7-8 IQ points isn't much... I would suspect these studies didn't include more than 1000 people. But even if they included 100,000 people it wouldn't be enough to draw a conclusion that there is anything other than a coincidence in that light increase.
Most studies don't draw from enough people to make ANY claims to their own validity.
Remember. If you poll 364 people, there will be at least 2 days that your statistics will show to have NO chance of being born on. Likely to be more like 20, and there will be a few days statisticly HIGHER to be born on. That data will tell you nothing.
Also, never trust a projection past a data set... like when a company projects how big they will be in the future based on the past. It isn't accurate and you are as likely to fail entirely or wind up with exponentially great growth than expected as you are to meet your projection.
It is very bad science to see past the data. It is very bad science to draw conclusions from small data sets.
These, ironicly, have become the norm. Which is why you wind up with the whole Eggs are bad for you, no good, no bad, no good. Not enough people in the data sets.
It is rare for a study to consist of more than 100 people.
You can't even get an accurate average of people with blue eyes with that cross section. How will you find a pattern for things as complex as IQ v Myopia.
It is also rare for a study to accurately reflect the earth... if study is done in New York, the average IQ will be different than in West Virginia... let alone Beijing or some remote village in the congo.
Most studies don't draw from enough people to make ANY claims to their own validity.
Remember. If you poll 364 people, there will be at least 2 days that your statistics will show to have NO chance of being born on. Likely to be more like 20, and there will be a few days statisticly HIGHER to be born on. That data will tell you nothing.
Also, never trust a projection past a data set... like when a company projects how big they will be in the future based on the past. It isn't accurate and you are as likely to fail entirely or wind up with exponentially great growth than expected as you are to meet your projection.
It is very bad science to see past the data. It is very bad science to draw conclusions from small data sets.
These, ironicly, have become the norm. Which is why you wind up with the whole Eggs are bad for you, no good, no bad, no good. Not enough people in the data sets.
It is rare for a study to consist of more than 100 people.
You can't even get an accurate average of people with blue eyes with that cross section. How will you find a pattern for things as complex as IQ v Myopia.
It is also rare for a study to accurately reflect the earth... if study is done in New York, the average IQ will be different than in West Virginia... let alone Beijing or some remote village in the congo.