IQ rates are dropping in many developed countries

[Anti Federalist]

Many reasons for this:

Weak, gynocentric, participation trophy, "schooling" and institutions of higher learning.

Idiocracy style breeding habits.

Ever fucking computers at every turn doing our thinking and problem solving for us.

But I hold, in spite of any denials, the primary cause is the invasion and importation of tens of millions of semi literate, sub 80 IQ idiots, from every third world cesspool across the globe.

Diversity is not our strength.



IQ rates are dropping in many developed countries

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/iq-rates-are-dropping-many-developed-countries-doesn-t-bode-ncna1008576

People are getting dumber. That's not a judgment; it's a global fact. In a host of leading nations, IQ scores have started to decline.

Though there are legitimate questions about the relationship between IQ and intelligence, and broad recognition that success depends as much on other virtues like grit, IQ tests in use throughout the world today really do seem to capture something meaningful and durable. Decades of research have shown that individual IQ scores predict things such as educational achievement and longevity. More broadly, the average IQ score of a country is linked to economic growth and scientific innovation.

So if IQ scores are really dropping, that could not only mean 15 more seasons of the Kardashians, but also the potential end of progress on all these other fronts, ultimately leading to fewer scientific breakthroughs, stagnant economies and a general dimming of our collective future.

As yet, the United States hasn’t hit this IQ wall — despite what you may be tempted to surmise from the current state of the political debate. But don’t rush to celebrate American exceptionalism: If IQs are dropping in other advanced countries but not here, maybe that means we’re not really an advanced country (too much poverty, too little social support).

Or — just as troubling — if we are keeping up with the Joneses (or Johanssons and Jacques) in terms of national development, that means we are likely to experience similarly plummeting IQs in the near future. At which point, the U.S. will face the same dangers of intellectual and economic stagnation.

If we want to prevent America from suffering this fate, we’d better figure out why IQs are dropping elsewhere. But it’s uncharted territory. Until recently, IQ scores only moved in one direction: up. And if you're thinking, "Isn't the test set up so that 100 is always the average IQ?," that's only true because researchers rescale the tests to correct for improving raw scores. (Also, congrats, that’s the kind of critical thinking we don’t want to lose!)

These raw scores have been rising on a variety of standard IQ tests for over half a century. That may sound odd if you think of IQ as largely hereditary. But current IQ tests are designed to measure core cognitive skills such as short-term memory, problem-solving speed and visual processing, and rising scores show that these cognitive capabilities can actually be sharpened by environmental factors such as higher-quality schools and more demanding workplaces.

For a while, rising IQ scores seemed like clear evidence of social progress, palpable proof that humanity was getting steadily smarter — and might even be able to boost brainpower indefinitely. Scholars called it the "Flynn effect," in homage to J.R. Flynn, the researcher who recognized its full sweep and import.

These days, however, Flynn himself concedes that "the IQ gains of the 20th century have faltered." A range of studies using a variety of well-established IQ tests and metrics have found declining scores across Scandinavia, Britain, Germany, France and Australia.

Details vary from study to study and from place to place given the available data. IQ shortfalls in Norway and Denmark appear in longstanding tests of military conscripts, whereas information about France is based on a smaller sample and a different test. But the broad pattern has become clearer: Beginning around the turn of the 21st century, many of the most economically advanced nations began experiencing some kind of decline in IQ.

One potential explanation was quasi-eugenic. As in the movie “Idiocracy,” it was suggested that average intelligence is being pulled down because lower-IQ families are having more children ("dysgenic fertility" is the technical term). Alternatively, widening immigration might be bringing less-intelligent newcomers to societies with otherwise higher IQs.

However, a 2018 study of Norway has punctured these theories by showing that IQs are dropping not just across societies but within families. In other words, the issue is not that educated Norwegians are increasingly outnumbered by lower-IQ immigrants or the children of less-educated citizens. Even children born to high-IQ parents are slipping down the IQ ladder.

(Import and surround yourself with idiots, and you will not escape enstupidation yourself - AF)

Some environmental factor — or collection of factors — is causing a drop in the IQ scores of parents and their own children, and older kids and their younger siblings. One leading explanation is that the rise of lower-skill service jobs has made work less intellectually demanding, leaving IQs to atrophy as people flex their brains less.

There are also other possibilities, largely untested, such as global warming making food less nutritious or information-age devices sapping our ability to focus.

Ultimately, it’d be nice to pin down the precise reason IQ scores are dropping before we’re too stupid to figure it out, especially as these scores really do seem connected to long-term productivity and economic success.

And while we might be able to compensate with skills besides intelligence, like determination or passion, in a world where IQ scores continue to fall — and where the drop expands to places like the United States — there’s also a bleaker scenario: a global intelligence crisis that undermines humanity's problem-solving capacity and leaves us ill-equipped to tackle the complex challenges posed by AI, global warming and developments we have yet to imagine.

[Anti Federalist]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sHEawhiwhsI/maxresdefault.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

Alternatively, widening immigration might be bringing less-intelligent newcomers to societies with otherwise higher IQs.

IQ tests have been noted to have a bias in favor of white/ western education and culture so sure people who are not in that group may score lower and yet may be just as intelligent. IQ test shows you are good at taking a particular type of test- not necessarily that you have more smarts than anybody else.

Rick Rosner is considered to have one of the highest IQs in the world (upper 190's). Does he consider himself "smart"?

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-man-with-the-highest-iq-in-the-world-doesnt-think-hes-very-smart-at-all-2012-4


To think you can accurately measure super high iqs is also not reasonable in that a lot of my IQ is that I'm super persistent. I know what it takes to do well on those tests in terms of time commitment. I've taken a bunch of these tests and I'm willing to spend 120 hours on them. But a really smart person like a Bill Gates would say why would I spend 120 hours on this test when I can develop a new product and make 100s of millions of dollars. It's almost as if I'm less smart for taking these tests. You have to take points off for me wasting my time.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.zippia.com/advice/smartest-states-in-america/


HOW WE DETERMINED THE SMARTEST STATES IN THE COUNTRY
While there are “objective” crtieria for intellegence like IQ scores and SATs, we went with something a little different for this analysis. Many of those tests have been shown to be biased against certain people and places, so we went with criteria that strips away a bit of that bias.

Specifically we uused the following two criteria to determine the cream from the crop when it comes to smarts:

Percentage of adults with at least a college education (Higher is smarter)
Percentage of teenagers that are high school dropouts (Lower is smarter)

Our data comes directly from the latest American Community Survey from the Census (2010-2014).

We thought this criteria was representative of the current state of smarts with the potential for a place to improve the education levels of the next generation.

In order to determine the smartest, we ranked all the states for each criteria from one to 50 with one being the “smartest” in any category.

https://www.zippia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/smartest-states-in-america.jpg

[Anti Globalist]

Liberal IQs might be dropping, but conservative IQs are skyrocketing.

[specsaregood]

https://www.zippia.com/advice/smartest-states-in-america/

Lol at that determination; people that think getting a degree makes people smart. And yet they end up hiring the dumbies to do tasks they don't know how to do.

[enhanced_deficit]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534803-HUD-Director-Ben-Carson-Doesn-t-Know-the-Difference-Between-a-Oreo-and-a-REO&p=6801365&viewfull=1#post6801365

[dannno]

IQ tests have been noted to have a bias in favor of white/ western education and culture so sure people who are not in that group may score lower and yet may be just as intelligent.


