7 ms·

I wonder if the drop in IQ is related to the increase in wealth inequality in these past 50 years as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

by s_r_n 7y ago

I wonder if the drop in IQ is related to the increase in wealth inequality in these past 50 years as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth) More cohorts of people are entering the so-called "lower" classes and with this likely comes factors that affect mental aptitude such as decrease in quantity of healthy food consumed and unchallenging jobs. This would agree with the study, which shows that families' IQs are getting lower with each generation.

microcolonel 7y ago
> decrease in quantity of healthy food consumed Far as I can tell, this is the opposite of the trend, in the U.S. and Canada. > I wonder if the drop in IQ is related to the increase in wealth inequality in these past 50 years as well. Not sure what mechanism you think would enable that. Thinking that the richest people in society are, in relative terms, more rich than you than before has no obvious effect on anything related to IQ. Average and median PPP wealth and income continue to grow.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  > Far as I can tell, this is the opposite of the trend, in the U.S. and Canada. We've got an obesity epidemic. The average American is clearly not eating healthy. Maybe you misinterpreted the OP's statement? "Decrease in quantity of healthy food consumed" is awkward, but the intent is clear from context.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    Well, a decrease from when? As far as I can tell, OP meant that the cited decrease is still under way, and hence contributing to an ongoing decline in average IQ.
pkaye 7y ago
Is there large wealth inequality in Norway? That is one of the studies this article references.
- tokai 7y ago
  No. But the relative inequality is increasing.[0] 0. https://www.tnp.no/norway/economy/poverty-income-inequality-increase-norway https://www.tnp.no/norway/economy/poverty-income-inequality-...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - trashtester 7y ago
    This is due almost fully to immigration [0]. In the IQ study, immigrants were excluded. So no, that hypothesis does not make sense. Norway has been able to (due to oil revenues) avoid the (non-imported) increased inequality that has affected most other western countries over the last decades. [0] https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/ZoD/innvandring-er-den-klart-viktigste-arsaken-til-veksten-i-familier-med-vedvarende-lavinntekt https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/ZoD/innvandring-er-den-k...
cryptica 7y ago
I think it's because intelligence doesn't help when it comes to earning money. The luck and social component is so strong that there is very little incentive for people to be intelligent. I also do think that wealth inequality correlates with lower average IQ. Rich people want to keep the majority of people dumb; breed them like cattle, hook them up to machines and milk them.
- icedchai 7y ago
  Though it's not a guarantee, it certainly does help. I'd argue that intelligence is part of that "luck." You lucked out and won the genetic lottery.
  - jondubois 7y ago
    I don't buy the genetic argument. Intelligence is worthless. In this society, a complete idiot with capital can achieve much more than a genius can achieve without capital.
    - xyzzyz 7y ago
      Which is why top companies are founded by children of lottery winners and media celebrities, while poor immigrants never achieve anything significant.
      - atq2119 7y ago
        Founding a top company is the most visible way of gaining a lot of wealth, but it is by far not representative. Much more common are ways of starting with a lot of wealth and turning it into even more wealth.
        Viliam1234 7y ago
        This is exactly the kind of information that will NOT be welcome at Hacker News.
sunshinelackof 7y ago
IQ, flawed as it may be as a measure, is sometimes touted as one of the best predictors of success in life. It's just conjecture, but maybe there's a feedback loop there.
- Falling3 7y ago
  Zip code is also a very good predictor of success in life. IQ could be a great predictor, but that still doesn't mean it's measuring what we think it's measuring.
  - skookumchuck 7y ago
    People aren't randomly assigned zip codes. Zip code can also be a proxy for IQ.
    - Falling3 7y ago
      That seems very unlikely. What seems more unlikely is that both IQ and zip code are proxies for something else.
      - skookumchuck 7y ago
        So you think it "very unlikely" that someone more intelligent would make better decisions, and those decisions have better outcomes enabling someone to live in a pricier neighborhood?
        objectivetruth 7y ago
        The vast majority of people in a ZIP code are not homeowners or leaseholders. You're neglecting most family members and a plethora of other people that aren't mobile, also that ZIP codes can be incredibly stratified. Households aren't predictable particles in a simulator, either: the real world isn't some SimCity simulation where dumb people go to shitty schools, get shitty jobs, live in shitty neighborhoods and therefore everyone in a shitty neighborhood or shitty job is consequently dumb. I think you're attempting to use ZIP code as a proxy for socioeconomic class, and then presuming a correlation between intelligence and socioeconomic class. It's a really simplistic model that seems intuitive but has a lot of problems if you're using it to judge real live human beings and/or make policy decisions.
sisu2019 7y ago
wealth inequality doesn't mean more poor people. I know it's a lot to ask nowadays but please be informed enough about economics to at least know the very basics if you are going to bring it up. The idea that the food availabe to people is getting worse or less, in Western Europe of all places, is absolutely ridicolous. If anything the opposite is the case. As regards jobs we also have the opposite problem: too few simple jobs.
- reallydude 7y ago
  > wealth inequality doesn't mean more poor people. Wealth, inequality, and poor are not well-defined. Using the typical measures: poor being near the poverty line for an area wealthy being access to capital (be it over 100x the poverty wealth line or double the average) and inequality, the gap in absolute terms from top to average. The pareto principle will always illustrate how greater inequality defines that there are more poor people, even when the poverty line changes. Abstract equations, notwithstanding. > The idea that the food availabe to people is getting worse or less The amount of food, available, is changing. The most popular bananas (https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-confirms-that-bananas-are-being-driven-to-extinction https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-confirms-that-bananas...), beef, fish (http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans/threats/fishstocks/ http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans...), are all in decline for differing reasons. So there's a little truth to it from a perspective. Yours isn't any more valid than theirs, so what did you add to the discussion? Ironically, the beef industry may be kept on life support due to the ongoing climate change. New grazelands will appear from beneath the tundra across the world offering another few generations of opportunity. Buy your land in the US Dakotas for your grandchildren. It's a golden opportunity.
  - sisu2019 7y ago
    it's a fun game: define poverty in terms of wealth inequality and presto if inequality goes up, poverty does too. But here is the thing that we forgot in the west because we essentialy abolished it: poverty is about material depreviation and that happens to be the one thing about it that would actually stunt IQ. We don't have material deprivation, not in Norway nor anywhere else in Western Europe, certainly not at an increasing rate. We have access to all the calories we want and at prices and qualities unequaled in human history. We also have endless free books btw. > bananas It should be obvious that Europeans don't need bananas for proper development. In addition that has nothing to do with poverty. Also, fascinating that if you haphazardly connect the hand wringing topic du-jour with anything at all you get people that scour the internet for even the tiniest scrap of evidence for you. > Yours isn't any more valid than theirs, so what did you add to the discussion? At least I know some economics and history so of course my perspective is more valid. There has never been a time or place where everyone was better off materially and if you are not aware you and OP should start reading some of those books.
tastygreenapple 7y ago
Why would IQ be explained by wealth inequality? I thought the literature was pretty conclusive - there's a benefit to rising above poverty but beyond that wealth doesn't buy much IQ. Poverty rates are falling, I'm not sure we would expect a person whose nutritional needs are met to be more or less smart because someone else is fabulously wealthy.
tomcam 7y ago
We have about 75 years of testing on that, don’t we? Communist states such as China, USSR, and were a living laboratory. You could meet wide swathes of society with essentially the same income, but there was still the same kind of range in IQ you see in wealthier societies. I recall no studies showing different IQs vs. the free market (and hence more unequal) cohorts.
- anoncake 7y ago
  Equality is not the only way in which the pseudo-communist Eastern Bloc differed from the West.

