Look how much trouble and misery humans have caused just by being Sapien. — Tom Storm

Maybe. But I just had a cheese, mushroom and sage omelet that might have been good enough to make up the difference.

Just think of the implications... the power of precisely the right kind of omelette to restore the sapien in the homo.. Let's contact Sam Harris....

The comparison is between us and the primitive hunter-gatherers, the Paleolithic early humans — L'éléphant

And just how did they test the intelligence of Paleolithic humans?

I have heard rumors that IQ scores have been rising throughout the 20th century. Maybe it's just me, but I haven't seen any evidence that people are getting smarter.

We shouldn't see any real change in intelligence or brain size over a short period of time -- like 2 or 3 centuries. In time, it might change, but with 8 billion people breeding without any eugenic supervision, it's hard to see how the AVERAGE intelligence would change. Very stupid and very bright outliers have always been produced.

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).

That's brilliant!

,

No, no, no! You have to grow the sage and mushrooms, hunt down the eggs, and build the fire to get the full benefit...

Science has also discovered over 5 new human genes within the human gnome that are evolving in humans to adapt and compensate. Humans as we done throughout history, are fit to adapt and develop workarounds.

A minor 'dip or flux' of observation is irrelevant to large scale studies that show human intelligence as well as human well-being is steadily increasing, slowly but surely.

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

Mr. Graham tried something like that with the graham cracker.

“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.”

He must have been right about the benefits of the graham cracker. In 1850 the world population was 1.2 billion. After he introduced his famous cracker, guys stopped masturbating and now the population is just about 8 billion.

Do people cheat on IQ tests? There are a lot of devices available nowadays that make cheating a walk in the park!

Washington Post Headline: Cheaters invalidate IQ study results.

@Banno, @Tom Storm, @Bitter Crank

Thanks for the laugh.

Meanwhile, I have work to do:

The 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.

Are Humans Getting Smarter or Dumber?, Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience

I don't have access to the actual Crabtree research. But I just want to point out that this is one of those studies examining the development of intelligence throughout the history of prehistoric and modern humans.

IQ is culturally influenced. The researchers are looking into factors that are not cultural-driven. Reaction time is one. Here's Woodley:

"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.

Every facet of our society is idiotic, so it figures. I can tell people are getting dumber; it's pretty pronounced, actually. — theRiddler

Are you referring to the Darwin Awards?

“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

There is truth to this. All in moderation.

Do people cheat on IQ tests? There are a lot of devices available nowadays that make cheating a walk in the park! — Agent Smith

IQ is influenced by culture. And yes, you can practice the IQ tests.

No worries! Personally I can't tell if people are getting less intelligent or not. I have encountered no reason to think they are.

The advent of agriculture had contributed to the decline in our intelligence. — L'éléphant

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).

Meanwhile, I have work to do: — L'éléphant

We don't care.

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. We don't have highly valid and reliable ways for measuring the intelligence of people who are here today. (Which is not to say that existing instruments have zero validity and reliability.)

It is better to operate with the understanding that human intelligence has not changed on average. It might have changed--might be better, might be worse--there is just no way to prove either one.

What difference does it make in the end? Whoever is alive at any given moment in history has a unique set of problems to deal with, a set of resources to work with, and a certain amount of intelligence and experience. They may do well, the may do badly, or some result in between. There are far too many factors in play for anyone to derive meaning estimates about intelligence.

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

I'm gonna use my bias argument and say this is the kind of thinking I have been expecting on this thread.

We don't care. — Bitter Crank

Unfortunately, I do. I started this thread. I should at least have some responsibility for it.

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. 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.

Even if we have smaller brains now that doesn't make us less intelligent. This is a common misconception.

We have domesticated ourselves which could possibly have effected our cognitive abilities as it has with other domesticated animals ... but we were actively selecting in those cases so maybe not the best comparison.

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.

The smartest human in the world today will probably not be appreciated by m/any around them beyond those close to them. In smaller groups the ability to shine is more easily recognised.

You mean you're not convinced. — L'éléphant

There are two questions here:

One is: Were hunters / gatherers smarter than us, or not?
Two is: Can we determine the answer to question One?

Answer One: I don't know; nobody else does either.
Answer Two: We can not.

At a distance, I don't have a reliable, valid way of measuring your intelligence. I would need to be present with you, administer tests, and observe your performance. I would need to interview you, take a personal and family history, etc. For a much less robust measurement, I could have someone administer a paper and pencil test to you.

Let's try going back in time to... 1900. Let's measure the intelligence of your ancestor. You choose. I will assume the person is dead. How would we measure his or her intelligence?

Let's go way back to 15,000 B.C.E. The time machine is broken so we will have to measure the intelligence of someone ??? far away in time and space. How would we measure his or her intelligence?

to continue saying "we don't know..." and "we have no way of knowing.." are killers of rational dialectic. — L'éléphant

Not so! There is nothing wrong or irrational about saying "We don't know" when, in fact we do not know, and in fact there is no way to know.

