Are humans becoming less inteligent?

[LegendadryPerc]

obviously, since I can't spell... lol!

Not that I'm too concerned about the state of our percieved inteligence, but it seems an interesting topic to explore.

Can we get any stupider than we already are? Is it environmental or hereditary?

What I've often wondered is if the current trend in industrialized nations to have fewer kids, leads to the lack of extremely inteligent people. Couple this with our independence, and comparitive lack of extended family envolvement, and you have clueless parents raising only one or two kids. By the time they "figure it out", they're done (though I have other phylosophies about this). How much does a kid benefit from older siblings? Do daycares with lots of kids of different ages help fill this role? How much does a kid benefit from the old bedridden grandma in the corner? If having one of these is impractical, how can we meet this need another way? Then there is school, and "media". At what point are we literally teaching people not to think for themselves? Is it benificial to society to have smarter people? What about our sterile environment with all our social rules of what is and isn't acceptable? Can a kid learn and stimulate their senses as much in a playpen with "educational" toys, as they can in a mud puddle?

Makes me wonder if the only places where inteligent people are likely to survive society and remain good independent thinkers, is third world countries, where they have lots of kids, and not very much cultural restrictions on what you can and can't do with your kids, not to mention, fewer time saving devices that entertain your kids for you, so you can get something done. (not argueing on whether we should or need to use these - I am a mom!)

[Fiannan]

I think we can assume that intelligence (as in the ability of the brain to function to solve problems and create) is as genetically determined as one's ability to build muscle for physical tasks or one's ability to fight off disease. Why shouldn't it be? If we believe that the soul takes on a body and is the moral and deeper conscious of the person then the brain then is a tool just as the bicepts or the stomach are. Perhaps keeping this in mind we can see why the Church made many statements that were quite compatible with positive eugenics back in the days that it was not considered bad manners to do so by the dominant society.

So in a sense our bodies are akin to a car -- the soul can be seen as the driver but the car will perform based on it's design and abilities differently than other makes and models.

Now let's take this further...we know that souls in the pre-existence are desperate to have their turn on earth and will take anything offered. Perhaps they act like a teen who really wants to drive and will (at least at first) be greatful for a wreck if the parents buy it for him. Again, let's take this analogy a bit further.

We can break down humans into three categories for the sake of this illustration:

1) People with limited intellect but willing to work and make a living. The analogy here can be an old puck-up truck.

2) People with pretty average IQ. The analogy here can be an economy model, low-cost car.

3) People with high intellect, creativity and abilities to do all kinds of professional work. Oh, let's say a high performance Mercedes.

Pause here for a human observation.:)

In an agricultural society, or a hunter-gatherer society, everyone has to work hard and eak out a living from the soil. Sure, the highly intelligent ones may think deeper, and create labor-saving devices in the future but for most it will not mean they live all that different from their average or below-average IQ neighbors. It isn't until societies evolve into more complex stages that differences really matter. That time of course is now for us.

Back to the auto analogy.:)

Now let's pretend that what our society needs is more high performance vehicles for one reason or another and we have a VERY advanced infrastructure. Yet we find that we are getting fewer and fewer of the Mercedes models coming out. We could modify the standard cars and pick-ups (educational intervention) and get by for a while but as time goes on we get more and more pick-ups but fewer and fewer high performace cars and even standard cars that can be enhanced. Eventually, this can be a major problem for óur hypothetical society that needs more, not less, of the makes that are decreasing in number and proportion.

Now this is what I see happening in our society. We are taking the brightest (especially women) and aiming their aspirations away from family and reproduction. On the other hand our welfare system rewards people with few abilities or less ambition to reproduce younger and in greater number. For a while we can enhance and for a while it will even appear that we are getting a higher IQ in the society but, as in the car analogy, it will eventually catch up to us.

In a way it would be like some primitive society that has a yearly ritual of sacrificing it's prettiest women to the Gods. Eventually you'd expect to wind up with an ugly society. We are kinda doing this in regards to reproduction attitudes.

[Hemidakota]

obviously, since I can't spell... lol!

Not that I'm too concerned about the state of our percieved inteligence, but it seems an interesting topic to explore.

Can we get any stupider than we already are? Is it environmental or hereditary?

What I've often wondered is if the current trend in industrialized nations to have fewer kids, leads to the lack of extremely inteligent people. Couple this with our independence, and comparitive lack of extended family envolvement, and you have clueless parents raising only one or two kids. By the time they "figure it out", they're done (though I have other phylosophies about this). How much does a kid benefit from older siblings? Do daycares with lots of kids of different ages help fill this role? How much does a kid benefit from the old bedridden grandma in the corner? If having one of these is impractical, how can we meet this need another way? Then there is school, and "media". At what point are we literally teaching people not to think for themselves? Is it benificial to society to have smarter people? What about our sterile environment with all our social rules of what is and isn't acceptable? Can a kid learn and stimulate their senses as much in a playpen with "educational" toys, as they can in a mud puddle?

