Humans are getting less intelligent

[questionmark]

Our technology may be getting smarter, but a provocative new study suggests human intelligence is on the decline. In fact, it indicates that Westerners have lost 14 I.Q. points on average since the Victorian Era.

What exactly explains this decline? Study co-author Dr. Jan te Nijenhuis, professor of work and organizational psychology at the University of Amsterdam, points to the fact that women of high intelligence tend to have fewer children than do women of lower intelligence. This negative association between I.Q. and fertility has been demonstrated time and again in research over the last century.

But this isn't the first evidence of a possible decline in human intelligence.

Read more

I been suspecting that for quite a time now but attributed it to being an old fart....

[bubblykiss]

Enters Walmart.....does not need a study to confirm observations.

edit;

Wait, I figured it out, it takes more intelligence to effective subjugate and rule a large empire rather than just getting along with other people and hugging out all of your problems.

Clearly we need more wars to clean out the gene pool, along with poor sanitation and less medicine so only the toughest, most vile and loathsome examples of humanity can outwit Cradle Death Syndrome and foreign nations thus ensuring a slightly more intelligence in the near future....at least until Walmart start hosting orgies and breeding parties for the lowest of our base humanity.

Edited August 27, 2014 by bubblykiss

[Eldorado]

Yep. Never underestimate the stupidity of an idiot.

[Grandpa Greenman]

To know why one only needs to read Children's books from the Victorian era and current children's books. Education has been dumb down, so they can produce complacent citizens. I think is it back firing on them, though.

[Taun]

My father always said "there isn't enough chlorine in the gene pool"...

[bubblykiss]

To know why one only needs to read Children's books from the Victorian era and current children's books. Education has been dumb down, so they can produce complacent citizens. I think is it back firing on them, though.

Lets compare some news stories......

Headquarters Post,

Franklin, Tennessee.

June 9, 1863.

Last evening about sundown two strangers rode into camp and called at Colonel Baird’s head-quarters, who presented unusual appearances. They had on citizens’ overcoats, Federal regulation pants and caps. The caps were covered with white flannel havelocks. They wore sidearms, and showed high intelligence. One claimed to be a colonel in the United States Army, and called himself Colonel Austin; the other called himself Major Dunlap, and both representing themselves as Inspector-Generals of the United States Army. They represented that they were now out on an expedition in this department, inspecting the outposts and defenses, and that day before yesterday they had been overhauled by the enemy and lost their coats and purses. They exhibited official papers from General Rosecrans, and also from the War Department at Washington, confirming their rank and business. These were all right to Colonel Bayard, and at first satisfied him of their honesty. They asked the Colonel to loan them $50, as they had no coats and no money to buy them. Colonel Baird loaned them the money, and took Colonel Austin’s note for it. Just at dark they started, saying they were going to Nashville, and took that way. Just so soon as their horses’ heads were turned the thought of their being spies struck Colonel Baird, he says, like a thunder-bolt, and he ordered Colonel Watkins, of the 6th Kentucky cavalry, who was standing by, to arrest them immediately. But they were going at lightning speed. Colonel Watkins had no time to call a guard, and only with his orderly he set out on the chase. He ordered the orderly to unsling his carbine, and if, when he (the Colonel) halted them they showed any suspicious motions, to fire on them without waiting for an order. They were overtaken about one-third of a mile from here. Colonel Watkins told them that Colonel Baird wanted to make some further inquiries of them, and asked them to return. This they politely consented to do, after some remonstrance on account of the lateness of the hour and the distance they had to travel, and Colonel Watkins led them to his tent, where he placed a strong guard over them. It was not until one of them attempted to pass the guard at the door that they even suspected they were prisoners. Colonel Watkins immediately brought them to Colonel Baird under strong guard. They at once manifested great uneasiness, and pretended great indignation at being thus treated. Colonel Baird frankly told them that he had his suspicions of their true character, and that they should, if loyal, object to no necessary caution. They were very hard to satisfy, and were in a great hurry to get off. Colonel Baird told them that they were under arrest, and he should hold them prisoners until he was fully satisfied that they were what they purported to be. He immediately telegraphed to General Rosecrans, and received the answer that he knew nothing of any such men, that there were no such men in his employ, or had his pass.

http://dotcw.com/the-execution-of-williams-and-peters/

and now from the front page of cnn.com

(CNN) -- The young man Miley Cyrus chose to represent homeless youths at the MTV Video Music Awards on Sunday faces arrest in Oregon, a corrections official said.

An arrest warrant was issued for Jesse Helt, 22, when he stopped checking in with his probation officer for a criminal trespass conviction in November 2011, said Polk County, Oregon, Corrections Director Martin Silbernagel.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/showbiz/miley-cyrus-homeless-date/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

You can decide if one is decidedly more easier to read for a 4th grader or not.

