ("make it print the numbers 1 to 20 instead of 1 to 10"). These people have degrees now.

      I left school at thirteen years old due to illness, so I skipped a huge amount of school. And yet most people I meet seem to be way behind me when it comes to education. That's not my opinion, I think I'm average, but everybody else thinks of me as a bit of a genius. The majority of people I know haven't read a book since school unless they were forced to for work.

      So how I can do way better than average with moderate effort, even though I'm at a huge disadvantage? Because most people are completely apathetic. And yet they get free passes anyway. At every point in my education, I've felt that you have to be exceptionally bad to fail at anything.

  16. Explains... by 19061969 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is quite worrying. With falling numbers in technical and scientific fields, this does not bode well for the future of industry in the UK. I can see this applying to other developed nations.

    Quoth TFA: "Although the test measures, not general IQ per se, but general IQ applied to scientific and technical reasoning"

    Hmm. May explain the rise in belief of intelligent design.

    And there was me thinking it was almost cool to be a geek. What I got wrong was that it is cool to look geeky, but not actually be a geek.

    --
    bang goes my karma... again...
  17. Maybe the just have bigger genitals. by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Funny

    CNN recently reported about a study that found that bat species with larger testes have smaller brains, and vice versa. Maybe these kids just have extremely large gonads, and that's why they're morons.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  18. Unfortunate by lattyware · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is all too true in my opinion. I'm probably in the group of 'UK Youth' and I go to a Grammar School, which accepts the top 10% of the area, and I often find myself thinking that if some members of my class are in the top ten percent, this area has no chance. Still, I think this may be a little flawed.

    --
    -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
  19. Too many black boxes by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    When I was a kid (~40 years ago), I had a bunch of technical stuff like steam engines, radios etc that I could take apart and understand (OK they didn't always work again afterwards). The radios had valves (tubes in American) that glowed and you could see stuff happening. I built crystal sets which worked fine with MW radio. Now most things that kids get are electronic gizzmos that are stuffed with ICs. No hope of really learning and understanding anything there.

    Even people like Lego (who really fostered creativity a few years back) are now focussing on selling theme toys (Harry Potter etc) that the kids build according to instruction and seldom reassemble in any new way.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Too many black boxes by baadger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      These toys stuffed with IC's are what make some of us Brit's go into studying Electronics. Me for one. I'm not sure how much water that argument can hold, I just don't think less visible workings stunts curiosity or the mind of an engineer to a great extent.

      What it does probably do is stunt the creativity side of things.

    2. Re:Too many black boxes by mustafap · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But equally back in those days ( I has the same experience ) we had no Internet; Understand came from moth-eaten books out of the library with obscure impossible to purchase parts. I may remember romantically my first computer was a 6502 with 7 segment led, but finding information on how to do anything with it was next to impossible.

      I'd rather be a kid now than then!

      ok, I still am a kid, but I no longer live with my parents :o)

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    3. Re:Too many black boxes by jericho4.0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Steam engines? Man, my dad would have killed me if I had taken apart the family train.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    4. Re:Too many black boxes by cowbutt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My experiences were somewhat similar; I had a Sinclair Spectrum at home, and a friend taught me how to solder (his dad repaired photocopiers and the like) and a couple of adult members of the local computer club got me started with assembly language, but the rest I had to learn from books and magazines, and often without access to equipment, tools or parts to be able to test things myself. Also, I'd quite often get so far, then hit a brick wall, and could find no-one to show me the next stage. If I'd had Google back then, I probably could have learnt a lot more.

    5. Re:Too many black boxes by drgonzo59 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That is a big problem. Learning to use an application interface is very counter productive if one doesn't already understand the basics of the concept. This is the major challenge for those who take classes at places like a community college. Most often people who go there will not know what a file is, or what the CPU does, how a megabyte is different than a megahertz. They will be learning only how to use a specific application and stuff like "Click on the top left menu called File", "then click on Save As...","Then click on My Documents", "Then type the file name". Show these people a different operating system, a different program with the same basic functionality and they are completely lost. My mom was so shocked the other day that I could figure out how to use PageMaker even though I have never used it before. I used Quark Express and Scribus before though, and I know what a general layout program should do and can find how to do those things by poking around through the menus. That is the benefit of understanding the fundamental not just remembering menu sequences.

