At first I was expecting an interesting theory about genetics and human intelligence. After reading the (short) article, I began to question if this was a parody site like The Onion or others. Looking at other "stories" on the page, I was certain this was a joke. Then I scrolled up to the top and saw the title of the site was "Natural Society" and now I really don't know. These guys might actually be serious.
So, two things. First, is human intelligence really temporary? Are we at the pinnacle of human civilization and on the long gradual slope back to hunter-gathering? Second, are these articles meant to be taken seriously?
The site isn't a joke -- but it has a pretty heavy agenda. These are the kind of folks who rattle on about genetically modified food, the evils of fluoridation, and vaccinations causing autism, among other things.
Surely by that logic the peoples living in outer mongolia without a processed diet etc would be the most potential intellectuals?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: The site isn't a joke -- but it has a pretty heavy agenda. These are the kind of folks who rattle on about genetically modified food, the evils of fluoridation, and vaccinations causing autism, among other things.
Don't forget that the pope is a reptilian and he's only stepping down because he needs to regenerate his tail
OP, you ask this question, but I only have this to respond to it:
1. Check your Facebook.
2. Browse a popular discussion website (4chan even, though this one is a cesspool.) for a few minutes.
3. Get on the road (Or better, a bus.) and drive out into the world and get some soda for the evening.
4. Come home and play <Insert popular online game here> for an hour.
5. Stop, come back to this thread and tell me with a straight face that you DON'T think human intelligence hit rock bottom and commenced digging.
(Seriously, I don't think the average state of human intellect is in decline...It's just that it wasn't very high to begin with. Not every Roman was engineering aqueducts, and not every Greek was creating mathematical and cultural concepts that wind up standing for ages. This article is lel.)
Widespread use of the internet has brought all those morons around the globe we usually wouldn't have to interact with, and put them right in front of our faces!
The idea that a bunch of people like this exist makes hitler coming to power seem to make sense and it's kind of sad. Just because you were born from stupid or lazy parents doesn't make you pre-disposed to having stupid kids. The same can be said for smart parents. People don't realize that yeah sure if you take somebody's looks and somebody's brains you might get a smart and pretty individual but you also might get the wrong traits. Also just because somebody is smart or etc. doesn't mean they want to use it and even if they came from a spoiled background they might be no more inclined to learn. Really in many cases it's what some of these people choose to do.
Also i find some of this hard to believe that people are getting dumber. Guess what tv and other types of entertainment (yes even books) don't equal what actually happened. It equals somebody's perspective of what happened. I can make a movie about unicorns farting rainbows and men flying but it doesn't make it true. Many things are heavy with a person's bias and only showing how their point might seem valid and not showing all the things disproving their point to make it seem less valid only helps show their supposed truth. Not to mention overall as time has gone by people have gotten smarter (like the importance of educating the masses and getting them to read). I dunno if it would decline slightly but as a society we're learning more and teaching our young what we know so that they can take it a step further each and every time.
I'm not sure about human intelligence declining, but I do think there seems to be a lot more cases of autism, food allergies, and attention disorders than there were just 20 years ago.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I'm not sure about human intelligence declining, but I do think there seems to be a lot more cases of autism, food allergies, and attention disorders than there were just 20 years ago.
The food allergies I can't comment on, but a lot of the "increase in cases of autism" is people going, "maybe little tommy isn't just a troublemaker, maybe there is something else at play here." So people that in the 70s and 80s would have been called scallywags, now get diagnosed with conditions like ADD and autism.
Mattman154 wrote:Widespread use of the internet has brought all those morons around the globe we usually wouldn't have to interact with, and put them right in front of our faces!
Exactly. Stop and consider that. All those 'morons' around the globe have managed to utilize the greatest piece of information technology in the history of mankind.
So no, human intelligence is not really on the decline. Not by a longshot.
Mattman154 wrote:Widespread use of the internet has brought all those morons around the globe we usually wouldn't have to interact with, and put them right in front of our faces!
Exactly. Stop and consider that. All those 'morons' around the globe have managed to utilize the greatest piece of information technology in the history of mankind.
So no, human intelligence is not really on the decline. Not by a longshot.
People on the internet are anonymous and because of this often feel less of a need to hold themselves back on their opinions or ideas esp. based on appearance and other some such. It's a great freedom of expression. Often times some people would otherwise keep their crazy thoughts to themselves and in some cases some people wouldn't show the same self they do in person. What i see on the internet is often times what i think people really are on the inside without fear of people they know really insulting them for what they like. Of course that also means people can be jerks anonymously. That said a lot of people in real life use looks or muscles to intimidate and sway others. Gotta say the lack of that on the internet is often times a good thing. It's not like those abilities can be brought to bear through the internet. Funny when you see those people look like idiots for not having skills other than that. Of course people which are used to being *ssholes still seem to be able to be them on the internet. It's a sad fact i'm afraid.
All those 'morons' around the globe have managed to utilize the greatest piece of information technology in the history of mankind. *
*Once some extremely smart people decided to make it reliable enough to generally not need repair/reconfig and sufficiently easy to use that all that was required was "Push power button. Wait. Double click Firefox. Type something into Google. Hooray!"
Fixed that for you. Gone are the days (for most of us) where you have to manually configure every aspect of your system and network through DOS to connect to the internet, and back in those days not a whole lot of people bothered with it.
When those times return (Any time a relative/inlaw/idiot acquaintance clicks the wrong checkbox in their browser settings, or accidentally pokes the power button on their router moving it on the shelf, for example.) those of us who lived through those days get reminded of the above fact.
Mattman154 wrote:Widespread use of the internet has brought all those morons around the globe we usually wouldn't have to interact with, and put them right in front of our faces!
Exactly. Stop and consider that. All those 'morons' around the globe have managed to utilize the greatest piece of information technology in the history of mankind.
So no, human intelligence is not really on the decline. Not by a longshot.
Never underestimate the power of dumb people organized into large groups.
Mattman154 wrote:Widespread use of the internet has brought all those morons around the globe we usually wouldn't have to interact with, and put them right in front of our faces!
Exactly. Stop and consider that. All those 'morons' around the globe have managed to utilize the greatest piece of information technology in the history of mankind.
So no, human intelligence is not really on the decline. Not by a longshot.
Never underestimate the power of dumb people organized into large groups.
I believe that's called 'wisdom of the clouds', or 'crowdsourcing', which is an extremely powerful tool and only fails when compared to *actual* experts.
Mattman154 wrote:Widespread use of the internet has brought all those morons around the globe we usually wouldn't have to interact with, and put them right in front of our faces!
Exactly. Stop and consider that. All those 'morons' around the globe have managed to utilize the greatest piece of information technology in the history of mankind.
So no, human intelligence is not really on the decline. Not by a longshot.
Never underestimate the power of dumb people organized into large groups.
I believe that's called 'wisdom of the clouds', or 'crowdsourcing', which is an extremely powerful tool and only fails when compared to *actual* experts.
It's becoming less about the retention of knowledge and more about the retention of how to access that knowledge quickly and precisely. Sort of like having something else to recall that information for you, there still must be understanding through the interpretation of that information though.
I do not need to remember exactly how something works, just my understanding of it and some key points to look up to expand on it if needed.
