Science in the Media: Victorians Were Smarter Than Us (If you believe everything you read)

            It’s no great surprise when the news media focuses on scientific studies that reinforce traditional sentiments. In my anecdotal experience, some of the most common implications of science as reported by mainstream media include:

            -Women and men really are different and in precisely the ways we’ve always thought.

            -Every new technology will make children stupid. (And they will be especially illiterate if text their friends using acronyms that you don’t understand).

-This superfood __(fill in the blank)__ will solve all your problems.

            -You are exercising all wrong.

-Modern medicine is both amazing and terrifying aka ‘Look how they’re growing human body parts now!’

-Things just aren’t what they used to be.

            It’s this last sentiment that I’ll give special attention to because of a recent study that finds that people today are much less intelligent that people in the Victorian age. The study, “Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time,” can be found here.  The study has been reported on (uncritically!) by Yahoo! News,  Discovery News,  The Times (UK), and The Telegraph, among others. This study is a perfect example of why science journalism shouldn’t simply report what the scientists say as if every scientific study were unassailable truth. Informing the public about science should also mean giving the audience at least a little bit of the context that they need to evaluate the arguments that scientists make. 

            IQ and Reaction Times

Quantification of intelligence can always be a treacherous field of study; the construct of “intelligence” itself is highly culturally specific. There are also the practical matters of measurement; for instance, how does one create a standardized way of measuring intelligence when cultural knowledge and practices vary widely, hopefully without deciding that rotating cubes in your head is the only thing that counts as intelligence. Furthermore, the debates over the extent to which IQ predicts various successes and the extent to which IQ is determined by genetics are ongoing, and are clearly entangled with historically fraught conversations about superiority, culture, and nature/nurture.

            The study above, however, has problems that go far beyond these debates. Specifically, the conclusions of the study draw on deeply problematic cultural assumptions as well as plain old bad methodology. The abstract of the article is as follows:

“The Victorian era was marked by an explosion of innovation and genius, per capita rates of

which appear to have declined subsequently. The presence of dysgenic fertility for IQ amongst

Western nations, starting in the 19th century, suggests that these trends might be related to

declining IQ. This is because high-IQ people are more productive and more creative. We tested

the hypothesis that the Victorians were cleverer than modern populations, using high-quality

instruments, namely measures of simple visual reaction time in a meta-analytic study. Simple

reaction time measures correlate substantially with measures of general intelligence (g) and

are considered elementary measures of cognition. In this study we used the data on the secular

slowing of simple reaction time described in a meta-analysis of 14 age-matched studies from

Western countries conducted between 1884 and 2004 to estimate the decline in g that may

have resulted from the presence of dysgenic fertility. Using psychometric meta-analysis we

computed the true correlation between simple reaction time and g, yielding a decline of−1.23

IQ points per decade or fourteen IQ points since Victorian times. These findings strongly

indicate that with respect to g the Victorians were substantially cleverer than modern Western

populations.”

         Where to begin….

        How about the methods? The authors draw on I.W. Silverman’s studies comparing reaction times of modern test subject with the reaction times of subjects in Victorian England, as recorded by the famed 19^th Century scientist (and eugenicist, by the by) Francis Galton . The authors expand the study, however, and find different implications in the results.

        The authors argue that a change in the average reaction time (defined by the authors as “the time that it takes for an individual to respond to a sensory stimulus”) suggests a change in the overall intelligence.  Their evidence consists of studies examining modern test subjects that show a strong correlation between reaction time and IQ.  There are, however, a couple of reasons that this reasoning might be a little anguished:

*Correlation between reaction time and IQ has been found when comparing individuals from the same time period. Note that these individuals would all have been raised in roughly the same visual and auditory environment. There is no evidence that there is a correlation between reaction time and IQ when comparing populations from different time periods. In other words, the difference in reaction time could just as easily reflect that people living in Victorian England had adapted to a radically different sensory environment from what we live in today. There is no basis, therefore, for concluding that a change in reaction times means that the average IQ in Western nations has dropped 14.1 points in the last century.  They do mention that the number “14.1” is an estimate, but they end the Discussion by claiming that “[i]n conclusion however these findings do indicate that with respect to ‘genetic g’ the Victorians were indeed substantially cleverer than modern populations,” with ‘genetic g’ referring to innate general intelligence. They do not acknowledge, however, that they assume without any evidence that reaction time can be used to compare the intelligence of entire populations across different time periods.

