Poll: Idiocracy

[viranimus]

We may well be increasing the species collective knowledge, but as individuals we are less intelligent than recent previous generations.

That is absolute nonsense and every piece of statistical evidence points to the exact opposite.

I would like to see some data to back that up.

You know Ill give you a little example. In a era when women lacked the same equality they do today back in the 1940s, My grandmother passed Algebra in 7th-8th grade which from what she has told me, it was fairly commonplace and basically a prerequisite during those days. Nowadays you can graduate high school without even taking Algebra.

Another example. Graduation rates from NREMT classes has sharply declined over the last two decades from 60% to 40%. There is more information to know now, and because of that, the populace has failed to keep pace.

As I said in the other post, Yes, our collective knowledge as a species may be increasing, but Individual intelligence is on a downward slope, because people do not retain knowledge in this day and age when there is no reason to do so because everyone worships google and wikipedia like golden gods.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I agree with those who say that Idiocracy is just meant to generate some thought, and not be taken literally. I really didn't find myself thinking that it was taking itself seriously, and you'd have to be retarded to think that the world is going to go totally under the water because stupid people have more children than intelligent career-driven people. Smart people still have kids, and there will always be intelligent people in this world who fight tooth and nail to prevent ignorance from ruling the day. Either way it seems to me our problem is not that morons are having babies but that too many people are having too many babies in general. If the world's population reaches the numbers that some people have been projecting, I fear for the immediate safety of both mankind and truly civilized society. We need to cut the number of people on this planet by a couple billion and the only way to do that (without becoming monsters) would be to follow China's lead and establish a limit of 1 or maybe 2 children per family. Every time I think about world population my mind goes back to Agent Smith in the first Matrix telling Morpheus that the thinks we're more like a virus than a mammal and to me the greatest immediate threat to mankind and the Earth is overpopulation, so many people are starving already, how can we possibly feed half a billion more without completely destroying the environment?

 

[newwiseman]

Idiocracy is, in my opinion a hilarious movie that no one has seen. And that makes me sad, especially since I now chuckle every time I see the word electrolyte.

As for the dumbing down of society? I don't think it's happening. I mean, if you look at your immediate surroundings it can seem that way; kids over dependence on text speak and poor grammar, the apparent degradation of "intelligence" in modern entertainment. But if you look at the larger picture, the stuff hat gets taught in school is constantly evolving. Highschool sciences surpass alot that was taught in universities 30 years ago and schools of thought are constanty evolving around literature and the arts. More school leavers are going onto to further education than ever before, so the pursuit of intelligence and advancement in that respect is growing.

I think one of the problems we have right now is that we are in the middle of a big change in the way western society works. We still have a large portion of the population that are, for want of a better word, technophobic. The transition from 20th century labour work to the office based, gadget centric work place of the 21st century. This leaves an awkward generation gap, with people who haven't grown up with technology in the same way seeing those that have as missing out and dumbing down, whereas it's just the new generation adaptig to a different way of life.

I realise the above makes me sound super arsey, for which I apologise. My thoughts ran away from me and I may have rambled a bit.

Not arsey at all. I work in the schools and see how thing are changing first hand. Depending on how technology advances with culture we may just have a SCIENCE win for all but there is always the potential for consumer driven sheeple to fuck up everything for the rest of us.

I would counter, In a world where everything you could ever need to know can be accessed in a few clicks how many will actively be pursuing concepts not currently understood. Especially given how art is being cut across the board everywhere.

 

[newwiseman]

But, seeing my sister with an IQ of 97 with her 3 kids who dropped out of High School to start having kids, I feel I should father at least one child if only to pass down the genes of an IQ 136 individual, if for no reason other than the potential to benefit our species.

Unless she's a half sister you're passing down almost the same genes as she is.

As a matter of fact she is my half sister, and while my father went to college (not that I ever knew him), Dad (her father) has been to prison 5 times for drug possession. Everytime he was pulled over for speeding, and his 5 brothers and 20 some nephews and nieces. All have achieved about the same criminal records.

I would say I was entirely culture based but given that half of my sisters cousins were adopted after being taken by the state I'd have to wager genetics.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The most educated women, those with bachelor's degrees or higher, are among the most likely never to have given birth, according to the Pew Research Center.