Bullshit. Asians score higher than whites. They are nonwhite/eastern culture.

[Zippyjuan]

Another factor to note (briefly noted in the OP article) is that the IQ scores get reset fairly regularly. 100 points is always the average. That makes it harder to say if scores are actually going up or down over time. 100 points this year may not be the same thing as 100 points ten years ago.

https://www.healthline.com/health/average-iq


What is the average IQ globally and in the United States?

IQ tests are made to have an average score of 100. Psychologists revise the test every few years in order to maintain 100 as the average. Most people (about 68 percent) have an IQ between 85 and 115. Only a small fraction of people have a very low IQ (below 70) or a very high IQ (above 130).

[Anti Federalist]

Bullshit. Asians score higher than whites. They are nonwhite/eastern culture.

I knew Zippy would have visited to say that, and I knew that this was the response.

I owe ya a rep.

[Brian4Liberty]

There are also other possibilities, largely untested, such as global warming making food less nutritious or information-age devices sapping our ability to focus.

It’s global warming!

[Firestarter]

Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg at Norway's Ragnar Frisch Center for Economic Research have gathered “scientific proof” that we're all getting dumber. In their paper it’s reported that IQ scores have been dropping since 1975.
https://archive.is/UtlpE/734471a67161e6dbd104ea77339da23163fc5604.gif

The study analyzed 730,000 IQ test results from young men entering Norway's compulsory military service from 1970 to 2009. IQ scores declined by an average of seven points per generation, a reversal of the so-called “Flynn effect”, where IQ was rising in the 20th century until 1975.
https://archive.is/EuVHN/05f4e8eb31904332a454511f72b8d16893642fa0.jpg

Bratsberg and Rogeberg discounted as significant causes: parental education, family size, increased immigration, and genetics.
They couldn´t figure out what the ultimate cause was.

Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg - Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused (2018): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6042097/
(archived here: http://archive.is/UtlpE)


In 1968, George Land researched the creativity of 1,600 children starting in age from three-to-five years. He re-tested the same children at 10 years and again at 15 years of age. The results were astounding.
Test results 5 year olds - 98%
Test results 10 year olds - 30%
Test results 15 year olds - 12%

The same test was given to 280,000 adults, who were only 2% “creative”.
A good explanation could be, that our educational system was designed to train us to be good workers that follow instructions: https://www.creativityatwork.com/2012/03/23/can-creativity-be-taught/

[juleswin]

Sperm count drops and now IQ, what the hell is going on?

[Anti Globalist]

Sperm count drops and now IQ, what the hell is going on?
Must mean we're going back to the Stone Age and we'll become neanderthals again.

[ATruepatriot]

Must mean we're going back to the Stone Age and we'll become neanderthals again.

Absolutely, we are devolving physically and mentally as a species.

[oyarde]

The great part about getting older is I can still learn something every day . Not that I may remember it a week from now . My earliest IQ test was around just slightly over 150 . That and some silver would get me a cup of coffee . I actually feel that the smarter you are the harder it is to be patient , happy and enjoy what you have which I learned to do , very well . Otherwise if you have a lot of drive you will always be working and never rest and relax . Being slightly dull could have its advantages . You could just be happy because you are not aware of all the people stealing from you and screwing you over .

[Grandmastersexsay]

IQ tests have been noted to have a bias in favor of white/ western education and culture so sure people who are not in that group may score lower and yet may be just as intelligent. IQ test shows you are good at taking a particular type of test- not necessarily that you have more smarts than anybody else.

Rick Rosner is considered to have one of the highest IQs in the world (upper 190's). Does he consider himself "smart"?

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-man-with-the-highest-iq-in-the-world-doesnt-think-hes-very-smart-at-all-2012-4

Of course. People of different races must have the same level of intelligence. We are all equal after all. Men and women are also exactly the same. It couldn't be that for people who migrated to colder, more challenging climates, intelligence was a more important evolutionary trait than it was in warmer, less challenging climates.

[heavenlyboy34]

Bullshit. Asians score higher than whites. They are nonwhite/eastern culture.

Not all Asians. East Asians specifically. And some ethnic "white" groups tend to score far higher than the rest on average. #ethnicgeneralizationisalmostimpossible

[Grandmastersexsay]

Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg at Norway's Ragnar Frisch Center for Economic Research have gathered “scientific proof” that we're all getting dumber. In their paper it’s reported that IQ scores have been dropping since 1975.
https://archive.is/UtlpE/734471a67161e6dbd104ea77339da23163fc5604.gif

The study analyzed 730,000 IQ test results from young men entering Norway's compulsory military service from 1970 to 2009. IQ scores declined by an average of seven points per generation, a reversal of the so-called “Flynn effect”, where IQ was rising in the 20th century until 1975.
https://archive.is/EuVHN/05f4e8eb31904332a454511f72b8d16893642fa0.jpg

Bratsberg and Rogeberg discounted as significant causes: parental education, family size, increased immigration, and genetics.
They couldn´t figure out what the ultimate cause was.

Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg - Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused (2018): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6042097/
(archived here: http://archive.is/UtlpE)


In 1968, George Land researched the creativity of 1,600 children starting in age from three-to-five years. He re-tested the same children at 10 years and again at 15 years of age. The results were astounding.
Test results 5 year olds - 98%
Test results 10 year olds - 30%
Test results 15 year olds - 12%

The same test was given to 280,000 adults, who were only 2% “creative”.
A good explanation could be, that our educational system was designed to train us to be good workers that follow instructions: https://www.creativityatwork.com/2012/03/23/can-creativity-be-taught/

The opposite is true for the US and most of the world. See if you notice anything in common with the countries where this is happening.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

[heavenlyboy34]

Sperm count drops and now IQ, what the hell is going on?

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.universetoday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F03%2FAliens-meme-580x387.jpg&f=1

[ATruepatriot]

I think it is universal, and it is technology. The less we are required to think for ourselves the less we need to or will.

[donnay]

It's a number of things, not necessarily in this order and here's a few for starters:

Malnutrition
water fluoridation
schooling
prescription mind altering drugs
vaccines with mercury and aluminum
Lack of exercising

[dannno]

Not all Asians. East Asians specifically. And some ethnic "white" groups tend to score far higher than the rest on average. #ethnicgeneralizationisalmostimpossible

Ya, nobody is trying to say IQ is tied to race or ethnicity, like it can't ever be changed... Just that different groups of people from different areas have different average IQs for different reasons, and different races and ethnicities thus tend to have different IQs as a result.

It's not even a good or bad thing. People with lower IQs tend to be happier. They also tend to be poorer. These are just facts we have to deal with. The left denies them, says all groups have equal intelligence, thus why is there a wage gap between different races or groups of people? It must be racism, it must be oppression.. There can't be any other explanation. So we must take money from one group and give it to another.

[Swordsmyth]

Ya, nobody is trying to say IQ is tied to race or ethnicity, like it can't ever be changed... Just that different groups of people from different areas have different average IQs for different reasons, and different races and ethnicities thus tend to have different IQs as a result.

It's not even a good or bad thing. People with lower IQs tend to be happier. They also tend to be poorer. These are just facts we have to deal with. The left denies them, says all groups have equal intelligence, thus why is there a wage gap between different races or groups of people? It must be racism, it must be oppression.. There can't be any other explanation. So we must take money from one group and give it to another.
Cultures with IQs too low are a danger to liberty and tyranny suppresses IQ in the populace.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

IQ tests have been noted to have a bias in favor of white/ western education and culture so sure people who are not in that group may score lower and yet may be just as intelligent. IQ test shows you are good at taking a particular type of test- not necessarily that you have more smarts than anybody else.


