Human intelligence is declining according to Stanford geneticist
91 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Dr. Gerald Crabtree, a geneticist at Stanford, has published a study that he conducted to try and identify the progression of modern man’s intelligence. As it turns out, however, Dr. Crabtree’s research led him to believe that the collective mind of mankind has been on more or a less a downhill trajectory for quite some time.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]“I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues. Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues. I would also make this wager for the ancient inhabitants of Africa, Asia, India or the Americas, of perhaps 2000–6000 years ago. The basis for my wager comes from new developments in genetics, anthropology, and neurobiology that make a clear prediction that our intellectual and emotional abilities are genetically surprisingly fragile.”
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://rt.com/usa/news/intelligence-stanford-years-fragile-531/[/url]
wot the fuk no it int
u wot m8?
So, what, we're DEvolving?
I bet someone's going to blame this on technology.
I'm not, though.
Edit: This is an example of a very uninformed post...
If anything I'M the one getting dumber... :v:
fuk u man it is fo sho
Is this peer reviewed? Or just some guy spouting shit?
[quote]I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly
among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our
colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-
sighted view of important issues. Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be
among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues.[/quote]
tfw you will never be with your ancient athenian waifu ;_;
Well, yes. Duh. This isn't news. Back in Ye Olden Days, people could remember a lot more because they couldn't permanently preserve it by writing it down, so they [I]had[/I] to memorize it. We're not getting dumber, we're just training different parts of our brain. Hence why there's no ancient greek talk of Higg's Bossom.
I'm pretty sure we're getting smarter. I mean compared to 1000 years ago when almost no one could read we compare that to today where over 90% of the developed world can read and write.
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;39645835]So, what, we're DEvolving?
I bet someone's going to blame this on technology.
I'm not, though.[/QUOTE]
Not so much de-evolution, just a decline in intelligence (though that itself is subjective).
I'd attribute this to a lack of any real drive to innovate (or slowing of such). When you look at ancient Greece, those guys were inventing all sorts of stuff we use today. Only thing we can really do is improve on existing designs.
[QUOTE=anis;39645886]Boson. :eng101:[/QUOTE]
It's a boob joke. And a very subtle gay joke, because all ancient greeks were gay, so they had no interest in the bossom of Ms. Higgs.
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;39645835]So, what, we're DEvolving?
I bet someone's going to blame this on technology.
I'm not, though.[/QUOTE]
You can't devolve because evolution isn't a guided process, we evolve to adapt to our environment, if we become dumber it's because our intelligence isn't needed to ensure our survival.
Just give everyone Boots of Intelligence
Sorry but the guy saying that human intelligence is declining is full of shit.
In fact we've observed the opposite over the past century.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect[/url]
Also lol Russiatoday.
[QUOTE=Mellowbloom;39645867][video=youtube;clYwX8Z43zg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clYwX8Z43zg[/video]
IT'S HAPPENING[/QUOTE]
That film gave me nightmares despite the fact its supposed to be a comedy. The idea of everyone being that dumb does not sit very well in my mind.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39646025]Sorry but the guy saying that human intelligence is declining is full of shit.
In fact we've observed the opposite over the past century.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect[/url][/QUOTE]
But, but Intelligence Quotient.
I found the post by Xenocidebot which calls bullshit: (I remember this article).
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1227157&p=38523198&highlight=gerald+crabtree#post38523198[/url]
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38523198]I've said this before when this was actually "news".
Crabtree is a boring, somewhat sad motherfucker with a very narrow field of expertise which he dedicated most of his life to. He's extremely competent with biochem and made a couple important discoveries, but has been ridiculed for other reasons. Then he said something along these lines, and it turned into a ridicule spiral.
You see, when people with a narrow field of expertise are faced with personal problems, they tend to view them through the lens of that expertise, at the expense of other science. Kurzweil, for example- brilliant motherfucker, but because he sees everything in life as a particular type of nail, and is afraid of death and suffered some ugly losses in life, he's since gone bonkers about immortality in a nonscientific fashion.
Crabtree's made the same mistake. He has a very good nuts and bolts understanding of cell-level chemical reactions and genetics as it relates to that, but has never done anything on an evolutionary scale, or even what you would typically call "genetics" research (that he's being called a geneticist now is amazing to me, last I knew he wasn't one and he has no education in genetics.) You can observe that by virtue of the fact that he makes arguments without knowing the actual terminology involved. He also drastically overreaches into anthropology, taking hypotheses at face value and ignoring actual fact. Possibly the funniest part is that in his frothy impotent rage at the world, he didn't even bother to read his sources- the reason this hasn't had a formal rebuttal is because it isn't even wrong, because his citations directly refute him in spots.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;39645835]So, what, we're DEvolving?
