O Canada! > Canadian > Canadian Chat > This explains a lot: people are getting dumber

This explains a lot: people are getting dumber

Is this a global trend? Or just Americans?

reply to donoreo
Sometimes referred to as Cole's Axiom:

“The sum of intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.”

reply to donoreo
I don't think people are getting dumber. I think the Dumb are just getting more attention and opportunity to congregate.

reply to donoreo
»www.livescience.com/24713-humans···nce.html

I prefer the counter-argument.

'But just because humans have more mutations in their intelligence genes doesn't mean we are becoming less brainy as a species, said psychologist Thomas Hills of the University of Warwick, who was not involved in the study. Instead, removing the pressure for everyone to be a superb hunter or gatherer may have allowed us to evolve a more diverse population with different types of smarts, he said.

"You don't get Stephen Hawking 200,000 years ago. He just doesn't exist," Hills told LiveScience. "But now we have people of his intellectual capacity doing things and making insights that we would never have achieved in our environment of evolutionary adaptation."'

reply to PX Eliezer
I'm not a big SF fan but that story is the first thing that came to mind. The premise is that we're getting dumber because the dumber segments of the population are indiscriminately breeding faster, and there's probably some real truth to that.

The interesting counterpoint is that IQ scores have generally been increasing over generations, to the point that IQ tests have to be revised once in a while, a phenomenon sometimes called the Flynn effect. But this effect is far too rapid to be genetic in origin, and there's some evidence that it's flattened out in developed countries. Among the explanations for it, the most likely IMHO is a combination of better test-taking proficiency as a result of better education, and environmental improvements, particularly the reduction of neurotoxins in the environment (elimination of lead from lead paint and gasoline, reduction of other heavy metals from coal emissions, etc.). So it has nothing to do with long-term evolutionary improvement of intelligence.

Or teaching safe sex / abstinence because I'm sure the demographics he's referring to are not intentionally producing offspring.

reply to donoreo

quote:

---

“I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas and a clear-sighted view of important issues,”
Crabtree said in his paper, according to The Independent.

“Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues.”

---

Would this be the Athens where democracy was invented, and was famous for its philosophers and much of the foundation of modern civilization?

Secondly, what the hell does this report have to do with Germany or politics or sterilizations? Where is that being advocated? This is a typical example of a scientist reporting observations being accused of some nefarious conspiracy by someone who doesn't like his observations.

May I suggest: think first, write later.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

reply to donoreo
Sounds like advocating eugenics....

reply to Wolfie00

quote:

---

Although we can’t blame it on genetics, however, there is perhaps a case to be made that new technologies let us get away with using less brain power. Think back to how many telephone numbers you used to know by heart before the invention of the memory-dial function and contact lists on our mobile phones. Consider how you were forced to creatively solve problems and come up with answers to questions before Google.

---

Not sure where you're going with this. How is that quote "biased"? It seems to me demonstrably true. Kids used to have to learn long division, memorize multiplication tables, learn to use logarithm tables and learn why they worked, learn to use slide rules -- now they just pound numbers into a calculator. This is not necessarily "bad", nor does he ever say it is, but it certainly requires far less skill and therefore levels the differences between the bright and the not-so-bright when it comes to these skills.

And at no point does he suggest or imply that we need to "destroy technology and go backwards." Like the other poster, these are all biases that you're reading into it because, for whatever reason, you apparently disagree with his observations. It's possible to disagree with him without suggesting some nefarious Luddite plot!
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

reply to Wolfie00

I read it. There's nothing that I "failed to grasp". You're reading into it ridiculous policy prescriptions that aren't there.

The strongest criticism that can made of this is that it's not really a testable hypothesis, which limits its value as science outside the realm of speculation. But it's certainly plausible from everything we understand about natural selection that we're no longer biologically evolving, since there's no survival benefit to drive it, and technology seems to be even further exacerbating that. It's no different than the observation that a lot of people nowadays can't drive standard transmissions, and when we have a lot more cars that can do things like parallel park themselves, more people won't know how to do that, either. Those are simple observations, not an advocacy of eugenics or Luddism!
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

reply to PX Eliezer

reply to IamGimli

reply to Encino Man

reply to vue666