Whenever I'm watching The Princess Bride and Wallace Shawn says "Never get involved in a land war in Asia!" I always laugh but others of my generation don't seem to understand the reference. 

Interesting thread.

 

In my preAP World Geography class, I see all kinds of people too... Some have never left my COUNTY.

 

However, you have to think about this for a second. Not everyone has money to go around the world travelling. This doesn't, however, impede them from demonstrating an interest in outside culture though, but it's still something to ponder about.

Printing press brought revolutions in lots of spheres. Internet is slowly rearranging the relationship between societies across state and national borders. Government role is changing to they have to more transparent than 40 years where trade whisky and chickens get permits.

If you Google "Are we getting dumber?"[...]

 

Another study at the University of Amsterdam says that we are getting stupider now because, in the good old days, really stupid members of any species would get eaten by other species, thereby "thinning the herd" in a positive manner. Now, humans generally don't get eaten by wild animals anymore, so some members of our population that we might be better off without end up living at least to reproductive age, before they end up in one of those "hold my beer and watch this!" moments.

Yikes. I must admit I hardly google such terms, for good reason. But if you like to, perhaps post the actual links as I wonder how such studies were set up, introduced and if the summarisation of yours does them justice. This isn't because I don't trust you but because information travels along different lines. I currently would assume that they were set up as a mind experiment, not as something reflecting actual events.

 

I was wondering where to start on that 'we don't get eaten by wild animals anymore' focus. I was thinking about 'thinning the herd in a positive manner' much longer though. That's from knowing, same as you, how such a message would smash open the door to all kind of 'uses', some of them not being anywhere close to a) scientific evidence and b ) a modern understanding of a society with available elements of of equality and justice for all.

 

How a herd got thinned out. Sticking with the logics of 'only intelligent beings survived in the past' is not only drastically simplified but also very wrong. To give an example, our opposable thumbs may have lead to much more progress in regard to survival rates than 'simple' intelligence.

 

And there isn't much about intelligence when you are supposed to outrun your enemy (the animal from your example) to prevent your death. Same goes for behaving less intelligent, become addicted or just being exposed to health risks and environments your body can't deal with.

 

Adding some more examples, it's not unlikely that the Neanderthals had more potential in the intelligence chapter than the Home sapiens which lead to our existence. Neanderthals went extinct.

 

I must point out that 'the survival of the fittest' thinking must be among the most misused and misunderstood one of all times. To be precise, the inventor of that phrase did not mix it up. The fittest, when just looking at survival rates, isn't the most intelligent or the strongest, but the best adapted organism. Evolution theory.

 

By this, a large brain with the need for proper and sustained nutrition can develop into a major downside in regard to the surrounding conditions. It's the package which has to survive to then have offspring, multiply and, in the end, evolve. And even this evolution isn't driven by any force automatically leading to the absolute intelligence or the best predator but to 'just' the most dominant organism in its class and environment. A character trait which seems to have entered the economical world just like that by the way. Switched play-fields.

 

If you ever had the pleasure of being attacked by way 'dumber' but highly specialised organisms, you will surely be able to relate to the fact that intelligence doesn't win this game, but proper and instant medical care might do.

 

So there's a point where the transportation and availability of knowledge gains importance. Even the most intelligent animals roughly start with reinventing the wheel every time. Dear evolutionary scientist may accept my apologies for summing it up like that. But there's a point in developing group skills, teaching skills. One of them, survival. You need to have a certain degree (not the highest) of potential to gain knowledge and learn things, then you need a group to teach you. Homo sapiens in a nut shell.

 

Leave one factor out, i.e. the teaching of kids (there are rare cases of 'feral kids studies') and see how the same potential, the same human ability to learn, is no longer a solid factor for ensuring survival. Opposable thumps still are by the way.

 

One could argue that knowledge derived from intelligent human beings, which is true, but it's not like one has to be as intelligent as they (inventors) were when it comes to applying the correct therapy. The determination of that theory of course is another matter. So intelligence can be a factor, but the same goes for e.g. empathy, the actual physics and the ability to adapt quickly and in the right direction.

 

And, in hindsight, did we just make sure to not get eaten or did we, the human race, develop much more than that, together? I tend to point to the latter and would leave a comment on how that, assumed, win over e.g. the animal kingdom lead to the ability to develop enough greed and strange ideologies to now target ourselves. It would call it funny, if it was. :mellow:

 

 

But if you like to, perhaps post the actual links as I wonder how such studies were set up, introduced and if the summarisation of yours does them justice.

