Is humanity getting dumber and dumber? - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15210905
While we have been aware of the problems with lead poisoning since ancient times, we only acted on it quite recently, as one of my critics pointed out.

This means that the negative effects of lead would only be absent in the last few generations.

All other things being equal, this means that the most recent generations should be smarter.
#15210906
Pants-of-dog wrote:While we have been aware of the problems with lead poisoning since ancient times, we only acted on it quite recently, as one of my critics pointed out.

This means that the negative effects of lead would only be absent in the last few generations.

All other things being equal, this means that the most recent generations should be smarter.


Your simplistic interpretation of the word 'environmental' in the study is wrong as stated in the previous post and does not mean a decline in 'nutrition'. Moreover, your theory sounds a bit more than ridiculous because it does not explain the cognitive bell curve of the US, Norway, UK, Germany, Denmark and so many others.

But more importantly, you are clearly misinterpreting the word 'environmental' in the study:

In Table 1, we categorize the main hypotheses according to whether or not they allow for within-family Flynn effects. A metareview of empirical studies argues that the positive Flynn effect relates to improved education and nutrition, combined with reduced pathogen stress (2). Turning to the negative Flynn effect, the metareview notes a deceleration of IQ gains in some studies and suggests that these may relate to (i) decreasing returns to environmental inputs (“saturation”) or (ii) the “picking up of effects that cause IQ decreases and may ultimately reverse the Flynn effect,” such as dysgenic fertility (2). Dysgenic fertility is also the favored hypothesis in a recent literature review on reversed Flynn effects, where the authors conclude that dysgenic trends are the “simplest explanation for the negative Flynn effect” (6). A negative intelligence–fertility gradient is hypothesized to have been disguised by a positive environmental Flynn effect, revealing itself in data only “once the ceiling of the Flynn effect was reached.” The review further suggests that this direct genetic effect may be amplified by a social multiplier. Additional hypotheses for both the positive and negative Flynn effects are drawn from a survey of intelligence researchers (7), a subsample of whom claimed specific expertise on the Flynn effect. These researchers largely agreed with the metareview on the environmental factors driving the positive Flynn effect. The researchers were also asked about retrograde effects, with the question “In your opinion, if there is an end or retrograde of the Flynn-effect in industrial nations, what are the most plausible scientific theories to explain this development?” Here, the highest scores were assigned to dysgenic fertility, immigration, and reduced education standards.


noemon previously in this thread wrote:
The 6 cognitive skills are these ones.

When one compares the lifestyles of today with the lifestyles of the past, one can clearly see that today domestication is severely reducing the input values for these skills.
#15210907
wat0n wrote:There's also the issue of infant nutrition and similar environmental pressures. I'm guessing Greeks were worse off on that end than a contemporary westerner. Of course, here I'm thinking about IQ as a measure of intelligence and not others.

@XogGyux I find that paper on France to be quite interesting. Not so much about the Flynn effect turning negative being driven by the culturally sensitive parts of the IQ testing instrument, but that the rest is basically flat. IIRC the Flynn effect was positive throughout the 20th century, amounting to increases of 3 points per decade. Isn't the fact that it may now be around 0 itself a big deal?

Why would it be a big deal if it remained around 0? Do you expect a significant increase of human IQ over time? Perhaps over evolutionary times (hundreds of thousands of years) but not over a few decades, and that is assuming we are still under evolutionary pressure which is itself controversial.
I think the main issue is to understand the limitations of the tests and the conclusions. Tests like these have been used to justify an intellectual cognitive difference between blacks/white or male/female for instance. That is certainly not the can of worm that I wish to open at this point. But I hope you can understand why we have to be careful with its interpretation.
Cultural changes are very important. But not only the cultural changes due to immigration, but also the cultural changes that occur with time.
#15210912
XogGyux wrote:Why would it be a big deal if it remained around 0? Do you expect a significant increase of human IQ over time? Perhaps over evolutionary times (hundreds of thousands of years) but not over a few decades, and that is assuming we are still under evolutionary pressure which is itself controversial.
I think the main issue is to understand the limitations of the tests and the conclusions. Tests like these have been used to justify an intellectual cognitive difference between blacks/white or male/female for instance. That is certainly not the can of worm that I wish to open at this point. But I hope you can understand why we have to be careful with its interpretation.
Cultural changes are very important. But not only the cultural changes due to immigration, but also the cultural changes that occur with time.


