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

[paravani]

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?

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.

Well, I'm glad that YOU are able to create your vision for the future, and avoid actions with negative delayed consequences...

So, you ride a bicycle instead of driving, in order to avoid creating more greenhouse gases? You avoid using plastic, so as not to contribute to the floating island of plastic garbage in the Pacific that's now bigger than Texas? You keep yourself informed of the environmental consequences of day-to-day living, and you're working towards accomplishing NPG -- that's negative population growth -- so that we don't continue to strain our planet's environment and resources to the breaking point?

No, I'm not criticizing you personally, nor am I saying that anyone who doesn't do all of the above is stupid.

I am, however, using the above as examples of human shortsightedness that threatens the survival of all of us. And doing things that could possibly bring about the extinction of one's own species is, I think you will agree, not very intelligent.

So, how would you describe the kind of intelligence that's necessary to ensure the survival of humanity?

-- Paravani

 

[paravani]

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?

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.

I think that your definition of intelligence is more comprehensive than mine... and, most importantly, I think that a population that is highly intelligent according to your definition is also a population that has a high probability of maintaining a civilization for the longterm without causing its own extinction.

-- Paravani

 

[Caroljo]

I disagree 1000%. We have more access to knowledge than ever before.
There are dumb people but sometimes dumb people actually have smart children.

I think we are getting smarter. But liberals are getting lazier.

I hafta agree with my girl.. Libruls are very lazy and are the main support of the Public school system which has dumbed down our kids tremendously. My 6 year old doesn;t attend a public school.. I won't allow her to be indoctrinated and place last in math and science.

My daughter in law has started homeschooling her kids this year. They in Kindergarten & 1st grades. And i don't blame her.....at least i know she's smart enough to do this! I have another DIL that tried doing that with her 2 oldest boys (from another marriage) and she failed them miserably!!

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

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.

I think that your definition of intelligence is more comprehensive than mine... and, most importantly, I think that a population that is highly intelligent according to your definition is also a population that has a high probability of maintaining a civilization for the longterm without causing its own extinction.

-- Paravani

Thanks. At least we have a strong basis for a really good discussion though I am not convinced that we are 100% on the same page.

For instance take the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) debate. (If your bullet proof vest is back from the cleaners, you might enjoy our most active discussion on that in the environment forum.) But lets be careful not to let that controversy derail this thread and I use this as an example only.

One side takes the view of the pro-AGW scientists and accept the theory that if humankind does not curtail greenhouse gasses in the foreseeable future, the future of humankind is grim with all sorts of dire calamaties from rising seas, desertification, extreme weather, reduced food supplies, extinction of species, etc. etc. etc. At the very least, the most vulnerable of humankind will take the hardest hit. . . . AND EVEN IF THIS TURNS OUT NOT TO BE AS BAD AS THE FORECAST. . . .we can't afford to take the chance that it will be. So this side supports all government iniatives, restrictions, costs, etc. etc. etc.

One side looks at all the data available and follows the money and sees that all the scientists and politicians who are promoting AGW are enriching themselves or increased their power. And so far not one of their computer models has been accurate and their story continues to change plus they impose the most restrictions on those nations doing a good job environmentaly while exempting those doing the worst pollution. This side asseses the risk of the possibility that the AGW alarmists are right against the loss of freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities if they buy into the AGW theories as well as causing greater poverty and, by denying them the opportunity to use their own natural resources to advance themselves as the rest of us have already done, we could consign them to generatons more of crushing proverty. SO EVEN IF THE AGW ALARMISTS ARE RIGHT. . . .it is worth the calculated and reasoned risk that they are wrong and, even if they aren't, there will be time to deal with it when the time comes.

Both use their intelligence to evaluate and analyze risk and arrive at two completely opposite positions on it. And both are fully aware of the consequences they see but their values are formed by different conclusions about those consequences.

Again I do NOT want to debate AGW here. But this is one example of the problem that exists in trying to pigeonhole intelligence so tightly, even on subjects that could play a part on the continuation of our species.

 

[sakinago]

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

Here's something I think you should think about. First off, using your definition of intelligence, if your adolescent, you are stupid. Its the truth, how many adolescents make stupid decisions without thinking about consequences. We've all done it.

Now heres the interesting point. In our culture many psychologist have been talking about adolescence is being extended until 22, basically when you graduate college. So by your definition, yea we are in a way getting dumber.

 

[Sunni Man]

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.

The U.S.S.R. tried that social experiment called communism for around 70 years and was a total failure.

 

[Qantrill]

I disagree 1000%. We have more access to knowledge than ever before.
There are dumb people but sometimes dumb people actually have smart children.