Makes me wonder if the only places where intelligent people are likely to survive society and remain good independent thinkers, is third world countries, where they have lots of kids, and not very much cultural restrictions on what you can and can't do with your kids, not to mention, fewer time saving devices that entertain your kids for you, so you can get something done. (not argueing on whether we should or need to use these - I am a mom!)

My field of study, System Engineering, I have witnessed a society of great thinkers and movers.

[Gwen]

i think the problem is that the generations are getting smarter. with all the issues named above, no siblings (try getting into to much trouble with a nagging little sis following you around lol), no extended family taking an interest or to much interest, leaving the lambs to the hireling, etc. you've got smart kids with no direction. sounds like a free for all for satan. the evidence of that is in the news. he's having a field day. we need to expect our children to be able to learn and teach them, everything. especially morals, empathy, courage, wisdom, and to slow down.

[Fiannan]

My field of study, System Engineering, I have witnessed a society of great thinkers and movers.

I know this is anctedotal but if you look at all your non-LDS collegues who are ages 25 -- 55 what is the average family size for those people? If you know any who are women what is their average fertility rate?

By the way, if anyone is interested there is a film that should be manditory for every high school senior to watch in either bilogy or social studies classes. That film is "Idiocracy". I won't provide the link since it has a few bad words in the beginning but if you want something that speaks to this issue go to You Tube and look up the introduction to the movie.

The yuppie couple presented are, sadly, representative of millions of couples in western society today.

[Hemidakota]

Hmm....2-3 children is the average from what I had seen and the average fertility age is in the early thirties. Does that sound normal?

Is generation 'Y' the group referred as 'yuppies'?

[Fiannan]

Hmm....2-3 children is the average from what I had seen and the average fertility age is in the early thirties. Does that sound normal?

Is generation 'Y' the group referred as 'yuppies'?

No, the yuppies appeared to be those baby boomers that decided that sex, drugs and rock and roll were all enhanced with the acquisition of money.

Gen X are those children born in the 1960s and very early 1970s and the Y folk were the ones born from the early 1970s through the 1980s.

So Kemidakota, are you factoring in the people you work with who have no kids? What I was shooting at was the number after you averaged in everyone. And are you saying that females with your training have that many kids?

[Hemidakota]

The younger married engineers or interns at that time, would wait in there latter 20s or early thirties to have children.

2-3 children was the norm. Then we have ourselves with 8. LOL

[RachelleDrew]

I know this is anctedotal but if you look at all your non-LDS collegues who are ages 25 -- 55 what is the average family size for those people? If you know any who are women what is their average fertility rate?

By the way, if anyone is interested there is a film that should be manditory for every high school senior to watch in either bilogy or social studies classes. That film is "Idiocracy". I won't provide the link since it has a few bad words in the beginning but if you want something that speaks to this issue go to You Tube and look up the introduction to the movie.

The yuppie couple presented are, sadly, representative of millions of couples in western society today.

That movie is awesome, I will gladly eat my DVD copy of Idiocracy when we start watering our plants with gatorade. It doesn't seem too far off.

Cause, you know. It's what plants crave.

[WANDERER]

Intelligence ummm...in the end it's all about how useful you can make that intelligence to others. Some make better use of what they're given that's for sure.

[Misshalfway]

I don't know about being less intelligent, but sometimes I think we are becoming a lazy society. With remote controls and fast food and disposable everything!

I worry sometimes about all the things children can't do anymore, like roam the neighborhood freely or explore without constant supervision. I think while they get exposure to technological advancements everywhere and seem to be 'smarter' than earlier generations, I wonder if they lack street smarts and value smarts and the kind of skills that come from such freedom to be children.

[Hemidakota]

Week ago, one of our kids managed to lose our remote control [a.k.a buzzer box] for our bedroom. Our home is currently being remodeled and we seemed to have this mysterious Blackhole that gobbles up everything it can. Now, being a history/science channel fan, laziness is a problem when technology provides daily ritual outlets in not getting out of bed to change channels between commercials breaks. [humor]

[Misshalfway]

Oh! I totally know! We hate it when we have to get out of bed to change the channel or turn down the sound. Losing the remote is a federal offense! :)

[Moksha]

Going back to Fiannan's analogy, we should ask ourselves why the Asian countries are producing so many Mercedes. Thankfully, Asian units in this country are also producing some Mercedes.

Now my question: How does green Jell-O salad fit into this analogy?

[Fiannan]

Going back to Fiannan's analogy, we should ask ourselves why the Asian countries are producing so many Mercedes. Thankfully, Asian units in this country are also producing some Mercedes.

Not sure, there are some theorists in the areas of intelligence that claim that marriage patterns in Asian nations favored intelligent guys getting money and good wives and making more kids -- traditionally in Japan the richer classes were the ones producing the most kids.

I think it was some researchers in Utah that speculated that Ashkenazi Jews had higher than average IQs because Jews were not allowed into areas like farming in much of Europe so only Jewish men who could use their brains could make money and then get good wives. To top that off traditionally the really smart boys were encouraged to be rabbis and it was high status to have a rabbi in the family so rich girls were paired off with rabbis and the rabbi was expected to have a big family since the Bible said that was the ideal.