It's a shame too because they're the ones we'd probably want passing on their genes to the next generation.

Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert's book "Stumbling on Happiness" looked at several studies and found that children give adults many things, but an "increase in daily happiness is probably not among them."

I'd love to know how exactly they quantify happiness.

As for me though, what I'm most worried about is that I may not have a choice in the matter.

 

[SillyBear]

You know Ill give you a little example. In a era when women lacked the same equality they do today back in the 1940s, My grandmother passed Algebra in 7th-8th grade

Really? You think this is evidence? My God. My little sister has just completed grade 12 mathematics and she is in year 7. Just so you know, smart people who have been way ahead of the pack have existed. Your Grandmother was obviously better at algebra than most people. This means so little I chuckled when I saw you mention it.

which from what she has told me, it was fairly commonplace and basically a prerequisite during those days. Nowadays you can graduate high school without even taking Algebra.

Because school today tailors towards what children want to learn. Why should we force algebra down the throat of someone who has been accepted into university for literature? It's completely pointless. And don't even mention subjects, because you have already shot yourself in the foot. The past, there were a handful of subjects. Now there are many. There was no such thing as legal studies or sociology when my Grandmother was at school. Nor were they allowed to discuss sexual education, or any piece of science that contradicted God's law.

Another example. Graduation rates from NREMT classes has sharply declined over the last two decades from 60% to 40%. There is more information to know now, and because of that, the populace has failed to keep pace.

Uh huh. So http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect that is all a conspiracy then? You're arguing against reality my friend. Your anecdotes are meaningless.

As I said in the other post, Yes, our collective knowledge as a species may be increasing, but Individual intelligence is on a downward slope

It clearly isn't. Clearly. Didn't your Grandmother ever tell you about all her friends who were illiterate and how normal it was to be so? Or did she leave that part out. The average IQ in the 1930s was estimated to be around 80. There's your "higher individual intelligence" for you. And also, something that is completely going over your head is individual intelligence and collective intelligence are directly linked. If collective intelligence is higher, individual intelligence also increases. There is real evidence to back this up.

because people do not retain knowledge in this day and age when there is no reason to do so because everyone worships google and wikipedia like golden gods.

Haha. I love the way you are doing exactly what people in the past were encouraged to do. Believe what you want to believe, despite having no understanding of evidence. Using anecdotes as evidence. Using the way things "seem" as evidence.

Please, just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect .

 

[Blue_vision]

But, seeing my sister with an IQ of 97 with her 3 kids who dropped out of High School to start having kids, I feel I should father at least one child if only to pass down the genes of an IQ 136 individual, if for no reason other than the potential to benefit our species.

The scientific and logical fallacies in this make me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

The negative correlation between fertility and intelligence is entirely unproven. What's more is that intelligence has a huge factor within nurture: the environment of your upbringing and education, which is largely based on social factors such as income and family life.

Not to mention that if your theory of dysgenics in intelligence is true, why is it that your sister and you have a difference in IQ of almost 40 points? If you're coming from the same genetic source, you'd think that she would have a genetically similar IQ to yours, would she not?

 

[Bags159]

I can't believe I'm actually using XKCD but there.

Someone already posted that. Geo the sponge, I think. It's in his spoiler.

 

[DNA]

If you are going to squirt out a lifeform, have the friggin decency to raise it properly, that means you need to learn the meaning of the word STOP, and PRIORITIES.

STOP... spending excess amounts of money of needless things, and start planning for your child's future, for an example of the stops.

and

PRIORITIZE... No, we don't care how many buds are playing the latest Call of Duty and your raid is at 7.30, touch your fucking child, and make sure (s)hes not sticking forks in the electrical outlet.

 

[viranimus]

Haha. I love the way you are doing exactly what people in the past were encouraged to do. Believe what you want to believe, despite having no understanding of evidence. Using anecdotes as evidence. Using the way things "seem" as evidence.

Please, just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect .

OK, I love the way your doing exactly what I pointed out, by citing Wikipedia and using Intelligent quotient ratings, which have long been stated to be an unrealistic and improper method of gauging intellect. Its not that I am just believing what I choose to.. actually I think I asked for Data to support the claim, and I am given a wikipedia link to a theory, and metrics with refuted validity. If you want to think your superior than the previous generation, far be it from me to stop you from doing so. are we seeing the transition from the prior generation being smarter than the current generation yet? No... But are we seeing statistical trends that illustrate the level of increase of individual intelligence is slowing? Yes.

Besides just to illustrate the ignorance of all this, Its funny how this is being attributed to Mike Judge, when Jules Vern called this out, and hell, if you want to get real technical it goes back to the ancient Greeks.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I love that movie!

OT: I think it's happening to some degree, but I don't think it will ever get to level of that movie.

Also, overpopulation is a fact. We are headed for worse, and if we don't get some kind of 1 child law in place soon, the results could cause some major, MAJOR problems. The Tragedy of the Commons also has some truth in that the more intelligent people single themselves out.

Yes, it's true that genes don't have too much to do with intelligence, but if you are raised by less then smart people, you are probably a lot worse off.

Last thought: This has gotten fucking ridiculous. We now have people trying to feel superior, by saying the other people are trying to feel superior because they feel they are superior to dumb people.

 

[RatRace123]

I'm not so worried about the overall intelligence of kids so much as I am about the fact that we have too many of the mewling little bastards.
It's still nothing too major, we're a society filled with morons and geniuses alike. That won't change; and nature will, as always find a way to even out any other problems we may have with the continuation of our species.

 

[ZeroMachine]

PRIORITIZE... No, we don't care how many buds are playing the latest Call of Duty and your raid is at 7.30, touch your fucking child, and make sure (s)hes not sticking forks in the electrical outlet.

we don't care how many buds are playing the latest Call of Duty and your raid is at 7.30, touch your fucking child, and make sure (s)hes not sticking forks

Call of Duty and your raid is at 7.30, touch your fucking child, and make sure

touch your fucking child

... You, uh... may want to rephrase that...

Totally agree with all your points, though.

EDIT: OP, add a simple "No it won't happen" to your poll.

 

[newwiseman]

But, seeing my sister with an IQ of 97 with her 3 kids who dropped out of High School to start having kids, I feel I should father at least one child if only to pass down the genes of an IQ 136 individual, if for no reason other than the potential to benefit our species.

The scientific and logical fallacies in this make me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

The negative correlation between fertility and intelligence is entirely unproven. What's more is that intelligence has a huge factor within nurture: the environment of your upbringing and education, which is largely based on social factors such as income and family life.

Not to mention that if your theory of dysgenics in intelligence is true, why is it that your sister and you have a difference in IQ of almost 40 points? If you're coming from the same genetic source, you'd think that she would have a genetically similar IQ to yours, would she not?

Half Sibling for one second my argument is on potential. Looking back on inheritance in traits. BB + BB = BB, BB + Bb = BB %50 Bb %50, Bb + Bb = BB %25, Bb %50, bb %25 Any number of my traits could be dominant while she inherited those as recessive genes.

I would also argue that based on she being my younger sister and the fact that we went to all the same schools and had all the same teachers as myself, genetics has to play a role.

If we assume that any number of traits may affect intelligence then we know 2 parents of high intelligence have a higher chance than two low intelligence parents, and while I use my self as one of the intelligent at a 136 I argue that while I may never have children I am merely part of a growing trend. While my reasons are tied to my personal beliefs on over population, I still see good stock not breeding as a waist.

Even farmers 2000years ago knew to breed their cattle based on the desirable traits and to me, intelligence, more than large breasts is a desirable trait. Sadly society seems to cast the likes of Jersey Shore as those with desirable traits. Maybe I'm conceited and bitter because I've been labeled as undesirable for not being a ripped jack ass but I see this as a harmful behavior.

 

[SillyBear]

OK, I love the way your doing exactly what I pointed out, by citing Wikipedia and using Intelligent quotient ratings, which have long been stated to be an unrealistic and improper method of gauging intellect.

No, they are actually the best way to gauge a general intelligence level in human beings right now. It's the best we've got. Someone who is amazing at algebra, or literature, or sociology will invariably score high with IQ tests.

