LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksStupid people reproduce more that smart people,so humanity is becoming less intelligent?
Maybe genetic engeeniring or a WW3 is the answer after all...
August 15th, 2006, 06:59 PM
Stupid people reproduce more that smart people,so humanity is becoming less intelligent?
Maybe genetic engeeniring or a WW3 is the answer after all...
Its allways been like that, its like in a ant colony, there is most of worker class, then as the cast goes up we get fewer and fewer. We need stupid people to do all the work we smart people dont want to make, like cleaning
this is true dude like far back when the greek is still alive . how can they figure out geometry and other great stuff like pythargoean theorem and stuff without the technology we have today :?
Dude... only a few people made those discoveries... Most of the greeks etc... couldn't even read or write. There is no such thing as stupid people just lazy people.
The individual intelligence tends towards the norm. Children born of highly intelligent parents are more likely to be less intelligent than there parents than more intelligent. Children born to unintelligent parents are more likely to be more intelligent than there parents.
Ophiolite, that is wrong with my experience, my parents are normal itnelligence/higher and i am even higher than them.
You are an individual. I am not talking about a single individual, but about tendencies and averages. My statements are valid on average, if they were not then after X generations we would all have the same intelligence.
Actually there is more evidence pointing to the idea that each generation is more intelligent than the last, due to the increasing complexity of society and that with which we amuse ourselves (the puzzles in video games, the plot devices of television shows and movies, etc.)
Common sense, however, is another issue altogether. Its rarity is timeless. :wink:
Well I think that evidence just points to increasing technology and perhaps the need to learn more earlier as our knowledge grows, but I'm not sure you can equate that to raw intelligence. Personally I have no idea whether or not intelligence is increasing or decreasing, for the species as a whole. My first thought would be that wherever genetic drift takes us is where our intelligence is headed because off the top of my head I don't see an obvious evolutionary pathway for an increase, or a decrease.
Our intelligence does not increase or decrease. Our knowledge does increase, and our understanding of technology does increase. But to know certain stuff like what's the capital of norway is not raising nor lowering.
With this we can conclude that our general knowledge does not increase, just our specific knowledge and the total knowledge amongst people.
Still... both of my parents don't know what i'm talking about when i try to pinpoint one of my theories. Still, my parents are not stupid nor very smart. I would indeed say that the chance someone is smarter than you when your stupid is a lot higher.
If you have a dice with 6 sides, and your average (3 and less) there'll be 50% chance that it'll be above.. (smarter than you)
if you are smart (5 and less), there'll be 16,66% chance they will throw above you. Obvious.
Knowledge is not genetic, it's based on your own desires.. :-D
it is genetic, you cant put information into a bimbo. Certtain people have genetical advantages geting information, by that the desire to get information increase, while otehrs have the disadvantage thereby dont get the desire to get it
Zelos is correct with his genetics claim. Now if I can add in my 2 cents, I believe most people have an issue with judging intelligence to begin with. In most cases, I've met people with a lot of book knowledge or higher education from Prof. Knowitall who really don't know anything. They repeat what they've learned like parrots (parroting information! Woo!) and never question it or attempt to find/develop alternatives.
Now, society apparently judges intelligence by how much book knowledge you can cram into your brain. This is a very poor method for it, since any idiot can apparently do this (well, any idiot who can read). I believe we should attempt to judge intelligence by how actively one researches, or asks questions, or wishes for a deeper understanding than book knowledge will currently give. THESE people will most likely be the ones to improve technology or science or what have you, since they're more likely to discover things than the "parroters".
As for intelligence decreasing or increasing, it's neither. You still have complete morons, you have complete morons with their "lives" that consist of being complete morons. You also have the morons with a lot of fancy book knowledge they parrot off quite "intelligently". Then you have the smart people, who question everything regardless of how "unrealistic" it seems to 99.9% of the human race.
The list can go on for quite some time, but overall stupid people will normally stay stupid. The only exception is when the child of said stupid person gets an advantage environment wise and genetics wise, and starts to question and research things like mad. These are few, and *VERY* far between unfortunately.
Now as to the post .:Elusive.Neutrino:. made: Technology and knowing how to USE that technology rarely makes one smarter. You've only adapted to know how to use it (and quite frankly, it's not that hard. Save for the really complex things). As for the increasing complexities in society, and our "rise" of intelligence, I'd beg to differ. Society isn't increasing very rapidly in complexity as much as technology is (thus implementations into society), and if this were true you wouldn't have people with "lives" in society dumb as rocks. Society complexities wouldn't mean an intelligence increase unless you had to solve a logical puzzle every few steps.