Now my question: How does green Jell-O salad fit into this analogy?

That depends, why do you ask and what does green Jell-O mean to you?

[Hemidakota]

I am glad I was not born within that type of culture [Asian]. No offense against anyone who was but I been there on and off over the years and noted that true thinkers are not breaded within the society. It may be a culture problem from what I gather.

A classic example, when you look at the US Patent submitted that are based on new ideas and not the typical reinvention of the older patent, you will be surprised where thinkers are located [Europe and America].

Now, it begs to ask, what constitutes intelligence? Is it based on the old notion of academics as it was in older Europe of religion clergies versus the typical village peasants? No! Talked about class distinction! Does this sound familiar with the BOM problems with class distinction? For me, it is based on what is learned is applied to life. I prefer those of well rounded in intelligence and than to be particular based on one field of study. I maintain a 4.0 average at UCSD further Master Engineering Studies; does this make me more intelligence? No!

Now, if I had ten-minutes within the Celestial Library, I could only touch every single book that is on those shelves…..LOL

[LegendadryPerc]

Now this is what I see happening in our society. We are taking the brightest (especially women) and aiming their aspirations away from family and reproduction. On the other hand our welfare system rewards people with few abilities or less ambition to reproduce younger and in greater number. For a while we can enhance and for a while it will even appear that we are getting a higher IQ in the society but, as in the car analogy, it will eventually catch up to us.

In a way it would be like some primitive society that has a yearly ritual of sacrificing it's prettiest women to the Gods. Eventually you'd expect to wind up with an ugly society. We are kinda doing this in regards to reproduction attitudes.

Wow! mind if I pass this on to some freinds who would appreciate it? What insightfullness!

Other wonderfull thoughts too, but don't know how to quote more than one person! lol

Yes, this does beg the question of "what is inteligece?" also, "is inteligence the goal?"

[Moksha]

That depends, why do you ask and what does green Jell-O mean to you?

This is rather Freudian. Do you have a soft couch?

[Bookmeister]

From my point of view, the general education of those folks younger than I am seems to be very broad, but terribly shallow. The emphasis in much of higher ed appears to be aimed at getting a job (which is certainly understandable) and much less on any sort of in-depth learning.

I attribute this to the speed at which we can obtain "information". Many people seem to think that all one needs to do is "google" a subject, or look it up on Wikipedia. They don't seem to have developed the necessary critical analytical and knowledge skills that would allow them to determine whether what they're looking at is actually correct or reliable.

Of course, I'm a former librarian, so I would expect to feel this way...LOL

[Hemidakota]

You are right. Getting a job is what worries me also when I speak to my own children and employees at work. The emphasis should be on adding to society and learning as a whole than for money.

President John Taylor wrote:

TRUE EDUCATION MUST BE PUT TO USE FOR HUMAN BENEFIT.—That education which but amounts to a little out-ward appearance and applies only to a few conveniences of this life is very far short of that education and intelligence which immortal beings ought to be in possession of. The education of the present day is generally misapplied. Indeed, men have misapplied the education which they have received for generations and generations.

[WANDERER]

Bookmeister...actually the speed at which we can obtain information has adjusted some of the cultural approaches..I'm seeing more analytical and critical assignment topics that won't allow simple copy and paste..so that you really have to understand the topic in an in-depth way. Academic guidelines on internet sources aren't exactly embracing of wiki or youtube. There's definitely a focus on the practical applications of knowledge: processing rather than accumulation. Is this what we will need...perhaps? Is there more of a focus on analytical skills than logical reasoning skills...perhaps.

There were some recent news articles in the U.K focussing on how the value system of grading has deteriorated and whether we are lowering our standards in order to be more politically correct. What will we expect to wind up with as a result of this? The topic did end up sounding like a very class oriented discussion about academics and traditional classical definitions of what denotes the pursuit of 'pure' knowledge however: the whole knowledge for the sake of the beauty of knowledge type of aspiration. I'm not all that certain that easy grading is going to lower intelligence...it's just data and statistics. I'm sure intelligence thrives in spite of education systems ; )

Quote:

We are taking the brightest (especially women) and aiming their aspirations away from family and reproduction.

Hmmm. In both the examples put forward regarding cultural favouring of intelligence and reproduction the intelligence quotient of women was not all that great a factor in decision making.

[LegendadryPerc]

I guess in reality, I haven't been around long enough to have more than a fantasy view of what education used to be, or should be in my mind. But the thoughts on education becoming broader and less deep, get me going on my soap box, of how public education has become this big monster of administation, etc., with the kids sitting at the bottom getting whatever the creature gives them. There is a appalling lack of freedom to learn what one wants in public education. This, I think contributes significantly to taking the broad, but not in depth path. If everybody learns the exact same thing, it becomes hard to go in depth, as not everybody has the thought skills or desire to pursue any given thing, in depth.