The idea of IQ bias is purely ad-hoc and has never actually been demonstrated.

[tfurrh]

Cultures with IQs too low are a danger to liberty and tyranny suppress IQ in the populace.

That is subjective, and an if/then fallacy.

Plus I dont know which they are a danger to. Liberty or tyranny? Or both? Seems like a weird statement

[Swordsmyth]

That is subjective, an if/then fallacy, and flat out xenophobic
Not at all.

[tfurrh]

Not at all.

I took out the xenophobic part because after rereading I'm not sure it was.

I agree that culture's average IQ varies. But IQ is a construct. Also cultures are a construct. And it's not as if the high IQ of western civilization has produced any lasting bastion of liberty.

[Swordsmyth]

I took out the xenophobic part because after rereading I'm not sure it was.

I agree that culture's average IQ varies. But IQ is a construct. Also cultures are a construct. And it's not as if the high IQ of western civilization has produced any lasting bastion of liberty.
There are certainly many other factors involved in causing tyranny just as there are many other factors than tyranny involved in suppressing IQ but there is a minimum average IQ required for liberty, stupid people want others to lead them and are not able to understand attempts to manipulate them.

[Swordsmyth]

That is subjective, and an if/then fallacy.

Plus I dont know which they are a danger to. Liberty or tyranny? Or both? Seems like a weird statement
They are a danger to liberty and an asset to tyranny, they are easy to control.

[tfurrh]

There are certainly many other factors involved in causing tyranny just as there are many other factors than tyranny involved in suppressing IQ but there is a minimum average IQ required for liberty, stupid people want others to lead them and are not able to understand attempts to manipulate them.

As with many many smart people

[Swordsmyth]

So do many many smart people
That is caused by the other factors involved but the lower the IQ of the populace the stronger the trend becomes.

[dannno]

That is subjective, and an if/then fallacy.

Plus I dont know which they are a danger to. Liberty or tyranny? Or both? Seems like a weird statement

Criminality tends to hover around 85 IQ. Low IQ countries tend to be extremely corrupt.

High IQ countries tend to respect free speech, freedom of religion, more economic freedom, etc.


A collection of information about IQ:

http://fdrurl.com/iq


New video about the article in the OP:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm-LX-BjpBM

[tfurrh]

Criminality tends to hover around 85 IQ. Low IQ countries tend to be extremely corrupt.

High IQ countries tend to respect free speech, freedom of religion, more economic freedom, etc.


A collection of information about IQ:

http://fdrurl.com/iq


New video about the article in the OP:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm-LX-BjpBM

I'm not arguing against any of that or that there isn't a correlation. I'm just saying it's not necessarily THE cause of it. So I'm gonna disagree with an if/then statement that does.

[dannno]

I'm not arguing against any of that or that there isn't a correlation. I'm just saying it's not necessarily THE cause of it. So I'm gonna disagree with an if/then statement that does.

I think between IQ distributions and distributions of r vs K mating strategies, you could probably explain at least 90% of it just with those two things.

[tfurrh]

I think between IQ distributions and distributions of r vs K mating strategies, you could probably explain at least 90% of it just with those two things.

I'd say those are observable effects, just like the OP suggests, of many causes. Not the other way around.

[dannno]

I'd say those are observable effects, just like the OP suggests, of many causes. Not the other way around.

Do you know much about r vs. K mating strategies?

r's tend to be socialists/commies and Ks tend to be for free markets. There is good reason for that.

[tfurrh]

Do you know much about r vs. K mating strategies?

r's tend to be socialists/commies and Ks tend to be for free markets. There is good reason for that.

Yes, I do. What you're referring to isn't really it though. All humans are textbook K strategists.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I took out the xenophobic part because after rereading I'm not sure it was.

I agree that culture's average IQ varies. But IQ is a construct. Also cultures are a construct. And it's not as if the high IQ of western civilization has produced any lasting bastion of liberty.
IQ is a construct. But it's a useful one. Something being a construct doesn't really tell you anything about its value.

[dannno]

Yes, I do. What you're referring to isn't really it though. All humans are textbook K strategists.

LOL, no they are absolutely not. Humans can be born r or K and they can change based on early childhood experiences, and then change again potentially later in life.

When a girl is born, who would otherwise have her period at age 14, if she has some really awful things happen when she is a child it can actually make her have her period at age 11 or 12. That is one of the characteristics of r, is early sexualization.

That is literally biology drastically shifting based on their childhood experiences. It's called epigenetics.

Molyneux has like 15 videos explaining all of this stuff in great detail.

[tfurrh]

IQ is a construct. But it's a useful one. Something being a construct doesn't really tell you anything about its value.

Didn't say it didn't, but it sure don't tell you everything neither.

[Grandmastersexsay]

[QUOTE=tfurrh;6801946]I took

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

LOL, no they are absolutely not. Humans can be born r or K and they can change based on early childhood experiences, and then change again potentially later in life.

When a girl is born, who would otherwise have her period at age 14, if she has some really awful things happen when she is a child it can actually make her have her period at age 11 or 12. That is one of the characteristics of r, is early sexualization.

That is literally biology drastically shifting based on their childhood experiences. It's called epigenetics.

Molyneux has like 15 videos explaining all of this stuff in great detail.
r/K works best as a metaphor, within humans. He's right that all humans are K selected, just that some cultures are more K than others, but even those r selected peoples are K. A truly r selected species would be fish, for example, who lay tons of eggs, then do no parenting. That's truly r selected.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Didn't say it didn't, but it sure don't tell you everything neither.
If that's your standard, then nothing is useful.

[tfurrh]

LOL, no they are absolutely not. Humans can be born r or K and they can change based on early childhood experiences, and then change again potentially later in life.

When a girl is born, who would otherwise have her period at age 14, if she has some really awful things happen when she is a child it can actually make her have her period at age 11 or 12. That is one of the characteristics of r, is early sexualization.

That is literally biology drastically shifting based on their childhood experiences. It's called epigenetics.

Molyneux has like 15 videos explaining all of this stuff in great detail.

You're way off on this. Molyneux may have hijacked a somewhat dated biological concept, and used ideas from it to fit his narrative, but it's not that.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, I do. What you're referring to isn't really it though. All humans are textbook K strategists.
Compared to other animals but within humanity there is a spectrum and some people are farther towards one end or the other.

[tfurrh]

If that's your standard, then nothing is useful.

Another if/then fallacy

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Another if/then fallacy
I'm not even sure what this means. Do you mean affirming the consequent?

[tfurrh]

Compared to other animals but within humanity there is a spectrum and some people are frather towards one end or the other.

I understand what you both are saying/meaning/observing. But even among humans what we're taking about and observing isn't TRULY r vs K strategist.

[tfurrh]

I'm not even sure what this means. Do you mean affirming the consequent?

It's a low IQ way of saying post hoc ergo propter hoc

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

It's a low IQ way of saying post hoc ergo propter hoc
That's the confusion of correlation and causation. I don't see how that applies to my statement.

[juleswin]

To the people posting, how many of you know what your IQ is? I am talking about someone doing a proctored test to get the accurate number

[tfurrh]

To the people posting, how many of you know what your IQ is? I am talking about someone doing a proctored test to get the accurate number

I took one two years ago 131. I took one six or seven years ago 143. I guess the OP is right.