There is no way in which an IQ test could reward stupidity. Someone who scores an 80 in an IQ test shows a lack of problem solving skills, of comprehension skills, of abstract reasoning and of intuition. Whilst they certainly aren't the be-all-and-end-all of intelligence, they do count for quite a lot.

What do you think is a measure of intelligence? Whatever that measure is, I can assure you an IQ test recognises it. Earlier you implied that algebra was a good indication of intelligence. Well, someone who aces algebra tests would also do incredibly well at IQ tests. Why? The same part of the brain is doing similar actions when doing an IQ test compared to an mathematical exam.

The problem here is you are deliberately discounting an incredibly thorough and measured IQ test as being unreliable, yet earlier you were spouting some bullshit about your Grandmother passing an algebra test in year 7. For some reason I don't think you have the greatest priorities of reliability.

Read up about intelligence quotients. They are incredibly reliable as there is never an inconsistency. They even fall into a perfect normal distribution. Pretty amazing for something that is apparently less reliable than some nonsense anecdote, isn't it? It's also quite funny how IQ tests directly correlate between levels of ability, isn't it? Take a look:

Type of work that can be accomplished:
Adults can harvest vegetables, repair furniture IQ; 60
Adults can do domestic work, simple carpentry IQ: 50
Adults can mow lawns, do simple laundry IQ: 40

So even if you are arguing the IQ tests are strictly academic and don't indicate actual ability, you're dead wrong. People who don't pass high school have an average IQ of 75. People who end up with a doctorate have an average IQ of 125.

It's pretty strange how telling these IQ tests are. But that's all just coincidence, isn't it? Yeah, yeah, we will stick to your anecdotes about ya nan.

Its not that I am just believing what I choose to.. actually I think I asked for Data to support the claim, and I am given a wikipedia link to a theory, and metrics with refuted validity.

That particular wikipedia link is crawling with sources and citations from 42 highly ranked sources. That is more than enough evidence.

If you want to think your superior than the
previous generation, far be it from me to stop you from doing so.

Now you are making straw man argument. I never claimed to be superior to the previous generation, I think the previous generation was superior to us in many ways. One way would be work ethic. They make us look like a bunch of lazy sloths. But we are talking about intelligence here. It's a fact, people today are smarter than the people from previous generations.

Not only do we know more, but we demonstrate a higher ability to reason and calculate than previous generations.

 

[mikev7.0]

I didn't mean to focus so much on Idiocrasy, but more so on a proven trend of people of higher intelligence not having as many children versus those of lower intelligence.

Mike Judges Comedy was a satirical look on the extreme limit of that trend not a literal interpretation of the possibility.

Just to point out something about IQ, it is supposed to be a number equating your ability to figure shit out, not necessarily your ability to retain and recall information, though there is some correlation between the two depending on the IQ test taken, but they are independent variables.

And a point about the world, just 100 years the Chinese didn't have to worry about eating every animal in their country to extinction to feed themselves. Given the limit of available resources is already being pushed in many parts of the planet would not a world limit children be beneficial to everyone. That is if you think globally and not just about what is good for your country and political leanings.

What do you mean in your third paragraph? the Intelligence Quotient is nothing more (according to Psychology texts anyway) than the ratio of someone's mental age to their temporal age expressed as a fraction and multiplied by 100. A concept still hotly debated (as to it's validity and use) in psychology. One of the debates is caused by the way the results of tested subjects changes over multiple tests, reflecting that yes it is supportable to say that the tests mostly center on your ability to retain and recall information, such as what was on the last test a subject had taken for one. Also, what do you mean by "they are independent variables?"

 

[The_Healer]

Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

The way I see it (and this may offend some people who all about equality), men (and women if they donate eggs) who have good genes should get paid more to donate into sperm banks than guys who have terrible genes.

Of course I may have vested interests in this.

 

[Blue_vision]

Half Sibling for one second my argument is on potential. Looking back on inheritance in traits. BB + BB = BB, BB + Bb = BB %50 Bb %50, Bb + Bb = BB %25, Bb %50, bb %25 Any number of my traits could be dominant while she inherited those as recessive genes.

