Human intelligence is declining according to Stanford geneticist
91 replies, posted
[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][url]http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti%20from%20pompeii.htm[/url]
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
VIII.2 (in the basilica); 1816: Epaphra, you are bald!
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
VIII.7.6 (Inn of the Muledrivers; left of the door); 4957: We have wet the bed, host. I confess we have done wrong. If you want to know why, there was no chamber pot
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
II.3.10 (Pottery Shop or Bar of Nicanor; right of the door); 10070: Lesbianus, you defecate and you write, ‘Hello, everyone!’
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
We are in fact as stupid as we've always been. You can just observe more of it with reality TV and the internet.
I don't see Athenians of 1000BC walking on the fucking moon, or living in orbit, or even understanding how the tools to get there function. I don't see any ancient nuclear power plants or airstrips in ancient Greek ruins. I don't see any ancient Greek gas stations or commuter trains, I don't see any ancient Greek computers and I sure as shit don't see any ancient Greek cell phones.
We are so much smarter than the ancients it's laughable. We've done things the ancients would say is complete and utter bullshit. We've massed produced things that turn a 50 mile journey from a long, arduous hike to a one hour commute in absolute luxury. We've turned this huge world into one tiny suburb. To say we aren't smarter than they were is stupid in and of itself. They may have been more emotionally stable, that much I'll concede, but until we find evidence they've walked on the Moon...
[QUOTE=TestECull;39646539]I don't see Athenians of 1000BC walking on the fucking moon, or living in orbit, or even understanding how the tools to get there function. I don't see any ancient nuclear power plants or airstrips in ancient Greek ruins. I don't see any ancient Greek gas stations or commuter trains, I don't see any ancient Greek computers and I sure as shit don't see any ancient Greek cell phones.
We are so much smarter than the ancients it's laughable. We've done things the ancients would say is complete and utter bullshit. We've massed produced things that turn a 50 mile journey from a long, arduous hike to a one hour commute in absolute luxury. We've turned this huge world into one tiny suburb. To say we aren't smarter than they were is stupid in and of itself. They may have been more emotionally stable, that much I'll concede, but until we find evidence they've walked on the Moon...[/QUOTE]
You're mixing up knowledge and intelligence.
[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]
Also lol Russiatoday.[/QUOTE]
most of the people who believe human intelligence is declining are the type of pretentious pricks who sit around in their basement jacking off to how smart they think they are.
they are a close cousin to the asshole who sits around wishing he was in medieval europe because "men were men" or w/e even though people lived to like 26 years old on average and suffered malnutrition and shit.
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Talishmar;39646784]You're mixing up knowledge and intelligence.[/QUOTE]
there is no real difference.
unless you can find a way to objectively show a person's intelligence without using anything that would require the person to use their knowledge or skill.
That's why the ancients put aside all their differences and pursued scientific and cultural advancement flawlessly for thousands of years until us stupid modern people invented the Internet and TV and ruined humanity.
It's not like the examples of genius that we pick from the bag of Ancient people to represent their civilization aren't exactly representative of the average illiterate peasant or slave who would be about as informed as an uncured brick.
Oh, and let's not even consider that while yes, and ancient genius would be smarter than a modern middle-class westerner, he would pale before the intellect of a modern scientific understanding of a man like Hawking or Einstein; who possessed a greater capacity to unravel the mysteries of the universe than any of the ancients in their largely philosophical or mystical pseudo-explanations of natural phenomenon.
And that doesn't even consider superstition, religious ignorance, lack of consistency, and a complete lack of any notion of humanity as a single species that exists today informing them all in a misdirected fashion from the start.
So yeh, gonna file this study under 'bullshit'.
Perhaps what's most interesting, is that it took us until the 16th century for the scientific method to come into use, and another few to figure out evolution or steam power.
Well, considering natural selection nowadays has been hampered massively, he might be right. I wouldn't be very surprised if the average Athenian back then would be smarter than the average person today (modern person would have him beat on knowledge though).
Though if so, I bet it would change as soon as you start taking modern people from cities, higher classes, higher educations and such. The average Athenian scholar probably is smarter than the average person today, but not smarter than the average university today.