[juleswin]

I took one two years ago 131. I took one six or seven years ago 143. I guess the OP is right.

Wow, 131 is still very impressive. That is like 90th+ percentile right?

[tfurrh]

Wow, 131 is still very impressive. That is like 90th+ percentile right?

Yes. My wife took it 2 years ago as well. She scored a 99. She's Mexican. Say something Swordsmyth!

[ATruepatriot]

Wow, 131 is still very impressive. That is like 90th+ percentile right?

97.36

[Swordsmyth]

Yes. My wife took it 2 years ago as well. She scored a 99. She's Mexican. Say something Swordsmyth!

Why would I say anything?

[tfurrh]

Why would I say anything?

(I know I sure didn't)

[Anti Globalist]

Absolutely, we are devolving physically and mentally as a species.
Thats pretty much what the elites want. Have the people with high IQs rule over everything while the common folk have low IQs so we can be dumb enough to be kept in check. Seems to be working quite well.

[dannno]

You're way off on this. Molyneux may have hijacked a somewhat dated biological concept, and used ideas from it to fit his narrative, but it's not that.

Uh, no, I'm not..

Study Finds Link Between Child Abuse And The Timing Of Menstruation
https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2012/07/31/child-abuse-menstruation


Does Stress Cause Early Puberty? (http://www.jonahlehrer.com/blog/2016/4/10/does-stress-cause-early-puberty)

[ATruepatriot]

Thats pretty much what the elites want. Have the people with high IQs rule over everything while the people with low IQs be dumb enough to keep us in check. Seems to be working quite well.

It's been in the works for quite awhile now. The plan is to reduce IQ across the board so that we are all indifferent and not question the environment they will bestow on us as indentured servants.

[Firestarter]

The opposite is true for the US and most of the world. See if you notice anything in common with the countries where this is happening.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
According to "your" link, only in a small amount of countries, besides the Kingdom of Norway, IQ has declined…

In the Kingdom of Denmark the IQ of Danish male conscripts declined about 1.5 points from 1998 to 2004.
They thought that this has to do with the simultaneous decline in students entering 3-year advanced-level school programs for 16–18-year-olds and/or the rising proportion of immigrants (and their children).

In the United Kingdom, the IQ score of an average 14-year-old from 1980 to 2008 dropped with more than 2. However, the IQ for children aged between 5 and 10 saw an increase over these decades.

Flynn argues that the abnormal drop in British IQ from 10 to 14 is because the youth culture has dumbed down, including an orientation towards computer games instead of reading and talking.

It has also been argued that a higher fertility is associated with lower IQs.

In British colony Australia, the IQ of 6–12 year olds has shown no increase from 1975 to 2003.

[juleswin]

According to "your" link, only in a small amount of countries, besides the Kingdom of Norway, IQ has declined…

In the Kingdom of Denmark the IQ of Danish male conscripts declined about 1.5 points from 1998 to 2004.
They thought that this has to do with the simultaneous decline in students entering 3-year advanced-level school programs for 16–18-year-olds and/or the rising proportion of immigrants (and their children).

In the United Kingdom, the IQ score of an average 14-year-old from 1980 to 2008 dropped with more than 2. However, the IQ for children aged between 5 and 10 saw an increase over these decades.

Flynn argues that the abnormal drop in British IQ from 10 to 14 is because the youth culture has dumbed down, including an orientation towards computer games instead of reading and talking.

It has also been argued that a higher fertility is associated with lower IQs.

In British colony Australia, the IQ of 6–12 year olds has shown no increase from 1975 to 2003.

Rubbish, if you have more unprotected sex starting at a young age, high or low IQ people will generally end up having many kids. Smarter people tend to end up holding off getting pregnant during most of their most fertile years to go to University and grad school. I would wager that if got 100 low IQ couple and 100 high IQ couples and made both sets have sex daily for 10 yrs, you will end up with roughly the same amount of offspring.

[Anti Globalist]

IQ is purely subjective. A few weeks ago when I was flipping through the radio stations in my car, I came across people talking about celebrities that had genius IQ between 140-160. Practically every celebrity they named was a hard core liberal nutjob. I don't remember the names of every celebrity they named, but the ones I do remember off the top of my head were Nathalie Portman, Mat Damon, and Quentin Tarantino. Anybody whose every heard these people talk wouldn't consider them geniuses. Maybe their geniuses when it comes to acting/directing/scripting, but when any celebrity starts talking about politics, their IQ goes straight to 0.

[juleswin]

IQ is purely subjective. A few weeks ago when I was flipping through the radio stations in my car, I came across people talking about celebrities that had genius IQ between 140-160. Practically every celebrity they named was a hard core liberal nutjob. I don't remember the names of every celebrity they named, but the ones I do remember off the top of my head were Nathalie Portman, Mat Damon, and Quentin Tarantino. Anybody whose every heard these people talk wouldn't consider them geniuses. Maybe their geniuses when it comes to acting/directing/scripting, but when any celebrity starts talking about politics, their IQ goes straight to 0.

Your mistake lies squarely in the belief that someone being a liberal and talking politics automatically means they should have a low IQ. If you've ever seen a Quetin Tarantino movies, you would know that he is indeed a genius. Not sure about the rest of em.

[Firestarter]

It has also been argued that a higher fertility is associated with lower IQs.
Rubbish, if you have more unprotected sex starting at a young age, high or low IQ people will generally end up having many kids. Smarter people tend to end up holding off getting pregnant during most of their most fertile years to go to University and grad school.

This certainly wasn't MY opinion.
Since I learned that you can basically train yourself to get a higher score on an IQ test, I think it's nonsense anyway.

Even more ridiculous are claims on celebreties IQs often based on absolutely nothing (not even a test!)...

[Ender]

Testing is basically a load of crap- it's a mechanism to make public school slaves think they know something. Plus the IQ test is built around info orientation that does not compute to much of the world.

I have told the story before about missionaries in Africa who thought, at first, that the children they were teaching were very low IQ. When they stopped with the "sitting at desks in front of a blackboard with someone droning on" approach & changed their method, they found that the kids were blinkin' geniuses.

Many geniuses are lousy at taking tests, such as Einstein.

I am great at tests- I could pass the Bar- but I'm sure you don't want me to be your lawyer as I don't know squat about it.

[Todd]

You know why don't you?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E

[juleswin]

This certainly wasn't MY opinion.
Since I learned that you can basically train yourself to get a higher score on an IQ test, I think it's nonsense anyway.

Even more ridiculous are claims on celebrities IQs often based on absolutely nothing (not even a test!)...

I was only concerned with the point you made about low IQ people being more fertile. I just think the idea is rubbish. Unintelligent people only seem to be more fertile because they practice unprotected, non prophylactic sex more often and much earlier than the so called intelligent folks.

Also, I doubt someone with a basal IQ score of 100 can train it up to 160. I have to guess there are limits to how much the average person can train up their IQ especially once they have reached adulthood.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

We need dumb people, so the rest of us could be smart

[AngryCanadian]

Liberal IQs might be dropping, but conservative IQs are skyrocketing.

Which is not a surprise.

[TheCount]

You're way off on this. Molyneux may have hijacked a somewhat dated biological concept, and used ideas from it to fit his narrative, but it's not that.


It's every bit as made up as the alpha/beta thing and the soy/estrogen thing.


