We can see this phenomenon all around us. People who are able to think up schemes to recontruct reality into a shape far removed from the natural world are considered intelligent. The abstract thinking needed to give such an impoverished reality shape is reflected in the IQ. One could just as well state that the higher your IQ the lower your intelligent. Having 159 IQ, I must be very dumb indeed.

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. — jamalrob

Thank you, @jamalrob.

I dead-ass believed I had pissed you off permanently.

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

I said in my OP it has nothing to do with the size of the brains -- at least not this time.

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. — ssu

While this is not the subject of the studies I mentioned on this thread, are you forgetting the masterpieces created in the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries? Literature, fine arts, music?

As someone else notes there is a difference between IQ and being intelligent I think? At least in general parse. — I like sushi

I agree. I used "IQ" because that's what everybody here wants to use.

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

It's more like this:

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

While I could not produce concrete evidence -- as what our forum friends have been asking -- I could only cite studies by researchers whose findings tend to show that intelligence is not the IQ we are used to attribute to intelligence. IQ is culturally influenced. What I want to talk about is intelligence that could be measured without the benefits of modern culture we have now. The researchers have identified one -- reaction time. It could mean reaction time to threats, which requires quick thinking, which requires quick decision making. We no longer live in life and death situation where our adrenaline could be tasked regularly. Because we have all the tools and technology now to do all that for us. Of course, you could argue that we created these technologies, so we must be awesome compared to the prehistoric humans. And for that, I do not have an argument.

So in light of the prevailing attitude here that I should produce concrete evidence, instead of extrapolating from the findings of research and trying to gain insight from those findings, let me say that they are still in the process of research.

Seems like what's being argued actually relates to a specific and limited set of cognitive skills rather than intelligence in general or intelligence as it's generally understood. And there's not even a clearly articulated alternative theory of what intelligence should be. It could be an interesting subject but it deserves a much more nuanced approach. E.g. Recent evolutionary studies pose questions for how we measure intelligence, or X cognitive skills are on the decline in modern humans (+this is bad because...) — Baden

I like your approach. Thanks.
Yes, this could be true. And yes, "intelligence" has been taken for granted and meaning seems to have been accepted without argument and counter argument. So, maybe we should start there. What is intelligence?

The researchers seem to have been zeroing in on that question. "Reaction time" seems to be important to their findings. A lot of what we have now were not re-invented. We certainly relied on pioneers or the early humans and built our ideas from their ideas. This goes back to the question of the learning curve theory. Someone who was trying to discover fire would have a different mind acuity than someone trying to use fire for various purposes.

Of course, you could argue that we created these technologies — L'éléphant

And that's supposed to be a sign of intelligence? Why not call that stupidity?

And that's supposed to be a sign of intelligence? Why not call that stupidity? — Dijkgraf

No, I just couldn't outright argue as to the comparison to the mind-capacity of the prehistoric humans. And I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic. So, if you don't mind elaborating on what you mean.

I am on the camp of future-value computation of cognitive currency of the past compared to now. Similar to the question, what is the value of discovering iron as the material that had catapulted humanity into a whole new civilization in today's currency?

Priceless.

@L'éléphant Apologies. I was lazy that day and didn't bother to read the OP :D

What you have posed is a possibility but we can argue the opposite too. How can we measure this realistically? I don't think we can as there are far to many factors involved and many cognitive abilities are not exactly well understood by any means.

For the sake of arguing against I could suggest that agriculture allowed us to free up our time and work together in groups more easily (specialisation). Of course there are counter argument to this too as there is reasonable evidence to suggest that human collaborated on a pretty large communal scale prior to the full blown advent of sedentary living and/or agriculture.

I would also argue that 'intelligence' for humans is something that expands due to better lines of communication and interaction (something that has become increasingly prominent in the modern era), but again I could offer up an opposing view that may partially agree with this overall, yet question whether or not there is an optimal amount of 'communication and interaction' and that too much of this would actually start to reverse progress.

