People ARE getting dumber (14 I.Q. points dumber)

[Lieju]

People didnt have tv so they read books. That is why we had significantly more science minded and literary geniuses during this time, and as time progresses we are finding them in short supply. T.v is passive, reading is active, passivity leads to laziness which leads to stupidity.

What? During the Victorian era?
When the literacy rates were far from what they are today and finding books and other reading material was harder?

I enjoyed that. I actually think television from it's conception was an ill advised exploratory surgery into the mind of the american public. One that went horribly awry for humanity. I'd really like to see an alien do a documentary of modern humans. Some good came of it, like all the witty, intelligent stuff including documentaries. But even in that genre, 90% of it is swill.

90 % of everything is shit. We remember the Shakespeares and Mozarts because they were good and had staying power, but a lot of old entertainment has been forgotten because it didn't stand the test of time.

As Nietzsche said, sometimes people don't want their illusions destroyed. I had mine destroyed as a child so I no longer hold onto them as some people do. In a way I envy these people, and at the same time am repulsed by the thought of wading through life with eyes closed.

So instead you make up stuff and quote suspect studies you didn't even read to convince yourself your view of the world is right? I don't think you're in any position to talk about the truth or destroying illusions.

 

[Lilani]

Quality isn't inherently subjective, what is subjective is your perspective. Quality with respect to success in achieving a goal is clearly Objective. For example, if the goal was to educate, then if film A educates people more than film B, A is qualitatively, objectively better. If the goal was to misinform or make more fart noises, then maybe film B was qualitatively better in this respect. Now, in my opinion being informed is objectively better than being misinformed, but hey I guess that's just my opinion, right?

I think you already pointed out what's wrong with this viewpoint of quality right there in the bolded part. This means that Twilight is very high quality, so by your standards people are consuming high-quality media these days after all.

If you really wanted to get me, you could have pointed out that quality is based highly upon the perspective of the observer. Bach was only recognized as a talented organist during his time, there was very little interest in his compositions because many felt his style was "old fashioned." What he was really doing was fusing his favorite aspects of German musical structure with several other styles. It wasn't until the 19th century that this was recognized, and an appreciation for his music and style arose that had never existed before, and could only exist in hindsight once people were able to detach his music from the contemporary stylings of the time.

But if you want to keep running with your argument, go right ahead.

People didnt have tv so they read books. That is why we had significantly more science minded and literary geniuses during this time, and as time progresses we are finding them in short supply. T.v is passive, reading is active, passivity leads to laziness which leads to stupidity.

> Implying that no significant number of people read anymore
> Implying there are, in fact, fewer literary geniuses
> Implying that enjoying TV inherently leads to laziness
> Implying that laziness is somehow equal to "stupidity"

That's a lot of unsubstantiated claims in just a few sentences, and there's a lot of unnecessary derisiveness. I've pointed this out before, but I think it's worth mentioning again: for somebody who's so convinced you've got the facts on your hand, you're sure resorting to a lot of cheap distractions and shortcuts. Or to put it another way: Stop being rude. If you really are the smartest person in the room, you shouldn't have to go around telling everybody else how dumb they are.

And you still have yet to address the sketchiness of the sources of information you've already provided. What proof do you have the results weren't selective, as psychological studies so often were during that time? Just how similar were the IQ tests of those days, and how comparable to today's techniques and understanding of intelligence are they? And when did we ever decide that IQ was even a reliable and an absolute measure of intelligence? You keep on piling more onto this house, but I'm still not convinced you've got your foundation poured right.

 

[Carpenter]

Ummm, what exactly does this have to do with gaming? Shouldn't this be in off-topic?

Anyway, this isn't a study published by some fancy university, this is a poorly written paper somebody did for their introductory sociology class. So I don't think I would call this primo scientific research. And let's not forget that the only thing IQ tests have been shown to accurately measure is how good somebody is at taking an IQ test, so even if IQ levels have dropped a bunch (which I have not seen any evidence of one way or another), that doesn't really mean anything.

Here is another guy affiliated with "Vrije Universiteit in Brussels, Jan te Nijenhuis of the University of Amsterdam and Raegan Murphy of the University College Cork in Ireland. that came to this conclusion" : http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/researchers-western-iqs-dropped-14-points-over-last-180634194.html
No evidence? Look at what passes as entertainment. Shows, movies, games, all are moving toward the worthless bang bang twenty minute long action sequence/setpiece. I've haven't done any hard research, but come on, if you enjoy any of these mediums, you must've noticed the glut of crap that has been elevated into the mainstream. People used to lineup for hours to go see Doctor Zhivago or Gone with the Wind, now, neither of these movies are particularly mind blowing, but they were at least cerebral to an extent, and I'm talking about the mainstream here. Gaming had a period where it embraced the cerebral, partially because of technical limitations but the lion's share of the credit goes to the passionate, inspired minds of the early period who saw all the potential. At a point, population expansion lowers IQ. It just makes sense. As you broaden the base, you need more chattel to support the pyramid, it's not an opinion, empirically speaking you'd have to be blind not to see this trend in society. Not everyone can be a rocket scientist or a derivatives analyst or a ceo.