Strange how a group of allegedly highly intelligent and highly rational people subscribe to bogus theories just because they happen to align with their preconceived notions of how the world works...

[Anti Federalist]

It's every bit as made up as the alpha/beta thing and the soy/estrogen thing.

Strange how a group of allegedly highly intelligent and highly rational people subscribe to bogus theories just because they happen to align with their preconceived notions of how the world works...

Numerous medical studies have noted the precipitous drop in men's sperm and testosterone counts.

Is your contention that all of them are bogus and to be dismissed, like this subject?

Look, I don't give a frog's fat ass what metric you use to measure it: intelligence is quantifiable...and people are getting more stupid.

[Anti Federalist]

You know why don't you?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E

That's a part of it, no doubt.

Meanwhile, instead of delays and doubts, like the "smart" couple in the film, more and more this is the alternative:

https://mondrian.mashable.com/uploads%252Fcard%252Fimage%252F970686%252F164b576e-876a-42c6-af96-a160c7a75772.jpg%252F950x534__filters%253Aquality% 252890%2529.jpg?signature=3n2iSD6Ez6hN5N2LiNh3tb6w d4E=&source=https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com

Buggery and sodomy produce no offspring.

[Swordsmyth]

It's every bit as made up as the alpha/beta thing and the soy/estrogen thing.


Strange how a group of allegedly highly intelligent and highly rational people subscribe to bogus theories just because they happen to align with their preconceived notions of how the world works...
They are all true, that is why you deny them.

[dannno]

It's every bit as made up as the alpha/beta thing and the soy/estrogen thing.


Honk honk!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LjHnWsa2aY

[TheCount]

Numerous medical studies have noted the precipitous drop in men's sperm and testosterone counts.

No, that's not true. You've been deceived.

[TheCount]

Honk honk!

Do you know what has absolutely tons of actual estrogen in it that (unlike soy) does actually have effects on humans? Milk.

Is the alt-right still chugging milk to celebrate the genetic superiority of lactose tolerance?
https://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embed_tablet/public/2018/10/24/white-supremacists-love-milk.png

[Swordsmyth]

No, that's not true. You've been deceived.
Blatant lies are the order of the day?

You are overpaid.

[TheCount]

Blatant lies are the order of the day?

You are overpaid.

Go ahead, wormtongue. Prove I'm lying.

[Swordsmyth]

Go ahead, wormtongue. Prove I'm lying.
That's easy, you are posting.

But here are some mainstream sources that directly contradict your lies:

According to a recent report from JAMA (http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2612615), testosterone therapy among American men is on the rise. From 2010 to 2013, prescriptions more than doubled (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/well/testosterone-therapy-is-popular-but-studies-are-mixed.html), which researchers partially attribute to ubiquitous drug marketing campaigns urging older men to boost “low T” levels. The swell of interest reflects a genuine physiological shift: Across the population, men today have less testosterone compared to men of the same age a generation ago.

More at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/#49b07a2b8b7f


A new study shows a drop in average blood (https://www.webmd.com/heart/anatomy-picture-of-blood) levels of testosterone (https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20061026/study-mens-testosterone-levels-down) in middle-aged Boston men over the last 20 years.

More at: https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20061026/study-mens-testosterone-levels-down


Two major studies have confirmed the phenomenon, one in U.S. men (http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/1/196.abstract) and another in Danish men (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17895324). In the U.S. study, the total testosterone levels measured in men’s blood dropped approximately 22% between 1987 and 2004.
Of course testosterone levels drop as men get older, but what makes the study shocking is that men today actually have less testosterone than men used to have at the same age.

More at: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/18/modern-life-rough-on-men/


There are more studies out there too.

[TheCount]

That's easy, you are posting.

But here are some mainstream sources that directly contradict your lies:

According to a recent report from JAMA (http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2612615), testosterone therapy among American men is on the rise. From 2010 to 2013, prescriptions more than doubled (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/well/testosterone-therapy-is-popular-but-studies-are-mixed.html), which researchers partially attribute to ubiquitous drug marketing campaigns urging older men to boost “low T” levels. The swell of interest reflects a genuine physiological shift: Across the population, men today have less testosterone compared to men of the same age a generation ago.

More at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/#49b07a2b8b7f


A new study shows a drop in average blood (https://www.webmd.com/heart/anatomy-picture-of-blood) levels of testosterone (https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20061026/study-mens-testosterone-levels-down) in middle-aged Boston men over the last 20 years.

More at: https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20061026/study-mens-testosterone-levels-down


Two major studies have confirmed the phenomenon, one in U.S. men (http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/1/196.abstract) and another in Danish men (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17895324). In the U.S. study, the total testosterone levels measured in men’s blood dropped approximately 22% between 1987 and 2004.
Of course testosterone levels drop as men get older, but what makes the study shocking is that men today actually have less testosterone than men used to have at the same age.

More at: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/18/modern-life-rough-on-men/


There are more studies out there too.



Number of times soy is mentioned: 0


Keep trying, wormtongue. I believe in you.

[Swordsmyth]

Number of times soy is mentioned: 0


Keep trying, wormtongue. I believe in you.
Number of times soy is mentioned in the post you denied? 0




http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Anti Federalist http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6804301#post6804301)

Numerous medical studies have noted the precipitous drop in men's sperm and testosterone counts.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by TheCount http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6804965#post6804965)

No, that's not true. You've been deceived.

[dannno]

Do you know what has absolutely tons of actual estrogen in it that (unlike soy) does actually have effects on humans? Milk.

Is the alt-right still chugging milk to celebrate the genetic superiority of lactose tolerance?
https://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embed_tablet/public/2018/10/24/white-supremacists-love-milk.png


Honk honk!!


butter is about 80 percent fat, and one serving contains 1.9 nanograms (billionth of a gram) of estrogen. One 8-ounce glass of whole milk contains 2.2 nanograms of estrogen. One 8-ounce glass of skim milk contains 0.8 nanograms. The human body produces from 54,000 nanograms to 630,000 nanograms of estrogen per day,

https://www.bestfoodfacts.org/is-there-estrogen-in-milk/

[shakey1]

Thats pretty much what the elites want. Have the people with high IQs rule over everything while the common folk have low IQs so we can be dumb enough to be kept in check. Seems to be working quite well.

TPTB just as soon have us all stupid, sick & strapped.

[TheTexan]

Bullshit. Asians score higher than whites. They are nonwhite/eastern culture.

Only in math. Most asian countries can't afford calculators so in their cultures they learn how to do math manually.

[Philhelm]

IQ tests have been noted to have a bias in favor of white/ western education and culture so sure people who are not in that group may score lower and yet may be just as intelligent. IQ test shows you are good at taking a particular type of test- not necessarily that you have more smarts than anybody else.

Rick Rosner is considered to have one of the highest IQs in the world (upper 190's). Does he consider himself "smart"?

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-man-with-the-highest-iq-in-the-world-doesnt-think-hes-very-smart-at-all-2012-4

It's like in D&D, where mental stats are divided into Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma (in part).

[Philhelm]

Do you know what has absolutely tons of actual estrogen in it that (unlike soy) does actually have effects on humans? Milk.

Is the alt-right still chugging milk to celebrate the genetic superiority of lactose tolerance?
https://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embed_tablet/public/2018/10/24/white-supremacists-love-milk.png

I just want to oil myself up and jump right in!

