Stefan Molyneux Posted August 24, 2010 Posted August 24, 2010 Kids keep getting smarter. School stays as dumb as ever. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWTYP6rcn30&hd=1] http://wapedia.mobi/en/Flynn_effecthttp://psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/are-iq-scores-really-increasing-over-timehttp://www.increasebrainpower.com/average-iq-score.html130 or higher: 2.2% of the population.120-129: 6.7% of the population.110-119: 16.1% of the population.90-109 (Average): 50% of the population.80-89: 16.1% of the population.70-79: 6.7% of the population.Below 70: 2.2% of the population.Psychologist Ulric Neisser, who, during 1995, headed an American Psychological Association task force writing a consensus statement on the state of intelligence research, estimates that if American children of 1932 could take an IQ test normed during 1997 their average IQ would have been only about 80Considering Ravens, Neisser estimates that if he extrapolates beyond the data, which shows a 21-point gain between 1952 and 1982, an even larger gain of 35 IQ points can be argued.For example, Dutch conscripts gained 21 points during only 30 years, or 7 points per decade, between 1952 and 1982.In the United States * 4.5 million children 5-17 years of age have ever been diagnosed with ADHD as of 2006. [Read article Adobe PDF file] * 3%-7% of school-aged children suffer from ADHD. Some studies have estimated higher rates in community samples.1 * 7.8% of school-aged children were reported to have an ADHD diagnosis by their parent in 2003. [Read article] * Diagnosis of ADHD increased an average of 3% per year from 1997 to 2006. [Read article Adobe PDF file] * Boys (9.5%) are more likely than girls (5.9%) to have been diagnosed with ADHD. [Read article Adobe PDF file] * ADHD diagnosis is significantly higher among non-Hispanic, primarily English-speaking, and insured children. [Read article] * Prevalence rates are significantly higher for children in families in which the most highly educated adult was a high school graduate (or had completed 12 years of education), compared with children in families in which the most highly educated adult had a higher or lower level of education. [Read article] * ADHD diagnosis among males was reported significantly more often in families with incomes below the poverty threshold (<100%) than in families with incomes at or above the poverty threshold. Rates of reported diagnosis among females were not significantly different across the three levels of poverty. [Read article] * Prevalence varies substantially by state, from a low of 5% in Colorado to a high of 11.1% in Alabama. [Read article]* Diagnosed cases of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder increased almost 4 percent every year from 2000 to 2010 making it the number one mental health concern in children.* Boys are twice as likely to be diagnosed as girls. This is down dramatically from the 10 to 1 ratio in 1997.* In America, the state with highest number of cases reported was Alabama with the highest number of prescriptions being written in Arkansas.* Slightly less than 5.5 million children ranging in age from 5 to 17 were diagnosed with ADHD in 2009.* Currently 60 percent of all children with ADHD are receiving medication for treating the disorder, with Ritalin continuing to be the most widely prescribed.* The most highly medicated age demographic for ADHD children are those from 9 to 12 years of age.*Children with ADHD, compared to children with ADHD, were more likely to have major injuries (59% to 49%), hospital inpatient (26% to 18%), hospitalized outpatient (41% to 33%), or emergency room visits (81% to 74%).http://www.articlesbase.com/mental-health-articles/11-attention-grabbing-childhood-adhd-statistics-2158651.htmlhttp://www.healthcentral.com/adhd/c/1443/13716/addadhd-statistics65% of children with ADHD exhibit problems in defiance or problems with authority figures. This can include verbal hostility and temper tantrums.
Stefan Molyneux Posted August 24, 2010 Author Posted August 24, 2010 [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWTYP6rcn30]
Ryan Linton Posted August 24, 2010 Posted August 24, 2010 Bill Gates agrees with you (almost). I personally have an idea for buying up old churches and converting them into free learning centers that I think could make K-12 obsolete someday.
MrCapitalism Posted August 24, 2010 Posted August 24, 2010 Bill Gates: In Five Years The Best Education Will Come From The Web Wow, I guess we can call Bill Gates and "old fogie"... he's like 10+ years behind the times... on this issue at least.