A break in a century-long trend is not noteworthy in your view? :?:
#15210913
Pants-of-dog wrote:While we have been aware of the problems with lead poisoning since ancient times, we only acted on it quite recently, as one of my critics pointed out.

This means that the negative effects of lead would only be absent in the last few generations.

All other things being equal, this means that the most recent generations should be smarter.

Yes, but all things are not equal at all. We have added hundreds of chemicals to our food chain and air since that time.

So only in the future will humans maybe find out what we are doing to our brains right now.

You are gleefully positing that we aren't ingesting any mind-sapping chemicals in the present. And if you had been around posting in super-leaded 1974, you would have said the same thing about how clean everything was at that moment in history (between puffs of your low-tar menthol cigarette).
#15210915
Please note that the argument about lead had nothing to do with the study. Instead of using an environmental factor from the study, I used lead because it was more verifiable than the examples mentioned in the study..

If we now look at the factors mentioned in tge study , we see the study suggests two possible reasons why IQ gains are slowing down.

The first is "decreasing returns to environmental inputs (“saturation”) ". This is not only difficult to quantify, but also seems impossible to verify. But even if we assume the least favourable conditions for growth of intelligence, this only reduces the benefits. People are still getting smarter. It just takes longer and takes more energy.

The second factor mentioned is "the “picking up of effects that cause IQ decreases and may ultimately reverse the Flynn effect,” such as dysgenic fertility". The paper itself goes on to discuss why this is probably not true. This is why the study cites environmental causes instead.
#15210916
These 3 causes are what the study describes as “environmental”.

The dysgenic effect being the most prominent.

3 posts wasted on literacy explanations to a guy who claimed to be literately superior to several people.

:roll:

Try reading the paper and comprehending the meaning of words and sentences before posting, please.

If you are faking illiteracy then you are spamming.
#15210920
Now, while the study mentioned those two factors as possible reasons for less gains in intelligence, it also mentioned three possible causes for IQ gains.

It makes sense to assume that these factors could reduce intelligence if these factors were reversed.

The first of the factors mentioned in the study is " improved education". There are two ways of comparing the classical era and the modern one: how widespread the education, and the quality thereof. It is inarguably true that more people receive a quality education than during the classical era. So in that respect we can see hat there are more people benefiting from improved education than ever before, and consequently more of us are enjoying these benefits. Secondly, the quality of our education has improved because we can now use the scientific method to determine how successful our education programs are and how we can improve them.

The second factor is “improved….nutrition”. Again, we can see how widespread improved nutrition is and the quality thereof. The Green Revolution made nutritious food available to large portions of the world that had been unable to do so before, and has undoubtedly made improved nutrition far more commonplace. And as to the quality, we also can say that we now have access to science that helps us improve the quality of nutrition in a way that was impossible for people 2500 (or even 250) years ago.

The third factor is “reduced pathogen stress”. Now, while Mycanean royalty had flushing toilets and Rome had aqueducts, the vast majority of human settlements at the time had no sanitation systems, meaning human waste was often present in the immediate environment. This significantly increases the likelihood of infection and would have been reduced until the industrial era in the west.
#15210922
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is inarguably true that more people receive a quality education than during the classical era.


No it isn't. It is just your own assumption based on nothing combined with your ignorance. You were unaware just a moment ago that they even had an education.