Every couple of years they have to adjust IQ tests to make the average 100 score a little harder to achieve. This is because we're getting much, much better at taking those tests. If you took the average person from the 1930s and gave them the test we have today, they'd be deemed developmentally slowed by modern standards.
So no, we're not getting dumber.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Have you ever seen Idiocracy? While you laugh at the time you realise that they might in fact be onto something.
Idiocracy isn't actually about that. It's just thrown in early on in the movie as a way to justify the future society, so the creater can then get on with the real point of the movie - complaining about modern society. At the end there's even a little speach where the lead character talks about how maybe things got stupid because average guys like him didn't read or apply their intelligence.
It really, really isn't a warning about poor people breeding.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote: The food allergies I can't comment on, but a lot of the "increase in cases of autism" is people going, "maybe little tommy isn't just a troublemaker, maybe there is something else at play here." So people that in the 70s and 80s would have been called scallywags, now get diagnosed with conditions like ADD and autism.
Yeah, a lot of the rise in autism is due to how much better we are at detecting it and giving them better care. And there's also a likely connectiom to people having children later in life.
n0t_u wrote:It's becoming less about the retention of knowledge and more about the retention of how to access that knowledge quickly and precisely. Sort of like having something else to recall that information for you, there still must be understanding through the interpretation of that information though.
I do not need to remember exactly how something works, just my understanding of it and some key points to look up to expand on it if needed.
I don't know about you, but when i go for a walk, all I see is smart people. Probably doesn't help that I walk through a university.
Wherever you go, you will see what you look for, stupid or smart. I'm not going to look for any studies, but then, I don't think that anyone would make a study on the average IQ of an area. The very thing is bugged because it would be so hard to reduce any error you would get form the location that it is taken in.
All those 'morons' around the globe have managed to utilize the greatest piece of information technology in the history of mankind. *
*Once some extremely smart people decided to make it reliable enough to generally not need repair/reconfig and sufficiently easy to use that all that was required was "Push power button. Wait. Double click Firefox. Type something into Google. Hooray!"
Fixed that for you. Gone are the days (for most of us) where you have to manually configure every aspect of your system and network through DOS to connect to the internet, and back in those days not a whole lot of people bothered with it.
When those times return (Any time a relative/inlaw/idiot acquaintance clicks the wrong checkbox in their browser settings, or accidentally pokes the power button on their router moving it on the shelf, for example.) those of us who lived through those days get reminded of the above fact.
He was (or could just as easily have been, at least) talking about written language. Think about that for a second. The vast majority of people have always been angry, illiterate, horny, and drugged half out their minds, and now an unprecedented number are literate, to say nothing of a general increase in restraint elsewhere.
People tend to forget just how low the average person used to be, and while you may look down on the average person today (justifiably or not), the fact remains is that they are significantly better than the average person of a hundred years ago.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I don't recall saying it was about poor people, if you can show me when I did I'd appreciate it.
Dumb people. Poor people. Whatever.
Point is that's not what the film is about, and complaining about people getting dumber while missing the point of a movie is kind of funny.
Seeing as one of the themes of the film was anti-intellectualism and extrapolating its possible effects on a future society then pointing out a difference between poor people and dumb people is quite important. Unless of course you think that intellect is tied to money.
Well rather than respond in kind with an equally thinly veiled insult, maybe you can tell me what you got out of the film.
Idiocracy doesn't explicitly connect intelligence to economic levels, it just consistently shows poor people in the modern context as having low IQ's, and people of high IQ being upper middle class or better. In a world run by fools everyone has the same stuff, which also generally happens to be the same as the poor, dumb people shown in the earlier parts of the film. Surely that is incidental, and in no way should be seen as creating a connection between intelligence and wealth.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Seeing as one of the themes of the film was anti-intellectualism and extrapolating its possible effects on a future society then pointing out a difference between poor people and dumb people is quite important. Unless of course you think that intellect is tied to money.
First up, you're simply wrong in thinking Idiocracy is about extrapolating the possible effects of anything on anything. The film isn't about the future at all. It's one great big rant about modern society, about one smarter than average guy's frustrations with the stupidity he faces every day. The dystopian future presented isn't a prediction of what might be, its a parody of modern society, with a quick sci-fi explanation to justify putting us in that world.
Second up, no, I don't think intellect is tied to money. But I know what lots of other people think, and how the idea of 'stupid people breed more' works. When people make that complaint, not one of them is thinking of Paris Hilton. They're thinking of welfare queens and the like.
Well rather than respond in kind with an equally thinly veiled insult, maybe you can tell me what you got out of the film.
There was nothing thinly veiled about it. I left it out of my original post, as there's no reason to make fun of someone for missing the point of a movie (especially when that movie is more than a little confused in how it makes its own point). But when you responded with an inane comment on a really silly sub-issue and ignored the greater point, then yeah, I figured why not have a chuckle.
And what I got out of Idiocracy is a lot of good laughs about the frustrations of dealing with idiots.
sebster wrote:Every couple of years they have to adjust IQ tests to make the average 100 score a little harder to achieve. This is because we're getting much, much better at taking those tests. If you took the average person from the 1930s and gave them the test we have today, they'd be deemed developmentally slowed by modern standards.
So no, we're not getting dumber.
Source please.
Also consider that decline in intelligence might be a geographical/societal thing. That some socities are lowering there standards. The reason I say this is that in the US there is pretty clear evidence of a decline in intelligence when you consider the fact that our college entrance exams have been dumbed down twice in the past 20 years just in order to maintain the "500" score average for each section of the SAT's.
US intelligence as measured by our entrance exams peaked from 1972 - 1985. Ever since there has been a steady decline.
If you want a source, I'm using data from the US dept of education. If you ask for a link, I'll dig it up and post it in the next couple of days.
sebster wrote:Yeah, a lot of the rise in autism is due to how much better we are at detecting it and giving them better care. And there's also a likely connectiom to people having children later in life.
While improved diagnostic abilities have helped, they do not explain the geographical variations in such a rise. There are countries with medical systems that are the equal of the US's but they are not seeing the same explosion.
Honestly, I think that the increase is due to a combination of reasons that include:
Improved diagnosis
Over zealous medical systems that treat anything out of the norm as a disease/disorder(Asbergers) rather than normal outliers on the scale
And
Enviromental reasons, such as genetically modified foods, pesticides, over exposure to synthetic material(phalates) and other such.
In answer to the OP's question, "Is Human Intelligence Really On The Decline?"
I can't say this is true every where but it is true in the US. Funny, the decline in the US seems to match up with when we abandoned our old model of education and began adopting a new model based on a variety of techniques that we imported from countries with less effective educational systems.
In reality, I feel the decline is based upon our government playing politics with our educational system and focusing on making our public schools more about indoctrination that about imparting knowledge.
Also consider that decline in intelligence might be a geographical/societal thing. That some socities are lowering there standards. The reason I say this is that in the US there is pretty clear evidence of a decline in intelligence when you consider the fact that our college entrance exams have been dumbed down twice in the past 20 years just in order to maintain the "500" score average for each section of the SAT's.
US intelligence as measured by our entrance exams peaked from 1972 - 1985. Ever since there has been a steady decline.
If you want a source, I'm using data from the US dept of education. If you ask for a link, I'll dig it up and post it in the next couple of days.