[TheCount]

Honk honk!!



https://www.bestfoodfacts.org/is-there-estrogen-in-milk/



Thank you for conceding the fact that milk does, indeed, contain estrogens which have an effect on humans.

[dannno]

Thank you for conceding the fact that milk does, indeed, contain estrogens which have an effect on humans.

Thank you for conceding that you don't have any intention of informing people about the truth on any topic, and are in fact here to spread misinformation.

[DamianTV]

How about this...

Public Skool. It wurks eggzactly as the Eleets endtended it two wurk. Indocktrinashun duz a booty guud, pas it on!

[Firestarter]

Several studies have shown that humans become (even) more stupid from watching TV.

For example one study followed 3,247 people over a 25-year period, whose average age at the beginning of the study was 25 years old.
The researchers then divided the people into four groups, depending upon the number of hours they watched television per day. Approximately 11% watched more than three hours of TV per day and were put in the high television-viewing group (353 of the entire Group). There were 528 low television watchers (16%).

At the end of the 25 years, those in the high television-watching group scored significantly lower on 2 of the 3 intelligence tests (56-64%): https://www.realnatural.org/excessive-tv-cognitive-impairment/

[Marenco]

Several studies have shown that humans become (even) more stupid from watching TV.

For example one study followed 3,247 people over a 25-year period, whose average age at the beginning of the study was 25 years old.
The researchers then divided the people into four groups, depending upon the number of hours they watched television per day. Approximately 11% watched more than three hours of TV per day and were put in the high television-viewing group (353 of the entire Group). There were 528 low television watchers (16%).

At the end of the 25 years, those in the high television-watching group scored significantly lower on 2 of the 3 intelligence tests (56-64%): https://www.realnatural.org/excessive-tv-cognitive-impairment/

https://tellbetterstories.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/amusing-ourselves-to-death.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

No, that's not true. You've been deceived.

Some of the studies have already been posted.

I can post more...but I am not going to waste my time if you are just going to dismiss them as untrue.

[tfurrh]

https://tellbetterstories.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/amusing-ourselves-to-death.jpg

https://spectrumculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/amused-to-death.jpg

Album inspired by the book

[r3volution 3.0]

(Import and surround yourself with idiots, and you will not escape enstupidation yourself - AF)

It's not contagious.


Cultures with IQs too low are a danger to liberty

No amount of intelligence will cure bad motives or rational ignorance.


Your mistake lies squarely in the belief that someone being a liberal and talking politics automatically means they should have a low IQ. If you've ever seen a Quetin Tarantino movies, you would know that he is indeed a genius. Not sure about the rest of em.

Indeed

Ideology consists mostly of values (not knowledge), and there's no reason to expect a connection between IQ and values.

If one is observed (as is claimed about high IQ and leftism), it's likely incidental (e.g. higher education is controlled by the left).

If Zoroastrians happened to control the schools, high IQ would be associated with Zoroastrianism.

[Swordsmyth]

No amount of intelligence will cure bad motives or rational ignorance.
But insufficient intelligence will always result in tyranny, either because the culture embraces obviously bad ideas easier or because they are too dumb to successfully resist attempts to enslave them.

[r3volution 3.0]

But insufficient intelligence will always result in tyranny, either because the culture embraces obviously bad ideas easier or because they are too dumb to successfully resist attempts to enslave them.

Intelligent people are no less likely to embrace bad ideologies, they'll only sophisticate them. The tenured Marxist at Harvard is much more intelligent than the trash burning hippy occupying Wall Street. This means that he understands the ideology more deeply (i.e. his head is stuffed with a more sophisticated version of the same bad idea).

[Swordsmyth]

Intelligent people are no less likely to embrace bad ideologies, they'll only sophisticate them. The tenured Marxist at Harvard is much more intelligent than the trash burning hippy occupying Wall Street. This means that he understands the ideology more deeply (i.e. his head is stuffed with a more sophisticated version of the same bad idea).
Intelligent people CAN embrace bad ideologies but stupid people are much more likely to, whether it comes from logical errors they make due to their own stupidity or from being hoodwinked.

[r3volution 3.0]

Intelligent people CAN embrace bad ideologies but stupid people are much more likely to, whether it comes from logical errors they make due to their own stupidity or from being hoodwinked.

People don't often reason their way to values.

[Swordsmyth]

People don't often reason their way to values.
The more intelligent they are the more likely they are to do so, stupid people are much more likely to take positions based on blind emotion and then refuse to change them when confronted with logic.

That's part of why stupid people are more likely to wind up with a tyrannical society.

[r3volution 3.0]

The more intelligent they are the more likely they are to do so, stupid people are much more likely to take positions based on blind emotion and then refuse to change them when confronted with logic.

That's part of why stupid people are more likely to wind up with a tyrannical society.

All ultimate values are based on feeling, not reason. So, as far as that goes, there's no difference between how high and low IQ people reach them. Intermediate values can be arrived at by reason, and higher IQ people are more likely to do this, but it doesn't give a better result if the ultimate value from which they began their reasoning isn't a good one. The professor and the trash-burner may both begin with the ultimate value "equality is good." The professor will work that out into a sophisticated theory; the trash burner won't. They'll vote the same way.

[Swordsmyth]

All ultimate values are based on feeling, not reason. So, as far as that goes, there's no difference between how high and low IQ people reach them. Intermediate values can be arrived at by reason, and higher IQ people are more likely to do this, but it doesn't give a better result if the ultimate value from which they began their reasoning isn't a good one. The professor and the trash-burner may both begin with the ultimate value "equality is good." The professor will work that out into a sophisticated theory; the trash burner won't. They'll vote the same way.
Or an intelligent man might come to the conclusion that equality is good and that meritocracy and liberty are the true equality.

[r3volution 3.0]

Or an intelligent man might come to the conclusion that equality is good and that meritocracy and liberty are the true equality.

As I said, which ultimate value a person lands on has nothing to do with intelligence.

Moreover, as I was explaining in the other thread, ideology is rarely the driver of political behavior (at least as to the more important political issues, such as economic policy). Even if there were a connection between high IQ and good ideology, most people (of whatever IQ) are going to be acting on material self-interest, not abstract ideas.

[Swordsmyth]

As I said, which ultimate value a person lands on has nothing to do with intelligence.

Moreover, as I was explaining in the other thread, ideology is rarely the driver of political behavior (at least as to the more important political issues, such as economic policy). Even if there were a connection between high IQ and good ideology, most people (of whatever IQ) are going to be acting on material self-interest, not abstract ideas.
I disagree with the priority that you give to material self-interest but it is an important factor and stupid people are much more likely to be short-sighted about it and endorse bad policy.

[r3volution 3.0]

I disagree with the priority that you give to material self-interest but it is an important factor and stupid people are much more likely to be short-sighted about it and endorse bad policy.

It's true that more intelligent people tend to have lower time preference (the better you can see the future, the more likely you are to care about it), and this should effect things like savings rates, the age at which people choose to have children, propensity to commit certain kinds of crimes - but it should have no effect on voting behavior. A highly intelligent person who wants some freeshit knows that whether or not he personally obtains said freeshit will have virtually no effect on economic growth, and even less (if any) on his own income-earning potential. His gains from the obtaining freeshit will always outweigh his losses, if any. If he's driven by material self-interest, he will vote for the freeshit, no matter the long term consequences to other people.