Yes. And if you're assuming that intelligence is wholly genetic (clue: it provably isn't,) there is no reason to say that genes leading to a lower intelligence are recessive. Some of them may well be dominant, so your half sister may be carrying a ton of "smart" genes, while she just gets stuck with an unlucky manifested majority.

Again, assuming that there's any overpowering genetic inclination in intelligence. Which, again, is totally unfounded.

Even farmers 2000years ago knew to breed their cattle based on the desirable traits and to me, intelligence, more than large breasts is a desirable trait. Sadly society seems to cast the likes of Jersey Shore as those with desirable traits. Maybe I'm conceited and bitter because I've been labeled as undesirable for not being a ripped jack ass but I see this as a harmful behavior.

I don't usually like taking personality into an argument, but I feel so inclined in this case. Perhaps you've been labelled as undesirable because you're a jack ass supremacist that likes to think themselves better than people? If this is representative of your normal conversation starter, perhaps your undesirability comes from your self-imposed alienation of the rest of the unworthy masses, no?

Good for you if you like smart girls. I'm sure a bunch of your "ripped jack ass" sworn enemies do too. I know a bunch of people that are admittedly not so smart. But they value intelligence in their partners as much as I do, if not more. All that I'm getting from you is that you're a bigoted individual who's pissed off because all the other guys get girls when you don't; so you need a scapegoat that you can both blame and feel superior too in both pushing them down for being idiotic masses, and elevating yourself to a higher moral standing. Good job there.

 

[loodmoney]

I can only assume that your mis-spelling of "Idiocracy" as "Idiocrasy" in the poll is some kind of higher-level, satirical joke that only makes sense to super-genius types such as yourself.

On-topic: I think XKCD got it right on this one. I'd prefer a society of stupid people to one of eugenics-promoting douchebags, anyday. If it really bothers you, once those stupids take over, everything will fall apart and humans can return to a state of nature in which Darwinist rules of selection apply in the way you want them to, so really, if you want to help humanity in the long term, it would be better if you spent your time trying to destroy intelligence, not create it.

 

[newwiseman]

I didn't mean to focus so much on Idiocrasy, but more so on a proven trend of people of higher intelligence not having as many children versus those of lower intelligence.

Mike Judges Comedy was a satirical look on the extreme limit of that trend not a literal interpretation of the possibility.

Just to point out something about IQ, it is supposed to be a number equating your ability to figure shit out, not necessarily your ability to retain and recall information, though there is some correlation between the two depending on the IQ test taken, but they are independent variables.

And a point about the world, just 100 years the Chinese didn't have to worry about eating every animal in their country to extinction to feed themselves. Given the limit of available resources is already being pushed in many parts of the planet would not a world limit children be beneficial to everyone. That is if you think globally and not just about what is good for your country and political leanings.

What do you mean in your third paragraph? the Intelligence Quotient is nothing more (according to Psychology texts anyway) than the ratio of someone's mental age to their temporal age expressed as a fraction and multiplied by 100. A concept still hotly debated (as to it's validity and use) in psychology. One of the debates is caused by the way the results of tested subjects changes over multiple tests, reflecting that yes it is supportable to say that the tests mostly center on your ability to retain and recall information, such as what was on the last test a subject had taken for one. Also, what do you mean by "they are independent variables?"

The third paragraph was targeted to previous comments about how we're all getting smarter as the ages go on. My aim was an attempt towards a discussion about the social ramifications of actually having children without even considering intelligence. Mainly is the desire to not have children a subconscious effort by the intelligent to "limit the numbers in the heard", or some here to completely unknown cause or to random combination of factors that intelligence is actually just coincidence. Hypothetically, if all people are having less children then since the intelligent are a much smaller percentage of the whole of the populace then they would show a greater drop in reproduction.

By independent variables I mean to state that while the ability to recall information may help in some IQ test it is not directly equivalent. There is a IQ 65 kid at one of the schools I work at that can tell your the color of every kid in their classes shirts for everyday over the last month. While this shows extreme retention ability the kid can't solve any sort of logic puzzle and and is completely incapable of variable algebra as it requires abstract thought, a letter representing a number.