Finally, one more part of this puzzle ... education and pedagogy at large. We seem to have struggled to adapt our education facilities to changing times of late. The industrial revolution had, in my view, a partly detrimental effect upon education standards as it copied and pasted the 'factory' method by viewing schools as factories for employable citizens. In our times now I think this has mostly been realised, yet not by any means addressed fully. Now we have a weird social landscape in which there seems to be a growing inclination to throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of educational syllabuses and the general view of pedagogy at every stage from primary school to university (although the latter is a little more robust imo).

Less intelligent? I don't think so but it could be true; in terms of genetic predisposition. I think it is more about our educational systems lagging behind population growth, political shifts and trends, and increasing technological advancements that we've had little time to fully utilise.

Intelligence is an attribute that is fostered by genetic mutations and combinations when the environment provides preference for survival (and bringing offspring to sexual maturity) by the intelligent; and is suppressed from propagation when the environment provides preference for survival (and bringing offspring to sexual maturity) by the stupid.

I don't think societies and individuals ever were preferred to live and reproduce due to their stupitidy. Maybe brawl and brute strength were given better chances to survive, but innate physical strength is not a measure of stupidity or intelligence.

So by this idea alone, society's individuals are more intelligent now than in cavemen's times.

On the other hand: human intelligence transformed the environment to make it hospitable for the stupid.

So while there was a long stretch in history, during which intelligence provided a survival advantage, that advantage has disappeared. Now only the severely challenged in mental capacity won't mate to reproduce. Not that they would not want to, but the "normals" don't allow them.

The bottom 3 percent (IQ equavalent: 70 IQ points or fewer) gets eliminated constantly, while everyone else below the median has the same chance to produce offspring as those above the median.

This provides for another genetic up-smartening of society, although the pace is substantially slowed.

This provides for another genetic up-smartening of society, although the pace is substantially slowed. — god must be atheist

Over the past 5,000 years, cultural evolution has produced astonishing changes in human understanding, changes which occur with an ever accelerating tempo. One could imagine this knowledge growth as manifesting itself physiologically in terms of an increasing complexity of neural connectivity. Let’s call this the brain’s software updating itself. Now let’s assume that all this was accomplished on the basis of brain ‘ hardware’ that has remained essentially unchanged over all that period of cultural progress. We don’t have to assume this, but there is no reason not to. The point is, whatever changes in hardware (I.Q), either for better or worse, may have occurred over the past 5,000 in humanity as a whole, or between individuals, would have to be seen as utterly insignificant in their effects as compared to the powers of cultural transmission , our ‘software updates’.

I should also mention that scientists may have no idea what they’re really measuring. For instance, what does speed of calculation mean? Computers are much faster than we are at calculation , but does this make them smarter? Autistic savants can perform amazing calculative and mnemonic feats, but is this because they are smarter or because they are not distracted by higher order abstract processes? Perhaps ancient humans could perform certain tasks faster than modern humans for the same reason.

What makes your smartphone smart? Is it how fast it’s processor is, or how much content and how many apps it has? Is a 70 year old Kant less intelligent than a 20 year old because his memory and mental speed are less impressive?

I should also mention that scientists may have no idea what they’re really measuring. — Joshs

Indeed. Scientists don't know what they measure with IQ tests, they just know that the results are consistent, and predictive.

Perhaps ancient humans could perform certain tasks faster than modern humans for the same reason. — Joshs

The operative word here is "perhaps". Very true.

Is it possible that people can be less intelligent now because we can rely more on machines? Can we afford to remember less because we have the internet at our fingertips all the time?

Do you know how to do long division? Or, the calculator just does it for you?

What you have posed is a possibility but we can argue the opposite too. How can we measure this realistically? I don't think we can as there are far to many factors involved and many cognitive abilities are not exactly well understood by any means. — I like sushi

Okay, I can agree that we're not sure about realistic measurement. But could we at least look at the big picture of the results of our mindset. For example, how is it that the more our intelligence increases, the more our environment is being destroyed by us. Let us at least think about that. With all the advancement in technology, there are issues that just don't seem to benefit from out increased intelligence -- overpopulation, environmental pollution, etc.