[Neognosis]

I think this is alarmist and overly speculated BS

for instance:

ach study gauged participants' so-called visual reaction times -- how long it took them to press a button in response to seeing a stimulus. Reaction time reflects a person's mental processing speed, and so is considered an indication of general intelligence.

Really? how long it took someone to press a button? I wonder if Einstein had lightening fast reflexes. from watching old films of einstein, I would guess he did not. Processing speed also is not an indicator of overall intelligence. And the IQ test, long scorned and decried, is not an accurate indicator, and I would guess was not administered in victorian times anyhow.

This is a worthless "news" report. Though, the fact that so many are making all sorts of silly comments about it, while not noticing the OBVIOUS problems with it might indicate that the story is, ironically, on to something.

[spartan max2]

thats weird didnt know they had IQ test during the Victorian era to compare

[StRoostifer]

Please, does a person really need results of an IQ test to see the dumbing down that has been occurring. Interactions with others is all you need to see that its happening. Not much intellectual conversations these days, nope, its about useless garbage on the TV, or some idiot on YouTube, politics, etc. Its sad that people do not realize this or even worse, choose to ignore it. They just regurgitate the spoon fed crap to one another and think they are in the know and somehow intelligent because of it.

[spartan max2]

Please, does a person really need results of an IQ test to see the dumbing down that has been occurring. Interactions with others is all you need to see that its happening. Not much intellectual conversations these days, nope, its about useless garbage on the TV, or some idiot on YouTube, politics, etc. Its sad that people do not realize this or even worse, choose to ignore it. They just regurgitate the spoon fed crap to one another and think they are in the know and somehow intelligent because of it.

Your problem is thinking that this is all new.

The mob has always gossiped and liked slap stick humor throughout time.

If you dont believe me then just read "The Canterbury Tales" by Chaucer (1342-1400)

[Taun]

IMO (for what it's worth) the IQ level isn't necessarily lower.. But children have been conditioned toward having shorter attention spans (by TV, etc), and relying more on technology

for things (such as math), than figguring it out themselves...

I also feel that people aren't "dumber", they may be less well educated on certain levels, but they are not 'stupider"... (with some notable exceptions of course)...

[+OverSword]

idiocracy

[Neognosis]

Interactions with others is all you need to see that its happening. Not much intellectual conversations these days, nope,

I had a meeting at work this morning where I was brought up to speed on a class I will be developing for a customer. The specifications for a highly developed piece of technology were relayed to me. I do not think that a middle class worker, my counterpart, in victorian times would have been able to follow along and digest the information.

However, you can't draw any conclusion from that, as that worker would not have had the same education and exposure to the topic that I have.

And you can't draw any conclusion from the worthless report in the OP either.

Youtube and FOX news are just the latest iterations of the same yellow journalism and propaganda that people digested in the past, simply repackaged using new technology. Which victorians did not have to learn to use.

As for attention spans, a short attention span is not an indicator of a lack of intelligence.

[StRoostifer]

Your problem is thinking that this is all new.

The mob has always gossiped and liked slap stick humor throughout time.

If you dont believe me then just read "The Canterbury Tales" by Chaucer (1342-1400)

No problem here as I know this is nothing new, I'm just speaking from my own interactions in the time frame that I have been alive.

Fwiw, my post wasn't directed towards you. I was typing my post while you posted. Just to clarify is all.

idiocracy

Bingo. God Bless America also comes to mind.

[questionmark]

I had a meeting at work this morning where I was brought up to speed on a class I will be developing for a customer. The specifications for a highly developed piece of technology were relayed to me. I do not think that a middle class worker, my counterpart, in victorian times would have been able to follow along and digest the information.

However, you can't draw any conclusion from that, as that worker would not have had the same education and exposure to the topic that I have.

And you can't draw any conclusion from the worthless report in the OP either.

Youtube and FOX news are just the latest iterations of the same yellow journalism and propaganda that people digested in the past, simply repackaged using new technology. Which victorians did not have to learn to use.

As for attention spans, a short attention span is not an indicator of a lack of intelligence.

Intelligence has nothing to do with knowledge. Some time ago a US university conducted a test under aboriginal people in Australia, Africa and South America and discovered that there are people who cannot write but can score over 140.

[bubblykiss]

IMO (for what it's worth) the IQ level isn't necessarily lower.. But children have been conditioned toward having shorter attention spans (by TV, etc), and relying more on technology

for things (such as math), than figguring it out themselves...

I also feel that people aren't "dumber", they may be less well educated on certain levels, but they are not 'stupider"... (with some notable exceptions of course)...

Norman Mailer wrote a great article for Playboy about this years and years ago.

And why was I *reading* a Playboy....well...er....I saw an article and totally did not read it....too busy not reading......drat...busted....

