• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Is it dat we getting ficker?"

Collapse

  • norrahe
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    Damn.

    And I thought it was caused by too much YouPorn.
    You can resubscribe to the internet now without worry

    Leave a comment:


  • ZARDOZ
    replied
    I suspect some confounding here. DM loves it's correlation implies causation standpoint.

    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    Or lack of Darwinian selection?

    In Victorian times, if you were thick you were probably poor. If you were poor, you had a good chance of dying in infancy.
    I don't think this has anything to do with natural selection.
    If you clever you were still likely to be poor if you were born into the wrong class. The poor tended to have large families to overcome the high Mortality rate. As I say above, looks like confounding and dodgy surrogate endpoints.
    Last edited by ZARDOZ; 14 May 2013, 10:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • mudskipper
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    Might it not be linked to Darwinian selection in two global unpleasantnesses?

    Kill off your brightest & bestest & see what happens next.

    Or lack of Darwinian selection?

    In Victorian times, if you were thick you were probably poor. If you were poor, you had a good chance of dying in infancy.

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    Might it not be linked to Darwinian selection in two global unpleasantnesses?

    Kill off your brightest & bestest & see what happens next.

    I wouldn't be surprised if wars over recent centuries have increased the prevalence of bad eyesight and flat feet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    yeah, innit.

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    Can't be a*ed to look for it but read the other day that diet is a major factor. If young kids are fed fast food with lots of fat it reduces IQ.

    The other obvious downside of modern diet compared to that in the Victorian era is that the little bar stewards are too fat to put up chimneys.

    Leave a comment:


  • SimonMac
    replied
    But A-Level pass rates are getting higher and higher, whatever next they will be telling us the pass mark is now only 40%

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    started a topic Is it dat we getting ficker?

    Is it dat we getting ficker?

    Were the Victorians cleverer than us? Research indicates a decline in brainpower and reflex speed | Mail Online

    Were the Victorians cleverer than us? Research indicates a decline in brainpower and reflex speed
    Study claims we have 14 IQ points LESS than our 19th Century ancestors
    Findings contradict the Flynn effect, which claims IQ has risen three points every decade since the Second World War

Working...
X