dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3
share rss forum feed


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8

1 recommendation

reply to Encino Man

Re: This explains a lot: people are getting dumber

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


neochu

join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON
said by Wolfie00:

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.

1st response: Goodwin's Law as at the end they have been the only regime to actually implement any sort or form of eugenics into a political agenda.

Second response: Athenians killed off their rivals so they would have no real opposition (To prevent what is happening in the US right now)

Third response:

Sounds to me more like generational whining about laziness and nostalgia in the bias more then actually advocating eugenics.

The final response really shows the authors bias with this quote. He implies that if we were destroy technology, and and go backwards we would become "smarter". All the automated things we do make us 'dumb' not the genes.

quote:
Although we cant 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.
Its similar to the argument proposed that humans in 2000 years will have non functional fingers except the thumbs. An evolution triggered because of needed muscular development to facilitate the use of text messaging (a need to survive in today's socioeconomic world).


Encino Man

@videotron.ca
reply to Wolfie00
said by Wolfie00:

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.

If you actually read the whole thing it's based on pollution of the gene pool. Read it. There are underlying tones to it that one can draw to countries that actually did try to weed out genetic defects. Thus the reference you didn't grasp.

And yeah, that's all that came out of the average Greek at the time, ohkay...

I find what was written to be amusing. Something to muse about. But it's quackery. Especially this part.

“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.”


As the article states, it's hotly debated.

As for the "nefarious conspiracy". I never stated that. You are taking it (or reading it) the wrong way.


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to neochu
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


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to Encino Man
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


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
Plausible but false = specious.

This is one of the reasons why scientists (not science) continue to lose credibility by coming up with ridiculous theories like this one; for no other reason than to rise above the 140 character noise or get page hits. In that regard, such "scientists" continue to devolve into the infotainment realm: the medium is the message.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.


Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to Wolfie00
Wolfie, your going to have to wait a few centuries for the rest of the crowd to hopefully evolve enough to understand your logic. Unfortunately, the best they can do is eat and defecate having lost the ability to create fire or hunt.


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to digitalfutur
said by digitalfutur:

Plausible but false = specious.

This is one of the reasons why scientists (not science) continue to lose credibility by coming up with ridiculous theories like this one; for no other reason than to rise above the 140 character noise or get page hits. In that regard, such "scientists" continue to devolve into the infotainment realm: the medium is the message.

You should do a bit more research on who this "specious" scientist is before making those kinds of flippant accusations. Rather than an indictment of science, this story is more evidence of just how poorly science is represented in the popular media.

Gerald Crabtree is a professor of developmental biology and pathology at the Stanford School of Medicine with interests in cancer research, developmental biology, immunology, and related areas, and is also director of the Stanford Crabtree Lab which does research in stem cells, molecular biology, and developmental genetics. The particular papers (there were two of them) that appeared in "Trends in Genetics" were somewhat tangential to his main areas of research, but were also grossly oversimplified in the popular media, as often happens. While necessarily somewhat speculative, the papers are a lot more down-to-earth than the media has implied, and investigate the following two hypotheses (from the abstracts) -- obviously #2 is what got the media all in a tizzy:

1. New developments in genetics, anthropology, and neurobiology predict that a very large number of genes underlie our intellectual and emotional abilities, making these abilities genetically surprisingly fragile.

2. Analysis of human mutation rates and the number of genes required for human intellectual and emotional fitness indicates that we are almost certainly losing these abilities. If so, how did we get them in the first place, and when did things begin to change?

I see no problem in asking those questions and making honest attempts to provide substantiated answers.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
The rise and fall of intelligence in a single person is poignantly displayed in one of the most famous SF stories of all time, [Flowers for Algernon] written in 1958 by Daniel Keyes.

The story and subsequent novel inspired the 1968 film [Charly].


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
reply to Wolfie00
I don't fall for the appeal to authority logical error, which what dropping credentials as singular proof of being right is. We had enough of that with the long census form.

There's nothing wrong with asking the question, the problem is not being able answer it summarily without spending gobs of money to do so; which is no doubt part of Crabtree's reasoning - he has to make a living too.

Not every theory is worth funding.

Today's Globe editorial sums is nicely:
quote:
The most striking thing about the study is that is reminds us that we are now smart enough to theorize that we are not as smart as we used to be. We have gathered evidence and used science to advance our understanding of ourselves to a level way beyond that of any person who lived 3,000 years ago, or even 300 years ago. We have all the same frailties as our ancestors – we are still violent, greedy and, sometimes, willfully blind to fact – but we are also more aware of the world around us than ever, we work harder to end wars than we do to start them, we believe in fundamental human rights and improving the lot of people less well off than us, we can decode DNA and search for the “God” particle, and we have developed and adapted to technologies that are continually making our lives richer.

No, we’re smarter than we used to be. A little more cynical too, but that’s not the end of the world.
»www.theglobeandmail.com/commenta···5364261/
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
said by digitalfutur:

I don't fall for the appeal to authority logical error, which what dropping credentials as singular proof of being right is.

No "appeal to authority" logical error here. You're accusing him of being a useless "infotainment" scientist. I'm pointing out that he's an accomplished medical researcher. I'm also pointing out that these particular papers are quite different from the media's interpretation of them.

said by digitalfutur:

Today's Globe editorial sums is nicely:

The only thing the Globe editorial nicely sums up is the Globe editor's inability to understand the research in question. See my post above.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan