Is this a typical quality of upvoted articles on [email protected]?
this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
178 points (80.7% liked)
science
18665 readers
254 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Lmao at all of the nationalists post-hoccing away at shitty explanations as to why the US isn't just a dumb as a brick nation.
why the US isn’t just a dumb as a brick nation
The US isn't just a dumb as a brick nation. We're immersed in historic and environmental factors that are engineered to segregate who has access to intellectual capital and who is tracked into jobs that discourage free thinking.
Yeah people don't realize IQ is relative to education. If you cut education you get dumber people on average.
Breaking News….America makes you dumb
Manga authors "write that down write that down!"
Manhwa*
'My twin Sister from another country couldn't be this dumb???!"
What about the education systems? One of those two countries is heavily denying basic science at schools, teaching creationism as something at the same level as evolutionism, letting religion pollute education, banning books from schools, teaching obsolete two genders theory, etc. Is the study short about the differences in education?
What about the education systems?
Education, sure. But also environment, nutrition, and stress/trauma.
The US is polluted with heavy metals, our food is awful, and we regularly put residents (particularly young people) in extremely traumatic situations. All of that stunts intellectual development.
Its a side effect about the differences in education. IQ is relative to the population and education, they slightly increase it to keep the average around 100. The average person 100 years ago had 30 less IQ points, because education and child nutrition were non existent. Cut those things and your average person reverts back.
Other countries have only gotten better, the US has just gotten worse.
they slightly increase it to keep the average around 100
They don't "slightly increase it to keep the average around 100." The average is defined as 100. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_score https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification
My explanation is for laymen, 100 in 2025 is not the same 100 in 1925, my point.
Lots of people who talk about IQ don't know what the Q stands for.
The article is trash, especially with the added stock photos. Use the source link instead
This website's use of stock images and gifs were aggravating. The actual case study was worth the read, but only covers a single pair of individuals: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886922001477
It's certainly interesting. I'm particularly curious about the effects of the multiple confusions:
US had three concussions as an adult, caused by car accidents and from falling on ice. The most recent and severe incident occurred in January 2018, resulting in classic symptoms of light sensitivity and concentration difficulty. US feels she is a “different person,” with increased anger and anxiety. She requires additional time to process information in some problem-solving situations, although she has always seen herself as a poor test taker.
Some of the conclusions seemed a stretch for a single sample. I'm much more curious about more extensive studies with many more subjects.
Gotta say as someone who experienced traumatic brain injury I also feel like I'm a different person, and not as bright as I used to be. The doctors estimate I lost somewhere on the order of 15-20% of whatever that was.
Exactly, there's a lot of different factors that can affect cognition.
Look at what Americans consume. There's your answer.
yeah, totally not the concussions.
And eating over 50 years of toxic waste and massive amounts of sugars and fats has zero effect or course.
With america being the shitshow that it is I am not surprised
I do hope she could move back and get the support of the family in South Korea because she shouldn't have to live in that sithole anymore
If anyone else is wondering why their faces on the image are not identical: its a representative stock pic
There's link for the study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886922001477
Personality traits, mental abilities and other individual differences: Monozygotic female twins raised apart in South Korea and the United States by Nancy L. Segal and Yoon-Mi Hur
It is literally a case study with a single pair of subjects. At first I thought the OP pop sci article was just focusing in on one pair of participants of many. Most of the discussions in threads here seem wholly unwarranted. There are loads of random factors that affect people's development, many of which can't realistically be measured in a study. Maybe one of them happened to become friends with with a classmate that's really into literature and so they started reading a lot! Maybe they are both sensitive to sounds, but only one of them happens to live near an airport, disrupting their sleep at night.
It is not surprising that one particular set of monozygotic twins happens to markedly differ with respect to some traits. There are always outliers in large twin studies too, and researchers don't usually get that hung up about them because everyone knows there are countless factors involved. To be able to have any certainty about the effects of a particular factor you need scale that lets you separate them from the random noise. It's just basic statistics, like what is even anyone doing here. The study itself does make sense, but should be interpreted as extremely exploratory in nature, not something to draw any conclusions from. IMO the researchers themselves are irresponsible in this regard, as they speculate much more than what's warranted in the discussion and conclusions sections. Like, one of their conclusions is "They [the twins] also show that cultural climates can modify values.". First, that is something already widely known and accepted, but second and more importantly, that is not the kind of statement you should make based on a single pair of subjects.
view more: next ›