As for video games, it's not very difficult. As games usually have patterns that even my grandma could adapt to (no joke). And when you take into account decreased cognitive abilities, that's really saying something. I'd also like to mention that the only shows I've seen that make you think (and thus don't leave you with that "I feel dumber" feeling most thinkers aren't used to) is 24 and LOST. The rest mostly download information into your brain and barely make you think at all.
>>
Common sense, however, is another issue altogether. Its rarity is timeless.
<<
Bingo! Yhatzee! Our survay says...COMMON SENSE! Bing bing bing bing bing! (okay so I stole this from Bruce Almighty) you, sir, are 100% and undeniably CORRECT. Common sense is the borderline between smart person and all the others. Common sense is basically the ability to judge things through cause and effect logically. This prevents many people from randomly throwing bricks into windows because they want to (note: stupid people do it regardless because they want to). I know this because, thus far, almost all stupid people I've seen have almost no ability to judge cause and effect. Good judgement comes from knowing what would cause an undesirable effect, and avoid it altogether (or change it, etc). This is mostly where you get the *Truely* smart people, the rest tend to be parroters, idiots, etc.
This is moving one pace laterally, off-topic.Originally Posted by jeremyhfht
All shows can make you think. You can examine them from these perspectives:
a) What is the target audience of this show and how have the producers set about engaging and retaining that audience?
b) What use is made of camera angles, sfx, to move the story along or convey the message?
c) How many people would have been involved in this production, how long would it have taken to produce, and therefore what is the probable cost of the programme?
d) What changes would I have made in content, format, or technique to improve the interest of this programme for me?
These are just examples. They are along the lines of 100 things to do with a block of coal. They require one to think in depth and breadth. This can, contrary to earlier comments, but consistent with research, increase your intelligence.
Will be a long story, bear with me pls
I think the human brain has a potential intelligence (what can the brain reach in ideal circumstances) and a realized intelligence (how much of the potential has been reached). For example Einstein must've had a good brain, but if he would've been locked up in a dark room for all his life he wouldn't have developped that potential as much as he did. He would have a high potential, but a very low realized intelligence.
The potential intelligence is probably mostly genetics, and will only evolve very slowly. It's logical that this change will be a (slow) increase, as humans must indeed adapt to an increasingly complex world. But the average realized intelligence of the population can change very quickly, and I think it's this factor which has really increased over the centuries.
If you are an intelligent person (you probably are, being interested in science :wink, one or both of your parents is/was probably intelligent as well. And this intelligence must have existed within (part of) the family for a long time, because you didnt evolve it yourself. Still you may have been the first of your family to visit college or university. I think this tells us that your realized intelligence is higher then that of your parents, while you have inherited a comparable potential intelligence.
Why would the realized intelligence of people rise? Because education got better and we have more time for education (we don't need to work all day to make a living, but ask your grandfather how much sparetime he had in his youth). For example all of my grandparents were farmers, and none of them had either the money or time to study and develop him/herself intellectually. I did have that opportunity, so now I may seem a lot more intelligent then my grandparents. But I probably just realized a bigger part of my potential.
Talking on a higher level of aggragetion, I'd say people who have the potential to be intelligent are more and more getting the chance to realize that, increasing the average.
humanity isnt getting more stupid. Its like a ant colony, you need more workers than any class. As the colony grows the amount of higher casts increases (amount of ants in them that is) but the lowest cast gets the highest increasement in numbers becuase there is a need for so many more. Its like earth population increase with 10% in every cast, the highest one have the fewest people therefor have the smallest increase.
More stupid people get killed than intelligent ones so that may even things up a bit :wink: :wink:
I think Zelos has a point, but it's not ENTIRELY like that as the "worker class" tends to bring up intelligent people as well. Those BORN from "intelligent people" tend to be more information parroters than "MUST RESEARCH". This is probably due to the fact children tend to take everything their parents say as-is or the child believes himself/herself to be of superior intelligence. This is what leads to inevitable idiocy, to believe yourself to be smarter than someone else. It could very well lead to a bad case of hubris.
As for the need for more "workers" this isn't really the case. Intellignet people, unlike workers, can exist in all fields. You don't see a complete idiot doing astrophysics or rocket science, do you? Sufficed to say, we *need* more intelligent people, not workers. The workers are supposed to contribute and keep the colony alive, the "workers" in society today are dragging it to the ground. Humanity is quite different from a colony of ants in this regard, because unlike an ant colony, intelligent people can work in all fields. You don't see the queen and soldier ants doing worker and deuty, do you? I should suspect NOT given ant behaviour. So, in short, humanity needs more smart people and LESS of the mindless drone workers. Either that or we can just bring back natural selection, that should take care of the "workers".
