Friday 18 September 2015

Future US intelligence



1 Technische Universität Chemnitz,

US National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) measures cognitive competences in reading and mathematics of US students (last 2012 survey N=50,000). The long-term development based on results from 1971 to 2012 allows a prediction of future cognitive trends. For predicting US averages, also demographic trends have to be considered. We want to answer the following questions: (1) Will the Flynn effect be continued? (2) Will there be a decrease or increase in gaps between ethnic and racial groups? (3) What effect has the rising share of minorities? (4) What effect has gap reduction on society’s average ability level? (5) What effect has national ability development on GDP?

The White average 1978/80 set at M=100 and SD=15 was used as a benchmark. Based on two past NAEP development periods for 17-year-old students, 1978/80 to 2012 (more optimistic) and 1992 to 2012 (more pessimistic), and demographic projections from the US Census Bureau, cognitive trends until 2060 for Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and the entire age cohort were estimated.

Estimated population averages for 2060 are 103 (optimistic) or 102 (pessimistic). White-Black gaps from currently 11 IQ decrease to 6 IQ (op.) or 7 IQ (pe.), White-Hispanic from 9 IQ to 4 IQ (op.) or 3 IQ (pe.), Asian-White gaps increase from currently 3 IQ to 9 IQ (op.) or 12 IQ (pe.) resulting in a distinctive top Asian group at around 114 IQ.

The catch-up of minorities (their faster ability growth) contributes around 2 IQ to the general rise of 3 IQ; however, their larger demographic increase reduces the general rise at about the similar amount (-1.4 IQ). Because minorities with faster ability growth also rise in their population proportion the interactive term is positive (around 1 IQ). Consequences for economic and societal development are discussed. Based on past NAEP trends and population estimations US future IQ is predicted.

For the US in 2060 an average IQ of 102-103 points is predicted. General FLynn effects contribute positively to IQ development. Minority catch-ups contribute positively to IQ development. Non-Asian minority population increases contribute negatively to IQ development.



  2. Why is the projected Asian NAEPQ score of 112 versus 109 pessimistic? Whatever the case, the other results seem to largely be an artifact of the data. The B/W difference peeked at close to 1.3 SD in the 70s to 80s when the LTT survey started, though there are NAEP pilot results prior, from the 50s to 60s, which show smaller differences, and the current NAEP-LTT differences,based on a more test teachable exam as the questions remain the same each year, are smaller than the NAEP-Main ones.When one looks across all 2010-2013 NAEP Main scores for grade 12 (2013 reading (0.81), 2013 math (0.97), 2013 vocabulary (0.90), 2009 science (1.09), 2010 civics (.90), 2012 economics (.99), 2010 geography (1.24), 2010 history (.96), 2011 writing (.91) one gets a d-value of 0.97, which is equivalent to a composite scores of ~ 1.1 SD (which is more comparable with FSIQ). As for decline, if one wants to start in the 60s and just use all representative school samples e.g., EEO math, one gets a decline of ~ 0.1 SD, starting in the 70s, the decline is maybe 0.25 SD. The projections will be rather sensitive to the starting year.

  3. Exactly what I thought. I doubt the White-Black gap will decrease that much and without the decrease population average will decline.

  4. All this "evidence" is faulty until one understands the basis for what we call "intelligence" and "iq." "Intelligence," as observed by many leading researchers in the matter (I can cite studies produced at both MIT and Harvard) is not agreed upon, and virtually every definition is different than every other. IQ is far, far more dangerous, as it was NEVER meant to be equated with intelligence (which we have no way of defining), and the dangers of doing so were espoused its creators, as well as just about everyone who has "developed" the test since. Also, researchers at many of the world's most prestigious universities CANNOT DEFINE ethnic groups or "races," other than to offer one actual truth: they do not exist. That is, "white" was invented at the end of the 17th century as a means artificial definition. Latino was invented in the 70s. It was never used before then. And try--TRY!--to find some way to group all of the complexity and diversity within, let's say, Argentina, into one "ethnic" group. It's insane, and thinking people know it's insane. This is a dangerous website, and it is based on defunct and dangerous assumptions, particularly those that go under the label "social darwinism" and the like.

    1. Do you have anything better to do than copying and pasting your politically correct feel good bullshit on every post in this blog??

  5. Hugh, please see my answers to your comment previously.