Humanity is getting dumber

[Skybird]

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...de-ncna1008576


Different to the above claim of a decline in IQ since the 00-years, I read othger authors int he past who said that peak 'IQ already was in the early to mid 70s, and IQ since then is in decline.


A former professor of mine however has rejected intelligence research alltogether, citing disastrous methodological flaws in past IQ studies and unsurpassable inherent contradictions that inevitably must compromise any attempt to "measure" intelligence tests and research. The whole concept of "intelligence" as we try understand the term today - and everybody seems to define the term differently - might be misleading.

[Jimbuna]

So this is what's wrong with our politicians

[u crank]

Even children born to high-IQ parents are slipping down the IQ ladder.

I've been saying that for years.

[Catfish]

I blame Justin Bieber and Facebook.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

So this is what's wrong with our politicians

No, the voters are dumb letting them walk all over us.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

So this is what's wrong with our politicians

Wait until you see their voters.

[em2nought]

The funny thing is there are now tools in place to potentially become the smartest we ever were, but we seem to be devolving instead. In 1983 I relied on the Year Book Encyclopedia from 1955, and the Military History Book Club for just about everything that I thought I knew about the world.

[Reece]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I blame Justin Bieber and Facebook.

I think you hit the nail on the head there!

[Platapus]

I have serious concerns in any methodology that attempts to measure "intelligence".



I have seen, and taken, multiple tests that evaluate problem solving, visualization, abstract reasoning, aptitude, knowledge and a bunch of other stuff. I am not sure how that equates to something called "intelligence".



In my opinion, an objective "intelligence" test should be able to be given to a population with diverse backgrounds, cultures, and environments and get a common result.



And of course, deep down, I believe that the amount of intelligence (how ever that is defined) is less important than how a person uses their intelligence.


I am not an especially intelligent person, but I like to think that due to hard work, I use what I have pretty well. I can't solve problems quickly, but ultimately, I do come up with the right answer.



Compare to this to one of The Frau's children who evidently aced all these intelligence tests but only after turning 40 was able to get a decent job.


I also dated, for a very shot time, this woman who was a member of Mensa. (How can you know if a person is a member of Mensa? Just wait, they will tell you). She was, in her own words "too smart to work for anyone" Yikes! Well one thing was clear, she was unable to keep a job! I was not totally onboard with her position that she was "too smart".



In the short time we dated, the only topic she was knowledgeable about was how intelligent she was.



I just think that intelligence is a concept, but not necessarily a measurable one. It is influenced by a lot of factors and at its best, it can represent potential, but does not represent actual capability.

[Reece]

A persons intelligence really depends on the persons interest.
If someone is interested in electronic design would probably have a very hi IQ according to his skill and knowledge about electronics, but it doesn't mean he would be any good as a surgeon or a surgeon any good at mechanics etc.
Wonderful thing about life, we all differ and exceed at different things.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Wait until you see their voters.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Reece

A persons intelligence really depends on the persons interest.
If someone is interested in electronic design would probably have a very hi IQ according to his skill and knowledge about electronics, but it doesn't mean he would be any good as a surgeon or a surgeon any good at mechanics etc.
Wonderful thing about life, we all differ and exceed at different things.

That stands or falls with the definition of what the term "intelligence" actually means or describes. Believe me, i have seen my share of attempts, with some being better than others, obviously, but nothing gave me the feeling of a "complete" explanation of what the term means. Mere handcrafting skill, survival drive, knowledge, education and memory are not it, but can be expression of it or feed back on it (survival needs especially). An old psychologist joke says: intelligence is what an IQ test is measuring. Well, there is quite a variety in conceptions for IQ trests. I ran three such tests in my student years, and the results varied from 118 to 118. My conclusion: choose anything in this range, or any other number. I do not trust IQ tests, imo they are expression of a serious methodological flaw: the concept they base on, is not clear, there is no undisputed consensus: "what is intelligence"? Its a bit like in another joke that is about assessing the threat level for yourself due to an escaped axolotl. You can assess nothing there if you just do not know what an actually axolotl is.

And different to what political correctness commands today, I am quite convinced that kind of ranges or limits within which intelligence can unfold in the individual in interaction with many external factors, are inheritable. I also thgink that here again individual populations habit nd survival codnitons, their adaptation needfs to the enviuronment they live in, plays/played a role. And so it maybe even not just varying between individual families or social classes, but races. Its not popular to say so, but I dont care. I do not beleive in astral corpusses defining the person'S life, what it is, in all its material dimension, must be encoded soemwehre, and only the DNS is a candidate here, according to our current scientific knowledge. Traits and characteristics do not just materialise out of nowhere.


I also think that needs to form new skills of yours may support a climate in whcih intelligence may find it easier to blossom and unfold, while a climate supressing new thoughts or providing answers to all needs may hamper intelligence. Ouzr many aids and assistances and comfort level in generla may be what feeds back negatively on building itelligence, so does maybe media formats or needs of techno9logy, namely comnpouters at work, that pre-structure the way we approach problems and from all beginning define what solutions possiblke we actually can egnerate by outr technology-dictated working patterns - and which not. This can be nicely seen in the digitla "revolution" in schools. Where it is ttried, ovwer the years the notes and performance levels, in other words: the quality of what is learned successfully, detoriates, in some countries govenrment even had to slam in the breaks and bring their prestigious ambitions od all-digital schhols to a full stop, that worse it became within just a few years.



Intelligence may be like a muscle: using it trains it, using it not, sees it atrophying. I schools support atriophying intelligence and creativity and originality, then only a grading down of strandards can prevent dropping grades that by their drop illustrate the decline. That is what is happening throughout the Western world, and certainly in Germany.



Non-supportive family climate also plays a big role, I am sure. Here is where culture plays a very obvious role pro and contra.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Platapus

In my opinion, an objective "intelligence" test should be able to be given to a population with diverse backgrounds, cultures, and environments and get a common result.

This assumes that population level scores would not depend on those factors while they most likely would, for example if an individual did not receive proper nutrition as a child (ie in poor regions of Africa) it would be reasonable to assume that he may have lower intellect as a consequence, etc, and this is only from nurture rather than nature factors.


Unless ofc you try to artificially weight those scores to even them out, but this would make them useless.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

This assumes that population level scores would not depend on those factors while they most likely would, for example if an individual did not receive proper nutrition as a child (ie in poor regions of Africa) it would be reasonable to assume that he may have lower intellect as a consequence, etc, and this is only from nurture rather than nature factors.


Unless ofc you try to artificially weight those scores to even them out, but this would make them useless.

What Platapus wants there, indeed is tried to accieve. Its so-called "culture-free IQ tests", that aim at methods for the test that is not to be influenced by education levels, knoweldge and cultural interference like known/universal symbols versus unknown symbols.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

What Platapus wants there, indeed is tried to accieve. Its so-called "culture-free IQ tests", that aim at methods for the test that is not to be influenced by education levels, knoweldge and cultural interference like known/universal symbols versus unknown symbols.

Considering how IQ tests are non verbal or culture specific this is not the problem.
Unless ofc you view things like meritocracy as an example of white supremacy or whatever.

The problem is that there may be links between education, culture, ethnicity, area of origin etc with the intelect of a person and that is not PC.