Does devolution have any basis?

[Zechnophobe]

For those of you who don't know devolution is that theory that the average intelligence of the human species has been going down in the past ten years.Do the people of the escapist think that this could actually be proof of devolution or is it sort of a recetion in human inteligence (much like the dark ages before the renisance)and if you do belive its just a recetion what do you belive could have caused it? Could it have been the giant resurgence of religion (much like the the dark ages) or could it be a different cause?

Sources? Is there a particularly well written version of this theory? Or is it just the Idiocracy fallacy showing up again? I mean, we do lots of IQ tests on children as they age, is there any data to support that average intelligence is lowering (Average IQ will always be 100, but does 100 today mean the same it did 50 years ago).

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Well IQ levels have remained constant over the past decades. Though the thing about IQ levels is that it is balanced so 100 remains the average. Not a lot of people know that. (EDIT: and it was mentioned in the post above me)

Also De-Evolution (I first thought the thread would be about Scottish devolution) doesn't really exist. It would only be such if a species changed back along previous lines (like humans becoming apes again). I think that the human race as a species is not undergoing evolution right now. I think we've levelled off (I'm in the punctuated equilibrium camp).

 

[II2]

I don't think so at all... If anything, I think the availability of information and the complexities of the neural/synaptic conditioning surrounding the use of technology and it's challenges is improving intelligence and problem solving in the wide demographics of those to whom it's available.

Computers are, inherently, intelligence amplifiers. Even a simple digital calculator allows the user to tackle more cerebral and "high end" problems by eliminating so much of the 'heavy lifting' our parents and their parents struggled with (speaking generally).

What I think we'll see, as a result of this industrialization of human intelligence is not so much devolution but evolution of more specialized intelligences, or spectrum of intelligence.

Still, early stages, totally hypothetical, inna' final analysis: who knows?

 

[James Raynor]

Evolution does not work that way.

 

[Plurralbles]

nope. but oh how I love how XKCD handled it in one of its comics.

 

[Thaluikhain]

What has the increased amount of information and tools available got to do with the people who can use it? Less ignorance, more efficiency, sure, but not more intelligence.

 

[Spacelord]

The average intelligence quotient relative to earlier norm groups keeps increasing yearly. This increase is reasonably stable.

 

[Lyx]

It's rather hard to discuss this, if the topic is undefined. What is "intelligence"? What is "evolution/deevolution"? The way you use it, you imply that evolution implies "good" changes, while deevolution implies "bad" changes - what is considered good here, and what is considered bad? (this is not a moral question - i'm simply lacking a definition here).

Anyways, if we consider "mental development towards more efficient analyzation of data" good, so the capability to distinguish (logical) nonsense from stuff that (logically) makes sense... then i'd say with current culture it would be SURPRISING if deevolution wouldn't happen.

Remember all the "postmodern" theories that were painted 30 or even 20 years ago? The worst case scenarios about how this culture could turn into a bunch of numb channel-hoppers? All the talk about info-overload and people giving up to "filter"? Well, that's here now. Goebbels would be proud.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

No. It's a load of rubbish.

Don't really know what else to say. Human intelligence isn't on a downward slide at all.

Nailed on the first post.

There's no evidence... As far as we can tell, our capacity is no lesser or greater than it was in the stone-age.

Evolution simply isn't a straight line. Even if intelligence were generally lowering(which it isn't), it'd still be evolution rather than "de-evolution"...because it would suggest that it was advantageous.

The fallacy is in trying to force your own standards onto something that doesn't give a rats ass about what you think is beneficial.

 

[spartan231490]

For those of you who don't know devolution is that theory that the average intelligence of the human species has been going down in the past ten years.Do the people of the escapist think that this could actually be proof of devolution or is it sort of a recetion in human inteligence (much like the dark ages before the renisance)and if you do belive its just a recetion what do you belive could have caused it? Could it have been the giant resurgence of religion (much like the the dark ages) or could it be a different cause?