I think we are getting smarter. But liberals are getting lazier.

Read that STUPIDer.

 

[paravani]

Sunni Man, if you know how to read as well as you write, would you please demonstrate that by reading the whole thread? Then you might be able to avoid posting something that's completely off-topic.

Thanks in advance for your consideration!

-- Paravani

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.

The U.S.S.R. tried that social experiment called communism for around 70 years and was a total failure.

 

[Qantrill]

By the way...Florida is solving the problem of stupid people. Just admit that some races of people are more intelligent than other races of people. It's called racism. But they think it is going to solve an UNSOLVABLE problem.

Nothing Soft About the Bigotry of Race-Based Education Goals in Florida - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

 

[paravani]

(Foxfyre sums up salient points in Global Warming/Climate Change debate)...
... Both use their intelligence to evaluate and analyze risk and arrive at two completely opposite positions on it. And both are fully aware of the consequences they see but their values are formed by different conclusions about those consequences.

Again I do NOT want to debate AGW here. But this is one example of the problem that exists in trying to pigeonhole intelligence so tightly, even on subjects that could play a part on the continuation of our species.

Here's something I think you should think about. First off, using your definition of intelligence, if your adolescent, you are stupid. Its the truth, how many adolescents make stupid decisions without thinking about consequences. We've all done it.

Now here's the interesting point. In our culture many psychologists have been talking about adolescence being extended until 22, basically when you graduate college. So by your definition, yea we are in a way getting dumber.

Well, yeah, kids are dumb; and no, they don't immediately "grow up" at age 18 and get smart all of a sudden. Kids get themselves into all kinds of trouble specifically because they haven't developed the "adult" ability to predict the short- or long-term consequences of their choices.

On the other hand, many so-called adults never develop that ability, either. And yes, it is learned to some degree; but it is also a trait that comes naturally to some people, can be taught to some others, and for some reason can never be learned by some people.

I'm going to postulate that the kind of intelligence of which we are speaking -- the ability to make pro-survival choices based on accurate assessment of future consequences, combined with the ability to follow through with actions that lead to a successful outcome -- is a trait that grows out of groundwork laid in childhood, but does not fully mature until adulthood.

Fortunately, it is at exactly this stage of mature adulthood that people often become parents... and thus we return to the original question posed at the beginning of the thread:

By what means might we encourage thoughtful, intelligent people to have children while at the same time reducing the odds that thoughtless, stupid people will have children?

And bear in mind that any policy we might devise to this end MUST allow for individual choice. People in a democracy must always be allowed to make their own choices in pursuit of their own happiness -- that is a fundamental principle of our nation.

With that in mind, how might we stack the genetic deck in favor of those who think ahead, plan, and carry out their plans to a successful conclusion?

-- Paravani

 

[uscitizen]

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

Yes.
Evidence:
Bush was a two term president.

 

[paravani]

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

Yes.
Evidence:
Bush was a two term president.

That's pretty funny, usc!

... but probably we should try really hard to keep this a non-partisan thread, because I'm pretty sure that the issues of overpopulation and decreased intelligence have consequences for everyone regardless of party.

And as far as I'm aware, neither the GOP nor the Dems have any plank in either platform on these issues; so until that changes, they really are non-partisan.

-- Paravani

 

[uscitizen]

Neither party has raised a proper candidate in quite a while.

I think one reason we are more stupid is TV.

 

[The Professor]

Is STUPIDER a word? - Yahoo! Answers


"Is STUPIDER a word?
I'm arguing with my friend about this... someone just help me out."

"Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
NO. You cannot be stupider than somebody else but you can be more stupid than somebody else."

There are some rather competent authorities that would disagree with you. Here are just a few links that show "stupider" and "stupidest" are legitimate words:

Stupider Definition, Definition of Stupider, Anagrams, and words that start with Stupider

stupider - definition of stupider by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

stupid, stupidest, stupider, stupids- WordWeb dictionary definition

stupider - definition and meaning

What are the comparative and superlative forms of "stupid"? | Answerbag

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stupid

There appears to be some disagreement on whether it's proper to use the comparative "stupider" (as opposed to "more stupid"); however, the fact that so many respected authorities accept stupider/stupidest negates any criticism directed at those who prefer these words.

 

[koshergrl]

So I think we can safely say that the progressive loons in this thread are definitely less intelligent than previous generations.

I think the question isn't so much are WE losing intelligence, as "Why are progressives morons?"

 

[sakinago]

(Foxfyre sums up salient points in Global Warming/Climate Change debate)...
... Both use their intelligence to evaluate and analyze risk and arrive at two completely opposite positions on it. And both are fully aware of the consequences they see but their values are formed by different conclusions about those consequences.

Again I do NOT want to debate AGW here. But this is one example of the problem that exists in trying to pigeonhole intelligence so tightly, even on subjects that could play a part on the continuation of our species.

Here's something I think you should think about. First off, using your definition of intelligence, if your adolescent, you are stupid. Its the truth, how many adolescents make stupid decisions without thinking about consequences. We've all done it.

Now here's the interesting point. In our culture many psychologists have been talking about adolescence being extended until 22, basically when you graduate college. So by your definition, yea we are in a way getting dumber.

Well, yeah, kids are dumb; and no, they don't immediately "grow up" at age 18 and get smart all of a sudden. Kids get themselves into all kinds of trouble specifically because they haven't developed the "adult" ability to predict the short- or long-term consequences of their choices.

On the other hand, many so-called adults never develop that ability, either. And yes, it is learned to some degree; but it is also a trait that comes naturally to some people, can be taught to some others, and for some reason can never be learned by some people.

I'm going to postulate that the kind of intelligence of which we are speaking -- the ability to make pro-survival choices based on accurate assessment of future consequences, combined with the ability to follow through with actions that lead to a successful outcome -- is a trait that grows out of groundwork laid in childhood, but does not fully mature until adulthood.

Fortunately, it is at exactly this stage of mature adulthood that people often become parents... and thus we return to the original question posed at the beginning of the thread:

By what means might we encourage thoughtful, intelligent people to have children while at the same time reducing the odds that thoughtless, stupid people will have children?

And bear in mind that any policy we might devise to this end MUST allow for individual choice. People in a democracy must always be allowed to make their own choices in pursuit of their own happiness -- that is a fundamental principle of our nation.

With that in mind, how might we stack the genetic deck in favor of those who think ahead, plan, and carry out their plans to a successful conclusion?

-- Paravani

A psychoanalytical, or cognitive psychologist will tell you that those adults who never seem to graduate from adolescence, have never "graduated" from some form of cognitive development, i.e. Identity vs Role confusion. Which brings me back to my earlier point that its an issue of cognitive development, which parents have id say 90% of the influence on cognitive development of a child. It is not an issue over genetics, your operating under the false pretense that stupid people will always mate with each other and will always have stupid babies. Like I was saying before I think it is an issue over values and cognitive development of the child, not genetics.

And there is no way to stack the genetic deck in that sense, especially without it being ethically questionable.

You might find this interesting, I did read an article ( I wanna say its popular science, but I could be wrong) but the military had a problem with getting new recruits experience in deciphering the grainy, black and white surveillance photos from drones, and identifying targets. So scientist did (I wanna say a PET scan) on the brains of guys who were experts while they were deciphering the photos, and determined what parts of their brain were working. They then made a device that would stimulate those parts of the brain that were working in the new recruits, had them decipher photos, and the recruits were operating on an expert level within an hour. Now this is just my opinion, but you could use this technology in almost any field of learning, and have people operating at expert levels in hours. I could see this technology being the new "laptop" in 10 or so years, where every student has one, and it makes all of us near geniuses. So, we all might become a lot smarter in the near future.

 

[Foxfyre]

As for Paravan's question: "With that in mind, how might we stack the genetic deck in favor of those who think ahead, plan, and carry out their plans to a successful conclusion?":

1. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into preparing themselves to support a family before starting one, and to get married so that they at least attempt to give children a loving father and mother in the home. This single effort would do more to improve the national intelligence than any other single measure.

2. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into getting up in the morning, preparing breakfast for the family, making sure the kids have a good night's sleep and a full belly before sending them off to school, getting cleaned up, and going to a paying job or to do community service or other volunteer work in return for government assistance. As much as possible, kids should grow up seeing their parents receiving compensation for work completed and not a government check for doing nothing.

3. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into occasionally turning off the TV, pulling the plug on the X Box, and putting away the Ipad or smart phone, and reading to their children or encouraging them to read books that teach, encourage, inspire and encouraging them to be involved in something significant that is greater than themselves.

4. Encourage--demand if necessary--that schools teach real necessary subjects and demand proficiency in those subjects, and that teachers keep their opinions about ideology and social engineering strictly to themselves. Do give the students information about all perspectives and known consequences and encourage them to draw and articulate conclusions. The only social advice I received in all my years of formal schooling was in the area of personal hygiene, wearing clean appropriate clothing, speaking in a way to generate favorable response from an employer or others in authority, and preparing myself to be a responsible, productive adult. On everything else, we were encouraged to think critically and it was left up to us what we would do with the information we were provided.

