1. Users have to be able to find and read interesting content.
2. Content publishers have to be able to make enough money so that they continue to find it economical to produce content.
"First click free" was the compromise solution for this. Google's incentives actually run both ways - if they couldn't use paywalls, most content sites would probably use AdSense or DoubleClick, both Google products. But it's unlikely that a site like The Economist or The New York Times could continue to produce quality articles off AdSense revenue alone.
I didn't say "Paywalls break the web", I have no problem with paywalls, I have a problem with the way The Economist is using URLs.
URLs are the standard for accessing web documents. A URL is a universal identifier. The referrer is not part of a URL. The Economist's use of URLs is breaking the web.
Well consider this - A google user finds a link, doesn't realize there is a paywall and shares the link with the rest of the web. Now the rest of the web has to go through google to get to the link. That sounds broken to me.
Alternative theory: men think with their junk. OK, I'll see myself out...
In all seriousness, it'd be great to see a more thorough study here. I see so many confounding factors. Measuring intelligence is a tough one. Perhaps people more likely to score higher on intelligence tests come from a part of the world where higher sperm counts were selected for genetically. For example, how do sperm counts correlated with the number of cold vs hot days during an average year? Or humidity levels? Or circumcision traditions? Or average penis size? My point is that there are so many factors that go into calculating intelligence and at least to me it seems there are as many factors that affect sperm count that this correlation may be influenced by several other hidden variables.
Doesn't the standard IQ (I know, I know) bell-curve indicate that the majority of humans are less intelligent than the most intelligent? [1]
I suppose the question is how much less intelligent does the majority have to be for the world to look like Idiocracy? How likely is that to happen, given the communication tech and education options that are emerging?
EDIT: [1] Fair point, riffraff. Actually quite tough for me to rephrase without spending significant time on it (I'm clearly not in the minority...), how about: "the most intelligent humans (by IQ) are naturally in the minority, as with any natural distribution/bell-curve, meaning the 'less intelligent' majority already dominate, as in Idiocracy, and by definition they must always continue to do so". That's a mouthful, but I hope the point is clear enough.
I think you should rephrase your first line, as it would seem to me the majority of anything is always less anything than the top. (i.e. half of the people are of below average intelligence)
I should watch that movie, could be amusing. However I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I don't think the study reached a conclusion as to how many children someone might have, merely that the sperm quality was higher/lower.
The movie gives the view that dumber people get more kids compared to smart people. So the world will, after a point, contain more dumb people than smart people because they simply breed more.
the movie posits the dumb people reproduce faster because they start sooner (i.e. football guy gets cheerleader pregnant when 16, smart girl waits to have a career before getting pregnant) and since getting to reproductive maturity doesn't need special skills it still works out in favor of dumb people (i.e. by the time smart couple has 1 kid dumb couple has >=1 and their descendents have >=1).
my understanding is that transmitting intelligence to the next generation requires (a) the presence of whatever genes are responsible for intelligence and (b) the absence of mutations affecting those genes.
it would make sense that the quality of sperm correlates with intelligence, because it would have to be less damaged in order to reliably transmit these attributes. the headline seems to dance around this, perhaps because of the controversy involved.
one unfortunate factor which affects the quality of sperm - paternal age. average number of mutations increase every year. so if you're "thinking" about starting a family, consider that a disincentive to wait.
"They may, for example, be less likely to smoke, more likely to eat healthy foods or to exercise, and so on." I would chalk up the small correlation documented to this. Higher IQ people tend to be higher on the social scale and be healthier in a large variety of ways.
Why would you make that assumption? IQ and sperm quality are probably both impacted by deleterious mutations. I would assume quality in both is measuring mutational load way before I made suppositions about SES.
This is very significant. If human general intelligence was just a coincidence of runaway sexual selection, then what are the chances of that occurring again on a different planet? How many times have peacocks independently evolved?
"Quality of a man’s sperm depends on how intelligent he is, and vice versa"
I don't think people know what "depends" means anymore. Especially the "vice versa" part.
That means if you improve the quality of your sperm, as a direct consequence you will become more intelligent, which brings forward all kinds of interesting questions, such as do men really think with their balls?
Agreed. That title made wonder what kind of crazy set of working memory training experiments took place. And I don't even know how they would test things in the other direction...
Here is the publication in question: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009semen.pdf
Here is an addendum trying to explain why it might be the case: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775227/