Alas, the Wikipedia article you kindly linked to is an example of the point-of-view pushing that goes on too much on Wikipedia in relation to the topic of human intelligence.
It's going to be a long, long, LONG time before Wikipedia will come close to correctly representing what the most reliable sources say about time trends in IQ in national populations, about the relationship of genetic factors to the development of human intelligence, or about most related subjects.
For a reliable source on the subject you are curious about, see Intelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists Respond to THE BELL CURVE
Thank you for the extra information! I'll add that to my reading list.
To clarify: I've always taken the plot of "Idiocracy" to be fictional fantasy, and I simply used Wikipedia articles as a short-hand to summarize the ideas advanced by the movie. I realized that such a plot is so charged with the potential to offend people, I've never had a conversation with anyone about it (after all, we all think we're on the 'sweet' side of the curve, right?). Personally, I don't think such a brain drain could occur, but I'm always interested in research about such topics.
Also: thanks for pointing out the importance of the IQ/intelligence debate. From what I've seen in my reading, IQ is really a proxy for a few things: quality of education, social advantages, etc. I agree 100% that IQ≠intelligence; the Wikipedia articles in question should be rewritten to reflect this fact.
However, while IQ does not represent intellectual horsepower, it has been shown to be that aforementioned _proxy_ for other sociological and other factors -- in that sense, it is still useful to compare IQ with fertility. I do understand your concern that the consensus regarding such studies is poorly represented on Wikipedia.
Comments
Alas, the Wikipedia article you kindly linked to is an example of the point-of-view pushing that goes on too much on Wikipedia in relation to the topic of human intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/...
It's going to be a long, long, LONG time before Wikipedia will come close to correctly representing what the most reliable sources say about time trends in IQ in national populations, about the relationship of genetic factors to the development of human intelligence, or about most related subjects.
For a reliable source on the subject you are curious about, see Intelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists Respond to THE BELL CURVE
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-Scientists-...
with articles by several expert statisticians, geneticists, and psychologists.
Thank you for the extra information! I'll add that to my reading list.
To clarify: I've always taken the plot of "Idiocracy" to be fictional fantasy, and I simply used Wikipedia articles as a short-hand to summarize the ideas advanced by the movie. I realized that such a plot is so charged with the potential to offend people, I've never had a conversation with anyone about it (after all, we all think we're on the 'sweet' side of the curve, right?). Personally, I don't think such a brain drain could occur, but I'm always interested in research about such topics.
Also: thanks for pointing out the importance of the IQ/intelligence debate. From what I've seen in my reading, IQ is really a proxy for a few things: quality of education, social advantages, etc. I agree 100% that IQ≠intelligence; the Wikipedia articles in question should be rewritten to reflect this fact.
However, while IQ does not represent intellectual horsepower, it has been shown to be that aforementioned _proxy_ for other sociological and other factors -- in that sense, it is still useful to compare IQ with fertility. I do understand your concern that the consensus regarding such studies is poorly represented on Wikipedia.