Ricardo Cruz Posted August 27, 2010 Posted August 27, 2010 BTW, here is an awesome online resource for students (from pre-school to college): http://www.khanacademy.org/ The author quited his job, as a hedge fund analyst, to come up with all those videos. (Sounds familar?) Bill Gates talks about it somewhere -- I think in the event from which the photo was taken in that article (it's on youtube -- will find a link if you want). Strangely, the videos (you only hear his voice and him working on the problem) work pretty well. There are some interactive problems in the website too.
e_b_ sarver Posted September 11, 2010 Posted September 11, 2010 From Wikipedia: Attempted explanations have included improved nutrition, a trend toward smaller families, better education, greater environmental complexity, and heterosis.[10] Another proposition is greater familiarity with multiple-choice questions and experience with brain-teaser IQ problems. Duration of average schooling has increased steadily. One problem with this explanation is that if comparing older and more recent subjects with similar educational levels, then the IQ gains appear almost undiminished in each such group considered individually.[4] Mathematics has been proposed as particularly important.[11] I wonder, could part of the genetic explanation be that people of lower IQ might be more likely to die in acts of violence, and fail to pass on their DNA? Over time, this would explain both the general trend towards less violence, and the general trend towards greater intelligence. Maybe dumb violent folks don't pass on their genes cause they keep killing each other?
J-William Posted September 11, 2010 Posted September 11, 2010 I wonder, could part of the genetic explanation be that people of lower IQ might be more likely to die in acts of violence, and fail to pass on their DNA? Over time, this would explain both the general trend towards less violence, and the general trend towards greater intelligence. Maybe dumb violent folks don't pass on their genes cause they keep killing each other? I suspect that is not a viable theory because the rate of change in intelligence is very high, and the rate of people violently killing each other is too low.
Ricardo Cruz Posted September 11, 2010 Posted September 11, 2010 I wonder, could part of the genetic explanation be that people of lower IQ might be more likely to die in acts of violence, and fail to pass on their DNA? Over time, this would explain both the general trend towards less violence, and the general trend towards greater intelligence. Maybe dumb violent folks don't pass on their genes cause they keep killing each other? I side with J-William, and I would point out that chimps are involved in relatively constant group warfare, as well as hierarchal struggles within the group, yet we don't see their IQ rising. By the way, it is pretty well agreed that we developed such massive brains as a result of mate selection. Such like the peacock has developed such large and beautiful tails, we developed our love for poetry, philosophy, analogies, etc in order to impress females. A good popular book on that is the Red Queen. Of course, that won't help us much in predicting the future of our species -- it's very much possible that some other form of selection is operative now.[/font] But evolutionary explanations are pretty complicated to conjecture. Let me point one something biologists stress constantly: saying that (for example) bigger brains are beneficial isn't enough to explain why we evolved them (or in predicting the future of ours and other species). Why? First, there are the associated costs: in the case of brains, they require a lot of fuel (ie. food), they also require that either females develop a bigger pelvis (and compromise running), or that infants take longer post-natal development time, which requires more attention and energy from the parents, etc. Even if bigger brains were a net bargain when considered in isolation, you've to look at what they call the "economy of the body". If energy gets consumed by the brain, it cannot be consumed to make you bigger muscles, to decrease your sleeping time, to increase your stamina, etc. Some creationists say that because we can select in laboratory for some feature, say, mice with less tooth decay (ie. stronger teeth), and in a matter of generations, we can greatly reduce tooth decay incidence in mice, then that disproves evolution. Obviously, they say, if tooth decay is a bad thing, why hasn't nature selected for stronger teeth already. Well, the thing is that to get calcium for the teeth, mice will have to increase their food intake, which risks their survival, etc. Furthermore, instead of using that extra calcium for the teeth, why don't they use it to make some bones stronger? Or transform it for other usage?
e_b_ sarver Posted September 11, 2010 Posted September 11, 2010 I wonder, could part of the genetic explanation be that people of lower IQ might be more likely to die in acts of violence, and fail to pass on their DNA? Over time, this would explain both the general trend towards less violence, and the general trend towards greater intelligence. Maybe dumb violent folks don't pass on their genes cause they keep killing each other? I suspect that is not a viable theory because the rate of change in intelligence is very high, and the rate of people violently killing each other is too low. An excellent point! [] I was being facetious, meant to be conveyed by the bias of the last sentence. That probably wasn't clear. Or maybe it was clear, and your facetiousness was not clear to me. [:$] Regardless, I stand corrected!