Yes movies, commercials, and music are all so dumb and pointless.

People use to pay to watch a man sneeze, we now have an interactive video game where you experience the life of an immigrant who is forced into a life of crime.
Even the "crap" of our generation is way more complex and thought out than the stuff that passed for "mind blowing" in the 50s.


The Flynn effect has nothing to do with altering the tests to get results, it had to do with them STANDARDIZING the IQ tests because they would normally increase the difficulty every year. When they stopped increasing the difficulty they realized the average scores went up every year.
This has been well researched, you can find actual documented evidence of this, not just "You want proof? LOOK AT TV!" which seems to be your go-to argument here.

See the Flynn effect wasn't just observed in IQ tests but also specialty tests such as military tests. Fact is that every generation, on average, gets a bit smarter than the last. I know that doesn't fit in with "your view" but your view, as you have made very clear in your statement, is based on what you have seen and nothing more.

Everything you have seen with your own eyes are things you have experienced in your own lifetime and your own generation. If you did a bit of research on the things that went on in this world (hell just this country alone) during, say, the the thirties, you might not be so quick to say that we are getting dumber.

Remember the last time we burned someone because we thought they might be magic? Yeah neither do I. You know how the media likes to latch onto a story about a person possibly killing someone? You know how people complain that it's a "witch hunt" all the time? Yeah that term used to refer to the act of searching through a person's personal life and belongings for any "evidence" that they have magic powers and need to be burned. Yeah it was just a way to get land from widows but the fact that people so easily believed it should tell you something about the difference in general intelligence.

 

[maturin]

No evidence? Look at what passes as entertainment. Shows, movies, games, all are moving toward the worthless bang bang twenty minute long action sequence/setpiece. I've haven't done any hard research, but come on, if you enjoy any of these mediums, you must've noticed the glut of crap that has been elevated into the mainstream. People used to lineup for hours to go see Doctor Zhivago or Gone with the Wind

And for the 99.99% of human history when no one could read, and the ONLY entertainment was 'physical comedy' from killing animals and some limited form of dance and oral tradition accompanied by crude musical instruments incapable of playing anything cerebral?

This is line of reasoning requires that the middle class of Western Europe experienced an explosion of IQ growth on account of the printing industry.

 

[Carpenter]

No evidence? Look at what passes as entertainment. Shows, movies, games, all are moving toward the worthless bang bang twenty minute long action sequence/setpiece. I've haven't done any hard research, but come on, if you enjoy any of these mediums, you must've noticed the glut of crap that has been elevated into the mainstream. People used to lineup for hours to go see Doctor Zhivago or Gone with the Wind

And for the 99.99% of human history when no one could read, and the ONLY entertainment was 'physical comedy' from killing animals and some limited form of dance and oral tradition accompanied by crude musical instruments incapable of playing anything cerebral?

This is line of reasoning requires that the middle class of Western Europe experienced an explosion of IQ growth on account of the printing industry.

Exactly, now take that "IQ" growth (intelligence isn't the same as "IQ" but lets pretend it is for some reason) from the printing press and look at the forms of communication and education we have now.

A kid with a phone can drop out of school (which if your going to public school is actually a good idea) and if they have the desire to learn, they have a majority of humanities knowledge available to them in their hand. That kid will probably learn a lot faster considering they are researching something they are interested in knowing.

School kills the desire to learn for a lot of people but people that do have that desire (which most do in at least a useless field, like wanting to learn about the history of Hawkeye) can gain momentum pretty quickly because learning about one thing will always lead to needing to know another thing. In public school you are taught to slow down, stop, redo and redo and redo what you learned until it stops making sense and you can only start learning more stuff when the rest of the class or the teacher is ready for it.
Mass communication makes self education the norm. That's a far newer phenomenon than the TC seems to realize.

