DAILY MAIL REPORT 15th August, 2009 - Why doctors are not as clever as they use to be.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2009 6:49 PM GMT
    According to this report, leading professionals including doctors, lawyers, accountants and bankers are less intelligent today then they were a generation ago, a study has found.
    This was the result of a study done on professionals who were born in the 1970s in comparison to those born in the 1950s.
    From among those born in the 1950s, more students from poor families achieved a high level of education due to their entry into grammer schools.
    But since the abolition of grammer schools, students from poor backgrounds had lost the chance of a good education, due to the inferiority of the comprehensive school system, endorsed by our Government.
    Therefore, according to this report, professional places were filled by students from wealthy families, of which many did not have the gifting as those from poorer families.
    The decline of intelligence is now apparent among the 30+ year olds in comparison to those in their fifties.

    We do have a resident quack here at RealJock. This seem to back up the report.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2009 6:53 PM GMT
    I wouldn't believe anything the Daily Mail reports on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2009 6:54 PM GMT
    I didn't have the chance to go to grammer schools which is why I am very stupid.

    LINK please. Sources, citations, studies, research, facts, and all that shiz.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2009 7:14 PM GMT
    How about a link or something? How was intelligence measured? If they based it off standard IQ tests, how did they take into account the amelioration of precision of intelligence testing during the 20 years?

    Plus how did they take into effect the Flynn effect where IQ test results actually increase roughly 3 points per decade?

    Or is this just a conclusion that's come from sweeping generalisations?

    From what you said there I would call this bull crap, doomsday preaching and pandering...something the daily mail excels at doing.

    Extrapolating in a linear manner from two studies in the 50s and 70s really isn't sound policy.

    Plus Lol @ "The decline of intelligence is now apparent among the 30+ year olds in comparison to those in their fifties." That goes against studies unless you are comparing 30 year olds to 50 year olds, then experience will account for that difference. 20 years is enough time to learn quite a bit, but then it all depends on wheither you are only taking into account cristalized intelligence and not at all fluid intelligence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2009 9:48 PM GMT
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206681/Why-doctors-clever-used-be.html

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2009 10:15 PM GMT
    Ok, there are so many problems with that artcile that it's giving me a headache...or that could just because I was born in the 80s and so even stupider than the people concerned in this study.

    So they based their findings off 10 and 11 year old kid IQ tests, but then how did project that onto prefessionnal roles? IQ doesn't remain constant, especially when you are talking about kids growing to adults.

    Plus it seems to be a massive leap to go from IQ to grammar schools, since IQ doesn't correlate that well to academic performance or professionnal performance. Hell most psychological professionnals don't even like using IQ to mesure intelligence, but still do since it's a laypersons idea of what is done.

    I would like to know how many people participanted in this study and how they were chosen, since, socio-economically speaking, as time goes on more professionnals in each branch are being hired so the scores will plateau. Probably with the reduction of rarity score results will tend to go down.

    Anyway I would look up the study to see if the article itself answers these problems but I don't have the time, but if someone throws it at me I will have a look.

    P.S. Most of my questions weren't answered by the article, so until I see an ANOVA, correlation, or regression that logically supports this theory, I will remain a sceptic. The theoretical basis seems a bit iffy, and even counter-current in some aspects.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 16, 2009 3:36 AM GMT
    umm... how does coming from a wealthy family make you more stupid than coming from a poorer one?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2009 3:44 AM GMT
    Research on intelligence comparisons between generations is tricky business. I doubt that the findings in this report are going to hold water in any subsequent study.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2009 2:07 PM GMT
    calibro saidumm... how does coming from a wealthy family make you more stupid than coming from a poorer one?


    Apparently it doesn't. I don't think the report was saying that wealthier families produces thicker children, although according to what I have seen, at times I do wonder...
    What the paper was saying is that there are many bright children born into poorer families, but the British education system had denied these kids the adequate level of education gotten by attendance to grammer schools, based on selection. When the grammer school was done away with by the Labour Government in the 1990s, all what was left were the comprehensive schools which offered "equal opportunities" - the result that bright children were held back by the slower learners who shared the same classroom.
    To avoid this problem, wealthy families sent their children to fee-paying public schools, where a better education is guaranteed. Getting the gist of that report, the gene pool for high intelligence does not tally with wealth. In other words there are some wealthy but thick students who attends fee-paying schools, while some genuinely bright pupils have to attend state comprehensives simply because their parents cannot afford the huge fees needed for such schools.

    By the way, I tried to get the direct link above, but I fail here. If anyone can get the link up and running on this thread, I'll be grateful.

    NTO
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2009 2:35 PM GMT
    Staffers at the Daily Mail obviously have had a different life experience than I. Perhaps they do recognize facts even though they report them in the polar opposite. Such is life from "that" perspective.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2009 3:00 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidI wouldn't believe anything the Daily Mail reports on.


    LOL! Daily mail.