Wisdom of the Ancients, Redux

A follow-up defending his critique of the Woodley/Silverman 'Victorian intelligence' study (which claimed a ~15-point IQ drop since the 1800s via reaction-time data). Scott reaffirms selection bias: Galton's 'students' were the top ~2% vs the 1940s top ~10%; a society with a larger underclass makes its middle-class occupations comparably elite; and Galton's sample self-selected by paying to visit a science museum (the 'Exploratorium-gift-shop postman is smarter than a random postman' point). He also defends his evolution objection — over 900 years the action is differential reproduction, not de novo mutation, so smartening can be as fast as dumbing-down — and concludes dysgenic worries (~3 points, likely Flynn-erased) aren't worth losing sleep over.

Quality 61 · Strong. 61 — low-Strong. A competent, pointed rebuttal with a sharp selection-bias argument (the gift-shop-postman analogy), but narrow, in-the-weeds, and derivative as a redux of a specific study debate.

Claude’s paradigm shift 38 · Slight. 38 — Slight/Moderate. A rebuttal within an ongoing debate; no new frame.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. 2 — a within-discourse IQ-debate follow-up; no material reach.