I would continue, but this post is long enough.
As for Pendragon
>>
f you are an intelligent person (you probably are, being interested in science), one or both of your parents is/was probably intelligent as well. And this intelligence must have existed within (part of) the family for a long time, because you didnt evolve it yourself. Still you may have been the first of your family to visit college or university. I think this tells us that your realized intelligence is higher then that of your parents, while you have inherited a comparable potential intelligence.
<<
I can't express how far this can be from the case. Most intelligent people I've seen have parents that are complete DUNCES. Somewhere along the family line, maybe, but mostly the family tends to be complete and utter failures intelligence wise. Intelligence isn't FULLY genetic, it takes hard work and perception for the most part, genetics will only *aid* in the course. IF you "realize" you are intelligent, you're most likely going to become an egotistical hubris filled *ASS* as opposed to someone of actual intelligence and open mindedness (this is also the same for parroters, which tend to believe they're always right).
And sufficed to say, this is the mistake many generations have made. "This is THEE generation!" when in reality that generation was as dumb as the last one. Humanity isn't improving too much, in fact, due to many fat-bastards and stupid people in general sucking down economy world wide (and, for example, china. Which burns tons of coal every DAY due to accidental fires in coal mines that it refuses to put out). At best, the illusion of "improvement" only comes from those who are different or more intelligent than the previous generation. But the irony there is, those people tend to refuse to admit as such. This is a very easy way to filter out who is intelligent, and who is probably an idiot or information parrot.
In short, "realizing" intelligence will only make you stupid and/or arrogant. Refusing to realize intelligence, and continuing research on the premesis that there is always more to learn, or that you can always learn more (and thus, you're not very intelligent), will get you farther. Unless by some miracle you manage to keep from being egotistical/arrogant if you realize you're so "intelligent". However, that, in itself, is egotistical/arrogant.
It's a case of Red Mage on 8-bit-theater. Nobody can tell Red Mage anything, can they? Mostly because he realizes he is so intelligent that only HE can be correct! Hubris. Beware.
Quick note for Ophiolite: I stated (and if I didn't, I have now) that shows tend to barely make you think naturally without you having to force it. When you preceive shows as you listed, most people *cannot* do that naturally and have to train themselves to do so. Lost and 24 are the only shows I know of that have a design which allows your brain to think without you having to force the effort. You, however, are correct with the perspectives and I will not argue them. So I was wrong in that aspect.
Meditation is necessary. The only reason I see any decrease in inteligence is in the case of an uncontroled mind (or overly wondering mind). SO MUCH ADD AND BIPOLAR to mention a few. Most psychological problems can be treated with daily meditation (I think
Just a thought.
I think you're interpreting the word "realize" in a different way. What I mean is that there's a potential intelligence, and that this potential can be developped (=realized) to any degree. A genetically less-intelligent person can develop his full potential and become more 'able to understand things' then a genetically more-intelligent person who never developped his brain at all. You seem to interpret the word "to realize" as 'knowing that you are intelligent', which is not what I mean.
Jeremy, I don't think you were wrong. I knew exactly what you meant. Your clarification here confirms it.
What I was seeking to do was to demonstrate two things to you and to the other readers.
1) We can learn from any circumstance, even one that appears at first sight to be bereft of any learning opportunity. [The worst training I have ever attended was a week long course on a complex piece of engineering software. While the rest of the attendees were complaining about how useless it was I was making extensive notes of all the ways not to deliver a course. It wasn't, on balance, worth a week, but at least I got something out of it.]
2) Intelligence is partly about how we perceive things. It is important to use our open minds to explore topics from novel direction. As you observed this is something we have to train ourselves to do. Before we can initiate that training we have to recognise the possibility. I hope my comments may have helped someone to recognise the possibility.
Agh! Sorry oph, I misunderstood then.
As for Pendragon: Actually, no, I don't believe the word "realize" CAN be interpreted any other way. I know there is a much better word for it but I can't think of it at the moment.
Sorry but that's not correct:
Yeah, by that definition, you just proved your word usage wrong. Unless you wish to agree with me about my hubris statement.
You're not making any sense here.