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

No evidence? Look at what passes as entertainment. Shows, movies, games, all are moving toward the worthless bang bang twenty minute long action sequence/setpiece. I've haven't done any hard research, but come on, if you enjoy any of these mediums, you must've noticed the glut of crap that has been elevated into the mainstream. People used to lineup for hours to go see Doctor Zhivago or Gone with the Wind

And for the 99.99% of human history when no one could read, and the ONLY entertainment was 'physical comedy' from killing animals and some limited form of dance and oral tradition accompanied by crude musical instruments incapable of playing anything cerebral?

This is line of reasoning requires that the middle class of Western Europe experienced an explosion of IQ growth on account of the printing industry.

Good point, and I would argue that we're undergoing another, due to the widespread use of the internet and all the connections that come with it.
Even on Youtube, there's channels which are purely dedicated to knowledge and Booklernin'. It's a wonderful thing.

Also, Victorian Intellectuals may have been more intelligent than a widely scattered group of people from today from a huge spread of social and economical variables?
Say it ain't so!

 

[AngloDoom]

It's true: with the increasing accessibility of information and higher education people have become less intelligence - in the same way the longer you stay in a sauna, the colder the swimming pool is when you get in.

 

[ShipofFools]

I don't think people are getting dumber.
I do think that these bullshit idols and heroes the media tries to shovel down our and our kids's throats are a lot dumber then they used to be.

This mass media thing... I don't think it's healthy. I think people need to stop worrying about Myley Cyrus or Justin Bieber or fuckers like them, stop thinking about empty-headed, non creative celebrities and focus on what is going on in your own life.
There are plenty of people in our own lives that deserve our attention, don't waste it on these icons the media has created.

You know, young kids see the celebrity lifestyle and think it's great, and what's worse they think they should live like that too, not knowing you can be so much happier if you focus on people instead of bullshit thinks like lifestyle, style, brands and all that shit.
That fucking shit never made anybody happy. Now when you buy a car or a jacket or something way more expensive then it's worth, and you get that warm feeling inside of you?
Yeah that is not happiness, it's only temporary and goes away real quick, and then your life is shit again because you put idols and things in front of the people who really matter.

...

I got off topic for a while there.
So in summary: I don't think people are getting dumber, but I do think whatever the fuck passes for culture that these media conglomerates are shoving up our asses is getting really fucking stupid.

 

[Carpenter]

No evidence? Look at what passes as entertainment. Shows, movies, games, all are moving toward the worthless bang bang twenty minute long action sequence/setpiece. I've haven't done any hard research, but come on, if you enjoy any of these mediums, you must've noticed the glut of crap that has been elevated into the mainstream. People used to lineup for hours to go see Doctor Zhivago or Gone with the Wind

And for the 99.99% of human history when no one could read, and the ONLY entertainment was 'physical comedy' from killing animals and some limited form of dance and oral tradition accompanied by crude musical instruments incapable of playing anything cerebral?

This is line of reasoning requires that the middle class of Western Europe experienced an explosion of IQ growth on account of the printing industry.

Good point, and I would argue that we're undergoing another, due to the widespread use of the internet and all the connections that come with it.
Even on Youtube, there's channels which are purely dedicated to knowledge and Booklernin'. It's a wonderful thing.

Also, Victorian Intellectuals may have been more intelligent than a widely scattered group of people from today from a huge spread of social and economical variables?
Say it ain't so!

What? Where did you get that? Victorian "Intellectuals" were not anywhere near as intelligent as the average person (let alone an average group) and it's kind of funny that you state that as some interesting new fact when that claim cannot possibly be backed up by any evidence. It's like saying the average German things about cupcakes every ten seconds.

The idea that Victorian "intellectuals" were so wise, even by today's standards, only exists because of the self serving BS spread by said "intellectuals" at the time and of course a steady stream of "modernized history" movies that present themselves as documentary or docudrama while presenting a romanticized version of history as fact.

 

[Carpenter]

I don't think people are getting dumber.
I do think that these bullshit idols and heroes the media tries to shovel down our and our kids's throats are a lot dumber then they used to be.

This mass media thing... I don't think it's healthy. I think people need to stop worrying about Myley Cyrus or Justin Bieber or fuckers like them, stop thinking about empty-headed, non creative celebrities and focus on what is going on in your own life.
There are plenty of people in our own lives that deserve our attention, don't waste it on these icons the media has created.

You know, young kids see the celebrity lifestyle and think it's great, and what's worse they think they should live like that too, not knowing you can be so much happier if you focus on people instead of bullshit thinks like lifestyle, style, brands and all that shit.
That fucking shit never made anybody happy. Now when you buy a car or a jacket or something way more expensive then it's worth, and you get that warm feeling inside of you?
Yeah that is not happiness, it's only temporary and goes away real quick, and then your life is shit again because you put idols and things in front of the people who really matter.