For the same reason Japan's education system looks better on a cursory examination of the numbers: we make/strongly encourage everyone to take the tests, instead of allowing/forcing those who don't have the skills to score highly to refrain from taking them. If we kicked all the low-performing students out before they could drag down the averages, we'd look like we were getting smarter on average (on paper that is), while actually making the population even more uneducated and generally incompetent.
In fact, the US education system, despite its flaws, is one of the best in the world. We just avoid rigging the stats by removing the under-performing students, and so look worse when it comes to the average scores of standardized tests.
In fact, the US education system, despite its flaws, is one of the best in the world. We just avoid rigging the stats by removing the under-performing students, and so look worse when it comes to the average scores of standardized tests.
This. So much of the 'concern" over education is a pile of hookum for the great cultural war against Public Education.
That being said, our HS drop-out rate is deplorable.
If there is a decline in human IQ it is likely because we live in a society of instant gratification that doesn't engender a culture of thoughtfulness.
To develop an intellect you need to sit and ponder, that requires an attention span. Modern technology particularly the heavily proliferated mass communication tools has declined the attention spans of modern humans in western society considerably over just a generation. We now have a very marked generational literacy gap in the UK, and while some of that can be linked to mismanaged education policies and immigration form developing nations, societal change in general is the larger cause.
I am not going to laugh this off. Changes in communications technology has had its side effects for a long time. The ancient Egyptians are first known to have recorded it. There is a legend which goes thus:
Pharaoh prayed to Ra the Sun God and said.
"Father Ra, I have invented the wheel."
and Ra replied
"Very good my Son. Now you will be able to build chariots and subdue all your enemies."
Pharaoh went away pleased with himself and did as he was advised.
Later he prayed again saying,
"Father Ra, I have invented irrigation."
and Ra replied
"Very good my Son. Now when the Nile's flood waters have ebbed you will be able to feed the people of Egypt with lush ground."
Pharaoh went away pleased with himself and did as he was advised
Later he prayed again saying,
"Father Ra, I have invented hieroglyphics."
and Ra replied
"My Son, you are a fool. Now you teach men to forget."
Now not everyone then as now had the bardic gift of memorising large amounts of information. However due to modern society the few western barding traditions we have left such as the Manx bards and those in Western Ireland are fading with no one to recite the old tales too. This also while a steep human loss is just symptomic of a larger problem, the more we rely on technology to communicate and the faster and easier communication becomes the less the human mind develops. I can see a direct correlation with dropping standards of literacy and the increased use of social media, and that goes far beyond chavspeak.
Orlanth wrote: This also while a steep human loss is just symptomic of a larger problem, the more we rely on technology to communicate and the faster and easier communication becomes the less the human mind develops. I can see a direct correlation with dropping standards of literacy and the increased use of social media, and that goes far beyond chavspeak.
I agree with this. I see it all the time on message boards. People ask a question that could have been quickly and easily answered by looking it up themselves with a search engine, but instead they expect someone else to do their work for them. It's one thing to post a question if you can't find the answer, but something else if you never bother to look in the first place.
sebster wrote: There was nothing thinly veiled about it. I left it out of my original post, as there's no reason to make fun of someone for missing the point of a movie (especially when that movie is more than a little confused in how it makes its own point). But when you responded with an inane comment on a really silly sub-issue and ignored the greater point, then yeah, I figured why not have a chuckle.
So rather than share your opinion on what you got out of the movie you'd rather make snide comments to another member of the community? That speaks volumes.
There's also a big discussion going on right now about perhaps there's a need to recognise different kinds of intelligence more.
For example, talking about the difference between the traditional need to remember correct information whereas you could see there's a greater requirement now to know how to find correct information.
EG, not just reading wikipedia and using that verbatim, but reading wikipedia, then referring to their sources pages and being able to make a judgement call on that.
Compel wrote: There's also a big discussion going on right now about perhaps there's a need to recognise different kinds of intelligence more.
For example, talking about the difference between the traditional need to remember correct information whereas you could see there's a greater requirement now to know how to find correct information.
EG, not just reading wikipedia and using that verbatim, but reading wikipedia, then referring to their sources pages and being able to make a judgement call on that.
Hey now, this thread isn't about actual discussion and careful consideration. It is about complaining that things aren't as good as they used to be in the past (such a popular event it has been going on since we as a species could communicate with each other) and projecting a feeling of superiority over other humans. May have to flag you for going off topic in OT.
Orlanth wrote: This also while a steep human loss is just symptomic of a larger problem, the more we rely on technology to communicate and the faster and easier communication becomes the less the human mind develops. I can see a direct correlation with dropping standards of literacy and the increased use of social media, and that goes far beyond chavspeak.
I agree with this. I see it all the time on message boards. People ask a question that could have been quickly and easily answered by looking it up themselves with a search engine, but instead they expect someone else to do their work for them. It's one thing to post a question if you can't find the answer, but something else if you never bother to look in the first place.
Though to be fair and honest, some people have grown their capabilities through use of social media by evolving and adapting. I (just off of quick little test) managed to type 83 correct words in a minute. When I was in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade, I could barely type 30 words per minute and was failing my typing classes. When I got to high school my honors English teacher suggested everyone create an AIM account and practice their ability to type fast by avoiding leetspeak, chat speak abbreviations, etc... By doing this, we were conditioning our minds to communicate like real people through a technology that we as youngsters would be using anyways. I'm still not the fastest typist, but I'm far better than I was 10 years ago. Albeit with the importance of technology, the need to type quickly and effectively is becoming far more important than hand writing and cursive. So not all technology and social media is the downfall of our intelligence. Most of the youngsters are using it to get their message across in as few characters as possible. As an avid user of twitter, and Dakka (let's be honest this is a form of social media), I try my hardest to type out as much of a complete thought as I can... Yet, I also know when it's appropriate to through out the occasional lol and .
It all depends on how much discipline you apply to these "detriments of language." In fact, I personally enjoy reading the various "Twitter Novels" which forces someone to write a "novel" in 140 characters or less. While these are basically nothing more than a complex sentence or two, it's a writing exercise that can be used to help creative writers learn to get their point across, something that everyone could use practice in.
It's all in how you use it, which goes back to the knowledge on finding information is becoming more important than retaining information.
It's the Flynn Effect. "In his study of IQ tests scores for different populations over the past sixty years, James R. Flynn discovered that IQ scores increased from one generation to the next for all of the countries for which data existed." http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: This. So much of the 'concern" over education is a pile of hookum for the great cultural war against Public Education.
Absolutely. The US education system, while certainly not faultless, cops a ridiculous amount more than it is due. It is a good, but imperfect system, much like you see everywhere else in the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So rather than share your opinion on what you got out of the movie you'd rather make snide comments to another member of the community? That speaks volumes.
No, I was happy to discuss the movie. Then you responded with a silly comment that focused on tiny part of my post (poor or stupid) and ignored the greater message. Given your effort, what did you want in return?
If you wanted an honest discussion about the movie, why didn't you try to have one?
Orlanth wrote:However due to modern society the few western barding traditions we have left such as the Manx bards and those in Western Ireland are fading with no one to recite the old tales too.
What a shame. If only they'd have written those tales down...
Writing is the greatest technological advancement we have ever and will ever make. Praising someone for being able to memorize Canterbury Tales in a literate age is like giving someone a medal for powerlifting right beside a forklift.