Ricardo Cruz Posted September 11, 2010 Posted September 11, 2010 Just to clarify something. I wrote a lot on evolution, so someone that doesn't read me closely may interpret me as being in favor of such explanations. No. Evolution tends to happen in "islands" of people first, not in such broad, worldwide terms (and only then those characterists get spread through inter-breeding). It seems pretty clear IQ rising is caused by prosperity. Dispite our complains about modern nutrition, about pesticides, and etc, the fact is that we eat more and better than any other human generation before us. It's not surprising therefor our body develops higher heights, better skin, bigger brains, longer longevity, etc than the generations before us. I personally think food explains most of this phenomena actually, but I don't know much about it. I wouldn't be surprised that the information we are bombarded with may also help in our reasoning growth. People like to complaint about stuff like advertisements, but it's possible even such things make us smarter. It develops our sense of skepticism, our analytical capabilities, etc. Even false advertisement -- like in my days, Sega showing images taken from the Master System (Genesis for Americans) for their portable Game Gear commercials -- as a kid, that gets you thinking into motivations, etc. If a child gets disappointed by a toy she bought because of an ad, maybe that helps in her intellectual growth too. And I think even passive sources like TV shows are probably sources of cerebral stimulation too, besides what people like to say. I think schooling is overrated, and we spent far too much time of our lives in those labor camps, but obviously those help too.
e_b_ sarver Posted September 11, 2010 Posted September 11, 2010 By the way, it is pretty well agreed that we developed such massive brains as a result of mate selection. Such like the peacock has developed such large and beautiful tails, we developed our love for poetry, philosophy, analogies, etc in order to impress females. A good popular book on that is the Red Queen. Of course, that won't help us much in predicting the future of our species -- it's very much possible that some other form of selection is operative now. But evolutionary explanations are pretty complicated to conjecture. Let me point one something biologists stress constantly: saying that (for example) bigger brains are beneficial isn't enough to explain why we evolved them (or in predicting the future of ours and other species). Why? First, there are the associated costs: in the case of brains, they require a lot of fuel (ie. food), they also require that either females develop a bigger pelvis (and compromise running), or that infants take longer post-natal development time, which requires more attention and energy from the parents, etc. Even if bigger brains were a net bargain when considered in isolation, you've to look at what they call the "economy of the body". If energy gets consumed by the brain, it cannot be consumed to make you bigger muscles, to decrease your sleeping time, to increase your stamina, etc. Yes, I am familiar with this line of reasoning and the evidence behind it with regards to mate selection. I have not read the book Red Queen. I do agree that mate selection likely played a large role in the evolution of the human nervous system. I have also read some very compelling evidence with regards to diet and locale that suggest they produced significant pressure on the evolution of hominids, and in particular the nervous system.
Ricardo Cruz Posted September 11, 2010 Posted September 11, 2010 An excellent point! /BOARD/emoticons/emotion-1.gif I was being facetious, meant to be conveyed by the bias of the last sentence. That probably wasn't clear. Or maybe it was clear, and your facetiousness was not clear to me. /BOARD/emoticons/emotion-10.gif Regardless, I stand corrected! Oh, I missed that. That was hilarious actually. I guess I read your comment too rapidly. (Who do I want to fool, my IQ just hasn't kept up. )
J-William Posted September 11, 2010 Posted September 11, 2010 I wonder, could part of the genetic explanation be that people of lower IQ might be more likely to die in acts of violence, and fail to pass on their DNA? Over time, this would explain both the general trend towards less violence, and the general trend towards greater intelligence. Maybe dumb violent folks don't pass on their genes cause they keep killing each other? I suspect that is not a viable theory because the rate of change in intelligence is very high, and the rate of people violently killing each other is too low. An excellent point! /BOARD/emoticons/emotion-1.gif I was being facetious, meant to be conveyed by the bias of the last sentence. That probably wasn't clear. Or maybe it was clear, and your facetiousness was not clear to me. /BOARD/emoticons/emotion-10.gif Regardless, I stand corrected! haha, I think that perhaps you got too clever for me and yourself... anyway I was just thinking about a TED talk that I saw posted on the board recently talking about the exponential decrease in violence in human society. That's of course much faster than the speed of evolution, but I suspect you weren't unaware of that. []
Alan C. Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 [view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIb9v56K6l0] [view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-mLO0ZgOwc]
Alan C. Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 This is a really good presentation. I couldn't figure out when it was filmed but it looks like it was probably in the late 1980s. [view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTz_V9ubZMQ]
Formelyknown Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 Education need more rap. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k7ob438hk0]
Recommended Posts