...

I got off topic for a while there.
So in summary: I don't think people are getting dumber, but I do think whatever the fuck passes for culture that these media conglomerates are shoving up our asses is getting really fucking stupid.

Focusing on people is how those horrible horrible child stars got started in the first place. Myley Cyrus or Justin Beiber didn't become "pop idols" because of brands or products, they are just used to sell said products. It's not the "pop stars" that obsess over the products, it's the consumers. We are bombarded with subliminal advertising and social engineering every day we browse the internet, listen to the radio, or watch tv. It's usually meant to have a stronger effect on children because then they grow up as consumers and make more little consumers.

And maybe that's fine, maybe that's the intended path for human evolution, but if our society angers you so much, maybe reserve some of that hatred you put on kid stars for the corporations and organizations that turn these kids out in the first place.

Look I hate pop music too but do you honesty think Justin Beiber is horrible as a human being? He started singing because he enjoyed it, because he wanted to entertain people and create something. He wanted to develop a talent. Under different circumstances he could have become a rock icon or got involved in some new, fringe genre of music. He wasn't born a spoiled prick, he was turned into one or at least has to play one.

The people that really run this country (those that hold the coin and more importantly the debt) want our "pop stars" and "idols" to be self entitled, spoiled, snotty jerks because that's the perfect consumer. They want everything they can't afford (credit cards provide debt, debt is worth more than the same amount in cash) and they are so full of themselves that they drive other people crazy, get enough of those people and the "stragglers" become anti-social as a natural defense to the insanity around them, and the anti-social person is the other type of consumer, the kind that tries to fill the holes in his life with products. The person is depressed because they are unable to connect to anyone else but rarely would a person be self aware enough to realize this so they get it in their head that they just need that new pill or the new pillow set or the new video game.

My point is the idols themselves are not really dumb, in fact many get into it pretty smart and promising but are conditioned through social pressure and drugs into another "burn out" because it makes for great media coverage while setting it up to make more room for the next idol.

I know that sounds crazy, maybe even bordering on "conspiracy theory" but just look at how we act, just look at yourself bringing up how much you hate Cyrus and Bieber. Why those names? How do you know who they are if you don't listen to the music? It's because there are cycles of "interest" that the media constantly beats into our brains to the point where even people that want no part in it still have the names, songs, and images seared into their mind through repetition.


Or maybe I'm wrong and it's all just silly stuff with no meaning and nobody is trying to be in charge of anything ever.

EDIT: The stuff the "corporate media is jamming down our throats" may be unpleasant but it's far from stupid. "Buy my product!" is a stupid ad, we don't see that with large corporations. They use years of research into the human mind and human behavior to develop advertisements so subversive that you can consciously think "Man that makes me never want to buy that thing" except that now you are completely unable to get it out of your head and you feel compelled to tell your friends or family how stupid you think that new commercial for that product is.

See what happened there? These companies can hire the people to put together enjoyable ads but they want the messages and images to be associated with strong emotion because that's when people spend the most. Easiest strong reactions to get out of people? Anger and disgust. Suddenly the obviously "stupid" commercials and the gross out skittles commercials start to make a hell of a lot of sense.


Sorry that was a long rant but hopefully somebody will read it.

 

[Carpenter]

It's true: with the increasing accessibility of information and higher education people have become less intelligence - in the same way the longer you stay in a sauna, the colder the swimming pool is when you get in.

Right, that makes sense, more information makes people less intelligent.

No your analogy pretty much spells it out for you, people only SEEM less intelligent just like the water only seems colder, it's still the same temperature as it was before you got into the sauna.

Higher education? How do you measure how "high" education is? Can you actually provide some evidence that mainstream education is "higher" than it has been?
Should we be worried that our system for educating the youth might be some kind of addict?

 

[ShipofFools]

Sorry that was a long rant but hopefully somebody will read it.

Well I did, and I have to say: maybe I didn't word it as well as you did, but that was exactly what I meant to say.
I don't hate those pop idols or anything, I hate it that people find them so important. And I did blame corporate cocksuckers for this empty, soulless culture they have created:

So in summary: I don't think people are getting dumber, but I do think whatever the fuck passes for culture that these media conglomerates are shoving up our asses is getting really fucking stupid.

So yeah. But you did word it much better then I did

 

[Pebkio]

Yeah, I.Q. tests have always been a bit iffy in the same way that the universe is a bit big. I trust those tests that base everything on someone's short-term memory in relation to abstraction more than your standard "if blah is bleh and bippity is boppity, then how much money will you pay me to tell me you're clever?"