Orlanth wrote:However due to modern society the few western barding traditions we have left such as the Manx bards and those in Western Ireland are fading with no one to recite the old tales too.
What a shame. If only they'd have written those tales down...
Writing is the greatest technological advancement we have ever and will ever make. Praising someone for being able to memorize Canterbury Tales in a literate age is like giving someone a medal for powerlifting right beside a forklift.
azazel the cat wrote: Writing is the greatest technological advancement we have ever and will ever make. Praising someone for being able to memorize Canterbury Tales in a literate age is like giving someone a medal for powerlifting right beside a forklift.
Yeah, well said. It really does feel like people are starting with the assumption that people are dumber, and are then going out looking for skills that have declined in order to justify it.
Huh, I was just having this conversation with myself while at work the other day. Have people gotten less intelligent?
A thought I would like to share, more is expected of people now. To get the same career as 50 years ago with a highs school degree, you now need a 4 year college degree.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Huh, I was just having this conversation with myself while at work the other day. Have people gotten less intelligent?
A thought I would like to share, more is expected of people now. To get the same career as 50 years ago with a highs school degree, you now need a 4 year college degree.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: Huh, I was just having this conversation with myself while at work the other day. Have people gotten less intelligent?
A thought I would like to share, more is expected of people now. To get the same career as 50 years ago with a highs school degree, you now need a 4 year college degree.
That's a major part of it. We are more educated than we were. A hundred years ago less than 10% of kids graduated from high school, but now more that rate is more like 80%, and 20% of people are expected to end up with a bachelor's degree or higher.
And yeah, a lot of this has meant that a job that a highschool graduate could get is now restricted to university graduates. But the follow on from that is that those jobs are much more technical than they used to be. An engineer 50 or 100 years ago had a much more limited body of knowledge than he will today. Same for accountants or any other profession.
And this also translates into a population that isn't just more skilled in their professions, but are also more intelligent in general. Hence the Flynn Effect I linked to earlier.
sebster wrote: No, I was happy to discuss the movie. Then you responded with a silly comment that focused on tiny part of my post (poor or stupid) and ignored the greater message. Given your effort, what did you want in return?
If you wanted an honest discussion about the movie, why didn't you try to have one?
I was attempting to have a discussion about the movie. The point of this thread, and what I got out of the movie, was about intelligence. Your first post ended with "It really, really isn't a warning about poor people breeding.". Now rather than ascribe an argument to you or set up a strawman to argue against I tried to clear up where you were getting poor people from. Now if my tone was off I apologise it was not my intention, some other sites I post on historically distort people's posts so I was attempting to clear up the matter before we started talking past each other. That being said, it did not give you the right to start with insults, even less so when I attempted to steer the conversation back to the film yet you persisted with trying to be insulting.
Now, we can be mature and try let this be water under the bridge and say we just got off on the wrong foot, or you can keep posting the way that you have. What I will say though is that if you want to keep going the way you have been would you at least do so in PM rather than derail this thread.
Yeah, well said. It really does feel like people are starting with the assumption that people are dumber, and are then going out looking for skills that have declined in order to justify it.
I think it also has to do with a perceived effect of specialisation. The oldest teacher I had, Thomas De Konick, once made a big rant on how specialists were getting dumber and dumber because of overspecialisation. He told how he once went to a doctor for a knee problem, and after giving a bit of information, was refered to a specialist. Once the specialist was over with the knee he had a problem with, he told him that he also had some pain in his other knee, to which the expert told him something like '' I'm sorry, sir, but I only specialise in right knees, you'll have to see someone else for the left one''.
To my teacher, this was one of the worst case of dumb intelligence. To me, it's just that we are more intelligently intelligent. We don't create dumber people by specializing them more, we simply create less autonomous individuals, something which was inevitable with the exponential growth of knowledge these last centuries. Rationnaly subdividing the given pool of intelligence across more fields allow to globally know these fields better.
So, even if we were getting individually less intelligent, we would still be part of a much more intelligent whole.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: Huh, I was just having this conversation with myself while at work the other day. Have people gotten less intelligent?
A thought I would like to share, more is expected of people now. To get the same career as 50 years ago with a highs school degree, you now need a 4 year college degree.
That's a major part of it. We are more educated than we were. A hundred years ago less than 10% of kids graduated from high school, but now more that rate is more like 80%, and 20% of people are expected to end up with a bachelor's degree or higher.
And yeah, a lot of this has meant that a job that a highschool graduate could get is now restricted to university graduates. But the follow on from that is that those jobs are much more technical than they used to be. An engineer 50 or 100 years ago had a much more limited body of knowledge than he will today. Same for accountants or any other profession.
And this also translates into a population that isn't just more skilled in their professions, but are also more intelligent in general. Hence the Flynn Effect I linked to earlier.
It does seem like less education was required even 50 years ago. I remember reading a recent article talking about employment at NASA. During the height of the space program in the 1960s, the average age of a NASA engineer was something like late 20s. Now it's in the 40s.
SOFDC wrote: OP, you ask this question, but I only have this to respond to it:
1. Check your Facebook.
2. Browse a popular discussion website (4chan even, though this one is a cesspool.) for a few minutes.
3. Get on the road (Or better, a bus.) and drive out into the world and get some soda for the evening.
4. Come home and play <Insert popular online game here> for an hour.
5. Stop, come back to this thread and tell me with a straight face that you DON'T think human intelligence hit rock bottom and commenced digging.
(Seriously, I don't think the average state of human intellect is in decline...It's just that it wasn't very high to begin with. Not every Roman was engineering aqueducts, and not every Greek was creating mathematical and cultural concepts that wind up standing for ages. This article is lel.)
Youtube is enough. Or Stormfront. Yeah, Stormfront is pretty bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More to the actual point:
No, I don't think human intelligence is on the decline - yet. Ask again in 10 years, and let me reply. One big problem with humanity at the moment is many people's lack of ability to survive in the wilderness, me included, which I think is a bit more worrying than human intelligence declining.
My mother thinks computers are more or less magic boxes. My 7 year old understands how a smart phone works both inside and out. My girlfriend started pre algebra in 8th grade. my 12 yr old is starting algebra 1 in 7th. a local football jock i work with is talking about taking calculus his senior year. and oddly its not considered all that special. The state is actually considering requiring a full 3-4 years of math despite a students current state of development where colleges only require algebra 2 and geometry in order to be accepted.
keep in mind, my grandfather wouldn't have taken a single algebra class until college.
so academically we are advancing pretty well (especially recently since it has taken hundreds of years before advanced mathematics could be taken outside of a college.)
But we are swapping it out for decent common sense for sure.
It's interesting sometimes to look at what we teach in schools. Math seems to be the primary focus at times (it's almost the only subject that is required every year from K-12 in many school systems).
And yet, I feel that schools aren't teaching the right things. Sure, math is important, as is history and science and language. But you know what else is important? Real world skills. It's been 18 years since I graduated high school, and what I would have most benefited from would have been classes teaching me how to write a resume, how to do a job interview, how to read a credit card contract, how to understand the tax code, how to provide good customer service (no matter what job you have, you have some sort of customer), basic computer technical knowledge, basic automotive knowledge, etc. Think about everything you do in a day, and ask yourself: how much of it did you actually learn in school?
