Are we getting stupider? Why or why not? Evidence?

[koshergrl]

Oh look, another lovely eugenics thread.

The Nazis thought the same thing.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

LOL! Idiocracy rocked!

Yeah, it made some relevant points, and yeah, that could be our future... but I really, really hope not, 'cause unlike in the movie, I don't think civilization will survive the next 500 years if we keep getting stupider.

So come on... let's hear some ideas! How do we prevent the population of our civilized world from getting stupider and stupider?

Well outlawing religion would be a great start. Then a focus on science and understanding the world around us from an analytical and rational standpoint would be huge steps in the right direction. Unfortunately I'm afraid we're nowhere near that happening.

Evidence that we are getting stupider brought to you by....

RDD.

lol!Best post of the thread!

 

[paravani]

This thread isn't going where you think it's going.

Wow I am kind of baffled at where this conversation is going. I only read the first post, and responded to it, but reading on I cant even believe what I am seeing. Why dont we just find all the stupid people, men and women alike, and give them depo injections every 3 months. I was joking at first about my ugenix remark, but now I see that you are actually serious about it. A ugenix liberal... an oxymoron i never thought Id see, but I am not sure why I am so surprised.

First off I dont think you have a very good understanding of genetics to come to the conclusions that you are coming to. Secondly while nutrition is important to a babies development, there is no specific "genius formula" out there other than stay away from what we know are harmful to babies, get enough folic acid and iron, and keep a wide variety in your diet. Thats why I hate the "diet" mindset today in america. Its a simple as get a wide variety, and calories in vs calories out. Super-foods dont give you super-powers, except for cranberry juice in defense of a UTI (this is a joke I am making by the way).

The only relatively good point you have made is about the type of play with babies, but It shouldnt stop at infancy, it should continue through childhood.

Your too hung up on faulty genetics, over an issue about cognitive development, which makes its biggest leaps starting from birth, till about age 10. This is where your going to give your kids the best advantage, feeding them soy beans over mac and cheese isnt going to make much of a difference.

The point of this thread is NOT to insist on any type of forced eugenics such as is practiced in China. China is not a democracy, so what works for them would never work here anyway; besides which I consider that kind of forced family planning to be immoral.

-- Paravani

 

[koshergrl]

"Outlawing religion" is not indicative of a democracy at work, either.

Eugenics is the tool of the left.

 

[paravani]

... and not just your own?

Because your off-topic posts are really distracting, and I'm sure you could contribute something thoughtful to the topic if only you would familiarize yourself with what it really is.

-- Paravani

"Outlawing religion" is not indicative of a democracy at work, either.

Eugenics is the tool of the left.

 

[sakinago]

This thread isn't going where you think it's going.

Wow I am kind of baffled at where this conversation is going. I only read the first post, and responded to it, but reading on I cant even believe what I am seeing. Why dont we just find all the stupid people, men and women alike, and give them depo injections every 3 months. I was joking at first about my ugenix remark, but now I see that you are actually serious about it. A ugenix liberal... an oxymoron i never thought Id see, but I am not sure why I am so surprised.

First off I dont think you have a very good understanding of genetics to come to the conclusions that you are coming to. Secondly while nutrition is important to a babies development, there is no specific "genius formula" out there other than stay away from what we know are harmful to babies, get enough folic acid and iron, and keep a wide variety in your diet. Thats why I hate the "diet" mindset today in america. Its a simple as get a wide variety, and calories in vs calories out. Super-foods dont give you super-powers, except for cranberry juice in defense of a UTI (this is a joke I am making by the way).

The only relatively good point you have made is about the type of play with babies, but It shouldnt stop at infancy, it should continue through childhood.

Your too hung up on faulty genetics, over an issue about cognitive development, which makes its biggest leaps starting from birth, till about age 10. This is where your going to give your kids the best advantage, feeding them soy beans over mac and cheese isnt going to make much of a difference.

The point of this thread is NOT to insist on any type of forced eugenics such as is practiced in China. China is not a democracy, so what works for them would never work here anyway; besides which I consider that kind of forced family planning to be immoral.

-- Paravani

Well then make your point. If your not meaning what you have previously said, Im going to guess that you are trying to get everyone to participate and talk it out so you can eventually make a point. Lets just skip all that, make your point.

And I really hope your are not meaning what you are saying, not just the ugenix aspect, but the nutritional, and the genetics standpoint. Its the cognitive development of the child that will get you the best results. Not mating a doctor and a lawyer, and only feeding the kid food from your local farmers market.

 

[Decus]

This thread isn't going where you think it's going.