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, i think it is true that everyone expects that everything will be provided for them by some external source, and so they don't have the general knowledge that used to be commonplace about where food comes from, for example, or how to make anything, since all they need do if something wears out is buy another one, they don't need (or at least, don't have, because they never think they might need) any knowledge about how to find their way around, since they use their Phone or that little nannying voice in their car tells them where to go, and so on for a very long list. And of course, not many people have any conception of critical thinking or questioning what they're told as fact, even though those facts (such as what they're told by governments through the Media) may directly contradict each other from one year to the next. I don't know whether that necessarily means that people are becoming less intelligent, but they do seem to believe that they don't need to use their intelligence, since someone else or some gadget can do everything or them.

[StRoostifer]

Very good post Admiral.

[St Q]

I agree. Like the poster, I'm an old fart too. I think what he means is that there seems to be a degrading standard of common sense among the population. In other words, common sense isn't as common as it used to be.

Edited August 30, 2014 by St Q

[Lilly]

Here's what I think is happening (just my personal opinion/guess). Smart people control their reproduction, they only have a couple of children in order to give their offspring advantages. Less smart people don't tend to do this, they seem to have large numbers of offspring and are unable to offer advantages. However, society picks up the slack and these children survive into adulthood and then reproduce...see the pattern here? The 'smart genetics' are being passed on to fewer and fewer numbers over time.

Now, this doesn't always apply (ex, the Kennedy family has lots of kids and advantages) but I see this as being a general social trend. Over time this trend would indeed make us less intelligent as a population. There would still be some very smart folks but the numbers of not so smart folks would increase.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

Getting? Got, long time ago

[questionmark]

Here's what I think is happening (just my personal opinion/guess). Smart people control their reproduction, they only have a couple of children in order to give their offspring advantages. Less smart people don't tend to do this, they seem to have large numbers of offspring and are unable to offer advantages. However, society picks up the slack and these children survive into adulthood and then reproduce...see the pattern here? The 'smart genetics' are being passed on to fewer and fewer numbers over time.

Now, this doesn't always apply (ex, the Kennedy family has lots of kids and advantages) but I see this as being a general social trend. Over time this trend would indeed make us less intelligent as a population. There would still be some very smart folks but the numbers of not so smart folks would increase.

That and the fact that very intelligent mothers tend to have very intelligent children but are less eager to reproduce makes it the snake that eats its tail.

[Lilly]

That and the fact that very intelligent mothers tend to have very intelligent children but are less eager to reproduce makes it the snake that eats its tail.

Not so sure if intelligent women are "less eager" but they do tend to think things through (make sure they have proper resources) before having children. They also seem (from my personal observation) to have fewer children. Add this to the fact (and it really is a fact) that men (yes, even intelligent men) don't particularly care for smart women.

[questionmark]

Not so sure if intelligent women are "less eager" but they do tend to think things through (make sure they have proper resources) before having children. They also seem (from my personal observation) to have fewer children. Add this to the fact (and it really is a fact) that men (yes, even intelligent men) don't particularly care for smart women.

That is what has always surprised me, seems to be that the main evolutionary trait of humans is not "sexy"... but then it could be that most men are just incredibly dense....

[back to earth]

Rudolf Steiner wrote the same back then. Yes, I think so too, people are getting less smart / wise/ skilled intelligent / all the time , perhaps even at an exponential rate.

Admiral Rhubarbs post above was good. Thats a lot to do with it.

The Bogman (apparently) could find ore, mine it, smelt it and cast his own bronze axe (perhaps a lot of individuals could back then ? ) ... the scientists that tried to emulate it made inferiors.

I used to be able to fix my car ... now I open the hood and doesnt even look like an engine.

Specialisation makes us technically smart in one area but generally dumb as we focus on one thing and not a wide enough range.

I have had people come here to visit in my cabin in the forest, from the city or a country town and they cant even light a fire and keep it going long enough to cook food or keep warm. And while I watch them, they are finding it really hard to learn by trial error even .... keep relighting the fire and putting too large pieces on or use damp material.

Thats pretty serious ... we are talking about fire here, supposedly the basic human differential trait.

People, when living more naturally, learn skills and principles based on the natural world that are transferable to other areas in the natural world ... when they are removed from that, their learning stimulus is removed too.

Other dynamics : yes TV and crap films ... okay one can cite Chaucer and slapstick bawdyism .... but they never had car commercials

and

Stupidynamics

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/illuminatipapers.pdf

p 143 (on the side space bar).

The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity ;

http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/stupidity/

OOOOPS!

I mean ; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dA-ZoY25k0PWtG2ffjHBBt3iWp0yJN1E1sa31Q-zcgo/edit?pli=1

Edited August 31, 2014 by back to earth