      Kids should be learning both the applied and the abstract general concepts. So when learning about HTML, it would be good to know why are people using HTML, why not something else, what is HTML related to, how is it different than Java and stuff like that, while at the same time learning how to make pretty tables with nifty javascript event handlers that makes stuff blink and such.

  20. Unsurprising by Mutatis+Mutandis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is very unsurprising.

    There was a time when engineers and trailblazers were popular heroes. But a lot of damage was done in the 1980s and 1990s, when there was a culture of outright greed and everybody's dream was to be a fat-cat manager. Education reflected this, and children were trained to be capable pen-pushers, perhaps also possesing relational and organisational skills. (It was not all bad.) Politicians listened to business leaders, and business leaders naturally emphasised the type of skills they themselves had.

    However, the people who did this forgot that management does not create ideas or value. Problem-solving, creative and scientific skills took a back seat; some of this was an understandable reaction to the way education was organized in the 1970s. But they were also considered less important because they were not culturally appreciated and besides, they were not the kind of skills a professional human resources department was looking for.

    The result has been a loss of cognitive ability, in part a lack of creativity, but to substantial degree a loss of interpretative ability. The generation that was still educated in Latin and Old Greek may have wasted time on subjects managers now consider unimportant, but they did have a knack for extracting meaning from obscure and incomplete evidence.

  21. A general downturn in the western world? by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think that any American Slashdotter who has spent time in the general public knows that the falling average IQ is not just a problem in the UK.

    I'd be curious to see the rate of IQ change amongst various western countries. Has the common "easy" life stopped working in our favor and started working against us? So many things we had to do before are now done automatically (or not at all,) and so our minds don't have to work nearly as hard to get stuff to happen. Granted, modern life has allowed us to focus more on things lik science and mechanics, but the lack of necessity is keeping many from allowing themselves to be educated.

    I also blame America's increasing "stupid" problem partly on the parents that let their kids do whatever they please, with little in the way of punishment. The lack of respect I see everyday from my generation (I'm 20) is just appaling.

  22. I can vouch for this. by mattpointblank · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd definitely agree with this. My little sister is 14, and although she's not bright in the way that my other sister and I were, she's not dumb. However, she and her friends generally seem uninterested in learning, reading (the hobby that I attribute most of my intelligence today to), and just general education. Kids today (and I say this as a 19 year old, so don't mod me -1, Old Timer) are just apathetic about learning, and I can definitely say that as time passes, kids just aren't getting smarter.

  23. Well perhaps we were lucky by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Take a record player. You can see how it works. You can pull tricks with it. I remember long before you had those little computer chip greeting cards with a speaker you had small record players with a pin attached to a bit of plastic and you turned the record by hand and you got a sound. Sorta. Anyway you could actually see the science in action. Good luck doing that with a CD player. It is a black box.

    Same with a lot of other stuff. I could help out with fixing the car. Well stand by but you could actually see stuff and the adults could actually do things themselves. Todays cars? Black boxes.

    I learned a lot about electricity helping out with a model railroad. Pokemon is a nice game but it is played on another black box.

    But lets face it, the rot started without especially your generation. YOU are the one raising these 11 year olds and we just don't have the need to get down and dirty anymore.

    Odd thing about the sexual revolution? Rather then men learning how to cook as well now nobody learns how to cook. Freaky.

    As our tech increases we need less and less knowledge about it. My mom knew how to wire a fuse. I know how to screw in one. My kid knows how to throw a circuit breaker. Wich one of us would be more likely to be able to get a car moving when there is no replacement fuse available?

    Maybe parents need to get more involved with their kids. Nah.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Well perhaps we were lucky by DenDude · · Score: 3, Interesting
      /* As our tech increases we need less and less knowledge about it. My mom knew how to wire a fuse. I know how to screw in one. My kid knows how to throw a circuit breaker. Wich one of us would be more likely to be able to get a car moving when there is no replacement fuse available? */


      There is a science fiction story that has fascinated me from the first time I read it. It's called "The Black Bag" by Kornbluth, and it's about a doctor's "little black bag" from the future. The bag is filled with instruments that any person of any intelligence can operate effectively.