Wow I am kind of baffled at where this conversation is going. I only read the first post, and responded to it, but reading on I cant even believe what I am seeing. Why dont we just find all the stupid people, men and women alike, and give them depo injections every 3 months. I was joking at first about my ugenix remark, but now I see that you are actually serious about it. A ugenix liberal... an oxymoron i never thought Id see, but I am not sure why I am so surprised.

First off I dont think you have a very good understanding of genetics to come to the conclusions that you are coming to. Secondly while nutrition is important to a babies development, there is no specific "genius formula" out there other than stay away from what we know are harmful to babies, get enough folic acid and iron, and keep a wide variety in your diet. Thats why I hate the "diet" mindset today in america. Its a simple as get a wide variety, and calories in vs calories out. Super-foods dont give you super-powers, except for cranberry juice in defense of a UTI (this is a joke I am making by the way).

The only relatively good point you have made is about the type of play with babies, but It shouldnt stop at infancy, it should continue through childhood.

Your too hung up on faulty genetics, over an issue about cognitive development, which makes its biggest leaps starting from birth, till about age 10. This is where your going to give your kids the best advantage, feeding them soy beans over mac and cheese isnt going to make much of a difference.

The point of this thread is NOT to insist on any type of forced eugenics such as is practiced in China. China is not a democracy, so what works for them would never work here anyway; besides which I consider that kind of forced family planning to be immoral.

-- Paravani

Well then make your point. If your not meaning what you have previously said, Im going to guess that you are trying to get everyone to participate and talk it out so you can eventually make a point. Lets just skip all that, make your point.

And I really hope your are not meaning what you are saying, not just the ugenix aspect, but the nutritional, and the genetics standpoint. Its the cognitive development of the child that will get you the best results. Not mating a doctor and a lawyer, and only feeding the kid food from your local farmers market.

Is it legal to mate a doctor and a lawyer?

 

[Erand7899]

Hi, folks!

It's my personal belief that we as a nation are getting stupider by the day.

I don't mean that we make bad choices -- I mean that literally, our average intelligence is dropping with every new generation.

Stupid parents are having more babies than smart parents, and our well-developed civilization makes it easy for even the very stupid to survive and breed another generation.

Well, of course that's the case -- civilization is supposed to make it easy to survive. That's its whole reason for being!

... But civilizations fall; and one of the reasons they fall is that their populations eventually become too stupid to maintain them. In fact, every civilization before this one has fallen, and many of them lasted much longer than this one has.

Our world population has ballooned to 7 BILLION people. That's so many people that if you counted ten of them every second, it would take you almost 222 YEARS to count them all! That large a population places a huge strain on the environment and resources of our planet, and if we don't get a whole lot smarter very fast, our civilization will collapse under the weight of all those billions.

It's time to put our collective heads together and come up with solutions that will work.

So, first of all -- do you agree or not that people are becoming stupider? And what, if any, evidence can you present to support your opinion?

Secondly, if you DO agree that people are becoming stupider, what solutions can you propose to reverse that trend? What do you see as the root causes, and how would you propose to address those causes?

Thanks in advance to all who participate on the thread!

-- Paravani

I think America is becoming less educated, despite the fact that more people have college degrees. Beyond just smarts, there is a bigger problem. Because we have advanced so much technologically, it is really hard to find people who understand how most things work. Fields have become so specialized that even intelligent people are limited in what they actually know and understand. Someone who is a brain surgeon would be lost if his/her equipment failed. They use tools that are very advanced, but if one of those tools broke, they could not fix it themselves. Thirty years ago, a lot of people could fix their own car if something went wrong. Today, the cars are so complex that only someone specifically trained can work on your car.

While technological advancement doesn't make us dumber, I think it makes it easier for people to not want to try to understand as many things as they should.

Complexity always begats specialization. One hundred years ago, a businessman could do his own bookkeeping. Not so today because business has become too complex, and too many entities are wanting information from those books. No one can know everything, and no one expects a brain surgeon to have an intimate knowledge of electronics.

We all deal with general knowledge, and specialized knowledge, and most of us are familiar with both. And, both are subject to the intelligence that we bring to the field. The problem that we face today is due to the failed education that a lot of people experienced growing up. They do not understand basic principles of life, and most refuse to evaluate the conflicts that these misunderstandings bring to their decision making.

 

[Caroljo]

I'll let you know after the elections

 

[koshergrl]

... and not just your own?

Because your off-topic posts are really distracting, and I'm sure you could contribute something thoughtful to the topic if only you would familiarize yourself with what it really is.