Ancient Athenian children were tutored in arithmetic, grammar, rhetoric, astronomy, geometry, music and logic. They went on to invent theatres, drama, comedy, philosophy, science, history, rhetoric, gyms, lawyers, courts, ballots and democracy. Is modern democracy today superior to ancient Athenian? Nowhere near, is modern art superior to Athenian art? Again nowhere near, are modern buildings superior to the ancient ones? :lol: Then how are the individuals responsible for them? :eh:

Alexander had Aristotle as a tutor and made the impossible a reality. Was your teacher at school as smart and as intelligent as Aristotle? or as Epictetus the slave or as Aesop another slave? Can you even follow a rudimentary arithmetic or geometrical argument written out in full?

Can you understand elementary level math by reading Euclid's elements?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27 ... athematics.

I bet my left nut that you are incapable of reading elementary level math, yet you claim that you possess a superior education.

Prove it to yourself. Read the book, it's elementary level math you already "know". 1 post ago, you failed to read an English paragraph correctly 3 times and you had to receive literacy instructions while claiming that you are a multi-lingual, multi-cultural titan of literacy.

Seriously, how is your education any good and allegedly superior?

The second factor is “improved….nutrition”. Again, we can see how widespread improved nutrition is and the quality thereof. The Green Revolution made nutritious food available to large portions of the world that had been unable to do so before, and has undoubtedly made improved nutrition far more commonplace. And as to the quality, we also can say that we now have access to science that helps us improve the quality of nutrition in a way that was impossible for people 2500 (or even 250) years ago.

The third factor is “reduced pathogen stress”. Now, while Mycanean royalty had flushing toilets and Rome had aqueducts, the vast majority of human settlements at the time had no sanitation systems, meaning human waste was often present in the immediate environment. This significantly increases the likelihood of infection and would have been reduced until the industrial era in the west.


Your nonsense is boring claims about other parts of the world, comparing apples with oranges shamelessly. There are several parts of the world today that have not managed to achieve the sanitation and nutrition level of 5000 year old Greece. Neither had the west itself up until 100 years ago. :roll:

How do you explain this?

The overwhelming majority of ancient Greeks dying of natural causes lived beyond the age of 70, modern countries did not achieve this even with modern hospitals and sanitation, several of them have still not managed to achieve it and those who have, struggle to maintain it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It makes sense to assume that these factors could reduce intelligence if these factors were reversed.


They have not been reversed though. Your reading of the word 'environmental' in the study still remains illiterate and demonstrates beyond any doubt that you are effectively illiterate.
#15210925
wat0n wrote:I've got no idea as to whether we are smarter than people in the Ancient Era, but it does seem the Flynn Effect may have stagnated or even reversed in some countries, relative to (say) 50 years ago. This would all be due to environmental factors:

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674


Could some of this be due to mass immigration from developing countries in the West starting in the 70's because the source counties have inferior education and most source cultures put less emphasis on education attainment for their children?
#15210926
It could but no amount of immigrants warrants such a reduction in and of itself. And besides immigration in these countries was always high and even more so in the US and the UK since a very long time ago.

There is a perfectly valid explanation for this which is the natural order of things.

All organisms follow a bell curve of birth, growth, withering and death. Everything from individuals to tribes, companies, corporations, nations, empires follows the exact same pattern without miss.

Ancient Greek philosophers were possessed with this question of the bell-curve of life. Only extremely stupid people believe in linear progression.
#15210962
wat0n wrote:A break in a century-long trend is not noteworthy in your view? :?:

It depends of what you attribute this trend to. For instance, if you assume the trend is measuring a real change, you could postulate that it could be due to improved nutrition over time. However, there is an upper limit to which you can improve nutrition, once this limit is reached/optimal you would expect the trend to stop as well.
But you can also postulate multiple explanations. For instance, if you hypothesize that the raise in IQ is related to the phasing out of lead in gasoline, you would expect that once we reach the minimum blood levels, that the trend of increase will platau.
Flynn himself gave a tedtalk in 2013 which is very insightful.