I think there's a lot of intelligence still out there, but it doesn't always reach it's potential, because sometimes, what you really need to learn isn't what you're being taught.
Based on Tannhauser's list, the only thing(s) I didn't learn in high school was credit card contracts (because I've been out of high school for almost 7 years and I still don't have a credit card, but like Kovnik Obama said... it's basic reading skills for the most part, and how to understand the tax code... That's a fething mystery to me. Though I know enough to file my taxes, and that is only because I had to learn it on my own, with the guiding hand of my dad who's been doing his own taxes for at least 40 years.
Also automotive knowledge (that isn't in a career tech course) should get taught in a life skills class, which is rare in schools because that requires you to have vehicles to test it on... And most of the stuff I learned about cars I learned while working a groundskeeping job for a boy scout camp.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
No, I don't think human intelligence is on the decline - yet. Ask again in 10 years, and let me reply. One big problem with humanity at the moment is many people's lack of ability to survive in the wilderness, me included, which I think is a bit more worrying than human intelligence declining.
Why? Our communal nature, coupled with our true evolutionary advantages (tool-making and the biggest goddamned freakin' brains ever) are perfectly adapted to circumvent the necessity of wilderness survival.
I think that certain forms of intelligence are definitely on the decline. I mean, how many people really know how to start a fire, without the use of matches, lighters, or lighter fluid (or gasoline, etc.) How many people know a knot other than how to tie their shoes, or a ribbon onto a gift? Or how to change out an outlet in their home?
Sure we have people who DO still know these things, but I think that more and more people are not learning these things because they either don't do any activities that may require it (like camping), or they feel that there are experts to do this for them, so they dont bother doing what used to be, in essence, a "basic task"
I think that some of the skills that our grandparents and great-grandparents had that were necessary, or almost necessary to survive, but no longer are, are some of the reasons why we see so much shenanigans whenever there is a major storm (like Sandy, Katrina, or Andrew to an extent)... Sure you lost power, but that doesnt mean that all hope is lost, there's plenty to be done to survive, and even have a bit of fun with the family.
I guess what I'm really getting at is that there are many out there who have a much greater reliance on technology and modern living, rather than their own wits, which makes a general decline in that sort of knowledge.
I think that certain forms of intelligence are definitely on the decline. I mean, how many people really know how to start a fire, without the use of matches, lighters, or lighter fluid (or gasoline, etc.) How many people know a knot other than how to tie their shoes, or a ribbon onto a gift? Or how to change out an outlet in their home?
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
No, I don't think human intelligence is on the decline - yet. Ask again in 10 years, and let me reply. One big problem with humanity at the moment is many people's lack of ability to survive in the wilderness, me included, which I think is a bit more worrying than human intelligence declining.
Why? Our communal nature, coupled with our true evolutionary advantages (tool-making and the biggest goddamned freakin' brains ever) are perfectly adapted to circumvent the necessity of wilderness survival.
Because everyone, in my eyes, should be able to survive everywhere (that naturally supports humans, not some ice blasted waste in Siberia). What if the next plane you're on crashes and you're stuck in some remote area of the rainforest? Most probably couldn't survive, which is sad. Knowing how to build a fire out of natural resources should be one of the most important things people learn but even in my Duke of Edinburgh scheme I'm not being taught it.
As Saint Bernard said: "You will find something more in woods than in books. Trees and stones will teach you that which you can never learn from masters."
Because everyone, in my eyes, should be able to survive everywhere (that naturally supports humans, not some ice blasted waste in Siberia). What if the next plane you're on crashes and you're stuck in some remote area of the rainforest?
Why are the hazards of Siberia distinct from the hazards of the Amazon?
azazel the cat wrote: Writing is the greatest technological advancement we have ever and will ever make. Praising someone for being able to memorize Canterbury Tales in a literate age is like giving someone a medal for powerlifting right beside a forklift.
Yeah, well said. It really does feel like people are starting with the assumption that people are dumber, and are then going out looking for skills that have declined in order to justify it.
Well perhaps peoples are dumber for not being able to analyse properly.
The loss of bardic tradition is is not in this case linked to the rise of literacy. If you hadn't noticed Ireland and the Isle of Man are literate societies. The decline of the bards is because people are too impatient to sit and memoriise their culture.
Also the bardic tales have been recorded, when the Manx bards couldn't find new apprentices anthropologists recorded their tales. So this part of human culture going back centuries will not be lost, and yes it would be a major problem if it was.
The analog of powerlifting next to a forklift is also short sighted, one can better say, as I can order my groceries on the internet and watch TV with a remote control, why bother getting our of my chair. The result is a more likelt a slob than a man.
Also Sebster you have it backwards, I looked at the evidence, then drew my conclusion, not the other way around as you like to assume. This should be obvious to anyone with a fair mind because the main example I gave of this very problem came from Ancient Egypt. So yes, technology resulting in declining huiman capability is a known phenomena recorded over the millenia. So unless you are saying I predate the pharoahs then it is pretty obvious that the evidence predates the conclusion.
The loss of memory skills came because of distraction, in the case of the Egyptians it was because literacy was developed with all its benefits, in the case of the loss of modern bards it is because of shortened attention spans due to our socviety based on instant gratification.
There is good reason why decent schools ask pupils to memorise poetry, it trains the mind. The fact that you can store data on your cellphone carry it around and recite it is no real substitute when it comes to human development. Technological overrelaince can stunt us as well as provide a force multiplier, but even that is minor compared to the cultural implications of technological dependence, especially with communications technologies moving faster than humans are supposed to. The rapid rise of ADSD and other attention disorders amongst the youth of today is mostly due to an inability to focus stemming from overly rapid changes of stimulus. Instead communications can have over time the same effects that some narcotics have on vulnerable minds.
Im confused, Why is surving in the wilderness considered necessary for our lives?
I live in the suburbs and hate the wilderness, why do i need to learn to survive in it?
Because everyone, in my eyes, should be able to survive everywhere (that naturally supports humans, not some ice blasted waste in Siberia). What if the next plane you're on crashes and you're stuck in some remote area of the rainforest?
Why are the hazards of Siberia distinct from the hazards of the Amazon?
They're both extremely hazardous, but: 1) In Siberia, the cold could kill you. In the rainforest, the heat won't kill you as quickly. Case in point: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/boiling-water-turns-snow-siberia-171453719.html 2) In Siberia, you could die easily from exposure. In the rainforest, it's a lot easier to build a shelter. 3) In Siberia, where will you get food? In the rainforest, there's loads of stuff to eat - fruit, insects, animals (if you're good enough to hunt them, that is).
The point is this: a rainforest is less hazardous than desert, tundra or badland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im confused, Why is surving in the wilderness considered necessary for our lives?
I live in the suburbs and hate the wilderness, why do i need to learn to survive in it?
azazel the cat wrote: Writing is the greatest technological advancement we have ever and will ever make. Praising someone for being able to memorize Canterbury Tales in a literate age is like giving someone a medal for powerlifting right beside a forklift.
Yeah, well said. It really does feel like people are starting with the assumption that people are dumber, and are then going out looking for skills that have declined in order to justify it.
Well perhaps you are dumber for not being able to analyse properly.