      That's only part of the subject of my post, however. One of the asides in this story is that in this future, technology makes it possible for anyone to become just about anything (career-wise) at least. The point was that the people who were operating the equipment were just not that bright, and could only follow instructions because the instruments were so perfectly made. The high-powered careers were filled by the mediocre, and the true geniuses were janitors with lots of free time to ponder and invent.


      This seems more and more like the situation we are now in. I remember writing code in x86 assembler, not for the fun of it (although if it wasn't, I'd have never done it), but because if you wanted your computer to do certain things, you had to know what the stack, the heap, the registers, the segments, and all the other intricacies were. With the power of computers now, it's like the black bag; the geniuses write the tools, and anyone with a little ability can do the easy stuff like coding. Now apply that to your favorite technology, and mix well.

      --
      A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
  24. Re:IQ is linear with age? by Savantissimo · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, standard IQ is calculated based on the rarity of a score on a test in a population that is assumed to have normally distributed scores using a mean of 100 and a 15-point standard deviation. IQ is not a constant or absolute measure of ability. It is on roughly an equal-interval scale, but in the tails of the distribution it closer to a ordinal scale since the actual distribution of abiliity is closer to log-normal.

    Three years difference in scores is likely going to be substantially less than 27 IQ points. Figuring it out precisely is difficult because there is a huge spurt and then dropoff in the rate of increase in intelligence on a ratio (Rasch-based SB5 CSS score) scale from about 8 to 12, peaking at age 10. Testing would be a more accurate way of finding out the IQ equivalent of 3 years difference at that age in that population than attempting to calculate it anyway.

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  25. Re:It's not just MTV. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I take it you've never tried browsing here at -1. It's certainly not for the faint-hearted.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  26. er... by Kev_Stewart · · Score: 5, Funny
    3 years loss at age 11 is an IQ of 100*8/11 or 73

    That's unpossible!

  27. Re:Society is decadent its the Romans all over aga by stevied · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But for those "few" of us who are interested in things technical or creative, we have an unprecedented opportunity. Assuming you can find a moderately stree-free way of earning a reasonable income (not always straightforward given the climate in many modern workplaces), then the time-saving technologies available allow you more hours a week to pursue the stuff that really interests you, and to leverage those hours to be more productive. Finding solutions to technical queries was much harder before the net (Fidonet Echomail was horrendously slow <g>)

    Incidentally, most of the rest are perhaps not as decadent as they might look to a depressed geek; they just need a little leadership. It's actually not that hard to do, it just takes subtlety, and overcoming the fear of / antipathy towards the "herd" that thinking people tend — quite reasonably — to develop at an early age.

  28. So? Live and learn by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Perhaps that is one of the reasons practical knowledge is decreasing. To much protection. Summertime we played in the local "river" all the time. Kids where I live now? There is a fence around the pond(?) because some kid might fall in.

    A nice dose of 220 through your hand will teach you more about electricity then any classroom lecture.

    As for wiring a fuse with say a screwdriver. Sometimes you just got to do stuff that is unsafe. If we only did was what safe we would still be up a tree somewhere in africa. (or for the religious people, inside the garden of eden)

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:So? Live and learn by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thats right, some of the best holidays I had as a kid were with the Scouts and with the School and they were of a nature which would pretty much prevent them from happening nowadays.

      For example with the Scouts we'd go camping to some of the big organised camps but our leader ( and only adult ) would make sure we got the tent up OK and then go back home for the weekend. Although there were other adults within a quarter of mile or so of us we were basically unsupervised and in charge a number of large axes, saws, petrol, gas and boxes and boxes of matches. Needless to say we had a great time and no one ever got seriously injured because we very quickly learned for ourselves the dangers of playing catch with large felling axes ( and that chopping up trees with them was more fun anyway ). We learned several important lessons about looking after ourselves and as a group from these camps; if no one cooks any food we all get very hungry, if no one gets up early to light the fire cold baked beans don't taste very nice, its better for people not to be constantly arguing with each other, if we look like we are looking after ourselves and everyone looks healthy and happy no one comes to interfere and we can do what we like etc etc etc.