by s_r_n 7y ago

microcolonel 7y ago

> decrease in quantity of healthy food consumed Far as I can tell, this is the opposite of the trend, in the U.S. and Canada. > I wonder if the drop in IQ is related to the increase in wealth inequality in these past 50 years as well. Not sure what mechanism you think would enable that. Thinking that the richest people in society are, in relative terms, more rich than you than before has no obvious effect on anything related to IQ. Average and median PPP wealth and income continue to grow.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
> Far as I can tell, this is the opposite of the trend, in the U.S. and Canada. We've got an obesity epidemic. The average American is clearly not eating healthy. Maybe you misinterpreted the OP's statement? "Decrease in quantity of healthy food consumed" is awkward, but the intent is clear from context.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Well, a decrease from when? As far as I can tell, OP meant that the cited decrease is still under way, and hence contributing to an ongoing decline in average IQ.

pkaye 7y ago

Is there large wealth inequality in Norway? That is one of the studies this article references.

tokai 7y ago
No. But the relative inequality is increasing.[0] 0. https://www.tnp.no/norway/economy/poverty-income-inequality-increase-norway https://www.tnp.no/norway/economy/poverty-income-inequality-...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- trashtester 7y ago
  This is due almost fully to immigration [0]. In the IQ study, immigrants were excluded. So no, that hypothesis does not make sense. Norway has been able to (due to oil revenues) avoid the (non-imported) increased inequality that has affected most other western countries over the last decades. [0] https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/ZoD/innvandring-er-den-klart-viktigste-arsaken-til-veksten-i-familier-med-vedvarende-lavinntekt https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/ZoD/innvandring-er-den-k...

cryptica 7y ago

I think it's because intelligence doesn't help when it comes to earning money. The luck and social component is so strong that there is very little incentive for people to be intelligent. I also do think that wealth inequality correlates with lower average IQ. Rich people want to keep the majority of people dumb; breed them like cattle, hook them up to machines and milk them.

icedchai 7y ago
Though it's not a guarantee, it certainly does help. I'd argue that intelligence is part of that "luck." You lucked out and won the genetic lottery.
- jondubois 7y ago
  I don't buy the genetic argument. Intelligence is worthless. In this society, a complete idiot with capital can achieve much more than a genius can achieve without capital.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    Which is why top companies are founded by children of lottery winners and media celebrities, while poor immigrants never achieve anything significant.
    - atq2119 7y ago
      Founding a top company is the most visible way of gaining a lot of wealth, but it is by far not representative. Much more common are ways of starting with a lot of wealth and turning it into even more wealth.
      - Viliam1234 7y ago
        This is exactly the kind of information that will NOT be welcome at Hacker News.

sunshinelackof 7y ago

IQ, flawed as it may be as a measure, is sometimes touted as one of the best predictors of success in life. It's just conjecture, but maybe there's a feedback loop there.