-I post a hypothesis about people realizing to a different degree their potential for intelligence;
-You object that people who "realize" their intelligence are arrogant and overly self-confident ('hubris');
-I make clear that this is not how I used the term "to realize" as I mean 'to accomplish';
-And now you think I proved myself wrong by showing that 'to accomplish' is exactly the first entry for "realizing" in the M-W dictionary? Please explain yourself.
--
I will remove this and other posts about the usage of the word "to realize" as soon as this misunderstanding is cleared up, as it's starting to make this thread messy. It's a real pity that instead of defending the content of my post I'm forced to discuss this detail.
WOW!! Stop whining, please. If someone is using a word in a way you do not understand than simply ask them what they meant. Don't accuse them of using the wrong definition. We created language and we have the right to use it how we please (hopefully but not always in a way others understand). It is so anoying when someone ruins a perfectly good conversation by correcting someone's definition.
I think that our intelligence is both increasing and decreasing, there should be people that are less intelligent than ever and people that are more intelligent than ever, just as with everything in life, for example man is creating smaller things and bigger things than ever before, and i would bet that "nature" is still creating hotter and colder things than have ever been created before.
"The universe is expanding"
Erudite interjection on semantics 8)
Jeremy, Pendragon's use of the word 'realized' is flawless (though I might take exception to the American spelling.). I went back to look at his original comment:
Come on Jeremy, the man even gives a definition of his usage of the word in this context within brackets. Please stop being so obtuse. You are incorrect. End of story.
Nonsense. The function of language is to facilitate communication. If we use it in a cavalier fashion, adopting our own meanings for words, we destroy, or demean this function. We are able to use words any way we choose, but we are no longer using it as language, to clarify, but as a tool of confusion and disharmony.
Right. Lets make this easy, wehn the definition for "realized" is used (See here: 1 a : to bring into concrete existence : ACCOMPLISH <finally realized her goal> ) he must accept my claim of hubris. To realize ones goal would be like accepting its existence (or that it is accomplished). It accept the existence of your "intelligence" would lead to hubris. Depending on the degree of it. UNLESS you meant realize the DEGREE in which your intelligence extends. In which case, this is a grammar interpretation error.
Thank you so much for the needless aggression though, oph.
To realise the potential of something is to reach the full potential of that thing. This need not be a conscious achievement, hence your bizarre claim of hubris is invalidated.
You seem now to wish to begin a second debate on the meaning of the word aggression. You might have got closer to the mark had you accused me of exasperation.
I guess it also depends on what your definition of intelligence is. I'm an excellent trouble-shooter..I can visualize solutions to mechanical problems that would give others problems....but I have trouble doing math in my head. If you gave me one of the those problems like:
1, 5, 14, 23, 45....name the next number in the sequence...I wouldn't be able to solve this kind of problem even for a date with the Dallas Cowboy's cheerleaders. I'm not wired for it. Some people could solve this easily (don't try, I made up those numbers) but couldn't tie their own shoes without help.
I believe our intelligence is slowly increasing. That's what makes us different from Homo Erectus (no boner jokes, please). H.E. 's use of tools is what gradually turned him into us. (IMHO) If we continue to use our brain more, our intelligence should continue to increase.
how can we change our dna in our life span???
If that was true a bodybuilders child would be more mascular.
we cant. but thats what lackdasial want it to be like.
If somebody had simply written "True." after this post, I think the thread could have been closed. It seems a shame to have to rephrase Pendragon's already eloquent words, but I'm going to do it for Jeremy's sake:
Imagine we have 'intelligence points.' As humans, we're born with the ability to reach about 500 points. Lesser animals like chimps have the potential to reach about 300 points. These numbers are what Pendragon called potential intelligence. However, the majority of humans only have about 350 intelligence points, even though their brains would allow for a lot more. The 350 number is what Pendragon called realized intelligence.
His point was that it's much easier to evolve the 350 number than the 500 number. As education gets better and people need to use their brains more to keep up with technology, the 350 number will go up. The 500 number will only change as a result of evolution of the DNA. That's what separates us from the chimps, we have a higher potential intelligence because our genes allow it.
The point isn't to "realize that we're intelligent" which would be hubristic. To realize your intelligence is to activate the inherent intelligence that was already present in yourself. IQ is not a static number. It very much depends on what you do with your brain. Hence the reason we have books with titles like "Raise Your IQ."
This is philosophy, not semantics.
To answer the question, "Is our intelligence decreasing?" I think most of academia would agree that it's not. On the contrary, there is a phenomenon called the Flynn effect which shows that the world's average IQ is increasing by about 3 points per decade. People have disagreed as to the causes, but the results speak for themselves.