      There is no way anyone would let a group of 12 - 15 year olds go camping without any direct supervision nowadays for fear of the inevitable law suit as soon as someone chops their hand off with an axe.

  29. Kids have lost conservation laws by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's not an "IQ" issue. The original article makes a key point - kids are not getting conservation laws, like conservation of volume. I can see why. Neither television nor video games enforce conservation of mass, energy, or volume. That basic observation about the physical world gets broken. Game worlds have much better graphics than they have physics. This may be messing up the worldview of kids, especially if they spend more time with games and TV than playing with physical objects.

    I've noticed something else in the last year that worries me. I own a horse, and I recently had to move him to a barn that mostly teaches 6 to 14 year olds to ride. Often, the parents have non-riding kids in tow, and they hang around the barn. Many (not all) of the non-riding kids have no clue how to deal with an environment that isn't entirely kid-safe. Some basic survival skills seem to be missing. They don't notice, let alone get out of the way of, horse traffic. They're unaware of what's happening behind them. They have no sense that they need to have some caution when near these huge animals and their big, steel-shod hooves.

    I've seen a horse, faced with an 8-year old child in his path, stop, reach down with his nose, and nudge the child out of the way, as a horse would do with a foal. The horses have more sense than some of the kids.

    These are school-age kids from rather well-off families. They're not retarded or autistic. But they have no sense of what's hazardous.

    1. Re:Kids have lost conservation laws by bmgoau · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that society has removed the negative effects of making a mistake or doing seomthing wrong, so theres no impulse for most people to attempt success.

      In Australia, its called Occupational Health and Safty. I can see its purpose, making our lives safer through law, but the negative effects could be as large as what the article describes. A wildcard example that is very common, through law, in all workplaces now, is that kettles now have to be labled as hot. Toasters need to be labled as dangerous because of their electric contents.

      Darwin described it many years ago, and called it Natural Selection. Developed society has removed the implications of being weak, and therefore made them as equal as the strong in their chances for success.

      Its tough to say, but these days, to many children are stressed beyond belief at school, but in the wrong way. At school more work = smarter children, but this never happens if all that work is done incorrectly and then not corrected. To much these days children arn't told: You failed or Thats incorrect, do it again. In the current education system in Australia there is no fail. the marks on every single course range from 50 to 100.

      People learn via a combination of things. 1. The rewards of succeeding, 2. Fear of failure and 3. Having initative enough to learn from mistakes.

      The ultra clean environment we have made for our children is apparently weakening their immune systems. The ultra safe environment, is removeing their addaptive ability. The ultra success society, is removeing the distinction between success and failure. And the ultra information society, is removing the need for general knowlege. Sure, there are alot of good kids out there, alot of smart kids, who take the initative. But society is focused on protecting, not helping those who fail.

      We have smart people, working, to pay taxes, to ensure that the people who dont work, have enough money to pay their bills for pay tv and alcohol while their kids run wild. All the same time as the smart people are having fewer and fewer children.

      Another problem is that these days, the devices and tools the occupy out childrens lives cant be as easily taken apart. When i was young, i remember building a radio, playing with instructionless technic, playing with electronics, looking at motors. But now, the iPod cant be oppened, the motors in lawn mowers can only be touched by a licenced dealer, and Lego comes with specially designed pieces and themed instructions.

      I hate to say it. But society needs to bring back the difference between success and failure, and therefore provide the impulse for people to learn from their mistakes, not their text books.

      We need to bring back natural selection.

      The best tool we have left in our stock now, is the combination of the economy and law enforcement. If the failures turn to crime, they might die or be arrested. If the failures want a job to support themselves they have to conform to that jobs regulations: pants, a tie and knowlege on a specific area. Sadly, the huge amount of welfare and the effect of liability in decreasing the law enforcement powers of the police have made these weapons weak.