Falling3 7y ago
Zip code is also a very good predictor of success in life. IQ could be a great predictor, but that still doesn't mean it's measuring what we think it's measuring.
- skookumchuck 7y ago
  People aren't randomly assigned zip codes. Zip code can also be a proxy for IQ.
  - Falling3 7y ago
    That seems very unlikely. What seems more unlikely is that both IQ and zip code are proxies for something else.
    - skookumchuck 7y ago
      So you think it "very unlikely" that someone more intelligent would make better decisions, and those decisions have better outcomes enabling someone to live in a pricier neighborhood?
      - objectivetruth 7y ago
        The vast majority of people in a ZIP code are not homeowners or leaseholders. You're neglecting most family members and a plethora of other people that aren't mobile, also that ZIP codes can be incredibly stratified. Households aren't predictable particles in a simulator, either: the real world isn't some SimCity simulation where dumb people go to shitty schools, get shitty jobs, live in shitty neighborhoods and therefore everyone in a shitty neighborhood or shitty job is consequently dumb. I think you're attempting to use ZIP code as a proxy for socioeconomic class, and then presuming a correlation between intelligence and socioeconomic class. It's a really simplistic model that seems intuitive but has a lot of problems if you're using it to judge real live human beings and/or make policy decisions.

sisu2019 7y ago

wealth inequality doesn't mean more poor people. I know it's a lot to ask nowadays but please be informed enough about economics to at least know the very basics if you are going to bring it up. The idea that the food availabe to people is getting worse or less, in Western Europe of all places, is absolutely ridicolous. If anything the opposite is the case. As regards jobs we also have the opposite problem: too few simple jobs.

reallydude 7y ago
> wealth inequality doesn't mean more poor people. Wealth, inequality, and poor are not well-defined. Using the typical measures: poor being near the poverty line for an area wealthy being access to capital (be it over 100x the poverty wealth line or double the average) and inequality, the gap in absolute terms from top to average. The pareto principle will always illustrate how greater inequality defines that there are more poor people, even when the poverty line changes. Abstract equations, notwithstanding. > The idea that the food availabe to people is getting worse or less The amount of food, available, is changing. The most popular bananas (https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-confirms-that-bananas-are-being-driven-to-extinction https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-confirms-that-bananas...), beef, fish (http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans/threats/fishstocks/ http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans...), are all in decline for differing reasons. So there's a little truth to it from a perspective. Yours isn't any more valid than theirs, so what did you add to the discussion? Ironically, the beef industry may be kept on life support due to the ongoing climate change. New grazelands will appear from beneath the tundra across the world offering another few generations of opportunity. Buy your land in the US Dakotas for your grandchildren. It's a golden opportunity.
- sisu2019 7y ago
  it's a fun game: define poverty in terms of wealth inequality and presto if inequality goes up, poverty does too. But here is the thing that we forgot in the west because we essentialy abolished it: poverty is about material depreviation and that happens to be the one thing about it that would actually stunt IQ. We don't have material deprivation, not in Norway nor anywhere else in Western Europe, certainly not at an increasing rate. We have access to all the calories we want and at prices and qualities unequaled in human history. We also have endless free books btw. > bananas It should be obvious that Europeans don't need bananas for proper development. In addition that has nothing to do with poverty. Also, fascinating that if you haphazardly connect the hand wringing topic du-jour with anything at all you get people that scour the internet for even the tiniest scrap of evidence for you. > Yours isn't any more valid than theirs, so what did you add to the discussion? At least I know some economics and history so of course my perspective is more valid. There has never been a time or place where everyone was better off materially and if you are not aware you and OP should start reading some of those books.

tastygreenapple 7y ago

Why would IQ be explained by wealth inequality? I thought the literature was pretty conclusive - there's a benefit to rising above poverty but beyond that wealth doesn't buy much IQ. Poverty rates are falling, I'm not sure we would expect a person whose nutritional needs are met to be more or less smart because someone else is fabulously wealthy.

tomcam 7y ago

We have about 75 years of testing on that, don’t we? Communist states such as China, USSR, and were a living laboratory. You could meet wide swathes of society with essentially the same income, but there was still the same kind of range in IQ you see in wealthier societies. I recall no studies showing different IQs vs. the free market (and hence more unequal) cohorts.

anoncake 7y ago
Equality is not the only way in which the pseudo-communist Eastern Bloc differed from the West.