The loss of bardic tradition is is not in this case linked to the rise of literacy. If you hadn't noticed Ireland and the Isle of Man are literate societies. The decline of the bards is because people are too impatient to sit and memoriise their culture.
Also the bardic tales have been recorded, when the Manx bards couldn't find new apprentices anthropologists recorded their tales. So this part of human culture going back centuries will not be lost, and yes it would be a major problem if it was.
The analog of powerlifting next to a forklift is also short sighted, one can better say, as I can order my groceries on the internet and watch TV with a remote control, why bother getting our of my chair. The result is a more likelt a slob than a man.
Also Sebster you have it backwards, I looked at the evidence, then drew my conclusion, not the other way around as you like to assume. You have no reason to claim that I started with an assumption then looked for evidence except to troll rather than think though an argument. This should be obvious to anyone with a fair mind because the main example I gave of this very problem came from Ancient Egypt. So yes, technology resulting in declining huiman capability is a known phenomena recorded over the millenia. So unless you are saying I predate the pharoahs then it is pretty obvious that the evidence predates the conclusion. Show some respect, or get off the thread.
And don't forget that it would have taken a Celtic poet about 20 years to study, according to a Horrible Histories book.
And don't forget that it would have taken a Celtic poet about 20 years to study, according to a Horrible Histories book.
To master all the tales yes, it takes that long to master a martial art. However training the mind for 'photographic memory' can be done relatively quickly, but it require a patience contrary to how our instant society operates. The only subset of people who develop aidetic memories now are those with visual impairment.
The bards are an extreme example, but the fact that they cant find any apprentices while large numbers of people will pay lip service to Celtic culture says a lot about the lack of commitment in todays society; and normally the Celts and good at maintaining their cultural connections.
Train memory skills to keep Celtic culture alive, sorry I can't be bothered.
2) In Siberia, you could die easily from exposure. In the rainforest, it's a lot easier to build a shelter.
Depends on what you're taking shelter from. Assuming it is merely climate, Siberia has the upper hand. It is much easier to insulate the body than it is to vent heat and evade insects.
3) In Siberia, where will you get food? In the rainforest, there's loads of stuff to eat - fruit, insects, animals (if you're good enough to hunt them, that is).
Where you can find it, much as with a rainforest. I mean, you're not going to eat that poison dart frog...hopefully.
The loss of bardic tradition is is not in this case linked to the rise of literacy. If you hadn't noticed Ireland and the Isle of Man are literate societies. The decline of the bards is because people are too impatient to sit and memoriise their culture.
1) In Siberia, the cold could kill you. In the rainforest, the heat won't kill you as quickly.
What are you going to burn in order to boil water in a rainforest?
Surprisingly, in a rainforest, there's wood around you, and it's not that hard to find dry wood, leaves or fungi. There aren't Elves that will kill you if you try to make a fire. Trust me, I've been in Borneo rainforests.
2) In Siberia, you could die easily from exposure. In the rainforest, it's a lot easier to build a shelter.
Depends on what you're taking shelter from. Assuming it is merely climate, Siberia has the upper hand. It is much easier to insulate the body than it is to vent heat and evade insects.
That's true, but the temperature in Siberia is so extreme that it's pretty difficult to insulate your body even then. You'll need furs and stuff, which is hard to produce if you have never experienced life outside the cities. The shelter I was referring to is more a physical structure to protect you from rain or snow.
3) In Siberia, where will you get food? In the rainforest, there's loads of stuff to eat - fruit, insects, animals (if you're good enough to hunt them, that is).
Where you can find it, much as with a rainforest. I mean, you're not going to eat that poison dart frog...hopefully.
Rainforests are some of the most biodiverse areas in the world. If you've been to one, you'll hear birds, insects and wind rustling through trees. You're not going to be eating everything you see, obviously, but there's a lot you can eat. In Siberia? There may be a yak, who knows?
The loss of bardic tradition is is not in this case linked to the rise of literacy. If you hadn't noticed Ireland and the Isle of Man are literate societies. The decline of the bards is because people are too impatient to sit and memoriise their culture.
How does one memorize his own culture?
The Bardic tradition is really a Celtic and Norse tradition. Their tales really are the essence of the culture, as much as the internet is a part of modern culture. Read the Poetic Edda or Cuchulainn of Muirthemne if you don't believe me.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im confused, Why is surving in the wilderness considered necessary for our lives?
I live in the suburbs and hate the wilderness, why do i need to learn to survive in it?
what happens when a major natural disaster leaves you, your neighborhood and your whole city without power for days and weeks on end? (as we saw with Sandy in the NE) I'm not saying you need to be Baer Grylls or anything, but being able to start a fire in any conditions is actually a very useful skill.
Orlanth wrote: The rapid rise of ADSD and other attention disorders amongst the youth of today is mostly due to an inability to focus stemming from overly rapid changes of stimulus. Instead communications can have over time the same effects that some narcotics have on vulnerable minds.
Incorrect. ADSD is genetic in over 3/4 of the cases. Other explanations like diet and social construction are priviledged over 'over-stimulation'. Anyway, the general attention span of children today is in no way different from ours.
It must be painful, all that pulling out of your ass.
I would be interested to see any proof you have of this.
wikipedia wrote:Twin studies indicate that the disorder is highly heritable and that genetics are a factor in about 75 percent of all cases.[14] Hyperactivity also seems to be primarily a genetic condition; however, other causes have been identified.[50]
A large majority of ADHD cases may arise from a combination of various genes, many of which affect dopamine transporters. Candidate genes include DAT1, DRD4, DRD5, 5HTT, HTR1B, and SNAP25. There is also strong heterogeneity for the associations between ADHD and DAT1, DRD4, DRD5, dopamine beta hydroxylase, ADRA2A, 5HTT, TPH2, MAOA, and SNAP25.[51] A common variant of a gene called LPHN3 is estimated to be responsible for about 9% of the incidence of ADHD, and ADHD cases where this gene is present are particularly responsive to stimulant medication.[52]
Rainforests are some of the most biodiverse areas in the world. If you've been to one, you'll hear birds, insects and wind rustling through trees. You're not going to be eating everything you see, obviously, but there's a lot you can eat. In Siberia? There may be a yak, who knows?
How do you know what you can eat, and what you can't?
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: No, I don't think human intelligence is on the decline - yet. Ask again in 10 years, and let me reply. One big problem with humanity at the moment is many people's lack of ability to survive in the wilderness, me included, which I think is a bit more worrying than human intelligence declining.
Why? Our communal nature, coupled with our true evolutionary advantages (tool-making and the biggest goddamned freakin' brains ever) are perfectly adapted to circumvent the necessity of wilderness survival.
Because everyone, in my eyes, should be able to survive everywhere (that naturally supports humans, not some ice blasted waste in Siberia). What if the next plane you're on crashes and you're stuck in some remote area of the rainforest? Most probably couldn't survive, which is sad. Knowing how to build a fire out of natural resources should be one of the most important things people learn but even in my Duke of Edinburgh scheme I'm not being taught it.
As Saint Bernard said: "You will find something more in woods than in books. Trees and stones will teach you that which you can never learn from masters."
