The paper this article is based on is quite old already, and many problems with Crabtree's arguments have been pointed out.<p>Here's some reading material:
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/grrlscientist/2012/nov/14/1" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/grrlscientist/2012/nov/14/...</a><p>And there's the last HN-thread with a lot of debunking going on: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4818441" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4818441</a><p>And of course, the Flynn effect completely contradicts this, mostly because the Flynn effect is actually based on data (IQ-tests in this case) and not just assumptions like Crabtree did it.
There was literally zero stated evidence for this in the article. He mentions that intelligence is 'genetically fragile', then promotes the idea that because we don't live in hostile environments any more, that those 'fragile genetics' must be going away, and we are therefore less intelligent.<p>Paradoxically, though, this 'Stanford geneticist' seems to be evidence for his own findings.
This is in contrast to the Flynn effect:<p><pre><code> The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained
increase in intelligence test scores measured in many
parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day
</code></pre>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect</a>
A link to the article for those with access
<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952512001588" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952512...</a>