2000+ years ago, when books were really hard to find, people memorized very long poems. It took 24 hours to recite the Iliad, and that probably wouldn't be the only story the reciter knew, either.
People can't/don't do that any more (with a few exceptionally rare exceptions), except for in cultures that don't have very good access to books. We've lost the skills necessary to memorize such long strings of words, because we can write them down in books now.
That process is repeating itself again and again. As technology improves the necessity for certain skills goes away. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but it's always been and always will be.
I do think certain technologies and habits concerning them are detrimental. For example the multi-tasking trend is bad IMO, but it's not going to make us dumber. Multi-tasking isn't going to halt advancement, instead it will lower the rate of it slightly as a generation of scientists and engineers go into the work place with bad habits. But it's a scientific fact, trying to multi-task reduces your brains efficiency by 15-20%, regardless of how good you think you are at it.
With this study, I would argue that we're smarter now, considering the fact that there are probably far less illiterate people out there now.
until you have to listen to any teenager this day and age. 50% are so buried in their texting that they don't process simple commands, and the other 50% is learning to speak in text. (O M G, L O L.)
We receive all our information from the same source, of which I was told, for example, that you could smuggle drugs across the border if you packed them in coffee grounds. to which I asked 'you understand that is a movie/tv plot item, and not really true, right?'
the conversation only went downhill from there.
I remember hearing ginormous the first time in a commercial and literally slapping my forehead. within weeks, I was in an argument with a college student about it not actually being a word, and what could you not communicate with the words enormous or gigantic that you had to make up a new one to fill the void. And now its a part of the webster's dictionary.
My favorite is getting into a conversation with some of Voltaire's ideals, only to have the person ask me if Voltaire was one of my 'Dungeons and Dragons things' and jokingly being told to come back to reality, all in one sentence.
Becoming dumber? Oh, hell yes.
Far less illiterate people? basic verbal understanding; yes, but far from being 'literate'.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel our intelligence may be Shifting directions rather than us becoming dumber.
We're becoming better at using technology to do the grunt work for us so we can analyse things at a deeper level. I feel there might be a fine line there though. I've been teaching science for the past 15 years and I've certainly noticed th last five or so have been particularly hard to motivate students to retain knowledge. Many of them feel its easy enough to just google the answer. We're training them to be lazier in terms of memory and problem solving, but their ability to track information down is becoming much better.
I am certainly worried with the trend that is coming out. however, when I teach my senior science classes, I do see glimmers in the darkness. There are still plenty of very intelligent people out there to make world go around. Occasionally I get to work with some of them as a teacher, and that can be really inspiring.
Cheers
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With this study, I would argue that we're smarter now, considering the fact that there are probably far less illiterate people out there now.until you have to listen to any teenager this day and age. 50% are so buried in their texting that they don't process simple commands, and the other 50% is learning to speak in text. (O M G, L O L.)
We receive all our information from the same source, of which I was told, for example, that you could smuggle drugs across the border if you packed them in coffee grounds. to which I asked 'you understand that is a movie/tv plot item, and not really true, right?'
the conversation only went downhill from there.
I remember hearing ginormous the first time in a commercial and literally slapping my forehead. within weeks, I was in an argument with a college student about it not actually being a word, and what could you not communicate with the words enormous or gigantic that you had to make up a new one to fill the void. And now its a part of the webster's dictionary.
My favorite is getting into a conversation with some of Voltaire's ideals, only to have the person ask me if Voltaire was one of my 'Dungeons and Dragons things' and jokingly being told to come back to reality, all in one sentence.
Becoming dumber? Oh, hell yes.
Far less illiterate people? basic verbal understanding; yes, but far from being 'literate'.
Right, because the 80s didn't have
"cool", and "rad", and "cowabunga".Language evolves. I'm sick and tired of grognards thinking that they are somehow supperior because they don't understand modern culture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back in the '70s, people used to do PCP ("angel dust"). Sometimes it made you paranoid and/or violent, and you'd do fun things like put your hand through windows -- or simply jump out of a window.
Now kids are doing ecstacy ("X"). Often it makes them jump up and down a lot, and sometimes want to cuddle.
Kids these days are so much dumber than we were!
Intelligence grows increasingly fluid.
PCP has the charming ability to make you permanently psychotic and gives a predilection for eating your own body parts. Ecstacy just damages your serotonin neurons so that they don't regrow even after several years, causing therapy-resistant depressions for that time.
Nah. We're just differently stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know I am less intelligent than i use to be.
I mean: I knew everything when I was 17, now I just have a bunch of questions.
If you had children you would be getting smarter.
“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”
--- Mark Twain
I love that quote.
[Blow up thread with his mind]
Right, because the 80s didn't have
"cool", and "rad", and "cowabunga".Language evolves. I'm sick and tired of grognards thinking that they are somehow supperior because they don't understand modern culture.
Not to detract from your point, but "cool" is as old as the saxophone playing of Lester Young (1930s) and "cowabunga" came from a children's television program from the fifities.
Lester Young was pretty cool -- Coleman Hawkins, too. (Rummages around for old "Classic Tenors" tape cassette...)
Sorry, didn't read the whole thread. I presume the claim has been debunked by now?
It hasn't been debunked per se, but it has had a lot of skepticism thrown at it. Why is faster processing a sign of overall intelligence? Where did they get the data from the 19th century that they used? Are there other explanations for the slow-down in response times? The whole thing feels like a theory that hasn't been made watertight yet. It may be correct and it may not be.
The people who did this study don't seem to have proven their theory one way or the other. It is an interesting concept. But does it hold water scientifically? Skepticism seems to be holding the hand at this point.
The article itself makes me think that the author is dumber than most Victorians. I wouldn't say that necessarily extends to the rest of the population, though.
My wife's freaking cat reacts to stimuli faster than she does. Does that mean it's smarter than she is? (Answer: No, her cat is dumber than mud.)
This made me laugh. Thanks.