The comparison is between us and the primitive hunter-gatherers, the Paleolithic early humans — L'éléphant
Forget Sam Harris -- call General Mills to set up a company to sell intelligence-restoring omelettes in convenient heat-and-eat packages (recyclable, of course) — Bitter Crank
Are Humans Getting Smarter or Dumber?, Stephanie Pappas, LiveScienceThe dulling of humanity
Even as the Flynn effect sends IQ scores skyrocketing, some researchers argue a darker view. Humans aren't getting smarter, they say. They're getting stupider.
In November 2012, Stanford University School of Medicine researcher Gerald Crabtree published two papers in the journal Trends in Genetics suggesting that humanity's intelligence peaked between 2,000 and 6,000 years ago.
Crabtree based this assertion on genetics. About 2,000 to 5,000 genes control human intelligence, he estimated. At the rate at which genetic mutations accumulate, Crabtree calculated that within the last 3,000 years, all of humanity has sustained at least two mutations harmful to these intellect-determining genes (and will sustain a couple more in another 3,000 years). Not every mutation will cause harm — genes come in pairs, and some weaknesses caused by mutation can be covered for by the healthy half of the pair, Crabtree wrote; but the calculation suggests that intelligence is more fragile than it seems.
"It's not simply that intelligence is going down or going up," said Michael Woodley, a psychologist at Umea University in Sweden who led the new research. "Different parts of intelligence could be changing in lots of different ways." [Life's Extremes: Smart vs. Dumb]
Every facet of our society is idiotic, so it figures. I can tell people are getting dumber; it's pretty pronounced, actually. — theRiddler
There is truth to this. All in moderation.“The graham cracker was inspired by the preaching of Sylvester Graham who was part of the 19th-century temperance movement. He believed that minimizing pleasure and stimulation of all kinds, including the prevention of masturbation, coupled with a vegetarian diet anchored by bread made from wheat coarsely ground at home, was how God intended people to live, and that following this natural law would keep people healthy.” — Joshs
IQ is influenced by culture. And yes, you can practice the IQ tests.Do people cheat on IQ tests? There are a lot of devices available nowadays that make cheating a walk in the park! — Agent Smith
The advent of agriculture had contributed to the decline in our intelligence. — L'éléphant
Meanwhile, I have work to do: — L'éléphant
I'm gonna use my bias argument and say this is the kind of thinking I have been expecting on this thread.Yes, there is evidence to suggest that hunter-gatherers were much more well-rounded and capable than modern domesticated humans (the same can be said about domesticated farm animals). Much of this has to do with the specialization of work that comes with sedentary agricultural life. Cities are like tool boxes, with each person being a tool that performs a specific function but is only really useful when part of an assembly of other tools. A hunter-gatherer, on the other hand, is like a Swiss army knife, capable of doing lots of different tasks on its own (viz self-sufficiency), or at least with assistance from a small group of other multi-purpose tools (of which the collaboration is voluntary). — _db
Unfortunately, I do. I started this thread. I should at least have some responsibility for it.We don't care. — Bitter Crank
You mean you're not convinced. That's fine. That's why I created this thread. But to continue saying "we don't know..." and "we have no way of knowing.." are killers of rational dialectic. You don't know. That's fine. But Crabtree and Woodley certainly know something. Crabtree runs the lab to investigate things like this.So, at least Crabtree based his guess on something in particular, though it isn't at all convincing. Look, we don't know whether people are smarter now, or dumber, than they were 1, 2, 5, 10, or 50 thousand years ago. We have no way of knowing that--none. — Bitter Crank
You mean you're not convinced. — L'éléphant
to continue saying "we don't know..." and "we have no way of knowing.." are killers of rational dialectic. — L'éléphant
Don't worry about that. I said that becauseI favor that kind of thinking. There's insight.? — _db
Well, that's what we would commonly expect. But have you ever been a part of a group assigned to do a project with very little training and of diverse background? I had been in that group. The will (or motivation) will always trump smarts.One thing I think we should take into account is that smart people will likely shine brighter within a certain population range. In a group of ten people the smartest will likely be clear, whereas in a group of more, at some point, they may not shine as bright. — I like sushi
Crabtree and Woodley are researchers. They use science to do their work. Not speculation.We certainly can and will speculate about what we MIGHT know in the future. That's fine as long as we don't claim our speculation as fact, until it IS fact, which it might never be. — Bitter Crank
Crabtree and Woodley are researchers. They use science to do their work. Not speculation. — L'éléphant
They use science to do their work. — L'éléphant
A practical question comes to mind when examining this research: is everyone born with a certain intelligence level that can’t be changed? Not exactly. This is where the magnitude of the effect becomes relevant. A gene being statistically associated with intelligence does not mean it is solely responsible for how well you’ll do on an IQ test. A lot of other factors come into play, and a gene is only one.
Which leads to a key statistic: together, these 22 genes accounted for about 5% of the differences in intelligence scores.
So there is still a lot other stuff (to use a scientific term) contributing to intelligence aside from genes, including upbringing, lifestyle, and even technology—after all, even if a gene 100% destines you to be born with blonde hair, you can still use the amazing human invention of hair dye to turn it purple.
On top of that, intelligence isn’t everything, and it may not even be that meaningful of a thing. Individual cognitive domains like reasoning, short-term memory, and verbal ability are more specific than an overall intelligence score, and likely have their own genetic and environmental determinants. Getting higher scores in measures of those domains (like the ones we provide) requires measurement, optimization, and healthcare, not just hoping for good DNA. — Cambridge Brain Science
It's not my problem that you refused to delete it. If you're not happy with it, then just close it. No need to stress out and show you care. It's really no big deal. This is just a thread. Sorry to disappoint you.This thread is really bad, partly because of your obnoxious manner. I'm reluctant to delete it only because people have put some effort into writing posts. — jamalrob
It's not my problem that you refused to delete it. If you're not happy with it, then just close it. No need to stress out and show you care. It's really no big deal. This is just a thread. Sorry to disappoint you.
Obnoxious? Wow! — L'éléphant
If you were not born with high IQ, develop your will. — L'éléphant
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.