@hydorah
13 Years10,000+ PostsPisces
when science finally confirms
"The fall, which equates to about seven points per generation, is believed to have begun with those born in 1975, according to the first authoritative study of the phenomenon.
The drop in scores marks the end of a trend – known as the Flynn effect – which has seen average IQs rise for the past 60 to 70 years by roughly three points a decade."
could we discuss this
human IQ peaked in 1974 (give or take 2 years)
Posted by hydorah
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5832789/Young-people-really-getting-stupid-IQs-falling-seven-points-generation.html
From the article:
"The decline is do with a difference in technique in the way languages and maths are taught in schools, scientists have suggested."
If you're a corrupt politician/political dynasty/royalty looking to maintain your standard of living, position, perks, etc., you want a population that lacks critical thinking skills.
Looking at it through that lens, it's a good thing.
It works for a while, at least.....
intelligence is generally defined as one ability to apply knowledge in order to solve a problem
there's less problem now than before, no matter what the religious nuts say.
so is true, kids nowadays know less, and have lower skills, but as long they have wifi, they get all the answers right.
also, it says that eating fish is good for peoples brain, you can't fight this generation veganism, they really think they're getting healthier and shit.
Posted by TheRabbit
I figured this was just a butter post, but the millennials in the office decided it was somehow appropriate to play Nickleback really loudly in the office today based on some card game they played after work yesterday. So I'm pretty sure that's evidence to support that assertion.
I'm so sorry you were exposed to that. Youre in my thoughts and prayers.
I hosted an end of semester party for uni students at their campus.....It was cute....
I really think that constant access to databases and online encyclopedias like wikipedia hinder autonomous thinking and cognitive abilities.
I'm not even going to mention social media
Sometimes, intelligence comes hand-in-hand with CONCEIT and SARCASM 😡
🤗 cyber hugs!
Love,
Eva
Posted by Endless
intelligence is generally defined as one ability to apply knowledge in order to solve a problemthere's less problem now than before, no matter what the religious nuts say.
so is true, kids nowadays know less, and have lower skills, but as long they have wifi, they get all the answers right.
also, it says that eating fish is good for peoples brain, you can't fight this generation veganism, they really think they're getting healthier and shit.
Yes and I think with the advances in technology and such, much less problem solving is required.
If you don’t use it, you lose it
Posted by hydorah
I really think that constant access to databases and online encyclopedias like wikipedia hinder autonomous thinking and cognitive abilities.
I'm not even going to mention social media
Ever read "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury?
But I also think newer generations are much faster learners and catch on to things more quickly than past generations too.
I mean seriously I’m the youngest where I work and the older generations can’t even manage to send a fucking email or save a website to their favorites without excessive hand holding
I literally had to help one of them figure out how to find a page she minimized 🤔
Soooo it’s all relative IMO
Posted by TheRabbit
I figured this was just a butter post, but the millennials in the office decided it was somehow appropriate to play Nickleback really loudly in the office today based on some card game they played after work yesterday. So I'm pretty sure that's evidence to support that assertion.I'm so sorry you were exposed to that. Youre in my thoughts and prayers. click to expand
Thank you for your concern. click to expand
click to expand
If you need someone to talk to about this Nickleback exposure, im here. You might also want to contact HR about cruelty in the work place.
Posted by xkraft
Can we just say GenXers are the smartest, and be done with it?Its never that easy. It has to be said in every way conceivable across ten different threads. And even that won’t be enough click to expand
click to expand
Gen-X-ers don't really care actually.
When you come into this world as a 1972 baby, the apex of millions of years of evolution, fight for dominance , refined arts and existentialism coalesced into one, and you realize noone will keep on carrying the torch. You are doomed to spend your life bumping into cerebralets and braincels.
It could be a depressing thought for a less gifted individual without the capacity to entertain their own brain.
but there are other ways.
Posted by xkraft
Can we just say GenXers are the smartest, and be done with it?Its never that easy. It has to be said in every way conceivable across ten different threads. And even that won’t be enough click to expand
Gen-X-ers don't really care actually.
When you come into this world as a 1972 baby, the apex of millions of years of evolution, fight for dominance , refined arts and existentialism coalesced into one, and you realize noone will keep on carrying the torch. You are doomed to spend your life bumping into cerebralets and braincels.
It could be a depressing thought for a less gifted individual without the capacity to entertain their own brain.
but there are other ways.click to expand
Lile bickering with a teenager on an astrology forum? click to expand
click to expand
you are not a teenager anymore cloudy, shouldn't you be looking for a job now?
They will survive
Posted by Pleistoanax
At the end of the day science is still just another narrative. Just as there are different shades of intelligence.