For the sake of arguing against I could suggest that agriculture allowed us to free up our time and work together in groups more easily (specialisation). Of course there are counter argument to this too as there is reasonable evidence to suggest that human collaborated on a pretty large communal scale prior to the full blown advent of sedentary living and/or agriculture. — I like sushi

Agriculture had made our activities money-centric or commercial-centric.

The point is, whatever changes in hardware (I.Q), either for better or worse, may have occurred over the past 5,000 in humanity as a whole, or between individuals, would have to be seen as utterly insignificant in their effects as compared to the powers of cultural transmission , our ‘software updates’. — Joshs

Good analogy. The updates -- cultural updates -- could be the culprit, not necessarily the brain.
Shuntarō Itō, a historian of science and civilization, predicts the coming of Environmental Revolution as the next turning point in human history. This is a very culture-centered view of civilization.

Again, I can argue the opposite with just as much force so I don't see a way saying much decisively.

Plus the world is not 'overpopulated' nor does that seem likely to happen. It terms of resource management there is certainly room for improvement. Germany has scraped nuclear energy which is most certainly a backwards step in terms of efficiency and general pollution. There are political games at play and society at large seems to be struggling with adapting to mass communications.

As with the industrial revolution I see something similar happening now with the internet revolution. Lots of doom and gloom that will likely amount to nothing much other than a flash in the pan. The CRISPR revolution is going to be something far beyond my comprehension and I'll see its birth in the world of commerce before I die most likely.

Germany has scraped nuclear energy which is most certainly a backwards step in terms of efficiency and general pollution. There are political games at play and society at large seem — I like sushi

Yes. Why do we have a hard time accepting nuclear energy? Is it due to ignorance? Lack of education? Cultural?

Lots of doom and gloom that will likely amount to nothing much other than a flash in the pan. — I like sushi

Until the dinosaurs died, in short burst of time.

Scientists don't know what they measure with IQ tests, — god must be atheist

They do. They measure the number of right answers on abstract questions. It's therefore an abstract measure of intelligence, as intelligence can't be quantified. Already the IQ itself is part of the strange kind of intelligence it's supposed to be a measure of.

"General human intelligence is declining."

That's the thesis here. I haven't read any proof. Anyone with common sense could compare our current level which we harness our own minds to communicate, engineer, economize, etc.. and it will be evident that this is far more intelligent than the primitive mode of our species.

The Flynn Effect, is a calculated anti-thesis. Any age before google search, was surely an age of human beings being less intelligent than they are now.

If I were to posit that we are more conscious than we were in the past, that is also evident, given the circumstances in which scientific notions are available to think "about reality" (consciousness) more so than ever before.

A more interesting inquiry, would be "why are we more intelligent than our ancestors?" I think I even answered that vaguely here.

"Studies suggest that we are gradually becoming less intelligent."

I think the average philosophy forum thread would certainly support the contention. Not this thread, especially, but certainly the average.

They do. They measure the number of right answers on abstract questions. It's therefore an abstract measure of intelligence, as intelligence can't be quantified. Already the IQ itself is part of the strange kind of intelligence it's supposed to be a measure of. — Schootz1

All questions are abstract, since language is an abstraction.

You spelled out that IQ is a "strange" kind of intelligence. What do you mean by that? I think what you mean is that we don't know what kind of intelligence it is.

Which means that we don't know what we measure with IQ tests.

And you agree with that.

So why did you disagree with my line, "scientists don't know what they measure with IQ tests?"

Why is everyone a naysayer and yet winding up in self-contradictions on this site who oppose my opinions?

Why??????

Studies suggest that we are gradually becoming less intelligent. — L'éléphant

I haven't seen such a study, and Elephant could not point at one such study either.

But responses to my posts on this site certainly suggest that.

While this is not the subject of the studies I mentioned on this thread, are you forgetting the masterpieces created in the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries? Literature, fine arts, music? — L'éléphant

All those masterpieces are actually far more accessible to me now as they would have been then.

The most obvious case is when I look at my children's school books where there can be a question to use the internet to answer some question. Do you know how difficult it would have been to answer those question without using search engines conveniently at your fingertips with one's smartphone or the laptop they gave from school? It would many times taken hours first to go to a library, find then a book where the information might be.