[Swordsmyth]

It's true that more intelligent people tend to have lower time preference (the better you can see the future, the more likely you are to care about it), and this should effect things like savings rates, the age at which people choose to have children, propensity to commit certain kinds of crimes - but it should have no effect on voting behavior. A highly intelligent person who wants some free$#@! knows that whether or not he personally obtains said free$#@! will have virtually no effect on economic growth, and even less (if any) on his own income-earning potential. His gains from the obtaining free$#@! will always outweigh his losses, if any. If he's driven by material self-interest, he will vote for the free$#@!, no matter the long term consequences to other people.
He is more likely to realize that his actions may harm his own interests in the long run or by setting a precedent that allows other to vote themselves free stuff from his bank account and if he thinks far enough ahead to care about his children and grandchildren he is even more likely to come to better conclusions.

It's funny because although I admit that the mechanism is not perfect (I even insist on that because of what I am about to point out) this is the entire basis you have for your flawed theory that monarchy is the best route to liberty and you are now undermining it in order to serve your globalist cultural-equivalency position.

[r3volution 3.0]

He is more likely to realize that his actions may harm his own interests in the long run or by setting a precedent that allows other to vote themselves free stuff from his bank account and if he thinks far enough ahead to care about his children and grandchildren he is even more likely to come to better conclusions.

He will always be a net beneficiary, as would his children or grandchildren if he chose to pass on his winnings.


It's funny because although I admit that the mechanism is not perfect (I even insist on that because of what I am about to point out) this is the entire basis you have for your flawed theory that monarchy is the best route to liberty and you are now undermining it in order to serve your globalist cultural-equivalency position.

To the contrary, this problem with democracy is the core of the argument for nondemocratic government.

[Swordsmyth]

He will always be a net beneficiary, as would his children or grandchildren if he chose to pass on his winnings.
Not if his society is irretrievably harmed, it doesn't matter if you get a 10% larger piece of the pie if the pie shrinks 30%.
And as I said, he opens himself up to being pillaged far more than he is able to pillage, especially since the more he acquires wealth the larger a target he makes of himself.




To the contrary, this problem with democracy is the core of the argument for nondemocratic government.
But the monarch is just as susceptible to the forces you cite while being far less restrained in his ability to kill the golden goose to get an extra egg.

[r3volution 3.0]

Not if his society is irretrievably harmed, it doesn't matter if you get a 10% larger piece of the pie if the pie shrinks 30%.

That depends entirely on the distribution of gains and losses, which brings us to:


But the monarch is just as susceptible to the forces you cite while being far less restrained in his ability to kill the golden goose to get an extra egg.

The majority of voters reap all the gains, while bearing only a fraction of the cost (in terms of lost economic growth).

The monarch reaps all the gains, but bears all of the cost (in terms of lost economic growth - i.e. his own future revenues).

By analogy, it's possible for the majority of shareholders to profit at the expense of the corporation.

It isn't possible for a sole proprietor to profit at the expense of his own business.

[Swordsmyth]

That depends entirely on the distribution of gains and losses, which brings us to:



The majority of voters reap all the gains, while bearing only a fraction of the cost (in terms of lost economic growth).

The monarch reaps all the gains, but bears all of the cost (in terms of lost economic growth - i.e. his own future revenues).

By analogy, it's possible for the majority of shareholders to profit at the expense of the corporation.

It isn't possible for a sole proprietor to profit at the expense of his own business.
The monarch doesn't reap all or even most of the rewards unless he is excessively tyrannical and the temptation to increase his slice of the pie at the expense of total pie size is just as strong or stronger because he has much more power and much less opposition.

[r3volution 3.0]

The monarch doesn't reap all or even most of the rewards unless he is excessively tyrannical and the temptation to increase his slice of the pie at the expense of total pie size is just as strong or stronger because he has much more power and much less opposition.

Say the plan is to collect $100 in tax and distribute it to the ruler(s), which will result in $150 in lost economic output.**

For a coalition of 51/100 voters, each gets 1/51st of the gains ($1.96) and bears 1/100th of the cost ($1.50), for a net gain of $0.46.

Whereas a monarch gets 1/1 of the gains ($100) and bears 1/1 of the cost ($150), for a net loss of $50.

Do you see how the voters have an incentive to do this, while the monarch does not?

**This is the present value of the loss, based on the voters' and monarch's time preference, which we'll assume are the same

[Swordsmyth]

Say the plan is to collect $100 in tax and distribute it to the ruler(s), which will result in $150 in lost economic output.**

For a coalition of 51/100 voters, each gets 1/51st of the gains ($1.96) and bears 1/100th of the cost ($1.50), for a net gain of $0.46.

Whereas a monarch gets 1/1 of the gains ($100) and bears 1/1 of the cost ($150), for a net loss of $50.

Do you see how the voters have an incentive to do this, while the monarch does not?

**This is the present value of the loss, based on the voters' and monarch's time preference, which we'll assume are the same


The monarch doesn't reap 100% of economic output unless he is taxing his people at 100% which would be an extreme of tyranny rarely seen in history.

[nobody's_hero]

The monarch doesn't reap 100% of economic output unless he is taxing his people at 100% which would be an extreme of tyranny rarely seen in history.

Where democracy went wrong is when we gave people with nothing to lose and everything to gain, an equal voice as those with little to gain and much to lose. That cat is pretty much out of the bag but if there's ever a reset we would have to go back to property owners being the only ones allowed to vote, if voting were to be tried again after such a collapse.

(not necessarily replying to you but I can sometimes see how 3.0 gets so infatuated with monarchy because it seems like that would be an ideal situation where the king has everything to lose and therefore gets the only voice, but I don't think it's gonna make for the best economic results unless the king is gonna do all the work himself, people who work for themselves are generally going to be more productive)

[r3volution 3.0]

The monarch doesn't reap 100% of economic output unless he is taxing his people at 100% which would be an extreme of tyranny rarely seen in history.

Of course, but that doesn't matter.

Suppose you own a business.
--You have to decide how much to pay yourself versus how much to leave in the business for reinvestment.
--If you decide to increase your pay, you bear the full cost, in the form of reduced growth (less future pay).

It's just the same with a monarch.
--He has to decide how much to tax versus how much to leave in the private sector for reinvestment.
--If he raises taxes, he bears the full cost, in the form of reduced growth (less future tax revenue).

[Swordsmyth]

Where democracy went wrong is when we gave people with nothing to lose and everything to gain, an equal voice as those with little to gain and much to lose. That cat is pretty much out of the bag but if there's ever a reset we would have to go back to property owners being the only ones allowed to vote, if voting were to be tried again after such a collapse.

(not necessarily replying to you but I can sometimes see how 3.0 gets so infatuated with monarchy because it seems like that would be an ideal situation where the king has everything to lose and therefore gets the only voice, but I don't think it's gonna make for the best economic results unless the king is gonna do all the work himself, people who work for themselves are generally going to be more productive)
People without property have rights and things to lose too.
But you are right that restricting franchise is the right way to go, people who get any money from the government should lose their vote as just one example.

[Swordsmyth]

Of course, but that doesn't matter.

Suppose you own a business.
--You have to decide how much to pay yourself versus how much to leave in the business for reinvestment.
--If you decide to increase your pay, you bear the full cost, in the form of reduced growth (less future pay).

It's just the same with a monarch.
--He has to decide how much to tax versus how much to leave in the private sector for reinvestment.
--If he raises taxes, he bears the full cost, in the form of reduced growth (less future tax revenue).
And it's the same with voters as it is with a monarch, they are like stockholders instead of a single owner.
The temptation to loot the company's assets for a temporary bonus is there for both.