 

[Carpenter]

Sorry that was a long rant but hopefully somebody will read it.

Well I did, and I have to say: maybe I didn't word it as well as you did, but that was exactly what I meant to say.
I don't hate those pop idols or anything, I hate it that people find them so important. And I did blame corporate cocksuckers for this empty, soulless culture they have created:

Thanks for actually reading it, I have a habit of being ranty and "unfocussed" (or so they tell me) making it hard for people to understand what I am getting across.

Yeah it is pretty sickening at first but there is hope, think about what this means. People in power manipulating the masses and trying to dumb the populace down is not new, know what is new? The efficiency in which we are able to spread this information and uncover more information and expose more strange abuses of power and position.

Call it intelligence, moral strength, or just plain luck, it's clear that as we progress we are starting to notice that evolution isn't just a long cycle process but can also be seen in the span of a few generations. I think part of that evolution is going to be us very soon realizing that we can rule ourselves and that we would be better off without the immortal and inhuman corporations having more rights than a human being.

 

[Carpenter]

Yeah, I.Q. tests have always been a bit iffy in the same way that the universe is a bit big. I trust those tests that base everything on someone's short-term memory in relation to abstraction more than your standard "if blah is bleh and bippity is boppity, then how much money will you pay me to tell me you're clever?"

I have taken an IQ test, it's nothing like what you described.

The one I took spent far more time testing my problem solving ability with strange puzzles.

Maybe do some quick research before just assuming that something is pointless hogwash.

 

[ShipofFools]

Sorry that was a long rant but hopefully somebody will read it.

Well I did, and I have to say: maybe I didn't word it as well as you did, but that was exactly what I meant to say.
I don't hate those pop idols or anything, I hate it that people find them so important. And I did blame corporate cocksuckers for this empty, soulless culture they have created:

Thanks for actually reading it, I have a habit of being ranty and "unfocussed" (or so they tell me) making it hard for people to understand what I am getting across.

Yeah it is pretty sickening at first but there is hope, think about what this means. People in power manipulating the masses and trying to dumb the populace down is not new, know what is new? The efficiency in which we are able to spread this information and uncover more information and expose more strange abuses of power and position.

Call it intelligence, moral strength, or just plain luck, it's clear that as we progress we are starting to notice that evolution isn't just a long cycle process but can also be seen in the span of a few generations. I think part of that evolution is going to be us very soon realizing that we can rule ourselves and that we would be better off without the immortal and inhuman corporations having more rights than a human being.

Yeah I agree. Personally I believe the internet's impact will be a lot bigger then we thought. The big changes to society are obvious, but there are subtle changes too, and I think those subtle changes will end up having the biggest impact of all.

 

[Pebkio]

Yeah, I.Q. tests have always been a bit iffy in the same way that the universe is a bit big. I trust those tests that base everything on someone's short-term memory in relation to abstraction more than your standard "if blah is bleh and bippity is boppity, then how much money will you pay me to tell me you're clever?"

I have taken an IQ test, it's nothing like what you described.

The one I took spent far more time testing my problem solving ability with strange puzzles.

Maybe do some quick research before just assuming that something is pointless hogwash.

Oh, and thanks for bringing up another issue. It's not like these different I.Q. tests are standardized. How do you standardize a test to measure all the possible ways that someone can be intelligent anyway? This guy... person... Carpenter took one test that was different to tests I've taken which have been different from each other. And yet they all try to give you a number on the same numbering scale, so what does that tell you about the measurement?

Let me guess, Guypersoncarpenter, you got a nice score so now you're compelled to defend the test because you'll feel like you're defending your score. Well don't, it's a silly thing to do, honestly.

 

[deleted139124]

DELETED

 

[bug_of_war]

If it's in the dictionary as a comparative adjective that's good enough for me. I'm curious as to what crazy stringent standard you have for words to be words.

Well, I learnt it at school, in year 5, when I wrote dumber and my teacher corrected me, that's where my "crazy stringent standard" came from. I'm going to assume you're using the internet dictionary or an American one, the former I would doubt, the latter I'd be more inclined to accept seeing as how American spelling is often different to British/Australian/New Zealand spelling.

 

[CriticalMiss]

IQ tests are mostly bollocks. A few years ago I decided to find out what my IQ was and did a few tests, including a MENSA one if I remember correctly. The results went from the 110s to the 130s. Which doesn't sound very promising as a way to measure intelligence. Also George W Bush apparently has an IQ in the same range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax), and we all know how startlingly intelligent he is.

Having a high or above average IQ doesn't really make you more intelligent, it just means you were better at doing the things in that IQ test than the majority of the population.