 

I intentionally did not post links, because there were quite a few and I didn't want to cherry pick.  But, the mathematical / genetic one is here:

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/16/165278524/are-we-getting-dumber-maybe-scientist-says

 

The hungry beasts model is presented here:

 

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/are-we-getting-dumber

 

Both are media transcripts, not the papers themselves, by the way, but there's enough information to find the originals if you're interested.

Thanks for providing some links.

 

Must say, I don't think I would have posted the second link as a source for anything. That's not meant to offend you but mainly to point out that I would have a hard time writing a more biased, unscientific and misleading article.

 

The startup with what seems to be a beauty queen sort of sets the mark for me. Stereotypes and no direct links to sources. Also, he makes it sound as if natural selection would always opt for the most intelligent being and as if it was the only selection taking place in the path of evolution. Both statements are wrong.

 

But the first article (which is an interview, right?) is better, while I like to point out that you seem to combine the findings in some way. There's one scientist at Stanford School of Medicine trying to mathematically approach the variations and mutations in the human genome. No problem with that.

 

Then there are some other, unnamed, scientists which seem to get summarised as 'no/less natural selection anymore, hence the average person loses intelligence' which, as outlined above, might be a much too short and simplified version of what they have written.

 

Still, why would one combine those two things? The Stanford School of Medicine guy doesn't claim any causes, he reports his results. And if I state that my current result equals 42, you can't necessarily tell which equation lead to it.

 

Have to revise that one. Seems like he indeed claims some causes, either getting quoted in the wrong context or really mixing up what 'survival of the fittest' means. A focus on the intelligence factor for reasons I don't know. If anyone can explain that to me, I'd be more than thankful.

 

Don't get that wrong, I don't question his mathematical viewpoint on the mutations (mainly due lack of data) but I do wonder what part of this data would enable you to look what actually lead to the offspring. Us.

 

Regarding the reproduction rates, the selection isn't something which has vanished in our times. So even if that wild animal doesn't enter your town, poverty might.

The idea of a lack of predators affecting natural selection was part of the premise behind the movie "Idiocracy." Intelligent couples choosing to have fewer children, while the idiots breed left and right. Eventually the idiots run the world, and you get your law degree from a Costco.

 

It's satire, and I'm not going to debate the scientific validity of its premise, but the frightening thing and what made the movie funny is the scenario depicted, while exaggerated, wasn't completely implausible.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

 

That's not meant to offend you but mainly to point out that I would have a hard time writing a more biased, unscientific and misleading article.

 

Yeah, my intent was to report on the state of "academic" research, not to push either of these theories.  For one thing, I was really bothered by the implication in the "genetic" study that all mutations are "defects" that will reduce intelligence.  How does that author think we got here in the first place?  The whole idea of evolution is that the net result of mutation is positive, not negative.

 

My own personal theory is that, at some point, we will have to stop representing IQ (or whatever) as a single, monolithic gaussian curve, and instead see it as two overlapping curves, a large curve pretty much like we have now, with a center just a bit lower, and a smaller curve off to the right where "smarter" people form a separate population.  Social and economic mobility in our society allows this to happen, and allows the populations to intermix.  The intermixing will "deplete" the gene pool of the lower group while enhancing that of the upper group.

I see. Lets just be clear that even if we assumed certain individuals to have a 'too low' intelligence, this doesn't automatically render them less valuable for a society. As explained before, that society and group factor forms up a major advantage of our species. It wasn't just about the brains. And nutty brains even are a disadvantage. So that intermixing status indeed offers some benefits. Agreed.

 

Needless to say that for instance creativity, braveness or even simple mechanical skills do have their place and don't necessarily involve the smartest folks by IQ-testing standards. The other example would be that smart person not being able to transport what he means. Wait, I have a university flashback. :Hypnotized:

 

Well, to maybe conclude, same as most of you, I fear the day of arriving at a society where nobody is able to tell what's wrong with this picture. Well I also fear the one where everybody is leaned and optimised, even in his views. By this, I'm off drilling some holes in the cheese, that's my work.

 

Disclaimer. That was part of a funny campaign I think. You are still save to eat the old boring things. :smile: Let us know how they compare to the new stuff.