Two points: 1. Isolating a person from their tools is no different than declawing a cat and then asking "why can't you hunt?". If you think that Man is meant to compete with other predators based around only claws and teeth, then you must also believe that Chess competitions should be determined by long-jump trials. I don't know how many times this needs repeating: Mankind's ability to make tools is what we won in the evolutionary lottery. Bears got the strength, Cheetahs got the speed, and we got the big brains. We are going to die without our tools in the same way a Bear will die without its muscles or a Cheetah will die without its legs.
2. Saint Bernard sounds like a willfully ignorant paragon of medievel Catholic thought. I assume he also posited that theological belief was superior to scientific discovery.
azazel the cat wrote: Writing is the greatest technological advancement we have ever and will ever make. Praising someone for being able to memorize Canterbury Tales in a literate age is like giving someone a medal for powerlifting right beside a forklift.
Yeah, well said. It really does feel like people are starting with the assumption that people are dumber, and are then going out looking for skills that have declined in order to justify it.
The loss of bardic tradition is is not in this case linked to the rise of literacy. If you hadn't noticed Ireland and the Isle of Man are literate societies. The decline of the bards is because people are too impatient to sit and memoriise their culture.
Well, yeah. That's exactly my point. We don't need to memorize culture anymore, because we learned how to write it down. That's exactly the reason I made the analogy of the powerlifter with the forklift.
1. Isolating a person from their tools is no different than declawing a cat and then asking "why can't you hunt?".
Not only this, but isolating a human being from the start is an error. We are socially intelligent. On our own, we are barely more brilliant than a chimp.
Also, since when is memory synonymous with intelligence? If the question is 'Are human less intelligent now than before', clearly 'intelligence' refers to an ability, like dexterity, and not to a faculty, like language. Anyway, human memory really isn't that great, short term sentence recalling is limited to 6-9 words.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im confused, Why is surving in the wilderness considered necessary for our lives?
I live in the suburbs and hate the wilderness, why do i need to learn to survive in it?
what happens when a major natural disaster leaves you, your neighborhood and your whole city without power for days and weeks on end? (as we saw with Sandy in the NE) I'm not saying you need to be Baer Grylls or anything, but being able to start a fire in any conditions is actually a very useful skill.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im confused, Why is surving in the wilderness considered necessary for our lives?
I live in the suburbs and hate the wilderness, why do i need to learn to survive in it?
what happens when a major natural disaster leaves you, your neighborhood and your whole city without power for days and weeks on end? (as we saw with Sandy in the NE) I'm not saying you need to be Baer Grylls or anything, but being able to start a fire in any conditions is actually a very useful skill.
Several weeks of propane?
Like I said, there's almost no need to go full on Baer Grylls, unless of course, you live around Edmonton but the ability to live off of non-technological sources, is pretty important. I mean, propane inevitably runs out, and I know that most people are like me, they hate being cold, and propane doesn't do as good a job keeping folks warm as a good "camp fire" style setting.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im confused, Why is surving in the wilderness considered necessary for our lives?
I live in the suburbs and hate the wilderness, why do i need to learn to survive in it?
what happens when a major natural disaster leaves you, your neighborhood and your whole city without power for days and weeks on end? (as we saw with Sandy in the NE) I'm not saying you need to be Baer Grylls or anything, but being able to start a fire in any conditions is actually a very useful skill.
Several weeks of propane?
And you know where to get quality propane and propane accessories, don't you?
Humanity isn't becoming less intelligent, it's simply the fact that less intelligent people now have access to things that earlier in our history only wealthy, educated people did, such as entertainment and literature. The providers of these things must now cater to the less intelligent segments of society because they are much larger than the intelligent ones and thus, are the vast majority of consumers.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I was attempting to have a discussion about the movie. The point of this thread, and what I got out of the movie, was about intelligence. Your first post ended with "It really, really isn't a warning about poor people breeding.". Now rather than ascribe an argument to you or set up a strawman to argue against I tried to clear up where you were getting poor people from. Now if my tone was off I apologise it was not my intention, some other sites I post on historically distort people's posts so I was attempting to clear up the matter before we started talking past each other. That being said, it did not give you the right to start with insults, even less so when I attempted to steer the conversation back to the film yet you persisted with trying to be insulting.
Now, we can be mature and try let this be water under the bridge and say we just got off on the wrong foot, or you can keep posting the way that you have. What I will say though is that if you want to keep going the way you have been would you at least do so in PM rather than derail this thread.
Fair enough, it looks like we were both reading more in to each other's answers than was there. For the record, on this forum and most every other one its a pretty common tactic for people to focus on tiny little elements of the argument out of context, when they cannot put up an argument on the greater issue.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im confused, Why is surving in the wilderness considered necessary for our lives?
I live in the suburbs and hate the wilderness, why do i need to learn to survive in it?
what happens when a major natural disaster leaves you, your neighborhood and your whole city without power for days and weeks on end? (as we saw with Sandy in the NE) I'm not saying you need to be Baer Grylls or anything, but being able to start a fire in any conditions is actually a very useful skill.
Several weeks of propane?
Like I said, there's almost no need to go full on Baer Grylls, unless of course, you live around Edmonton but the ability to live off of non-technological sources, is pretty important. I mean, propane inevitably runs out, and I know that most people are like me, they hate being cold, and propane doesn't do as good a job keeping folks warm as a good "camp fire" style setting.
Friction usually, Some dried leaves usually help.
I remember you have to blow on it in order to get it going.
Kovnik Obama wrote: To my teacher, this was one of the worst case of dumb intelligence. To me, it's just that we are more intelligently intelligent. We don't create dumber people by specializing them more, we simply create less autonomous individuals, something which was inevitable with the exponential growth of knowledge these last centuries. Rationnaly subdividing the given pool of intelligence across more fields allow to globally know these fields better.
So, even if we were getting individually less intelligent, we would still be part of a much more intelligent whole.
Yeah, exactly. There was the idea of the renaissance man, who was an expert across all fields of knowledge. da Vinci was meant to be such a man, but if you look at his life, for such an incredible intelligence he actually didn't produce that much in any field (in the arts Michaelangelo was contemptuous of how little Leonardo produced compared to him). By then human knowledge had reached a point that mastery of everything was not practical, and you would spend far more time learning that doing.
And since then our knowledge has grown many thousands of times, to the point where a person can't even be an expert in their overall field, but must specialise. The knee surgery thing is a good example, as we've all been bounced around from doctor to doctor, trying to find the person who has the exact specialist knowledge to fix our problem. But the point is that this is the first time in history that figuring out what was wrong with a knee and fixing it has been possible.
Rainforests are some of the most biodiverse areas in the world. If you've been to one, you'll hear birds, insects and wind rustling through trees. You're not going to be eating everything you see, obviously, but there's a lot you can eat. In Siberia? There may be a yak, who knows?
How do you know what you can eat, and what you can't?
1. Trust me - there's loads of dry stuff to burn.
2. The genersa rule is that if its colourful, don't eat it! Don't eaty fungi either. Finally, try to eat stuff that you know is safe - mangoes, durian, jackfruit etc. This stuff should be taught in schools.
Orlanth wrote: Also Sebster you have it backwards, I looked at the evidence, then drew my conclusion, not the other way around as you like to assume. This should be obvious to anyone with a fair mind because the main example I gave of this very problem came from Ancient Egypt. So yes, technology resulting in declining huiman capability is a known phenomena recorded over the millenia. So unless you are saying I predate the pharoahs then it is pretty obvious that the evidence predates the conclusion.
