I said in my OP it has nothing to do with the size of the brains -- at least not this time.Even if we have smaller brains now that doesn't make us less intelligent. This is a common misconception. — I like sushi
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?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
I agree. I used "IQ" because that's what everybody here wants to use.As someone else notes there is a difference between IQ and being intelligent I think? At least in general parse. — I like sushi
It's more like this:Is your argument like this? Intelligence produced luxury. Luxury produced laziness. And laziness reduced intelligence. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.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 like your approach. Thanks.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
Of course, you could argue that we created these technologies — L'éléphant
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.And that's supposed to be a sign of intelligence? Why not call that stupidity? — Dijkgraf
This provides for another genetic up-smartening of society, although the pace is substantially slowed. — god must be atheist
I should also mention that scientists may have no idea what they’re really measuring. — Joshs
The operative word here is "perhaps". Very true.Perhaps ancient humans could perform certain tasks faster than modern humans for the same reason. — Joshs
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.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
Agriculture had made our activities money-centric or commercial-centric.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
Good analogy. The updates -- cultural updates -- could be the culprit, not necessarily the brain.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
Yes. Why do we have a hard time accepting nuclear energy? Is it due to ignorance? Lack of education? Cultural?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
Until the dinosaurs died, in short burst of time.Lots of doom and gloom that will likely amount to nothing much other than a flash in the pan. — I like sushi
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. — Schootz1
Studies suggest that we are gradually becoming less intelligent. — L'éléphant
All those masterpieces are actually far more accessible to me now as they would have been then.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
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.Why?????? — god must be atheist
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.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
I learned my lesson well. I think this is what you are referring to: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
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
Why is everyone a naysayer and yet winding up in self-contradictions on this site who oppose my opinions? — god must be atheist
But responses to my posts on this site certainly suggest that — god must be atheist
Intelligence isn't something easy to measure and define like measuring muscle strength or how fast can someone move from point A to B.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
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.