Why?????? — god must be atheist

For the record, I provided some passages of the articles about the studies conducted by the researchers whose names I also provided. So stop being dramatic. If you have a habit of skipping pages of threads so that you only get the middle or end or incoherent posts , it's not my problem.

What one article mentioned regarding what those researchers refer to as intelligence are spatial and task-driven abilities, which the early people possessed due to pressure from their environment. So, they're not measuring academic abilities, they're not measuring intelligence enhanced by culture, nor enhanced by proper nutrition. They're measuring what I think was brute intelligence -- intelligence necessitated by motivation to survive a harsh environment unlike what we have now -- you know, cities, suburbs, countryside.

The most obvious case is when I look at my children's school books where there can be a question to use the internet to answer some question. Do you know how difficult it would have been to answer those question without using search engines conveniently at your fingertips with one's smartphone or the laptop they gave from school? It would many times taken hours first to go to a library, find then a book where the information might be. — ssu

Right. So, are you actually agreeing with me or trying to make a point? How does the many hours of work to get some information affect the acuity of the brain? Did you know that the ancient Greek historians or writers had no laptop to record what they heard inside the courtroom? They were not allowed to bring the stylus or any writing or recording instruments inside a courtroom to record the case word for word. So what they did was listen and commit to memory the words they heard, then run back outside and start retrieving the information while writing them down.

For the record, I provided some passages of the articles about the studies conducted by the researchers whose names I also provided. So stop being dramatic. If you have a habit of skipping pages of threads so that you only get the middle or end or incoherent posts , it's not my problem. — L'éléphant

I learned my lesson well. I think this is what you are referring to:

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).

Studies suggest that we are gradually becoming less intelligent. — L'éléphant

This is a flawed article. Mutations do not occur to all members of a species all at once. A mutation may create a trend that makes an entire subset of a species die out due to inability to survive due to the mutation's effect. But the mutation does not happen in all members of the group all at once. It happens to one member, who propagates it, and eventually a popluation will come to existence with that mutation.

The article you quoted is flying directly against the practical reality of the evolutionary aspect.

And that is such a seriously grave error that one can reject the point of the article altogether.

Here's the other article you suggested supports your claim:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2011.0099 — L'éléphant

You ... ... . This has nothing to do with the comparison of human's intelligence today and in history. It has to to do with the parallel development of humanoid toolmaking and humanoid language.

Why do you think you can get away with this? With quoting completely irrelevant articles? Because it is a long and technical one, nobody else bothered to read it, you were in the position of proudly referring to it as a "study that shows human intelligence is declining". Well, it does not.

Your credibility is shot, my friend. First you name a fact that never happened; and then you are uncovered for either misunderstanding a complicated study, or else malevolently using it to create a wool over the eye of your debating opponents.

Why is everyone a naysayer and yet winding up in self-contradictions on this site who oppose my opinions? — god must be atheist

I'm a yehsayher! I don't agree that scientists don't know what they measuring. If any intelligence they know a measure of its their own kind.

But responses to my posts on this site certainly suggest that — god must be atheist

IHa! ndeed. But that's because the posts of god claiming he must be an atheist are are testifying to that in the first place.

So, are you actually agreeing with me or trying to make a point? How does the many hours of work to get some information affect the acuity of the brain? — L'éléphant

Intelligence isn't something easy to measure and define like measuring muscle strength or how fast can someone move from point A to B.

Intelligence is perceiving or inferring information, learning and having the ability to deal with new situations. And when those situations change, it doesn't affect intelligence as the problems and the situations change. We simply have different problems and situations than hunter-gatherers had. Memorizing or learning by heart is an ability, but it isn't at all synonymous to intelligence. In fact, as a way of learning it has many negative aspects starting from people can memorize "by heart" something they have absolutely no idea what it's about (as even the saying learning by heart, not by brain, tells us). But of course put into extreme, some transferring accurately through time the vedas in Hinduism by the Vedic oral tradition can be successful.