-- Paravani

"Outlawing religion" is not indicative of a democracy at work, either.

Eugenics is the tool of the left.

You must have missed the post where "outlawing religion" was determined to be a good way to up the intelligence level of the masses.

 

[paravani]

Please read other people's posts... and not just your own?

Because your off-topic posts are really distracting, and I'm sure you could contribute something thoughtful to the topic if only you would familiarize yourself with what it really is.

-- Paravani

"Outlawing religion" is not indicative of a democracy at work, either.

Eugenics is the tool of the left.

You must have missed the post where "outlawing religion" was determined to be a good way to up the intelligence level of the masses.

Maybe you could read a bit more carefully, since you apparently missed the post where I dismissed that suggestion?

-- Paravani

 

[Misty]

The thing making people dumber is the Pub propaganda system...

Intelligent people are TRYING to get free birth contol passed to save insurers an the country tens of billions a year...duh.

You can already get free birth control and free abortions and free healthcare so who is using propaganda?

 

[Misty]

Eugenics?

The op sounds like a margaret sanger lover.

 

[paravani]

You might want to look up a Swiss researcher by the name of Jaeggi, specific to attempts to increase IQ levels. My bias is towards working the brain, something which is not often found in our schools or in many homes. In homes where families value education, those kids often prove to be top performers. I'm also not sure about your premise - the statistics point to rising intelligence levels. That someone cannot speak proper English, works at Subway or displays a general lack of refinement does not support your premise.

In all seriousness, the population is as dumb or smart as it was 10 years ago, 100 years ago or 1000 years ago. There is no change in intelligence being higher or lower now than in the past. It's just that the dumb, idiotic, ignorant, crazy and so on people now have a way to show the whole world just how dumb, idiotic, ignorant, crazy and so on they are. It's called the Internet and Social Media like Facebook, YouTube, twitter and so on.

We just see it more because it's right there in front of everyone's faces.

But seriously what is intelligence? I.Q. does help in certain technical applications and comprehension, but as Forrest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does." I have known some people with Mensa level IQ's who were so lacking in common sense that most people though they were probably mentally challenged. And then you have the "Idiot Savant" incapable of comprehending most common day things but absolutely brilliant and gifted in one particular ability or skill.

One of my avocations is doing/teaching conflict resolution in business and in institutions and part of that is understanding why people are naturally the way they are; i.e. understanding the particular temperament/intelligence they are born with. Those born with I.Q.'s substantially below normal are going to be limited in what they are capable of learning and understanding, but they don't have to be stupid. And assuming that most of us are born with I.Q. somewhere within the normal range, we are all still limited in various ways and gifted in various ways.

Each one of us has at least something that comes effortlessly to us. It comes to us so naturally and is so easy to understand and to do for us, it is difficult to understand why it is so difficult for somebody else. It might be a personality trait or ability to make people laugh or inspire them to respond, to feel loved or cared for, or to learn. Or it might be an ability for administrative organization and implementation or doing chemistry or math or music or art or whatever. Those gifts we are born with are our own special intelligence, and those who are inspired or encouraged to use them are among the world's happiest and brightest people.

Intelligence is the ability to learn and understand, and it is not measured by any so called IQ test. Are we born with the intelligence that we have, or can it be nurtured? I would go for the latter, but I don't think there is any proof either way.

Whatever the degree of intelligence one has, education is key to developing it. Intelligent people have the ability to self learn, once they are provided with the basic tools of learning. However, they also need incentive to put forth the effort required to learn.

I would not say that people are becoming more stupid, since stupidity is the inability to learn. I would say that people are becoming mis-educated, and that mis-education is coloring everything they come across. The highly intelligent ones recognize that they have been had, and correct their thought processes. Others just plug along, unwilling to actually examine what they believe to be true.

I don't actually define stupidity as the inability to learn, myself. That definition is too simplistic, and isn't really useful in evaluating a person's ability to function.

And Scotsman, you may certainly be right that we aren't becoming less intelligent. It's certainly possible that it only seems that way because intelligence is becoming more and more crucial to our civilization's survival.

Intelligence, ordinary everyday intelligence, has nothing to do with genius or math or weird concepts in particle physics... and stupidity isn't the lack of the ability to grasp those concepts or learn new things... not in my opinion, anyway. (YMMV)

In my opinion, intelligence is the ability to plan for the future... and then successfully carry out one's plans. Therefore, the further into the future that you can set your goals, plan for them, and act consistently and successfully to further those plans, the more intelligent you are.