*Modern methods for selecting a sample of the population might vary drastically in both formal and informal ways from 19^th century methods. I acknowledge, however, that this is a necessary methodological imperfection if one wants to take advantage of data from long ago, which, in general, can be a worthwhile task. The authors also note that Galton’s findings correlate well with other reaction time studies of his period, which at least shows that Galton’s methods for sampling were likely not too idiosyncratic.

 

Coverage of this study, however, shows no indication that this study is anything other than established fact.  Current scientific findings are part of debates; other scientists often disagree with the results, methods, or conclusions of published findings. Shouldn’t news media be obligated to ask other scientists, even ones who might disagree, to comment on the study?  Would the proponents of a position on politics be reported on as if there were no opposition? (I know the answer is “sometimes,” but the answer really should be “of course not.”) Yes, scientific articles are generally held to a much higher standard of rigor, but it is obviously not the case that every published scientific article’s conclusions should be treated as unassailable fact. Science is of course a work in progress; if the purpose of science journalism is to convey science in an understandable way to a public, then shouldn’t science journalism also have to convey that scientific findings are contestable?

This article could easily have included other scientists who disagree with the conclusions of this study.  In fact, the idea that the overall population (again, the studies being discussed focus on Western nations only) is getting less intelligent is not the majority opinion, and indeed is contradicted by the theory of the Flynn effect, which suggests that average IQ is actually increasing over time. The authors of this study acknowledge the existence of research supporting the Flynn Effect but argue that changing reaction times in populations of completely differently environments does much to disprove this widely accepted theory.  Even a brief couple of sentences in the mainstream media articles, perhaps quoting a skeptical scientist on these issues, would do much to more fairly portray the results of this study and especially to more accurately convey the fact that science involves argument and not just ivory tower declarations of uncontestable truth.

 Other Reasons to Side-Eye This Science (and Who Might Be Good at Doing It)

            In this study, there are also some rather culturally loaded frameworks and assumptions that guide the authors’ interpretation of their data. First, is their suggestion that IQ scores have something to do with the swell of scientific, humanitarian, economic, and other creative achievements in the Victorian period. They even refer to the Pax Britannica as further evidence of the superiority of the time period, though for some reason they don’t suggest that 19^th century colonialism and nationalism are products of these vaunted intelligences. Moreover, in suggesting a connection between higher IQ and technological and scientific progress, they do also do not consider that the 21^st century might equally considered a time of great change. Yet this suggested superiority of Victorian innovation, despite the seeming lack of relevance to the article’s subject matter, is given pride of place in the Introduction to the article as well as at the start of the Discussion section. The authors wax rhapsodic on the minds of Victorians as if no explanation were needed and that every reader would assume that times of rapid technoscientific change were spurred on by high IQs.

Most modern scholarship on the history, philosophy, or sociology of science, however, would suggest that complex sociocultural and economic factors create environments that shape the nature and quantity of scientific innovations. The authors seem to assume that higher IQs are responsible for the achievements of the Victorian age, rather than for instance the Industrial Revolution, government investment in science, a strong middle class, the growing professionalization of science and engineering, or the development of the modern university system. The idea that Victorian achievement (no mention is made of the problems of the era) reflects the hyperintelligence of Victorians seems to be better suited for a poorly written steampunk novel than an article attempting to make serious claims about how human beings have changed over the past century. This raises the question: What might a specialist in Victorian science add to this conversation? Or an expert on how scientific innovation occurs in different time periods and cultures? Why wouldn’t a science journalist want these outside perspectives? Again, even a brief sentence or two could offer some sense that one must not necessarily conclude what these authors do.

One might also wonder why the Victorian age is, in this article, assumed to be the pinnacle of human Western intelligence, rather than say, today, the early 20^th century, the European Enlightenment, the European Renaissance, or 4^th-5^th century BCE Athens (and this is not even considering the numerous times of rapid cultural/scientific change in other parts of the world).  The article clearly frames the discussion of IQ change over time in terms of "dysgenic fertility."  “Dysgenic fertility” at is most simple level means that there is a negative correlation between intelligence or education and the number of offspring; on average, smart people, as certain groups define intelligence, have fewer kids. Kept in this simplest form without additional assumptions, this idea can indeed be studied for useful reasons; exploring why some groups are more susceptible to infertility, for example, might lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms of fertility and thus eventually lead to treatment/prevention of infertility or sterility for those who wish it. Even with these purposes, however, it is problematic to use the term ‘dysgenic’ to imply that more successful, more educated, or higher-IQ individuals have better genes.