[r3volution 3.0]

And it's the same with voters as it is with a monarch, they are like stockholders instead of a single owner.
The temptation to loot the company's assets for a temporary bonus is there for both.

Yes, the voters are like stockholders (as I said in post #110), which is exactly why they don't have the same incentives as a monarch. Shareholders can profit at the expense of their corporation; a sole proprietor cannot profit at the expense of his business (i.e. at his own expense). I've already explained why this is the case; I even provided a mathematical illustration. Here it is again:


Say the plan is to collect $100 in tax and distribute it to the ruler(s), which will result in $150 in lost economic output.**

For a coalition of 51/100 voters, each gets 1/51st of the gains ($1.96) and bears 1/100th of the cost ($1.50), for a net gain of $0.46.

Whereas a monarch gets 1/1 of the gains ($100) and bears 1/1 of the cost ($150), for a net loss of $50.

Do you see how the voters have an incentive to do this, while the monarch does not?

**This is the present value of the loss, based on the voters' and monarch's time preference, which we'll assume are the same



Here we have one and the same policy, profitable for voters, not profitable for the monarch.

Change a few words and this applies equally to corporations versus sole proprietorships.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, the voters are like stockholders (as I said in post #110), which is exactly why they don't have the same incentives as a monarch. Shareholders can profit at the expense of their corporation; a sole proprietor cannot profit at the expense of his business (i.e. at his own expense). I've already explained why this is the case; I even provided a mathematical illustration. Here it is again:



Here we have one and the same policy, profitable for voters, not profitable for the monarch.

Change a few words and this applies equally to corporations versus sole proprietorships.
Both can take a temporary bonus at the expense of the business and both will be tempted to.
It happens throughout history with businesses and kingdoms.

[r3volution 3.0]

Both can take a temporary bonus at the expense of the business and both will be tempted to.

Yes, both have an incentive to take present gains at the expense of reduced future gains. To what extent they do this (how much they value present gains over future gains) depends on their time preference. What you're not understanding is that, in the example I presented, they have the same time preference. The "cost" is expressed as present value (i.e. already discounted by their time preference). And yet the voters have an incentive to carry out the destructive policy, while the monarch does not. Why? Again, not because of time preference (they have the same time preference). It's because the voters only bear a fraction of the cost, while the monarch bears the whole cost.

You understand that what I'm saying about corporations isn't in any way controversial? There are laws designed specifically to prevent the majority from doing the kind of thing which I'm demonstrating they have an incentive to do. Google "shareholder oppression," for example. Note that there are no similar laws relating to sole proprietorships, because there don't need to be, because a sole owner obviously cannot oppress himself. All I'm doing is applying this logic to states.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, both have an incentive to take present gains at the expense of reduced future gains. To what extent they do this (how much they value present gains over future gains_ depends on their time preference. What you're not understanding is that, in the example I presented, they have the same time preference. And yet the voters have an incentive to carry out the destructive policy, while the monarch does not. Why? Again, not because of time preference (they have the same time preference). It's because the voters only bear a fraction of the cost, while the monarch bears the whole cost.
And I keep telling you that the voters and the monarch have the same motivation because the monarch DOESN'T receive 100% of the economic benefit of the country any more than the voters do, both benefit in the long run from a wealthier country and both personally benefit in the short term from looting the economy at the expense of their long term benefit.

[r3volution 3.0]

And I keep telling you that the voters and the monarch have the same motivation because the monarch DOESN'T receive 100% of the economic benefit of the country any more than the voters do, both benefit in the long run from a wealthier country and both personally benefit in the short term from looting the economy at the expense of their long term benefit.

And that's wrong for reasons already explained:


Of course, but that doesn't matter.

Suppose you own a business.
--You have to decide how much to pay yourself versus how much to leave in the business for reinvestment.
--If you decide to increase your pay, you bear the full cost, in the form of reduced growth (less future pay).

It's just the same with a monarch.
--He has to decide how much to tax versus how much to leave in the private sector for reinvestment.
--If he raises taxes, he bears the full cost, in the form of reduced growth (less future tax revenue).

It doesn't matter that the sole proprietor doesn't pay himself 100% of gross revenues; lost growth still represents less future income for him. Likewise, it doesn't matter that the monarch doesn't tax 100% of output; lost growth still represents less future income for him. The same, by the way, is true of the shareholder/voter, but not in the way you think. It doesn't matter if one of the 51 voters actually consumes all of his income, as opposed be leaving it for investment; lost growth represents less future income for him. But this only applies to his share of lost growth (1/51st of the total, instead of all of it).

[Swordsmyth]

And that's wrong for reasons already explained:



It doesn't matter that the sole proprietor doesn't pay himself 100% of gross revenues; lost growth still represents less future income for him. Likewise, it doesn't matter that the monarch doesn't tax 100% of output; lost growth still represents less future income for him. The same, by the way, is true of the shareholder/voter, but not in the way you think. It doesn't matter if one of the 51 voters actually consumes all of his income, as opposed be leaving it for investment; lost growth represents less future income for him. But this only applies to his share of lost growth (1/51st of the total, instead of all of it).
It also applies to the short term looting, the monarch gets 100% of that while the voter only gets 1/51st.

[r3volution 3.0]

It also applies to the short term looting, the monarch gets 100% of that while the voter only gets 1/51st.

Riiight, but he only bears 1/100th of the cost, hence the profit opportunity.

Let's review the math yet again:


Say the plan is to collect $100 in tax and distribute it to the ruler(s), which will result in $150 in lost economic output.**

For a coalition of 51/100 voters, each gets 1/51st of the gains ($1.96) and bears 1/100th of the cost ($1.50), for a net gain of $0.46.

Whereas a monarch gets 1/1 of the gains ($100) and bears 1/1 of the cost ($150), for a net loss of $50.

Do you see how the voters have an incentive to do this, while the monarch does not?

**This is the present value of the loss, based on the voters' and monarch's time preference, which we'll assume are the same

[Swordsmyth]

Riiight, but he only bears 1/100th of the cost, hence the profit opportunity.

Let's review the math yet again:
And the king only bears a tiny percentage of the cost personally.

If either one reduces the size of the economy by 50% they have reduced their potential future benefit by 50% but the monarch gets 100% of the benefit of what he took while the voter only gets 1/51st of what he took (assuming a society of 100 voters).

The monarch's temptation is much stronger.

[r3volution 3.0]

And the king only bears a tiny percentage of the cost personally.

If either one reduces the size of the economy by 50% they have reduced their potential future benefit by 50% but the monarch gets 100% of the benefit of what he took while the voter only gets 1/51st of what he took (assuming a society of 100 voters).

The monarch's temptation is much stronger.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/124/028/5c2.jpg

You're just not getting it (maybe because you're determined not to).

I don't see any point in continuing.

[Swordsmyth]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/124/028/5c2.jpg

You're just not getting it (maybe because you're determined not to).

I don't see any point in continuing.
Right back at you.

[enhanced_deficit]

Can't speak for all the countries in this bloc but at least in the US masses are electing smart reps:



Iraq War: Biggest Blunedr in US History
Iraq War Resolution
United States House of Representatives. 215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution. 82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
Dems - Party of big gummit, GOP- Party of small minds ? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534111-Dems-Party-of-big-gummit-GOP-Party-of-small-minds&)

[Anti Federalist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqUcLtr6z8