# Humans are Becoming Genetically Less Intelligent
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [September 9, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863 "2005-09-09T19:15:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/21 "2005-09-10T07:25:24Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> but we are getting rid of things that were making us dumber
Now, if only we can do away with reality TV and Joel Schumacher movies…
---
### Author:  [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/22 "2005-09-10T13:04:20Z")
Francis Galton, who pioneered eugenics, also discovered [regression to the mean](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean). I would have thought that regression to the mean would be a great argument against eugenics on a mathematical basis.
Whats the deal here? New generations are affected by their ancestry as well as their parents, so over time successive generations become more like their ancestors.
---
### Author:  [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/23 "2005-09-10T13:12:17Z")
It should be noted that Mike Judge (_Office Space_) has a new movie coming out this winter called **Idiocracy**. Plot synopsis:
> [@](#):
>
> Private Joe Bowers, the definition of “average American”, is selected by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program, set 1,000 years in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he’s easily the most intelligent person alive.
---
### Author:  [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/24 "2005-09-10T13:39:05Z")
The notion that poor people worldwide = stupid people is not necessarily a valid assertion. Many of the most brilliant and productive minds in history came from quite humble (even poor) origins. In most cases this argument in eugenics debates is a thinly veiled smokescreen for the notion that “poor black people are stupid and fecund”, and if you tear at the argument enough, that’s almost always what the issue in thse debates really is. We’re not talking about poor Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Irish etc. It’s poor black people (and usually poor black Americans) that are the center piece in this argument.
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/25 "2005-09-10T16:15:07Z")
Please permit me to drop an interesting factoid. Everybody tends to assume that the poor produce the most children in this country and elsewhere, perhaps because of the stereotype of welfare queens have seventeen babies just to get rich. However, in last month’s issue of _Psychology Today_ there’s an article about how different social classes view their children. Among the details is the fact that in America the rich have more children than anyone else, and not by a small margin either.
Poor: 2.1 children per couple
Middle class: 1.8 children per couple
Rich: 2.2 children per couple
Very rich: 2.7 children per couple
---
### Author:  [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/26 "2005-09-10T17:07:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> But let’s assume that is correct. It’s not the average intelligence of the group that keep civilization afloat, it’s the peak intelligence of the group. And since the smart guys are still have babies, and passing their intelligence on to the next generation, the peak intelligence of the group is not declining.
>
> \*the real weakest part is that we know what intelligence is and that we can measure it. That is simply not true.
Right on. Progress in civilizing society quite often results from flashes of insight by an individual, especially in scientific and technical matters, not on the absolute “intelligence” of the group as a whole - whatever that might mean.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/27 "2005-09-10T20:01:49Z")
> [@ITR champion](#):
>
> Among the details is the fact that in America the rich have more children than anyone else, and not by a small margin either.
>
> Poor: 2.1 children per couple
> Middle class: 1.8 children per couple
> Rich: 2.2 children per couple
> Very rich: 2.7 children per couple
You know, that makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
---
### Author:  [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/28 "2005-09-10T20:39:23Z")
I think the OP’s premise is ridiculous… but apparently, Mike Judge shares the premise, and has based an entire film around it.
[http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/](http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)
---
### Author:  [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/29 "2005-09-10T21:28:13Z")
> [@Asian-American](#):
>
> **1.** Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
Define intelligence - while I think most people would agree that parents pass traits onto their offspring, what constitutes intelligence depends on a host of factors. Also, envronmental considerations are important in whether these traits are expressed or not.
> [@](#):
>
> **2.** Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.
If true - then this is the fate of _every_ civilzation. Think of the Roman Empire - can its’ decline be entirely attributed to the decline in the intelligence of the Roman population? I think not…
> [@](#):
>
> **3.** The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it’s a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.
Depends on which segment of the population you are referring to. In general, I would agree with you. But refer back to the Roman Empire. Roman citizens certainly enjoyed the benefits of Roman civilization. But not others (slaves, non-citizens, although they may have benefited indirectly).