You picked one very specific and incredibly minor skill, out of all the capabilities of human kind. It wasn't just by accident that you picked that one.
Now, as a cultural loss I agree with you entirely, that is a real shame. I've seen a performance of part of the Bhagavad Gita that even translated to English was just an incredible experience. But as evidence of humanity losing ability overall it just doesn't work.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im confused, Why is surving in the wilderness considered necessary for our lives?
I live in the suburbs and hate the wilderness, why do i need to learn to survive in it?
what happens when a major natural disaster leaves you, your neighborhood and your whole city without power for days and weeks on end? (as we saw with Sandy in the NE) I'm not saying you need to be Baer Grylls or anything, but being able to start a fire in any conditions is actually a very useful skill.
Several weeks of propane?
Like I said, there's almost no need to go full on Baer Grylls, unless of course, you live around Edmonton but the ability to live off of non-technological sources, is pretty important. I mean, propane inevitably runs out, and I know that most people are like me, they hate being cold, and propane doesn't do as good a job keeping folks warm as a good "camp fire" style setting.
Friction usually, Some dried leaves usually help.
I remember you have to blow on it in order to get it going.
Leaves aren't the greatest thing, as they can blow away in the wind, go out, and tend to burn too fast. Many leaves on the forest floor are wet, and are going to do nothing buy create smoke and frustrate you. Bark is generally your best option, as well as fibrous vines, or if you can find it, bark from a birch tree, because that gak is shaggy and gives you places to catch sparks.
Fire by friction is EXTREMELY difficult, and there are better ways to do it. Also you don't get fire from just rubbing two sticks together, you need a good fire lay already down, followed by dried plant material (frayed rope works awesome with a little piece of charred cloth). You place that on your bark, then you find a semi-solid piece of wood that is straight, and another straight piece of wood. Tie a rope or leather thong around one of the sticks, this is now your bow. make a loop with the string, and place it over the other straight pole, creating a cross shape. Practice moving that back and forth, using your palm as a steadying point on the top of non bow (because you don't have guide). Move the bow back and forth, twisting the standing stick as it rests on the piece of cloth. Do that until you get smoke, lift the bird's nest up, blow on the little glowing piece of cloth until you get flame, set that into your fire.
That's how much work goes into fire by friction. If you think you can handle this in a survival situation, good for you... If not, time to stock up on supplies.
Rainforests are some of the most biodiverse areas in the world. If you've been to one, you'll hear birds, insects and wind rustling through trees. You're not going to be eating everything you see, obviously, but there's a lot you can eat. In Siberia? There may be a yak, who knows?
How do you know what you can eat, and what you can't?
1. Trust me - there's loads of dry stuff to burn.
2. The genersa rule is that if its colourful, don't eat it! Don't eaty fungi either. Finally, try to eat stuff that you know is safe - mangoes, durian, jackfruit etc. This stuff should be taught in schools.
See my reply to hotsauceman's post... leaves don't work well, and Dogma was very kind to point out that lighting a fire after a rain is a royal pain in the arse... Rainforests tend to get a lot of rain, finding dry, burnable things is going to be a pain...
And general rules like that can and probably will get you killed. You should NEVER eat anything you're not 100% sure on. It can kill you...
Orlanth wrote: Also Sebster you have it backwards, I looked at the evidence, then drew my conclusion, not the other way around as you like to assume. This should be obvious to anyone with a fair mind because the main example I gave of this very problem came from Ancient Egypt. So yes, technology resulting in declining huiman capability is a known phenomena recorded over the millenia. So unless you are saying I predate the pharoahs then it is pretty obvious that the evidence predates the conclusion.
You picked one very specific and incredibly minor skill, out of all the capabilities of human kind. It wasn't just by accident that you picked that one.
Actually I picked several interrelated skills, and for different reasons, and gave two examples, ancient and modern.
I've seen a performance of part of the Bhagavad Gita that even translated to English was just an incredible experience. But as evidence of humanity losing ability overall it just doesn't work.
Which would argue that for all our technology we are inferior in ability to Arjuna the archer who could achieve enlightenment in two hours. (cheap shot)
More relevant is the fact that cryptic crosswords are disappearing from newspapers because a decreasing number of people can do them. Throughout history societies that descent into hedonism and instant gratification devolve and the populace becomes less than they were. You can see this in politics, in the devolvement of the Roman Games, in modern media and increased 'dumbing down'.
Orlanth wrote: Actually I picked several interrelated skills, and for different reasons, and gave two examples, ancient and modern.
One of which, writing, was self-evidently wrong, and the others were really obscure. The ability to communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the world like we're doing now gaks all over any of that.
Which would argue that for all our technology we are inferior in ability to Arjuna the archer who could achieve enlightenment in two hours. (cheap shot)
Ha! I'll pay that
More relevant is the fact that cryptic crosswords are disappearing from newspapers because a decreasing number of people can do them. Throughout history societies that descent into hedonism and instant gratification devolve and the populace becomes less than they were. You can see this in politics, in the devolvement of the Roman Games, in modern media and increased 'dumbing down'.
People say this a lot... but I'm guessing they haven't seen any old media. Go watch a wrestling film from the 1930s. Go watch I Love Lucy episodes.
And yeah, the bread and circuses of the gladiatorial games was bad, but you think the Visigoths were putting on subtle musings on the emptiness of the human condition?
Our entertainment isn't getting dumber. It's almost always been dumb.
Orlanth wrote: More relevant is the fact that cryptic crosswords are disappearing from newspapers because a decreasing number of people can do them.
Or because they are bloody boring and unappealing. Or because games trend with times. Or because papers are becoming less and less popular and have to cut down on non-essential.
Throughout history societies that descent into hedonism and instant gratification devolve and the populace becomes less than they were.
Oh yeah, everyone knows that puritanism and idealism has brought all the world's wonders to life.
You can see this in politics,
No I can't. One hundred years ago, you could make a campaing on claiming that your opponent would teach beastiality to children in school.
in the devolvement of the Roman Games
Not at all cherry-picking your examples there, are you?
in modern media and increased 'dumbing down'.
Nope, can't see it. What I can see is a population which has gained an increase of about 25 % across cognitive tests in the last 90 years.
sebster wrote: Fair enough, it looks like we were both reading more in to each other's answers than was there. For the record, on this forum and most every other one its a pretty common tactic for people to focus on tiny little elements of the argument out of context, when they cannot put up an argument on the greater issue.
And yeah, best not to derail the thread.
Sounds good to me
Kovnik Obama wrote: No I can't. One hundred years ago, you could make a campaing on claiming that your opponent would teach beastiality to children in school.
Allegedly something similar happened to Claude Pepper in 1950 when his opposite in the Congressional Election accused him of being "a known extrovert," practiced "celibacy" before marriage, practiced "nepotism" with his sister-in-law, "matriculated" with women in college, that his sister was "a thespian" and his brother "a practicing homo sapien.". This was supposed to have cost Pepper 67,000 votes and the election.
but the ability to live off of non-technological sources, is pretty important. I mean, propane inevitably runs out, and I know that most people are like me, they hate being cold, and propane doesn't do as good a job keeping folks warm as a good "camp fire" style setting.