  30. 27 point IQ drop? Where is that reported? by maynard · · Score: 5, Informative

    I didn't read that in the referenced article. I read that in a study of 27K children, 11yo children are "less intelligent" than they were 30 years ago. Someone mentions that the children today are doing about as well as 8year olds then. And then there's some journalistic hand waving about how this represents a serious problem that change within our educational system to resolve.

    OK. Now for some real background. The study the researchers are repeating is part of a group of studies done by Jean Piaget back in the late 1960s through the 70s. Piaget was a developmental psychologist was was interested in discerning developmental stages in childhood that could be predicted and potentially nurtured with special education. He broke development down into four stages:

    1) Sensimotor Stage: birth -> 2yo (a child who developed object persistence, or the recognition that a physical object persists even when out of the visual field and across time, would pass to the next stage)

    2) Pre-Operational Stage: 2yo -> 7-8 (a child who developed conservation skills, recognizing that certain abstract things which appear different are actually the same, would pass to the next stage

    3) Concrete Operational Stage: ~8-11yo (a child who developed abstract reasoning, such as manipulation of abstract variables in math or algorithmic reasoning, would pass to the final stage

    4) Formal Operational Stage: cognitive adulthood.

    This study -- cited in the article -- tests when children move from Pre-Operational to Concrete-Operational stage. They do so with a conservation skills test. In one test the researcher takes a tall and thin beaker and fills it up to a certain amount in front of the child. Then the researcher hands the child a light block and a heavy block and asks the child where they think each will displace the water in the beaker. If the child realizes that both displace the water equally, the child understands conservation of water displacement.

    They then move to another test where the child is faced with a tall set of blocks stacked upon one another, and a short and wide set of the same blocks stacked upon one another. The researcher asks the child to use the short and wide blocks to build the same tower as the tall and thin one. If the child realizes that since both contain the same number of blocks it is actually possible for him/her to complete the task, the child understands volume conservation.

    In yet another test, the researcher takes one cup of water and pours it into several smaller cups and then asks the child where the water line will be if they pour all the water from the smaller cups back into the larger cup. Ya'll get the idea.

    Now, these researchers are testing children today using the same methods as Piaget back in the 70s. What they found is that the mean for transitioning out of Pre-Operational Stage is today later than it was back in the 1970s. They don't know why. Is it due to changes in our educational system? If it due to environmental changes? Hell, how about: does Paiget's development model hold any factual water? *cough!* Are these results meaningful, and what do they mean?

    I don't know.

    But one thing I do know is that these results say NOTHING about relative IQ differences from then and today because neither study measured IQ!!!! It is a gross misunderstanding of this work to compare the actual results of relative changes in children developing specific conservation skills over time, and then claiming that these results can extrapolate general intelligence changes in children over time. They are not the same!

    To sum up, baldrson misses this "IMPORTANT LAB RULE": know what you are measuring and confounds it with a second "IMPORTANT LAB RULE": take accurate measurements. So, now that we have that all cleared up, how 'bout heading over to the pub for a Guinness?

  31. Two Cultures. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are you familiar with C. P. Snow's "The Two Cultures"? It describes the kind of nonsense that makes people who are not self-identified dorks reluctant to understand anything the least bit technical or scientific. Willful ignorance bothers me to no end.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  32. Scientific study reveals... by Ragnarrokk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This UK youth is not an elitist asshole.

    Like a fellow /. here who posted earlier, I attend a grammar school. These are specifically designed to harbour the most intelligent and train them to their potential. If what is available in my year is the cream of our province, then we have serious issues, especially since my school is highly selective.

    I cannot imagine how other provinces ("Counties" here in the UK) manage. Grammar schooling was abolished in every other county, and there is a serious movement to abolish them here. Why? Through some twisted use political correctness and an attitude of, "All are equal in ability, thus, it is unfair to split staffing between schools, where the grammar school may take the better staff due to a more prestigious position." Luckily the Labour party has recently begun motions to keep and enhance selective schooling in the country, which I think is a good thing.

    However, back to my experience. Technical and applied sciences are sorely, sorely lacking. I had a girl in my economics class a few weeks ago requiring explanation and a little time for the mathematical cogs to grind to work out the total sum of 50 - 40 = 10.