[QUOTE=acds;39647036]Well, considering natural selection nowadays has been hampered massively, he might be right. I wouldn't be very surprised if the average Athenian back then would be smarter than the average person today (modern person would have him beat on knowledge though).
Though if so, I bet it would change as soon as you start taking modern people from cities, higher classes, higher educations and such. The average Athenian scholar probably is smarter than the average person today, but not smarter than the average university today.[/QUOTE]
The average person in ancient times was a superstitious peasant who grew just enough food to feed their family and sell a little for the implements they needed to grow another harvest.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;39647067]The average person in ancient times was a superstitious peasant who grew just enough food to feed their family and sell a little for the implements they needed to grow another harvest.[/QUOTE]
So is the average person today, just a bit more ambitious. Also large cities always have a higher average intelligence, same probably went for Athens back then.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39646177]Huh?
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
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]
They've determined that written language has led to a decline in human capacity for memory already. With the rate technology is growing now, we'll see much larger changes in another century or two.
[QUOTE=archangel125;39647149]They've determined that written language has led to a decline in human capacity for memory already. With the rate technology is growing now, we'll see much larger changes in another century or two.[/QUOTE]
the problem is that memory is a skill. people don't need to use memory as much anymore, so the skill diminishes. it's like saying that the genetics for people to get fat are becoming more widespread in society. no, people just aren't required to live as active anymore so they naturally become fatter.
environment is not the same as genetics.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;39646784]You're mixing up knowledge and intelligence.[/QUOTE]
No. No I'm not. They're one in the same thing. You can't be intelligent without knowing a few things, and if you know a few things you are intelligent.
We know how to go into space. They didn't even know that using lead as a seasoning would kill you despite doing so for many many generations. I'd say they were pretty fucking dumb.
and memory is not a catch-all for determining intelligence anyways.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39647190]the problem is that memory is a skill. people don't need to use memory as much anymore, so the skill diminishes. it's like saying that the genetics for people to get fat are becoming more widespread in society. no, people just aren't required to live as active anymore so they naturally become fatter.
environment is not the same as genetics.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. If I recall correctly (And I can't find the article for the life of me) it was a difference in spatial measurement of the part of the brain that deals with memory. Smaller in most modern humans=fewer neurons=less capability.
If I'm not mistaken, these were measured against the brains of indigenous aboriginal inhabitants of secluded parts of the world that did not have a written language and little contact with the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=archangel125;39647230]I don't know. If I recall correctly (And I can't find the article for the life of me) it was a difference in spatial measurement of the part of the brain that deals with memory. Smaller in most modern humans=fewer neurons=less capability.
If I'm not mistaken, these were measured against the brains of indigenous aboriginal inhabitants of secluded parts of the world that did not have a written language and little contact with the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]
but can you be certain that this difference is caused by genetics rather than caused simply by environment?
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
the human brain is a wonderfully adaptable machine.
m8, r u daft?!?!?!?!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
[QUOTE=Vaught;39645883]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]
Though to be fair, they're also the ones who basic steam power thousands of years ahead of time and couldn't think of any use for it besides as a curiosity.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39647272]but can you be certain that this difference is caused by genetics rather than caused simply by environment?
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
the human brain is a wonderfully adaptable machine.[/QUOTE]
I don't suppose we can be. The best we have is circumstantial evidence pointing towards it.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39647193]No. No I'm not. They're one in the same thing. You can't be intelligent without knowing a few things, and if you know a few things you are intelligent.
We know how to go into space. They didn't even know that using lead as a seasoning would kill you despite doing so for many many generations. I'd say they were pretty fucking dumb.[/QUOTE]
The claim that if 1000 BC Atheneans were smarter than us they'd have to have figured out space flight is just too stupid to argue against.