So if we have things starting from having the written word (a massively useful tool that no animal has, even if they can communicate to each other) and then computers and so on, it really doesn't mean that our intelligence has become worse. We just can solve different problems far more quickly. That doesn't make our intelligence lazy.

I think I understand your point, but it isn't so straightforward than comparing physical stamina and physical strength to what we need to "survive" in our society and what a hunter-gatherer needed in his society. And even that is a far more complex issue than it might at first seem as then we understand the importance that physical exercise has for our health and well being.

The fact that the Flynn Effect has reversed in developed countries is a well-established and replicable finding.

Explanations abound, complex systems generally overshooting and then ratcheting back to equilibrium:

https://scholarworks.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2339&context=cs_techrep#:~:text=This%20steady%20increase%20in%20intelligence,who%20actively%20promoted%20this%20idea.&text=While%20the%20intelligence%20scores%20have,grow%3B%20instead%2C%20they%20decline.

Changes in the environment:

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674

There are many more. One thing to note is that it is not caused be genetic changes in the population. This is a common misattribution. Because distinct genetic groups tend to vary in IQ scores, the initial explanation for this shift could be that the underlying genetics of the population are causing the shift. While it is true that these changes cause a shift in mean population IQ within national borders, the Flynn Effect and its reversal are observed within population groups, controlling for variance in heritage.

But here things get very complicated. Obesity is highly heritable. Your relatives' BMI is highly predictive of your own. However, environment clearly plays a role, as obesity was uncommon until quite recently. Intelligence is similar. It is highly heritable, holding most things mostly equal (e.g., looking at twins who are both raised in the same country, even if the socio-economic status of their parents varies quite a bit.)

Changes in environment appear to account for the reverse Flynn Effect. There are some proposed culprits. Half of all plastics were made since 2008. The environment is now saturated in microplastics in developed countries. The average American consumes a credit card worth of plastic a week. Plastics work as endocrine disruptors and may have profound long term, ongoing effects on the body. Obesity is another macro level trend in populations caused by shifts in the environment and there are mechanisms through which it may impede cognitive function. Exercise is shown to delay the onset of dementia, prevent depression (which in turn negatively effects cognitive performance on tests that measure G), etc. and people are increasingly sedentary. The water supply is also awash in pharmaceuticals such as birth control, anti-depressants, etc. which also have a possible connection.

Point being, there are a lot of things that could be causing it, but it is definitely there, even when just considering within family effects. Then, for population means, genetics is also a factor that can raise and lower means. In general, higher IQ past a certain point is negatively associated with number of offspring. So aside from the environmental effects, there is also a selection element where genes associated with higher g may be selected against in the current environment.

Also of note, the effect is extremely large:



A 30-point gap, two standard deviations in most scoring systems, is the difference between mean IQ and many definitions of mental retardation, or mean IQ and common definitions of "gifted." A long-term trend that reverses the Flynn Effect has profound implications for future societies.

Yes, I am aware of all that.

Are you just making conversation, or is there some relevance to the topic?

Our computer knowledge has no value unless we actually think and make an effort to be well informed. I just left a history forum where people love bashing each other and completely ignore posts that are informative. How in heavens name these ignorant people maintain a high opinion of themselves I will never know because they sure could not score high if they were tested on what they know.

With what we're doing to the planet, how can we be anything but dumb. It's really, really grotesque and really wrong. There are way, waaay too many of us, supplemented by original minds who somehow have to deliver seven billion people from this clusterfuck. And they are equally subject to the ego mind rot of corporate America.

Asia surpassing the west is interesting. Computers were developed in the US with government funding the research but it was Japan that latched on to the potential of this technology and quickly surpassed the US economic growth building on the technology. Japan has a labor shortage and that increases interest in robotics, but once the robots are in place, a decline in thinking is to be expected. I have heard if the bridge had not already been invented modern man would not be able to do so, for the reasoning expressed in the OP. There is a lot we could not do without being able to rely on the "experts".

I worry about a major event that means no one is left to maintain nuclear plants. Humans doing their best to survive may not realize the danger of not maintaining a nuclear plant and even if they were aware that maintenance is essential, which one would know enough to know how to maintain the nuclear plant.? How smart are we without our technology and computers?