Average Swedish male height in 1820 was ~167 cm. Average Swedish male height now is ~179cm. That appears to be nearly a 2stdv increase.
Similar effects hold in Portugal.
Do the anti-Flynn effect people believe that malnutrition and disease affect height MORE than they affect IQ...because musculature is a more sensitive-to-disturbance system than is the brain?
Supposing that on average, the people of 1820 were 2stdv shorter, and 2stdv (probably more) less intelligent...how does ANYONE hold the position that economic freedom is only beneficial to smart folks? The 1820s were America's boom...full of stupid people...and we were exploding economically...just like every other British (or ex-British) colony with a laissez faire government has.
For economic growth:
Economic system -- Laissez Faire + Culture of property rights matters FAR MORE than HBD/Population Factors.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I didn't know that there were serious deniers of the Lynn-Flynn effect. S.S. argues that there is an effect but that Flynn's reasoning is probably flawed; I.Q., height, health are all depressed by poor nutrition, but Flynn goes beyond that to say that average differences have no genetic component and are strictly caused by other factors. Wiki it.
Yeah, I don't know anyone who denies the Flynn effect. Skeptics point out that the raise is in crystalline intelligence, not in fluid intelligence.
Economic system -- Laissez Faire + Culture of property rights matters FAR MORE than HBD/Population Factors.
I would invert this statement. You need a minimum of trade/market economy, and after that HBD kicks in. South Korea is pretty much closed shop, but they had the minimum and have it all over the North. When China kicked in the minimum, they went gangbusters because they have the human capital.
If you think you can just kick in more laissez-faire and more property rights and get economic growth, you are going to be disappointed.
RSF + Meh.
I get into these arguments all the time...because Flynn effect implies that the 19th century period of great American/English economic growth was ALSO a period of LOW IQ (2stdv down = 70-ish avg). If that's true, then the "growth needs HBD" argument is dead.
Outliers drive economic growth. James Clerk Maxwell et al did the lifting.
RSF,
That position isn't coherent.
The advances of JCM, Whitney, etc. are now available to everyone. So...it's equivalent NOW to the lower IQ folks having all the advantages of geniuses from the 1800s.
What's missing is the economic system (and culture of property rights) to make it work.
Smartest thing I've read in ages.
Quoting S.S.: "Culture can play a role as well - at the extreme, contrast two countries with almost identical per capita GDPs: Barbados and Argentina (at least before Argentina's recent economic collapse). Don't cry for Argentina, because it is blessed with ample IQ (96). But it's dragged down by a notorious lack of economic and political self-discipline. In contrast, Barbados, despite an average IQ of 78, is one of the most pleasant countries in the 3rd World due to its commitment to maintaining a veddy, veddy English culture."
Obnoxious, but not completely dismissive of ubiquitous utility of Dutch/British model.
Post a Comment