Many discussions of dysgenic fertility, however, draw broader and frankly bizarre conclusions about how society has changed over time. Surprisingly, this assumption is found in reputable scientific articles and not simply in informal meditations on dysgenics. The assumption is that because intelligence and "good character" are sometimes thought to be highly heritable, dysgenic fertility is having a negative effect on the population. In simple terms, genetically “lesser” individuals are having more children and genetically more advantaged individuals are having fewer children, and as a result, the overall population is getting, basically, stupider and worse.

According to proponents of this theory, fertility was eugenic (i.e., the population was getting better and smarter) until 1825, and then all sorts of undesirables started having too many kids and so Western civilization started its decline. But the idea that we are getting stupider and ‘lower’ because the wrong people are having lots of kids is hardly new. 

And predictably, it’s the kind of idea that a lot of people have a problem with. 

Specifically, is it really responsible to not even note that many people would see these assumptions as having at least distant ties to eugenicist debates? If this study is worthy of being featured in the news media, couldn’t there also be commentary from someone who has studied theories of eugenics to explain why eugenicists’ scientific reasoning is so frequently wrong?

Or how about someone from the history of science, Science and Technology Studies, feminist technoscience, critical race theory or other fields to help unpack the complicated social relations that inform these scientific discussions? Race, ethnicity, nationalism, and class have played an important parts in many scientific and political discussions about whether the ‘right people’ are having the right amount of kids. You can see this in 19^th century American hysteria over immigrants with their ‘broods’ of children to modern day stereotypes of ‘welfare queens” (since Reagan) and modern forms of fecundism such as the Quiverfull movement. What kind of context might these outside voices add? The purpose would not be to accuse all those interested in this topic of racism or classism but to add context to how cultural identities and assumptions have always been – and continue to be– implicated in these conversations.

It might also help to get commentary from someone with knowledge of gender politics about the implication that it’s the wrong kind of women who are having lots of kids, with the ramification that genetically ‘inferior’ women can’t control their wild breeding habits, and that educated and economically privileged women are causing the decline of civilization by not spending their time bearing and raising a dozen children. And how might a disabilities theorist contextualize the debates over dysgenic fertility in a broader eugenics history, perhaps connecting it to those who think that modern medical treatments and social changes that improve survival rates of the disabled are making society less ‘fit’ in the evolutionary sense.

And indeed, what the news media coverage most sorely needs is a critique from an evolutionary biologist. Proponents of the theory that dysgenic fertility causes a decline in society, including the authors of this study as explained in the article in The Telegraph, characterize this trend as a form of “reverse Natural Selection.” Society, in this view, no longer values the traits that make one better able to survive in “nature,” whatever that means (presumably “nature” has social mores very similar to those of Victorian England, since that’s when fitness was highest). But to suggest that we are becoming less fit by the standards of natural selection betrays a severe understanding of what natural selection is.  Fitness is not an unchanging set of criteria; it is the extent to which there has been effective adaptation to the environment. By definition, those who have more offspring (and offspring’s offspring, etc.) have demonstrated their evolutionary fitness through natural selection and sexual selection. There is no such thing as ‘reverse’ natural selection, unless it involves some sort of device that makes time move backward and the universe start shrinking, etc. (which would be awesome but is neither here nor there).  To suggest that those who have traits that our society values are genetically superior according to natural selection is to completely misunderstand what the term “natural selection” describes. Again, if science journalism is intended to make science understandable, why perpetuate popular misconceptions about what evolution and “natural selection” really mean? (And on a side note, I would speculate that much of the denial about evolutionary theory (from about half the US population, for instance) comes from a misunderstanding of what Darwinian theory says, combined with personal distaste over blurring the line between humans and other animals. Many people believe that every word of the Bible is literal truth, but I doubt it’s half of the U.S.)

Certainly, a news article might not be able to include all of these different experts and commentators. But they could certainly include one or two. And I am not singling out these journalists for poor work; in fact, I think these publications frequently do an excellent job of explaining scientific discoveries when compared to other publications. And while I think there are flaws in the scientific study discussed here, its flaws hardly make it the most egregious methodological offender.

The broader issue is that much of news media coverage doesn’t do enough to contextualize scientific studies. And by summarizing scientific findings without offering any sense that conclusions are the result of data gathering techniques and interpretations that may indeed by contested or even refuted, this kind of science journalism promotes a misunderstanding of what science really is. There are of course science journalists who do a spectacular job explaining the broader conversations that scientific papers take part in.  But it’s not clear that most publications are willing to hold science reporting to the same standards that we assume they do for reporting on politics or finance, where it would be considered irresponsible to report on one expert’s opinion without any sense that it could be subject to criticism.  But unless media outlets are willing to devote the person-hours and resources to make these journalistic standards the expected norm, it will be difficult for the news media to truly help the audience understand the science it reports.