delete whom

>>9532890
Whom are you quoting?

>>9532896

Whom'st should have he been quoting?

OP is a brainlet whom cannot understand how to use the word.

2/10

>>9532890
what kind of pseud refers to IQ but doesn't even understand how it works

>>9532909
That OP's post is imbecilic bait is patently obvious, but what about your own post? You see, none of us here is(are) without sin.

>>9532899
He whomest spake such wordes.

>>9532890
>It is used in academic writing
What do you think academic writing is? People don't use it in academic writing. The only place it's normal to use it is high school English classes or in snotty "grammar" advice columns in the newspaper.

>>9534453
>People don't use it in academic writing
Formal English is used in any decent textbook. Probably not research papers since most of those are written by Indians and Chinese people.

>>9532890
Lol average IQ cant decrease. IQ means intelligence quotient. As in, you divide your score by the average (and multiply by 100) So even if people are getting dumber, the average IQ will always be 100, because average IQ is by defintion 100.
For example if you take a 10 question IQ test and score a 6/10, but everyone else scores a 6/10, then (0.6)/(0.6)x(100)= 100
If in a hundred years everyone is scoring a 5/10 and you score a 5/10, sure people are dumber, but then (0.5)/(0.5)x100 is still 100.
IQ is not an objective measure of intelligence, its a compasion to average. So average IQ is always 100

>>9532890
Embarrassing.

>>9532890
⏭ 3 3 3

>>9534734
>what is the Flynn effect

>>9534770
I dont understand if you are criticizing me or agreeing.
Part of the flynn effect is that each new "average", even if it is higher than before, is set to 100.
In my example, even if everyone now scored a 9/10 then (0.9)/(0.9)x(100) is still 100. BUT if you compare intelligences levels across generations, then sure (0.9)/(0.6)x(100) is 150. But IQ on its own cant increase or decrease, even if intelligence does

>>9534794
I'm saying that you can compare IQs across generations by slightly tweaking the definition of IQ from something which always, by definition, has a value of 100 into something based on the IQ tests from past generations, because then you are able to use the IQ tests for more practical purposes such as viewing trends.

>>9534734
Obviously the nominal average is always 100. If you take a year as your base year, maybe 1950 like the cart says, and measure everything else against that one year, you can get a clear progression curve. Essentially the same way GDP gets measured over time. I'm not sure how you'd project a forecast for IQ though.