    I am not joking.

    I believe I know the problem, and it purely is our society, and the crap we are force-fed, and most of use ingest. Who to blame for this, I'm not sure. Maybe corporations aiming to control our habits from birth, maybe lazy parenting, maybe government attitude, likely a combination of these things and more. I am however certain of the society in my school.

    I attend a sixth form at the top grammar school in my area, and I find it fairly boring, but I love to learn. Most likely like a lot of the /. crowd, they were in the "geeky" social group. I'm a geek, that's where I like to be. Where we DO talk about maths, we DO talk about computers, we DO talk about more than "Lost" and, "OHMIGAWD DID YOU SEE WHAT SHE WAS WEARIN'?!" . None of us are dysfunctional geeks, we have lives, but our lifestyles are different enough to realise what we lack and have that the others don't have. What the others, who don't care how things work and have fun in free periods bundling each other on the floor work.

    + Major point: None of us watch TV. We do grow a liking to a certain series here or there and we watch (Much which is popular here, too. Futurama, Firefly, BS:G and so forth), but none of use sit in front of that square box and just sit there mindlessly because we don't have anything else to do.

    + We learn where we can in school. Let me explain this. I have slowly and methodically found out school grades are in no way whatsoever a representation of intelligence in any way. They are simply a test of memory, this is how ninety-five percent of the school treat it, and that is how it is taught. You never have to think at any point, you are told some bare facts, and you need to memorise them. This is why some truly idiotic people can get good marks. I think a further factor why science and maths is worst hit is that is requires minimal amounts of though, we have to memorise equations, sure, but then we have to APPLY them. Oh that scares them. They didn't memorise that one. We as a group want to truly learn. I aced triple physics with an A* at GCSE with barely any revision, it being the toughest physics test open to me at the time, simply because I've always been interested in physics, and how the world works.

    + Peer pressure of hatred of science and learning. Being a geek, I do of course have geek attire, such as the exceptionally cool, "Shroedinger's Cat is dead" T-shirt from ThinkGeek.com. Ninety-eight percent just don't care, ask, and as I'm always willing to teach, start off with the phrase, "It's about physics..." knowing it'll scare them off. They don't care. They don't want to stay and listen. Their social position may fall! However, people have complimented me on this T-shirt, in private. Girls especially, I'm assuming because they have a greater "pack" society. We don't do t

  33. IT'S NOT ABOUT ICs!!!! by controlguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's odd that every comment here is about circuits and electricity. The article refers kids couldn't figure out that pouring water from a a tall thin jug into a fat small jug gives you the same amount of water!!!

    What the living heck does that have to do with ICs? You can play with electricity not understanding the simply or complicated explaination underlying physics all day long. This is about the basics of interacting with this world on a mechanical level.

    OK, but like many of you, I taught myself programming as a kid and studies EE later... but hell, I also played outside and got a sense for gravity, forces, and geometry. That's what this is REALLY about!

  34. Its the ending of the eleven plus by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Informative
    The date coincides with the ending of the eleven plus. This is exactly what you would expect to happen.

    IQ tests can be taught just like any other skill. The claims that they measure innate intelligence have never been substantiated. I was drilled in them when I was 10, my IQ rose from over 120 to over 140. By the end I was getting every question on the paper correct

    Until the 1970s the UK had a two tier state education system. 5% of the kids went to grammar schools the rest went to 'secondary modern's' - sink schools in other words. To get into the grammar school and get a decent education (albeit not quite as good as the private education) you had to pass the eleven plus.

    During the eleven plus era large numbers of kids were drilled in taking IQ tests. This continued for a while after the grammar schools had been phased out, partly due to inertia but also because there was tight competition for places at private schools which still have selection today.

    so this is not a demonstration that kids are getting stupider, merely that the local effect of one bias in a ridiculous test is greater than the general bias.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  35. The intelligent aren't having children by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Intelligence is heritable and the intelligent are having fewer children than the dull.

    Intelligence is aborting/abstaining/contracepting itself out of existence and leaving the world to the idiots.