What we can and do know about our hunter / gatherer forebears is that

a) they survived the difficulties they faced (we know, because we descended from them)
b) they were very good tool makers (we know because many of their stone tools survived)
c) they had a culture for which they left very few traces, except cave paintings and many stone tools. (We know that fabric and wood tend to not survive in the environment for long. We have seen the caves, and have collected the stone tools.)
d) they were successful in their lives (their skeletons show that they were generally healthy and strong

When you reach the end of what you can currently know, it is appropriate to claim no more knowledge. Future research may reveal more about our distant forebears. I will quote Wittgenstein here: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Topics like "The nature of God" are examples about which we should remain silent.

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.

my bias argument — L'éléphant

?

? — _db

Don't worry about that. I said that becauseI favor that kind of thinking. There's insight.

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

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.
It was a large group, so you couldn't shine. We were all given a manual to read and learn all the nooks and crannies and names of departments, their functions, on all 4 directions of the NSEW of a very large complex and multiple buildings. A guy next to me who didn't go to college and probably barely passed high school started reading the manual in the morning and by afternoon he was giving directions and instructions to people. Like, he could even estimate the distance from the east wing to across the courtyard to the next building. WTF. If you were not born with high IQ, develop your will.

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.

Crabtree and Woodley are researchers. They use science to do their work. Not speculation. — L'éléphant

And yet you have presented nothing but speculation. You eventually found someone who agrees with you but still cannot come up with anything. You haven't even read the papers. The quote about Crabtree gives no evidence that intelligence has gone down, only a possible reason why it might. 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.

If you had not pretended that there was evidence, and had instead been open about being entirely speculative, the thread would have been better.

They use science to do their work. — L'éléphant

Of course. I respect scientists, science, and research. The fact remains that they could not examine the subjects because they had been dead for thousands of years.

Genetic changes may well have occurred. As far as I know (that's not too far) the means by which any given gene or set of genes determines intelligence isn't a road map.

Here:

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

I'm biased towards genetics determining a lot of what we are--now--but even that is hard to prove.

To reiterate my point on the reliability of IQ scores :point:

a) 64% admitted to cheating on a test.

b) 58% admitted to plagiarism.

c) 95% participated in some form of cheating.

:up:

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!

As couple of answers have pointed out, intelligence isn't the same as cognitive skills. I think we just adjust and optimize for our environment and that's it. The skills we have to have in the modern world are simply different from those the hunter gatherers had to have.

If our environment isn't so filled with problems and just to survive isn't a challenge, then the outcome that our brains aren't so focused on problems of survival is logical.

Besides, advance language and written text has expanded vastly our abilities to communicate and solve problems. Just think about, look at the threads in this forum. Now what would it look like to people let's say in the 19th Century? They would awe how much the members (who all aren't academic professionals) know about literature or the data about a subject. Of course, they should be explained that we can use search engines and "google" things.

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

Okay, I'm sorry I called you obnoxious. I just wish you had responded more amiably when people quite reasonably asked for evidence. Carry on.

My general point was that in a crowd the loudest voice is easier to hear. Societies today are based around larger and larger sections and groupings whom people feel the need to associate to.

You have a far better chance to be hear and gain support among ten people than amongst one hundred.

If you were not born with high IQ, develop your will. — L'éléphant

As someone else notes there is a difference between IQ and being intelligent I think? At least in general parse. Even so, those with top heavy 'g' (the element IQ tries to measure) tend more towards caution and people en masse usually side with promises rather than estimations with nuance attached the more pressing the problem/subject is.

Is your argument like this? Intelligence produced luxury. Luxury produced laziness. And laziness reduced intelligence.

If so, we start with the premise that there was intelligence thousands of years ago, and this intelligence produced for us, a degree of luxury. I think that proposition is reasonably well supported with evidence.

The second proposition appears intuitive, but it may not be true because of the complexity of the issue. Luxury is the privilege of an individual, and it is not in general evenly distributed amongst a group of people. Because of this inequality in distribution, luxury amongst some might actually increase competitiveness in others. Therefore we cannot hold the second premise as a general principle. Differences between individuals deny the validity of such a conclusion.

And this is the problem with your argument in general, it relies on invalid generalizations. "intelligence" is a capacity which, if we even had an acceptable standard for testing it, varies greatly between one individual and another. So even if we could measure it, we could not make the generalization, that at this point in time, human intelligence is at this particular level. There might for instance be a relatively small group of humans with a very high level of intelligence but that would just get lost into the average.

Consider for analogy, the proposition that human beings had better eyes, and could see better, thousands of years ago, than they can now. And we offer up as evidence, that now people use eye glasses, to argue that the eyes of modern human beings have gotten lazy, and can't see as well as they used be able to. We've now become dependent on eye glasses. Further, we could say that eye glasses factor into evolutionary forces such that weaker eyes now survive better, so overall, human beings have gotten worse eye sight. You ought to be able to see how the whole argument relies on faulty generalizations.

I think intelligence is very similar. We can name some principles whereby we can claim that intelligence has gotten weaker, but it's all based in faulty generalizations anyway, so it's really meaningless.