> [@](#):
>
> **4.** At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.
You’ll need to provide evidence of some sort that is true (least-intelligent people are having more children). Again, it probably hinges on how you define intelligence.
> [@](#):
>
> **5.** Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective “misery quotient.”
Hate to tell you this, but every civilization that has ever existed will eventually go through a decline period. Depending on the circumstances, this can either be a good thing or bad thing, to varying degrees. I think it highly unlikely that decline in intelligence can be attributed as the sole causal facor in such a scenario.
Again, think of the Roman Empire - decline was obviously disasterous for Romans; however, over time, new civilizations emerged. Who’s to say that without the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, Christianity would have emerged as a powerful cultural force. Likewise for the subsequent events that unfolded historically (both good and bad)?
> [@](#):
>
> Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.
>
> Source: [http://www.eugenics.net/](http://www.eugenics.net/)
>
> So, what are your thoughts?
You’ve provided little of either to convince me - try again.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/30 "2005-09-10T21:44:07Z")
> [@David Simmons](#):
>
> Right on. Progress in civilizing society quite often results from flashes of insight by an individual, especially in scientific and technical matters, not on the absolute “intelligence” of the group as a whole - whatever that might mean.
Well, that’s true to a degree. The flashes of individual insight are critical, but the surrounding society has to be able to incorporate and apply this new knowlege. The Phaistos Disk is the classic example - movable type in 1700 BCE, abot 2500 years before its invention in China and 3000 years before Gutenberg, but since the writing medium at the time was heavy impractical clay and not paper, the idea had to wait.
---
### Author:  [@ShepherdWong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShepherdWong)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/31 "2005-09-10T22:40:32Z")
> [@Asian-American](#):
>
> \*\*1.
>
> **2.** Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.
Couldn’t it be said as easily that intelligence depends on civilization? I think that the Flynn effect might show that. Not arguing that we have necessarily a civilized society now, but civilization has had more time to refine itself for whatever goal.
And finally how can we say that somehow genetic differences have happened over such a short time scale(the time intelligence tests have been taken)?
---
### Author:  [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/32 "2005-09-10T23:53:31Z")
> [@ShepherdWong](#):
>
> Couldn’t it be said as easily that intelligence depends on civilization? I think that the Flynn effect might show that. Not arguing that we have necessarily a civilized society now, but civilization has had more time to refine itself for whatever goal.
>
> And finally how can we say that somehow genetic differences have happened over such a short time scale(the time intelligence tests have been taken)?
I agree. Intelligence depends on civilization. Our brains are ‘plastic’, capable of much potential given the opportunity at an early age. From the point of a population of people, on average, this opportunity is provided by a civilised society. Look at the stats on civilised democracies such as Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, European countries and Australia with the higherst [literacy](http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_lit_tot_pop&int=-1), [scientific literacy](http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_sci_lit&int=-1) and mathematical [literacy](http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_mat_lit&int=-1) rates.
The learning environment plays a large part in development of intelligence, it’s not just nature.
---
### Author:  [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/33 "2005-09-10T23:54:35Z")
higherst??? …I mean biggerest.
---
### Author:  [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/34 "2005-09-11T00:06:56Z")
There’s a phenomenon I think of as the “Bill Clinton effect” that will tend to work against dysgenic breeding trends. (You can call the Jesse Jackson effect, or the Kwesi Mfume effect, if you like.)
When poor people reproduce, they don’t all have equal chances to pass on their genes. In every society that we have knowledge of, higher status (presumably higher IQ) males mate with lower status females. This mating can be licit or illicit, approved of, tolerated, or frowned on; the fact is that it goes on.
To make a broad generalization, males who are tall, good looking mesomorphs with a high verbal IQ, enjoy a significant breeding advantage over other males, especially in environments where marriage based monogamy is either weak or non existent.