What my might work under certain circumstances might fail entirely under different ones.
that's the coolest fallacy I have seen in this site to this day, tbh
science is not a narrative though, is a conglomerate of knowledge build in very specifics ways, most of them empirical, people do use narrative in science, to pass and discuss that knowledge with others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you don't have to think how to solve the problem it means your intelligence doesn't develop. You're getting served with answers and not working on solutions. That's why I said answers on the internet directly cancel first sentence, that definition of intelligence"
kinda yes, but the internet is a database of knowledge, they don't know how to solve the problem but using the internet and other technologies to solve the problem is sadly also into the old definition of intelligence, they know how to use computers for it, but is also different, they aren't creating knowledge that's for sure, and that's why it's complex, with quantum computers coming and IA making houses "smart" who knows how is going to end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But I also think newer generations are much faster learners and catch on to things more quickly than past generations too"
they are not "catching on" old people are catching on, newer generations are born into technology, that's the only world they know, and that's the only thing they need, they don't need to learn about photosynthesis, they just need to learn how to google it, they don't learn where the north, they need to know how to use the compass on their smartphone, they don't even need to pay attention to class, there's plenty of videos of the same thing on youtube, heck some are better than whatever they saw on class.
Posted by xkraft
Can we just say GenXers are the smartest, and be done with it?Its never that easy. It has to be said in every way conceivable across ten different threads. And even that won’t be enough click to expand
Gen-X-ers don't really care actually.
When you come into this world as a 1972 baby, the apex of millions of years of evolution, fight for dominance , refined arts and existentialism coalesced into one, and you realize noone will keep on carrying the torch. You are doomed to spend your life bumping into cerebralets and braincels.
It could be a depressing thought for a less gifted individual without the capacity to entertain their own brain.
but there are other ways.click to expand
Like bickering with a teenager on an astrology forum?
brutal
click to expand
well that's par on course
Posted by Pleistoanax
At the end of the day science is still just another narrative. Just as there are different shades of intelligence.
What my might work under certain circumstances might fail entirely under different ones.that's the coolest fallacy I have seen in this site to this day, tbh
science is not a narrative though, is a conglomerate of knowledge build in very specifics ways, most of them empirical, people do use narrative in science, to pass and discuss that knowledge with others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by UnicornSag
"If you don't have to think how to solve the problem it means your intelligence doesn't develop. You're getting served with answers and not working on solutions. That's why I said answers on the internet directly cancel first sentence, that definition of intelligence"kinda yes, but the internet is a database of knowledge, they don't know how to solve the problem but using the internet and other technologies to solve the problem is sadly also into the old definition of intelligence, they know how to use computers for it, but is also different, they aren't creating knowledge that's for sure, and that's why it's complex, with quantum computers coming and IA making houses "smart" who knows how is going to end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by brianafay
"But I also think newer generations are much faster learners and catch on to things more quickly than past generations too"they are not "catching on" old people are catching on, newer generations are born into technology, that's the only world they know, and that's the only thing they need, they don't need to learn about photosynthesis, they just need to learn how to google it, they don't learn where the north, they need to know how to use the compass on their smartphone, they don't even need to pay attention to class, there's plenty of videos of the same thing on youtube, heck some are better than whatever they saw on class.
It isthough. Just check the history of the philosophy of science.
There will never be an ultimate truth. No matter how many experiences you can gather there will alwas be doubt and it is up to us where we draw the line.
That choice is more or less completly arbitrary and is often influenced by social factors aka narratives of the world.click to expand
the philosophy of science is a part of philosophy not a science.
"There will never be an ultimate truth."
then this statement can't be an ultimate truth either aka is possibly wrong 😆
there's is uncertainty on the amount of knowledge we have and how factual it is, so your point is valid, just not that much relevant. :S
Posted by Pleistoanax
At the end of the day science is still just another narrative. Just as there are different shades of intelligence.
What my might work under certain circumstances might fail entirely under different ones.that's the coolest fallacy I have seen in this site to this day, tbh
science is not a narrative though, is a conglomerate of knowledge build in very specifics ways, most of them empirical, people do use narrative in science, to pass and discuss that knowledge with others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by UnicornSag
"If you don't have to think how to solve the problem it means your intelligence doesn't develop. You're getting served with answers and not working on solutions. That's why I said answers on the internet directly cancel first sentence, that definition of intelligence"kinda yes, but the internet is a database of knowledge, they don't know how to solve the problem but using the internet and other technologies to solve the problem is sadly also into the old definition of intelligence, they know how to use computers for it, but is also different, they aren't creating knowledge that's for sure, and that's why it's complex, with quantum computers coming and IA making houses "smart" who knows how is going to end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by brianafay
"But I also think newer generations are much faster learners and catch on to things more quickly than past generations too"they are not "catching on" old people are catching on, newer generations are born into technology, that's the only world they know, and that's the only thing they need, they don't need to learn about photosynthesis, they just need to learn how to google it, they don't learn where the north, they need to know how to use the compass on their smartphone, they don't even need to pay attention to class, there's plenty of videos of the same thing on youtube, heck some are better than whatever they saw on class.