Sorry, I was being harsh. I too believe in using good language when I can. The point I am making is that often what someone is saying is obvious yet people feel they must deconstruct and twist the person's words to make it sound like they are saying something else. No matter how much you twist someone's words with 'real' deffinitions you will not change their opinion. If you truly do not understand how a word is being used than by all means ask but, don't force your own interpretation into it; that will get you no where. That is what I was trying to say.
Nonsense. The function of language is to facilitate communication. If we use it in a cavalier fashion, adopting our own meanings for words, we destroy, or demean this function. We are able to use words any way we choose, but we are no longer using it as language, to clarify, but as a tool of confusion and disharmony.
Ah, well I can agree with those sentiments 100%.
Actually I just reread you post and I have a slight niggle that reduces that 100% down to around 90%. :wink:
You said "The point I am making is that often what someone is saying is obvious yet people feel they must deconstruct and twist the person's words to make it sound like they are saying something else. "
I have seen many occasions in forums where two people, with no malice, or attempt to confuse, have taken genuinely different interpretations of the same words. Both parties have claimed their interpretation is obvious. So, I am uncumfortable with appeal to the 'obvious' interpretation. It sounds too much like an appeal to 'common sense', which is anything but common, and typically means 'my view of the world'.
Bar that caveat and I agree with you.
September 18th, 2006, 07:07 PM
Hello,
If through a cataclysmic event we where thrown back into living in caves not one among us could probably make a simple thing as a match.
Things like advanced electronic equipment seems to point to an increased intelligence but think about it. No one person could make a television. It is only possible by many people using a small learned skill to make one part of it. We seem very intelligent because through many people sharing knowledge we advance.
For the caveman to survive, that did take a lot of intelligence.
Many believe that the Neanderthals brain size was larger than ours and so was is scull size. Mother and baby would die giving birth.
My views,
We have more shared knowledge not more intelligence.
Regards,
David.
Lucid
Pendragon
Guess what? You should've said "aquired intelligence". One cannot realize intelligence that one has not aquired. At last I finally thought of the words.
Bush dealt with Saddam with surprisingly little intelligence.
Keep in mind that most people here are not native speakers of english. I don't know that many synonimes myself, so if my sentences are correct according to the dictionary then you'll have to be satisfied.
Anyway why don't we just continue where we started, is humanities' intelligence decreasing or not? :wink:
September 20th, 2006, 08:21 AM
Good point. But maybe the total number of people who are able to play their part in the sharing of knowledge is increasing. We have far more scientists now then say 1000 years ago, but we also have a lot more people now who are able to grasp the basics ('being able to learn a small skill for making the television'). So even though we may, as you suggest, be less intelligent then we appear, the sheer number of people with a basic level may be on the rise. Which could mean that we as a species are 'becoming more intelligent', or more able to get complicated things done collectively.
September 20th, 2006, 06:35 PM
What happens is I think we confuse intelligence for adaptation.Good point. But maybe the total number of people who are able to play their part in the sharing of knowledge is increasing. We have far more scientists now then say 1000 years ago, but we also have a lot more people now who are able to grasp the basics ('being able to learn a small skill for making the television'). So even though we may, as you suggest, be less intelligent then we appear, the sheer number of people with a basic level may be on the rise. Which could mean that we as a species are 'becoming more intelligent', or more able to get complicated things done collectively.
Bush dealt with Saddam with surprisingly little intelligence.
little intelligence or blindness ?
That is the question
September 21st, 2006, 01:08 PM
Very good observation. Let say that there is individual intelligence and collective intelligence.
For example as individuals ants are totally stupid, but we can say that an ant colony is intelligent.
On a much larger extant, humans have a great amount of collective intelligence.
Nobody is able to desing alone the latest CPU or GPU chip. Even ingeniers, have only small part of the necessary knowledge. It's the collective organisation wich allow us, humans to create incredible things.
So we should agree that civilsation has bring us collective intelligence, something wich increase quickly.
On a side note collective idiocy has no limit either, but that's a different story :P. Well .... Is it ?
my old mate - its "engineers" not "ingeniers".
Please excuse the doc, English isn't his first language. :-D 8)
He's in bloody good company here then. :wink:
sorry for this one : no excuse here.
ingeniers do not mean anything in any language. The problem is, even if my english sucks I am still a very fast typewriter. I don't slow down for typewriting english, hence so much syntax and grammatical errors.
| « Is Wisdom just a troublesome tooth? | time and space » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