If one male has more breeding opportunities than one to one pairing would provide, then another male has fewer breeding opportunities. Other characteristics being equal, higher IQ males are bound to get the greater share of these breeding opportunities. So, breeding conditions in poor communities are less dysgenic than those in middle and upper class communities, where breeding opportunities are much more restricted by law and social convention.
---
### Author:  [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/35 "2005-09-11T00:41:10Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#):
>
> There’s a phenomenon I think of as the “Bill Clinton effect” that will tend to work against dysgenic breeding trends. (You can call the Jesse Jackson effect, or the Kwesi Mfume effect, if you like.)
>
> When poor people reproduce, they don’t all have equal chances to pass on their genes. In every society that we have knowledge of, higher status (presumably higher IQ) males mate with lower status females. This mating can be licit or illicit, approved of, tolerated, or frowned on; the fact is that it goes on.
>
> To make a broad generalization, males who are tall, good looking mesomorphs with a high verbal IQ, enjoy a significant breeding advantage over other males, especially in environments where marriage based monogamy is either weak or non existent.
>
> If one male has more breeding opportunities than one to one pairing would provide, then another male has fewer breeding opportunities. Other characteristics being equal, higher IQ males are bound to get the greater share of these breeding opportunities. So, breeding conditions in poor communities are less dysgenic than those in middle and upper class communities, where breeding opportunities are much more restricted by law and social convention.
So… the women in upper middle class societies, swimming in what we might think of as the “genetic cream” of modernity, are actually culturally restricted to weak chinned, flabby muscled, small penised, socially awkward males with high earning power? But potentially this won’t matter as some of the more dynamic female specimens of this upper level economic cohort will vote with their ovaries, and look to some of the physically superior, more socially adept male specimens in the lower economic classes?
Thank God women’s choosiness will save us!
---
### Author:  [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2005, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/36 "2005-09-11T01:06:15Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> Well, that’s true to a degree. The flashes of individual insight are critical, but the surrounding society has to be able to incorporate and apply this new knowlege. The Phaistos Disk is the classic example - movable type in 1700 BCE, abot 2500 years before its invention in China and 3000 years before Gutenberg, but since the writing medium at the time was heavy impractical clay and not paper, the idea had to wait.
Of course, but that long delay wasn’t because of low intelligence in 1700 BCE and the intervening centuries. Technological advances have to advance more or less together because of that bad old pain-in-the neck, supporting logistics. Sooner or later the advances are picked up and improved upon.
It could be argued that if people back then had been smarter it wouldn’t have taken so long but that’s a “what if” and can be argued either way since nobody really knows what would have happened “if.”
---
### Author:  [@Asian-American](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asian-American)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/37 "2005-09-11T01:14:56Z")
The American Psychological Association just published research showing that IQ has a strong genetic component, and that ethnic groups differ on average in innate intelligence, here is the research: [http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530](http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530)
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2005, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/38 "2005-09-11T01:25:51Z")
From your cite, you might want to note:
> [@](#):
>
> Their main recommendation is that people be treated as individuals, not as members of groups.
Get it?
---
### Author:  [@Asian-American](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asian-American)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2005, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/39 "2005-09-11T01:26:19Z")
This research was just publihed in the New York Times, showing that thanks to eugenic practices, Ashkenazi Jews have the highest innate IQ average in the world: [http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=4032638](http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638)
---
### Author:  [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2005, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863/40 "2005-09-11T01:26:32Z")
> [@Asian-American](#):
>
> The American Psychological Association just published research showing that IQ has a strong genetic component, and that ethnic groups differ on average in innate intelligence, here is the research: [http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530](http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530)
Oh man, you’ve got us over a barrel! If those Rushton and Jensen have teamed up there’s no denying the veracity of your argument.
> [@](#):
>
> The paper, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors’ reply.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-becoming-genetically-less-intelligent/320863.md?page=3)