It isthough. Just check the history of the philosophy of science.
There will never be an ultimate truth. No matter how many experiences you can gather there will alwas be doubt and it is up to us where we draw the line.
That choice is more or less completly arbitrary and is often influenced by social factors aka narratives of the world.the philosophy of science is a part of philosophy not a science.
"There will never be an ultimate truth."
then this statement can't be an ultimate truth either aka is possibly wrong
there's is uncertainty on the amount of knowledge we have and how factual it is, so your point is valid, just not that much relevant. :S
I'm aware of this contradiction but it's a choice which is entirely conistent with the rest of my statement.
The philosophy of science defines and defineds how we make "science".
Those "real" scientists are the building workers while the philosopher of science is the architect.It is very relevant. Otherwise science would stagnant
Logically speaking you will never know if the house stand because your science is correct or if there are little spirits that keep it together.
You choose the narrative or science that makes the most sense to you.
It is even more relevant here if you consider that I made the statemen that one kind of trained intelligence works better in setting A than in setting B. Test it for B and your result will be that said person is worse than the other, in this case older person in this specific area.
If this means that the younger person is worse in all ares in general however is something else entirely.
Take the special programm IBM made for autists for example. Usually they are considered to be unfit to work in a lot of areas but if you put them in a context that plays to their strengths they can be excellent.
All that has been proven by science here is that younglings are less intelligent under definition x.
In a couple years science might have moved on and established different standards and the result might be entirely different.click to expand
"Those "real" scientists are the building workers while the philosopher of science is the architect."
Now you're just trying to trigger me 😆 but I saw that!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anyway that's the thing!! is not about general "better" or "worse" the study says that under the same conditions, people where getting better until a couple decades ago, now kids are doing progressively worse (under X conditions).
here's my problem "with different standards, the result might be entirely different"
if you change things ofc they are going to be different 😆 but then they wont hold to this specific argument
the point is valid though.
Posted by hydorah
human IQ peaked in 1974 (give or take 2 years)
YAY! Born 1974 w/ a high I.Q.
Posted by hydorah
human IQ peaked in 1974 (give or take 2 years)YAY! Born 1974 w/ a high I.Q.
click to expand
Statistics experience indicate it probably peaked in 1972 and haphazardly plateaued to '74
Posted by hydorah
human IQ peaked in 1974 (give or take 2 years)YAY! Born 1974 w/ a high I.Q.
Statistics experience indicate it probably peaked in 1972 and haphazardly plateaued to '74
click to expand
I actually know my I.Q.
Posted by brianafay
But I also think newer generations are much faster learners and catch on to things more quickly than past generations too.I mean seriously I’m the youngest where I work and the older generations can’t even manage to send a treetrunking email or save a website to their favorites without excessive hand holding
I literally had to help one of them figure out how to find a page she minimized 🤔
Soooo it’s all relative IMO
Well, imagine what technology will be like 20 years from now and try to understand it in this day and age.
Not entirely relevant but our brain size has been shrinking for the past thousands of years. Most of the articles i came across seem quite reluctant to posit that it means humans are just getting dumber but that was the underlying message i sensed anw.
http://darwinian-medicine.com/our-brains-are-shrinking/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-have-our-brains-started-to-shrink/
So it doesnt really matter what gen you belong too. the whole human race is getting stupid and has been doing so for a long time.
Posted by Horsey
Not entirely relevant but our brain size has been shrinking for the past thousands of years. Most of the articles i came across seem quite reluctant to posit that it means humans are just getting dumber but that was the underlying message i sensed anw.http://darwinian-medicine.com/our-brains-are-shrinking/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-have-our-brains-started-to-shrink/So it doesnt really matter what gen you belong too. the whole human race is getting stupid and has been doing so for a long time.
nice try, but cow have bigger brains than humans
The larger brains is thought to be correlated to muscle size
if anything I think the apex intelligence was reached at the time of WW2, from 1930 to a couple years after 1945.
Most of the great theories and achievements in math, physics, philosophy, sociology, litterature, you name it... were achieved then.
Just after WW2 there was a decision made to turn the world population into docile dumbed down cattle through american culture.
Because intelligent societies will most often lead to communism or national socialism and it's easier for the globalist elites to make their wealth like that.
Did this help you understand your situation?
dxpnet has hosted real conversations like this since 2000. If you value independent communities, you can support the site below.
Every contribution helps keep dxpnet independent and ad-light.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →
What you've known intuitively for your whole life