His views seems to be that we have taught newer generations about abstract thinking and logic. This ofcourse would also explain the raise in IQ and could also explain a platau once you optimize the curriculum.
During the last few years of his life, he offered a few interviews and he does have quite strong views regarding what he perceives as newer generations not reading as much and/or not learning about history. But again, this is also a tangential point.

The world is constantly becoming more complex. Imagine how much complexity, how much information, knowledge we need and use on our daily lives compared to just a few decades ago, let alone thousands of years. Imagine a world that is moving towards more complex, while the people living in that world are moving towards dumber selves. Such a world would be total, utter madness. It is like giving a calculus problem to a 12th grader, seeing that he/she cannot solve it and then going to a 5th grader and expecting this one can do it. And we are to be bamboozled into this sort of thinking by proving that a xantia activa is a better car on a moose test? Please. :lol:
#15210968
POD wrote:It is inarguably true that more people receive a quality education than during the classical era.

You kidding me? Acient athenians started going to school at 3y of age, the curriculum included a 4:30am - 5:30 of cello practice, a 5:30am - 7:30pm of marble sculturing, 7:30-7:35 breakfast time when they would have 2 granola bars, 1 banana and alkaline water, 7:35-9am algebra, 9-10 foreign language practice, 10-11am was for physical activities where they would go into a peloton but at the same time they would be listening to a podcast about ancient Mesopotamia or egypt. Between 11am and 12noon they would attend culinary practice where they would go to create multicultural dishes from all around the world, and then they would eat them during their lunch break between 12-and 12:05, fast meal. At 12:05-1pm it is time for math again, this time calculus and they would transition to 3 hours of physics from 1pm-4pm. Then at 4pm they would go into alchemy class *cough cough*, chemistry, for 1 hour and they then spend 1 hour until 5pm analyzing the data from the coliseum super-collider. Between 5pm-6pm is time for the arts again, at this time they would usually paint beautiful canvases and between 6-7 pm they would inmerse themselves into the arts of wine tasting. By 7pm it is time again to have a snack so they would take a break until 7:05 to eat a fruit or something. Then they would have 55mins to rest, take a bath, massage and had to be back to study around 8pm, and under the night sky they would go to the Athenian observatory to calculate the orbits of the planets and learn about astrophysics.
By 9, it is time to go to bed. We are talking about 3-year-olds toddlers here, they need to go to sleep early. :lol: :lol:
#15210971
Humans are getting smarter, not dumber. We've just hit a plateau where the increase is very small. The information we have to learn is exponentially higher than what was needed even 100 years ago.

Is there a perception that we are getting dumber? Sure. I don't think that can stand against even the most basic critical thinking, however.
#15210982
Xog wrote:His views seems to be that we have taught newer generations about abstract thinking and logic.


Which is precisely what I have been arguing. Flynn's statements are consistent with my arguments in here. Euclid's Elements is the fundamental book on abstract relationships and logic as is Plato & Aristotle. It only applies to those following a particular educational tradition and not to "humanity" as a whole as you mistakenly claimed.

Xog wrote:This ofcourse would also explain the raise in IQ and could also explain a platau once you optimize the curriculum.


Which is consistent with my bell-curve theory and not your linear progression claim. You fail to account for the degrading of the curriculum as well the dysgenic effect. I described a form of the dysgenic effect in defense of this argument here:

noemon wrote:People need more enlightening today than they did in the Roman Empire in the 3rd century CE. This world we live in today in the current cycle has been advanced for much less time than those people had been.

We will reach their equivalent level of secular & urban development in about 500-600 years from now(if we do not collapse in the process) and this does not change because of modernity & communications because the global population increases faster than that. There will always be more idiots than educated and the percentages between them on a global scale is not affected by technology certainly not positively which means it could take even longer to reach to the level(same kind of percentages between educated* & not) of the people during Constantine's time.