5. Encourage--shame if necessary--a return to values that promote belief in oneself and the possibilities that exist for all who prepare themselves to reach for them, and wherever there is freedom, nobody limits us but ourselves.

Do that, and you'll see the national intelligence significantly and noticably increase.

 

[High_Gravity]

As for Paravan's question: "With that in mind, how might we stack the genetic deck in favor of those who think ahead, plan, and carry out their plans to a successful conclusion?":

1. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into preparing themselves to support a family before starting one, and to get married so that they at least attempt to give children a loving father and mother in the home. This single effort would do more to improve the national intelligence than any other single measure.

2. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into getting up in the morning, preparing breakfast for the family, making sure the kids have a good night's sleep and a full belly before sending them off to school, getting cleaned up, and going to a paying job or to do community service or other volunteer work in return for government assistance. As much as possible, kids should grow up seeing their parents receiving compensation for work completed and not a government check for doing nothing.

3. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into occasionally turning off the TV, pulling the plug on the X Box, and putting away the Ipad or smart phone, and reading to their children or encouraging them to read books that teach, encourage, inspire and encouraging them to be involved in something significant that is greater than themselves.

4. Encourage--demand if necessary--that schools teach real necessary subjects and demand proficiency in those subjects, and that teachers keep their opinions about ideology and social engineering strictly to themselves. Do give the students information about all perspectives and known consequences and encourage them to draw and articulate conclusions. The only social advice I received in all my years of formal schooling was in the area of personal hygiene, wearing clean appropriate clothing, speaking in a way to generate favorable response from an employer or others in authority, and preparing myself to be a responsible, productive adult. On everything else, we were encouraged to think critically and it was left up to us what we would do with the information we were provided.

5. Encourage--shame if necessary--a return to values that promote belief in oneself and the possibilities that exist for all who prepare themselves to reach for them, and wherever there is freedom, nobody limits us but ourselves.

Do that, and you'll see the national intelligence significantly and noticably increase.

How would we shame people into wanting to do all of that?

 

[Foxfyre]

As for Paravan's question: "With that in mind, how might we stack the genetic deck in favor of those who think ahead, plan, and carry out their plans to a successful conclusion?":

1. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into preparing themselves to support a family before starting one, and to get married so that they at least attempt to give children a loving father and mother in the home. This single effort would do more to improve the national intelligence than any other single measure.

2. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into getting up in the morning, preparing breakfast for the family, making sure the kids have a good night's sleep and a full belly before sending them off to school, getting cleaned up, and going to a paying job or to do community service or other volunteer work in return for government assistance. As much as possible, kids should grow up seeing their parents receiving compensation for work completed and not a government check for doing nothing.

3. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into occasionally turning off the TV, pulling the plug on the X Box, and putting away the Ipad or smart phone, and reading to their children or encouraging them to read books that teach, encourage, inspire and encouraging them to be involved in something significant that is greater than themselves.

4. Encourage--demand if necessary--that schools teach real necessary subjects and demand proficiency in those subjects, and that teachers keep their opinions about ideology and social engineering strictly to themselves. Do give the students information about all perspectives and known consequences and encourage them to draw and articulate conclusions. The only social advice I received in all my years of formal schooling was in the area of personal hygiene, wearing clean appropriate clothing, speaking in a way to generate favorable response from an employer or others in authority, and preparing myself to be a responsible, productive adult. On everything else, we were encouraged to think critically and it was left up to us what we would do with the information we were provided.

5. Encourage--shame if necessary--a return to values that promote belief in oneself and the possibilities that exist for all who prepare themselves to reach for them, and wherever there is freedom, nobody limits us but ourselves.

Do that, and you'll see the national intelligence significantly and noticably increase.

How would we shame people into wanting to do all of that?

By making it the norm in our culture. By making it a basic American value. Now you have people telling us that it would hurt people's self esteem if you require them to do menial work in return for their welfare check. There was a time in America when it hurt people's self esteem to take charity without doing anything in return, to be unable to support a family, to be uneducated or unable to qualify for even simple tasks. We need to return to that former value where everybody expected to work to the best of their ability for what they got and where everybody knew what society expected of them.

 

[Swagger]

Forgive me if I'm appearing provocative, or trying to divert the topic, but I would strongly advocate the return of corporal punishment into Western classrooms. Nothing impresses upon a developing mind that there are consequences for our actions than a thwack across the backside. All in proportion to the violation, though. I can't speak for America, but social standards in Britain went into steady decline across the board ten years after we removed the threat of the lash from the classroom.