-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Study indicates babies born during pandemic have a lower IQ
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
ecco
Veteran Member
Hmm.
The pandemic has been going on for 17 months. That's 510 days.
A child born at the start of the pandemic would now be 17 months old. While you can test a child's IQ as early as 2 years and 6 months of age, the results may not be accurate and may in fact change with age. The best time to test IQ in children is between ages 5 and 8.
Hmm.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Does what I stated really make absolutely no sense to you? The "toilet paper" is not the issue - I went to that because it was simple, and nearly insignificant, but can still show the ease with which one could put reliance in any sort of test... but it is the babies' behavior that is being examined here... not "toilet paper."
I would imagine there have been people interested in whether or not you can infer anything from measures of cognitive function of babies versus their aged selves - that doesn't seem like a strange thing for someone to be running tests of. And if they were doing this for some time with relatively stable results, and suddenly the infant groups they tested produced widely different results, then there would certainly be a scramble to figure out the cause. Given all other things equal (the test itself hasn't changed, you're looking at a group with relatively the same sort of composition, etc.), a change like this means something. Even if that something is that you just happened to have gotten the best/worst of luck with selection of 90% of your participants.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I saw that... and I wondered why everyone was ignoring that as well... I almost posted questions about it... but then got distracted by other things.
ecco
Veteran Member
"If 99% of babies...". IF. Why base your comment on such a big "if"?
Can you show, from the article, the actual tests that were given?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
The worst thing they did was sample only in "Rhode Island," and come out with this scare before doing due diligence and getting a bigger and more diverse sample size under their belts.
Although - if they have only been conducting this research on a consistent basis in Rhode Island (a possibility given funds, access to volunteers, etc.), then they couldn't really do that because they wouldn't have the consistent history to compare/contrast to. Unfortunately it is irresponsible to roll with something like this without first ruling out all other possible factors influencing your chosen sample.
Although - if they have only been conducting this research on a consistent basis in Rhode Island (a possibility given funds, access to volunteers, etc.), then they couldn't really do that because they wouldn't have the consistent history to compare/contrast to. Unfortunately it is irresponsible to roll with something like this without first ruling out all other possible factors influencing your chosen sample.
Last edited:
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
No, I can't But all I am saying is that dismissing it as garbage because you don't think that babies' IQ can be accurately measured is just plain ignorance.
The "If" I presented was a complete hypothetical. None of the numbers or ideas presented in it were based on anything "real." Duh. I was merely giving an example where it would be obvious that a change in the numbers indicated some underlying reason for change in behavior - regardless what that test was or how dumb it appeared to be. So if they have have been giving this test consistently with consistent results, and the last couple of years are off-base of that consistency, then one would be correct to start looking for factors contributing to the change - REGARDLESS WHAT THE STUPID TEST IS.
an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
That makes sense.
But it also reminds me of another mechanism: Someone was sending me info the other day about the virus actually doing some kind of brain damage to those infected, actually lowering their IQ by measurable amounts. I've yet to read much on that, so at the moment this is a new thing I need to read more on to find out if it's for real.
I like to read more than just one article, but here's a preliminary article I just found, enough to suggest there might be something there, and I'll need to read more:
July 30, 2021 -- Infection from COVID-19 may have a substantial negative effect on intelligence, according to a new large-scale study from the United Kingdom, findings that are consistent with reports of “brain fog” among long-haul COVID-19 patients.
Researchers analyzed data from 81,337 people who took the Great British Intelligence Test in 2020. Of those, about 13,000 reported they had contracted COVID-19, and 275 of those had completed the test before and after infection.
Those who had previously had the coronavirus found it harder to complete tasks related to reasoning, problem-solving, and spatial planning, the authors said. Researchers controlled for age, education, and overall mood.
Study Finds COVID-19 May Lower Intelligence
My thought is this reinforces the thoughts I had all along that excessive concern of the virus is stealing too much of normal life which is what life is really about.
A prioritization of the physical health of primarily the elderly is at a cost not graphable like coronavirus infections and death. I suspect we will see a decline in social skills and IQ among all children in our school systems. And then even physical losses like more sedentariness and less exercise and etcetera and the development of 'couch potato' habits..
My grandson was born in April 2020 that fits right into this study range. The socialization and physical and mental stimulation of our children needs to be an important priority too. And another factor of the distancing and stay at home recommendations I predict is sooner development in the elderly of Alzheimer symptoms.
There is more to life than people not dying of coronavirus.
A prioritization of the physical health of primarily the elderly is at a cost not graphable like coronavirus infections and death. I suspect we will see a decline in social skills and IQ among all children in our school systems. And then even physical losses like more sedentariness and less exercise and etcetera and the development of 'couch potato' habits..
