/sci/ - Science & Math

Incremental increases in the average IQ of a population are possible over a relatively short period of time, such as in Ashkenazi Jews, just as incremental decreases in the average IQ of a population are possible over an even lesser period of time, such as in Scandinavian countries today.
I would say the bigger concern is that the Flynn effect has reversed in multiple western countries, while in East Asian countries it hasn't.

>The Ashkenazim specialized more and more in one occupation, finance, left particularly open to them because of the Christian prohibition of usury. The majority of the Ashkenazim seem to have been moneylenders by 1100 AD, and this continued for several centuries. Such occupations (sales, trade, finance) had high IQ demands, and we know of no other population that had such a large fraction of cognitively demanding jobs for an extended period.
>Jews who were particularly good at these jobs enjoyed increased reproductive success. Weinryb (1972, see also Hundert 1992) comments: “more children survived to adulthood in affluent families than in less affluent ones. A number of genealogies of business leaders, prominent rabbis, community leaders, and the like—generally belonging to the more affluent classes—show that such people often had four, six, sometimes even eight or nine children who reached adulthood. On the other hand, there are some indications that poorer families tended to be small ones. It should also be added that overcrowding, which favors epidemics was more prevalent among the poorer classes.
https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

Maybe dysgenic fertility is more common in white males/females than BIPOC males/females? Not really sure.

Educated women focusing on career = delayed procreation, and inevitable decline in fertility
High value women chasing after high value men who aren't interested in settling down, then trying to settle down at 35 years old = fewer children being born
Leftover uneducated rural hicks = high birth rates

What else?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior_mutation
>mutation accumulation experiment show that the behavior of animals degrades in absence of purifying selection
>mammals learn from imitation - monkey see, monkey do
>maladaptive behavior in modern humans can (in part) be explained by the accumulation of deleterious mutation from the start of the industrial revolution

Makes sense to me.

It's over.

>>12599847
IQ is postively correlated with impulse control; the smarter you are the easier it is to get over addictions, phobias, restrict sexual urges, defer gratification, be emotionally stable, not have violent/homicidal outbursts etc.
>or is that overcoming simply an overcoming of genetically instilled mental obstacles to overcome?
Unlikely. We were probably under selection for traits like impulse control/conscientiousness (and IQ) until recently for the fitness advantage they used to give us (in preindustrial europe the richer half of the population had double the amount of children surviving to adulthood than the poorer half) but there's probably a limit to how much "rationality driven" as opposed to emotionally so can humans get. If you think yourself out of basic things like falling in love and having kids you are mot gonna pass on your genes. Unsurprisingly, historically, geniuses have had an extremely low fertiljlity rate. Right now, it looks like the direction of selection has been inverted and we're getting dumber and more impulsive as the generations pass.

>>12558157
>Does the future belong to bug people and pajeets?

Generational g decline is present also there, to be precise is much more pronounced in India than in the west.
Other Asian countries are in the same boat as us.

>Germline editing is like pushing water one bucket at a time outside of a sinking cruise ship. You're not going to reverse polygenic selection acting on hundreds if not thousands of genes with CRISPR, it's just impossible by sheer impracticality

Embryo selection based on polygenic scores would be more effective but even that is extremely problematic since kids born through IVF have a much higher risk of a long list of diseases due to lack of sperm selection. And last but not least there's mutational load increase and decreasing fertility (less and less geniuses per generation).
We are probably screwed desu.

>>12483740
But won't societal pressure shift towards natalism once virtually everyone has pro-natalist instinct genes?
>>12483721
I like the
>hurr durr but every human on earth could fit in Texas therefore we are not overpopated
Those people are retards.

>>12429825
Yeah, the question is dumb as shit. Beneficial trait are those that are conductive to the development of civilization and increased wellbeing of the population: IQ, low propensity for criminality, being healthy etc.

Lmao high IQ is an abnormality that is being weeded out by natural selection. The brainlets will inherit the earth.

>>12047141
Pic related.