People assume that they live in a world that is morally/intellectually, psychologically and develop-mentally more advanced than it was in the year 330CE in the Roman Empire, but it's not true. Factually it isn't.

Think about this in your mind. It's a profound thing to understand.


Humans are getting smarter, not dumber.


Modern humans in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, and German-speaking countries are showing clear elements of downgraded cognition.

the Research suggests that there may be an ongoing reversed Flynn effect, i.e. a decline in IQ scores, in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, and German-speaking countries,[4] a development which appears to have started in the 1990s.[5][6][7][8].


The bell curve is now graphic which is plain enough:

Image

Imagine a world that is moving towards more complex, while the people living in that world are moving towards dumber selves.


The world that the people in here live in is in total stasis, stagnation, delapidation and retreat on all levels, economic, industrial, technological, political, infrastructural & educational.

Laying on the laurels of the golden age of the previous century is merely wishing away reality by romanticizing the immediate past as your own well-earned present. It doesn't work that way. People getting dumber has nothing to do with the world moving towards the 'more complex' whatever that means. A person can get dumber regardless of which direction the world is moving towards and people get dumber by being less capable/receptive to reasoned logic as Flynn tells you explicitly.
#15210990
The term Bell Curve has a very specific term meaning in science and it refers to the normal distribution of a variable (such as height, weight, IQ).
It is a probability function and it graphs frequency/probability on the Y axis vs the range of values for a variable of interest on the X axis. Here are some examples
Image
Image
Image
Image
Notice that the Y axis always denotes the frequency while the X axis denotes the range of possible values.

A graph that denotes changes of IQ vs Year is not a normal distribution chart, no matter how similar the shape is to that of a bell. Implying otherwise is just butchering basic statistics.

I do not wish to discuss dysgenics or eugenics at all. There is no credible evidence and I'll leave it at that.
Last edited by XogGyux on 08 Feb 2022 04:08, edited 2 times in total.
#15211005
XogGyux wrote:It depends of what you attribute this trend to. For instance, if you assume the trend is measuring a real change, you could postulate that it could be due to improved nutrition over time. However, there is an upper limit to which you can improve nutrition, once this limit is reached/optimal you would expect the trend to stop as well.
But you can also postulate multiple explanations. For instance, if you hypothesize that the raise in IQ is related to the phasing out of lead in gasoline, you would expect that once we reach the minimum blood levels, that the trend of increase will platau.
Flynn himself gave a tedtalk in 2013 which is very insightful.

His views seems to be that we have taught newer generations about abstract thinking and logic. This ofcourse would also explain the raise in IQ and could also explain a platau once you optimize the curriculum.
During the last few years of his life, he offered a few interviews and he does have quite strong views regarding what he perceives as newer generations not reading as much and/or not learning about history. But again, this is also a tangential point.

The world is constantly becoming more complex. Imagine how much complexity, how much information, knowledge we need and use on our daily lives compared to just a few decades ago, let alone thousands of years. Imagine a world that is moving towards more complex, while the people living in that world are moving towards dumber selves. Such a world would be total, utter madness. It is like giving a calculus problem to a 12th grader, seeing that he/she cannot solve it and then going to a 5th grader and expecting this one can do it. And we are to be bamboozled into this sort of thinking by proving that a xantia activa is a better car on a moose test? Please. :lol:


All of what you say is important, yes, but the mere fact that we've reached a stage where the trend broke is by itself important... Regardless of the reason. What consequences could we expect here?
#15211013
wat0n wrote:All of what you say is important, yes, but the mere fact that we've reached a stage where the trend broke is by itself important... Regardless of the reason. What consequences could we expect here?

We are just looking at a blip of human history and analyzing a tiny portion of the population. It's like an ant standing on leave and claiming the universe is green.
Here is a better question, are we truly measuring intelligence with an IQ test?
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 15

For those who apparently did not see this post pro[…]

A new film has been released destroying the offic[…]

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]