I just think of it like tech trees in video games. The first steps on that tree are huge monumental gaps from each other, connecting ideas that don't seem to be connected to create something. Every further step down the tree is a slightly shorter distance between each other. We think we're getting stupider because we're not making the same massive strides between things, but now technology requires smaller, more important steps rather than giant leaps at a time.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39647460]I just think of it like tech trees in video games. The first steps on that tree are huge monumental gaps from each other, connecting ideas that don't seem to be connected to create something. Every further step down the tree is a slightly shorter distance between each other. We think we're getting stupider because we're not making the same massive strides between things, but now technology requires smaller, more important steps rather than giant leaps at a time.[/QUOTE]
I'm not so certain. Technology's growth rate is still exponential. Think about it, humanity has been around for over fifty thousand years. We only invented printing presses a few hundred years ago, and only invented cars a little over a century ago. Today, we can communicate across the world instantaneously and have prosthetic limbs that are as articular as the real thing. I'd say that contrary to slowing down, we're speeding up. Massively.
[QUOTE=archangel125;39647409]I don't suppose we can be. The best we have is circumstantial evidence pointing towards it.[/QUOTE]
the evidence doesn't really point to it either. you have to assume that neuron count is static in the brain to assume that these guys with higher neuron counts are genetically smarter. this is something that we know isn't true because the amount of neurons in your brain fluctuate all the time(look at the brain of someone who suffers a stroke, their brain heals and adapts over time).
it's quite easy to assume that people have less neurons in their brain when they don't actually use that part of the brain much. it would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint as well because more neurons = more energy consumption, so eliminating unused neurons would decrease energy usage and give an evolutionary advantage.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39646539]I don't see Athenians of 1000BC walking on the fucking moon, or living in orbit, or even understanding how the tools to get there function. I don't see any ancient nuclear power plants or airstrips in ancient Greek ruins. I don't see any ancient Greek gas stations or commuter trains, I don't see any ancient Greek computers and I sure as shit don't see any ancient Greek cell phones.
[/QUOTE]
This is such an innane point. I don't agree with the article at all but this post is absurd
Technology is used to invent more technology. You can't just up and fucking invent a nuclear power plant. You couldn't send a nuclear physicist back 2000 years (not that we have time travel anyways) and say "build a power plant" in a time when people couldn't even make [I]homogenous steel[/I], it doesn't work like that.
Our technology is built upon the technology of antiquity.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39647560]the evidence doesn't really point to it either. you have to assume that neuron count is static in the brain to assume that these guys with higher neuron counts are genetically smarter. this is something that we know isn't true because the amount of neurons in your brain fluctuate all the time(look at the brain of someone who suffers a stroke, their brain heals and adapts over time).
it's quite easy to assume that people have less neurons in their brain when they don't actually use that part of the brain much. it would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint as well because more neurons = more energy consumption, so eliminating unused neurons would decrease energy usage and give an evolutionary advantage.[/QUOTE]
Quite. At the same time, examining the dimensional differences in brain components between your standard, 21st century urban human being, and a group of human beings who haven't bred outside of their tribe for thousands of years, I'd call that at least circumstantial.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39646539]I don't see Athenians of 1000BC walking on the fucking moon, or living in orbit, or even understanding how the tools to get there function. I don't see any ancient nuclear power plants or airstrips in ancient Greek ruins. I don't see any ancient Greek gas stations or commuter trains, I don't see any [b]ancient Greek computers[/b][/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism[/url]
Some things are kinda obvious, even without the help of advanced technology.
You can refute most quack medicines through some simple reasoning and equipment.
[QUOTE=archangel125;39647596]Quite. At the same time, examining the dimensional differences in brain components between your standard, 21st century urban human being, and a group of human beings who haven't bred outside of their tribe for thousands of years, I'd call that at least circumstantial.[/QUOTE]
i'd call it preliminary evidence that suggests that brain structure of urban humans and isolated populations have differences between them. you can make all sorts of hypotheses from that bit of data.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39647686]i'd call it preliminary evidence that suggests that brain structure of urban humans and isolated populations have differences between them. you can make all sorts of hypotheses from that bit of data.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if they cross-checked against isolated aboriginal populations that DID have a written language. That'd be a better piece of evidence.
I don't think we are getting stupid, I think the average amount of closed-mindedness has increased.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