But in order to successfully carry out one's plans, one must also be able to predict consequences for particular situations or responses to them. One must also be able to foresee how one's actions in the present will impact one's future -- what will be the consequences tomorrow for a particular course of action today?

Before I continue, I'd like to know how many of you agree that this might be a workable definition of intelligence?

-- Paravani

 

[Decus]

Eugenics?

The op sounds like a margaret sanger lover.

Strange that she hasn't clearly stated what her premise is or her reasoning. I thought that she had mentioned taking the GRE. Building a premise and then defending it, used to be the foundation of Graduate level studies.

 

[paravani]

Eugenics?

The op sounds like a margaret sanger lover.

Strange that she hasn't clearly stated what her premise is or her reasoning. I thought that she had mentioned taking the GRE. Building a premise and then defending it, used to be the foundation of Graduate level studies.

Yup, I did spectacularly well on the GRE, exactly as posted...

... but also as posted, I've also been poverty-stricken for a significant portion of my life, and did actually spend some weeks homeless.

So clearly, there is a difference between cognitive intelligence (as measured by the GRE and other IQ tests, on which I also score spectacularly well), and real-world useful intelligence.

That's my basic premise, I guess you could say, when I define intelligence as the ability to foresee results and consequences coupled with the discipline to follow through with action to bring about the best results.

What do you think of that definition of intelligence? Do you have any issues with it?

-- Paravani

 

[hjmick]

Are we getting stupider?

At the very least I would argue the you are indeed getting more stupid...




"Stupider..."

Geez...

 

[Decus]

The op sounds like a margaret sanger lover.

Strange that she hasn't clearly stated what her premise is or her reasoning. I thought that she had mentioned taking the GRE. Building a premise and then defending it, used to be the foundation of Graduate level studies.

Yup, I did spectacularly well on the GRE, exactly as posted...

... but also as posted, I've also been poverty-stricken for a significant portion of my life, and did actually spend some weeks homeless.

So clearly, there is a difference between cognitive intelligence (as measured by the GRE and other IQ tests, on which I also score spectacularly well), and real-world useful intelligence.

That's my basic premise, I guess you could say, when I define intelligence as the ability to foresee results and consequences coupled with the discipline to follow through with action to bring about the best results.

What do you think of that definition of intelligence? Do you have any issues with it?

-- Paravani

Having the ability to create a vision for the future is something we all share. Our ability to analyze the requirements needed to achieve the desired objective, taking into consideration numerous variables, both quantitative and qualitative is often beyond our means. Major companies with teams of experts and mountains of data to work with are often no better than the average individual in achieving their goals. Three factors that aren't often weighted in influencing outcome are: 1) the quality of the information/data used. 2) the timing of events 3) and if proper execution of the strategy was brought to bear. For most of us, it's a question of hitting the wall on numerous occasions before getting closer to something that we would define as success. I therefore cannot agree with your definition of intelligence.

 

[Foxfyre]

The op sounds like a margaret sanger lover.

Strange that she hasn't clearly stated what her premise is or her reasoning. I thought that she had mentioned taking the GRE. Building a premise and then defending it, used to be the foundation of Graduate level studies.

Yup, I did spectacularly well on the GRE, exactly as posted...

... but also as posted, I've also been poverty-stricken for a significant portion of my life, and did actually spend some weeks homeless.

So clearly, there is a difference between cognitive intelligence (as measured by the GRE and other IQ tests, on which I also score spectacularly well), and real-world useful intelligence.

That's my basic premise, I guess you could say, when I define intelligence as the ability to foresee results and consequences coupled with the discipline to follow through with action to bring about the best results.

What do you think of that definition of intelligence? Do you have any issues with it?

-- Paravani

I would philosophically agree with most of your definition Paravani, but for me, it is too limiting. I see intelligence as also being able to assign probabilities and evaluate risk; also the ability to differentiate between what is confirmed and what is hypothetical; to translate the hypothetical explanation to real life realities; to visualize possibilities and assess whether what is possible as we know it is satisfactory or sufficient. (The latter concept is based on a definition of intelligence also including an understanding that what we now know is only a tiny fraction of all there is to know, and what is the reality of our lives is but a tiny fraction of all that is possible.)

I don't know if discipline itself is part of intelligence, but certainly the realization of the necessity to have it is a part of intelligence.

 

[rdean]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfxVR78Pp48]Rick Santorum: We Will Never Have the Smart People On Our Side - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoSmWK_-x4g]Mitt Romney Criticizes President Obama For Wanting To Hire More Police, Firemen and Teachers - YouTube[/ame]

Anyone who would cheer these guys is already stupid.