I bet someone's going to blame this on technology.
I'm not, though.[/QUOTE]
Of course it's technology. Technology allowed us to practically disable natural selection, that's why there are more and more people that need glasses and apparently why we're getting dumber. That doesn't mean technology is bad though. Letting the weak people die is inhuman and we're better than that.
As much of an interesting thought as it is, I have trouble following his ancient man approach.
Surely the geniuses of yesteryear were quite impressive, but I find it hard to believe that your common peasant or citizen would be considered impressive by today's standards. Even at the height of a civilization like the Roman Empire, how do you quantify the intelligence of the common man and what his intelligence really is?
What confuses me are his assumptions:
[quote][I]with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues. ... that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues.[/I][/quote]
How can you quantify that about an ancient civilization, except from texts and writings? I thought we only recently learned that Rome had crude graffiti everywhere. And maybe I'm just not well-schooled; but I find it hard to believe that the common man of Rome was an emotionally stable person with excellent mental skills and clear political beliefs. I might agree with him that humans during that era were much more cautious and capable of defending their livelihood through trials of mind and body - but intelligence just seems like a poor word for that.
In short, I don't agree with his raw intelligence or emotional assumptions, however his "fight or flight" one involving people being at their peak when they were exposed to daily natural selection is a lot more sound. I don't want to play armchair neuro-anthropoligist though; so I'm going to assume he has some good basis for what he's saying, or that he's full of shit.
Entirely unrelated, but I use to know a kid with the last name of Crabtree. He was a dick. :v:
[QUOTE=Jawalt;39645852]Is this peer reviewed? Or just some guy spouting shit?[/QUOTE]
Though peer reviewing is always a crucial step, it doesn't mean definite proof.
If you're worried about the legitimacy of an article, it'd be best to do your research all persons involved - including those who reviewed it.
[QUOTE=Robber;39646133]Of course it's technology. Technology allowed us to practically disable natural selection, that's why there are more and more people that need glasses and apparently why we're getting dumber. That doesn't mean technology is bad though. Letting the weak people die is inhuman and we're better than that.[/QUOTE]
Selection doesn't go away. We still have natural selection going on.
If we don't, we have artificial selection, which is basically eugenics (and not many places practice that).
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;39645835]So, what, we're DEvolving?
I bet someone's going to blame this on technology.
I'm not, though.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but it's true. While advances like the internet have given us access to greater average knowledge per individual than any generation before us, it's a fact that when certain parts of the human psyche (See detailed memory retention) are no longer necessary, they begin to atrophy, and this is carried through generations.
[QUOTE=anis;39646061]But, but Intelligence Quotient.[/QUOTE]
Huh?
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=archangel125;39646169]Sorry, but it's true. While advances like the internet have given us access to greater average knowledge per individual than any generation before us, it's a fact that when certain parts of the human psyche (See detailed memory retention) are no longer necessary, they begin to atrophy, and this is carried through generations.[/QUOTE]
The internet has been barely around for 2 decades, and widespread literacy has been barely around for about 2-3 centuries. I don't think it's really had such an effect in such a short time.
[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;39645878]I'm pretty sure we're getting smarter. I mean compared to 1000 years ago when almost no one could read we compare that to today where over 90% of the developed world can read and write.[/QUOTE]
Humans have always been smart. We just stand on the shoulders of past discoveries.
Not yet, the pressure hasn't been off for long enough for a large enough percentage of the population yet, but given enough time (think homo erectus to homo sapiens) we just might, the first thing to go would be our morality though (yes some species are more "moral" than others). However, it's unlikely that we'll be able to sustain current conditions that long. Our society can evolve in a direction we now find displeasing in a much shorter time frame though, but it would snap back once conditions change.
I'm fed up of people saying we're becoming more stupid, we live in one of the most educational ages full of knowledge an you're trying to tell me future generations are going to be stupid as a illiterate desert nomad from biblical times because technology makes us dumb.
We aren't getting dumb. It's just that dumb people "show up on someone's radar" much more.
[IMG]http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/506b4e076bb3f7752900001a-960/honey-boo-boo.png[/IMG]
You don't say
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