Firstly, it's not religion, just no. Religion doesn't make you stupid, the argument could be made that it supports ignorance, but even that is stretching it.
secondly, it's tough to say. I see a lot of stupid people, like the kind of stupid that makes you amazed that they can walk and breathe at the same time, but is this a result of lowering intelligence, or poor education?
My bet is the poor education, I mean, no child left behind should more accurately be called: every child left behind. And that's only one facet of why modern education,(in America, I have no knowledge of the rest of the world) even in universities, is completely down the shithole.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Then why are the national average results for A-Levels and GCSEs rising? Don't tell me the tests are getting easier, because that's bullshit. They're always a rehash of past papers.

Added to what everyone else has said, it's safe to say this theory has more holes than a colander at a firing range.

 

[Woodsey]

Evolution takes place over millions of years, yet people suggest devolution can occur in 10?

Seriously?

 

[Daverson]

Well, you see, The Welsh and Scottish people aren't fully represented by the Parliament in London so...
wait...

*Reads first post*

No it doesn't. That's not how evolution works.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

Evolution takes place over millions of years, yet people suggest devolution can occur in 10?

Seriously?

yeah, that was the biggest flaw i saw with the argument, too. i mean, it does *seem* like people are getting more stupid, but i think that's just because the willfully stupid are more vocal than ever. basically, the village idiots have bigger bullhorns in the form of the internet and local news outlets.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well there has to be some explanation for why people are so stupid. I used to work in Internet tech support and believe me, the stupidity of people knows no limit. On one call I swear it took me 10 minutes to get a woman to type the letter 'Z' on the keyboard. ¬__¬
It's either devolution or a over-reliance on modern conveniences. ...or both.

 

[Daveman]

All the things people think are happening like people getting stupider, crime rate increasing, religion getting more batshit etc are all bullshit if you look at the statistics. IQ levels are frequently adjusted upwards in order to cater for the fact that the average intelligence is increasing, crime rates are the lowest in ages and there have always been batshit religious nuts.

Then why are the national average results for A-Levels and GCSEs rising? Don't tell me the tests are getting easier, because that's bullshit. They're always a rehash of past papers.

Added to what everyone else has said, it's safe to say this theory has more holes than a colander at a firing range.

While I agree with you, it could be because the teachers are getting better, i.e. student ability isn't increased but teachers have advanced their methods of teaching/become familiar with the system and taught more in a way that is more focused on exam performance than actual knowledge. Perhaps this is even BECAUSE the exams are just rehashes of past papers.

It is bullshit to say exams are getting easier though. It's a lose-lose situation for students, you do badly = you're thick, you do well = the exams too easy.

 

[alimarin]

There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. People become less knowledgeable, but that doesn't mean we're dumb. As our technology changes, our amount of knowledge does with it. Out with the old and in with the new. Whether we like it or not it changes, the direction it changes is up to us.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Luckily stupid isn't genetic, so I don't think devolution, at least in a literal sense, is happening. As for whether people are getting stupider, it's hard to say. On one hand, with the progression of society we naturally get a better scientific understanding of the world around us. On the other hand, the media makes a majority of its business pandering to and encouraging stupidity. (See Jersey Shore, Justin Beiber, Pretty much anything that's been on MTV for the last 6 years, The Twilight Movies, Paris Hilton)

It creates this weird double standard wherein we encourage progression as a society yet put stupidity up on a pedestal. I honestly don't know what the result will be. I would say it might have some basis, but not enough to make it seem like an inevitability, since stupid people haven't shown statistically to raise stupid kids.

 

[coolkirb]

Intellegence is a hard thing to measure, after all I can know a lot about geography and History and know very little about chemistry and physics, or vica versa, people are just chooseing to learn different things, some people porbley know a lot about how to pirate and are masters of their cellphone and know where to find the best deals on products while another could be considered highly cultured, speak several languages and have no clue how to work a computer, or how to text on a cellphone. In short people learn different things based on whate they view as important and thus it is hard to compare or truely measure it.