My grandson was born in April 2020 that fits right into this study range. The socialization and physical and mental stimulation of our children needs to be an important priority too. And another factor of the distancing and stay at home recommendations I predict is sooner development in the elderly of Alzheimer symptoms.
There is more to life than people not dying of coronavirus.
ecco
Veteran Member
I, for one, didn't read the OPs comment because the content of the linked article was so outrageous.
Taking his comment into consideration - oh well.
What COVID regulations are you referring to?
How is an infant being at home negatively affected by the COVID regulations?
Since you believe it could be a "purposeful side effect", what do you imagine the plotters of this policy wanted to accomplish?
A bull**** study by an unknown group of researchers published on an open website.
The real question is, why do you give it any credence?
ecco
Veteran Member
NO! Not "REGARDLESS WHAT THE STUPID TEST IS". The specifics of the test is vital in establishing the credibility of the article and its authors.
Before calling me ignorant, you should look up "How early can IQ tests be administered".
Then you will see why I, and many others, dismissed it as garbage. And that was before seeing OPs "purposeful" comment.
That's not what I'm asking. What I am asking is how one can infer anything specific like IQ to that one specific behavior when many other factors could be the result. Babies have different levels of cognizance and different things catch their attention. Some aren't interested in mobiles, some are.
When I was first born, before I ever cried, I lifted my head and looked around at everyone. It startled the doctor and he almost dropped me. What do we infer from that? Am I some kind of super genius now because I happened to be super cognizant from birth?
Like I said, seems like bull****.
Ok. Who are they and how accurate are their results?
Yes, but the thing is is that it could be anything. Why do we infer IQ as the culprit? It feels like this study was done to prove a point with a pre-established narrative. We've never experienced a lockdown before, and the assumptions made in the article are not backed by anything but biased opinion. Honestly, a change in environmental conditions could just lead to a change in normal behavior without effecting IQ at all. I'm very skeptical.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
If you remember doing that and the doctor's reaction, you are way more than a super cognizant genius.
ETA:
Bad To The Bone
by George Thorogood
On the day I was born
The nurses all gathered 'round
And they gazed in wide wonder
At the joy they had found
The head nurse spoke up
And she said leave this one alone
She could tell right away
That I was bad to the bone
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
COVID-19 linked to 'significant' drop in intelligence: research
COVID-19 linked to 'significant' drop in intelligence: research
Source study: Lancet article: Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from COVID-19
COVID-19 linked to 'significant' drop in intelligence: research
Source study: Lancet article: Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from COVID-19
Eh... I'm glad I don't remember that. If I did, I might have turned out like George Thorogood.
But that can't be the case, because low IQ children will more than likely grow up to be followers of some political cult, like the Trumpians. That won't help political parties which do common sense things like wearing masks during a pandemic.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
YES, "regardless what the stupid test is." You apparently haven't been reading (perhaps comprehension is the issue) anything I have been saying. If the have been giving a test - ANY TEST - consistently for some time, doing whatever research they were doing, and they (relatively) suddenly came upon a statistically significant difference in results, then this indicates that something is at play in your samples.
This is regardless the test. Regardless the test. Regardless. It makes no difference what the test is. If the test can be shown to produce consistent results over time, and at a specific time you get widely divergent results, then you are right to raise a flag (first among your researchers, obviously) that something is up.
I can't speak to the validity of what these particular people are accomplishing, obviously, as I have no more idea what exactly they did than you do. What I was combatting was all the cries of "You can't test a baby's IQ!!!1!!!!!11!!1". That doesn't matter. Doesn't. It makes no difference whatsoever. Whatever test was being conducted, if the people cared about the longitudinal sanctity of their research at all, was producing some result, and they are raising the flag because recent results diverged greatly from that established norm. And if they were even halfassing their research into establishing an "IQ for babies", then their tests involve some cognitive capabilities and functions. In other words... it is a pretty safe bet that they weren't just feeding babies toilet paper.
I don't care how early IQ tests can be administered. As stated, this doesn't matter. What matters initially is the consistency of the test, and the fact that it recently diverged. You can get into the specifics after that, and the various details of what the test encompasses will help you hone in on what you're looking for to explain the change... but those preliminary findings are basically what are being shared, and then the aftermath is the conjecture one might expect when people are casting around, looking for causes.
And I still maintain that simply dismissing it because you don't believe that babies' IQs can be accurately measured is IGNORANCE. You are ignorant in this case. If anything, it warrants further investigation, corollary and ongoing testing, reaching out to others who may be doing similar research to see if they have run into anything similar, etc. Perhaps they were a bit premature in punting this to the media, but they were right to raise a flag. The test needs to be assessed to see if it points to the conclusions they are trying to make, but otherwise, a significant change given a consistent test that is even slightly trying to maintain legitimacy is cause for further inquiry, not dismissal.
Last edited: