Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Orlanth wrote:
Great film watch it if you havent Idiocracy.

Heh, yeah I've seen idiocracy, the intro is hilarious "I'ma feth all'a ya'll"

The truth however is that the human brain has been shrinking for some time. Over the last 50,000 years we've lost about 10%, which is quite a significant amount. Some people don't like to believe that this has adversely impacted intelligence, but I find that hard to believe. In the 'modern' world (post-agricultural revolution) there is less pressure on people to have big brains in order to survive.

Ironically, idiocracy is now.

Numerous studies have been produced saying that a smaller brain != less intelligence*. Our brains aren't getting smaller because we're getting dumber. They're getting smaller because they're becoming more efficient. Most of your bodies energy is tied up in your nervous system, bigger is not better.

*Seriously, if this were even remotely true, we'd be dumber than Elephants, Whales, and Dolphins. The Neanderthals had larger brains than our contemporary ancestors.

Kirsty.

Well thats your problem right there...

I meant full name. Is she anywhere besides youtube?

 LordofHats wrote:
Numerous studies have been produced saying that a smaller brain != less intelligence*. Our brains aren't getting smaller because we're getting dumber. They're getting smaller because they're becoming more efficient. Most of your bodies energy is tied up in your nervous system, bigger is not better.

*Seriously, if this were even remotely true, we'd be dumber than Elephants, Whales, and Dolphins. The Neanderthals had larger brains than our contemporary ancestors.

Elephants, whales, and dolphins all have smaller brains relative to their body mass. The human brain becoming more efficient is, as I said, what some people like to believe, but no one likes to think of themselves a dumber. There are a lot of parallels in in nature: most domestic animals have smaller brains than their wild counterparts. Probably because breeding for tameness tends to promote animals with more "child-like" characteristics, and thus slower brain development.

In experiments between wolves and dogs, wolves are markedly better problemsolvers. However, dogs are much better at asking humans to help, which is probably the smarter move (even if it isn't). Really it's not unlike the modern interdependence we have on each other and our societies.

 Smacks wrote:


Elephants, whales, and dolphins all have smaller brains relative to their body mass.

Then the Shrew would be the smartest animal on the planet.*

Studies have proven all the 'we're getting dumber' theories to be incorrect. No correlation can be positively produced for any of them. What we do know is that even though our brains have decreased in mass and volume, we still have roughly the same number of neurons we did age ago. Our brains aren't shedding thinking power, they're shedding the 'fat' so to speak. If anything we might be even better thinkers than our ancestors. At the very least, we use a lot less of our body's energy doing the same amount of thinking.

*Seriously. Human's don't have the most mass, the most volume, the most cranial capacity, we don't even have the most neurons. Trying to take a change in any of those factors and use it as evidence we're getting dumber or smarter is completely illogical.

 Orlanth wrote:

You failed to understand that there is a sliding scale between impossible, technically possible and practically possible.

That's because there isn't one. What you're attempting to describe is probability, and you should refer to it as such.

 Orlanth wrote:

Taking your logic the US has no national taxation, no national health care and no national rule of law , and neither does any other country; because you will always find someone who doesn't pay their taxes, doesn't get health care or breaks the law and gets away with it.

That's disingenuous. My argument is that a global minimum wage is not technically achievable due to the nature of human behavior. This is not an argument which turns on the manner in which any specific human behaves.

 Orlanth wrote:

They were not morally comperable, under the context of your orginal comments, which were to mock the two 'policies' side by side, which is a moral comparison.

No it isn't, at least not by necessity. A qualitative comparison is not implicitly a moral one.

 LordofHats wrote:
Then the Shrew would be the smartest animal on the planet.

Meh, smaller animals have proportionally larger brains anyway, you need to adjust for lots of factors. Obviously the relationship between brain size and intelligence is a complex one, but that does not mean there is no connection. Wales, elephants and dolphins for example, are all still intelligent animals.

Studies have proven all the 'we're getting dumber' theories to be incorrect.

Well, I would greatly like to see this proof. So far as I know, it is very difficult to prove either way because we don't have a prehistoric person to test. But I don't see a lot of genetic pressure on people to be smarter, so I don't see why we would get smarter. And also our heads are shrinking... Which doesn't bode well. Of course this is just my opinion.

What we do know is that even though our brains have decreased in mass and volume, we still have roughly the same number of neurons we did age ago. Our brains aren't shedding thinking power, they're shedding the 'fat' so to speak. If anything we might be even better thinkers than our ancestors. At the very least, we use a lot less of our body's energy doing the same amount of thinking.

Certainly our brains are changing. I'm sure there are things we do much better now, we are adapted for the world we live in after all. But imagining we do everything better sounds too much like hubris. Maybe our brains are more efficient, but there is probably a cost, and something lost somewhere.

 Smacks wrote:

Well, I would greatly like to see this proof

Google Scholar is a wonderful resource. No one has ever produced a study saying "we're getting dumber' that didn't immediately fall apart when put under scrutiny. Take for example the one a few years ago that attempted to argue that because our reaction times had decreased over the past century, our IQ's were lower (based on a complete myth that the two are connected). Yet, there are a half dozen studies showing that each new generation does successively better on IQ tests to the tune of 3 points. The Flynn effect disproves almost all such studies.

Really it's not even worth going into the Flynn effect, neurons, etc. Almost all studies that start "humans are getting dumber" go into a eugenical rant about how dumb people have more babies than smart people even though numerous sociological surveys show no correlation between IQ and the number of children someone has (people confuse education with IQ in this case).

Of course this is just my opinion.

Fortunately science isn't based in opinions.

But imagining we do everything better sounds too much like hubris. Maybe our brains are more efficient, but there is probably a cost, and something lost somewhere.

Continuing the definition trend, you should look up what efficiency means. The most obvious thing humans have lost over time isn't intellect but physical prowess (our muscle mass has decreased by a lot over the past ten thousand years)

"Humans get dumber" is...dumb. We adapt. A good example is memory: kids tend to have a significantally worse long-time memory than older people have which also affects IQ. However, they excel in other areas to compensate. The difference is just natural as we can access the internet everywhere (well...almost) and get the info immediately. When was the last time you parked your car on the street and had a look at a map instead of using a navigation system?

Times change and humans adapt.

 LordofHats wrote:
No one has ever produced a study saying "we're getting dumber' that didn't immediately fall apart when put under scrutiny.

As I have already said, it is difficult to prove because there is a lack of information. In the same way it is difficult to know if t-rex had feathers. Importantly there is a lot of resistance to the idea because people don't like to hear that they're dumb, so obviously they will try to poke holes in any tests that say they might be. As I have already pointed out, the parallel with dogs and wolves showed that wolves were better at solving problems.

Take for example the one a few years ago that attempted to argue that because our reaction times had decreased over the past century, our IQ's were lower (based on a complete myth that the two are connected). Yet, there are a half dozen studies showing that each new generation does successively better on IQ tests to the tune of 3 points. The Flynn effect disproves almost all such studies.

I'm familiar with the Flynn effect. If you go read the page yourself you will see that there are plenty of explanations and criticisms, which make it of questionable relevance here.

Almost all studies that start "humans are getting dumber" go into a eugenical rant about how dumb people have more babies than smart people even though numerous sociological surveys show no correlation between IQ and the number of children someone has (people confuse education with IQ in this case).

That was not my intention, or something I'm interested in, or approve of.

Of course this is just my opinion.

Fortunately science isn't based in opinions.

Thank you, I'm aware of what science is. And stated that it was my opinion because it is how I interpret the evidence. Your opinion seems to be "My brain is smaller, that must mean I'm getting smarter" to me that is akin to "Ice-cream is making me thinner", but each to their own.

Continuing the definition trend, you should look up what efficiency means.

There is really no need to be rude and patronizing. I know what efficiency means. I was actually referring to us becoming more efficient at certain types of problem (such as social interactions). In the same way a chess grandmaster is more efficient at chess problems. This does not mean he is more intelligent overall.

Anyway, I don't want there to be a bad feeling, and this conversation is slightly off topic, so shall we just agree to disagree, and that we interpret the evidence differently.

 Frazzled wrote:

Kirsty.

Well thats your problem right there...

I meant full name. Is she anywhere besides youtube?

tumblr, twitter, ask.fm, facebook, she has her own website.

Website Linky for the non FB crowd?

 LordofHats wrote:
Numerous studies have been produced saying that a smaller brain != less intelligence*. Our brains aren't getting smaller because we're getting dumber. They're getting smaller because they're becoming more efficient. Most of your bodies energy is tied up in your nervous system, bigger is not better.

Its not the size of the brain that matters, or small people would be less intelligent and there is no correlation between head size and intelligence amongst humans.
A brain has a certain number of connectors, it is the number of connections between neurons that are its power, not thier length or brain volume. A brain has similar architecture when its a small brain in an infants head and the physically larger brain in the resulting adults head.
In esence growing up swells the head you are born with, it does not build extra brain.

 Frazzled wrote:
Website Linky for the non FB crowd?

http://www.femitheist.net/

There ya go.

 Smacks wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Great film watch it if you havent Idiocracy.

Heh, yeah I've seen idiocracy, the intro is hilarious "I'ma feth all'a ya'll"

Great film

 Smacks wrote:

The truth however is that the human brain has been shrinking for some time. Over the last 50,000 years we've lost about 10%, which is quite a significant amount. Some people don't like to believe that this has adversely impacted intelligence, but I find that hard to believe. In the 'modern' world (post-agricultural revolution) there is less pressure on people to have big brains in order to survive.

Ironically, idiocracy is now.

If we are getting dumber, and that is an 'if', it wont be because of stupid peole breeding it will be because of technology making life too simple.

Literacy caused the death of eidetic memory, modern media even more so. Nobody learns the ancient myths by rote anymore, there are no bards.
This is a minor but symbolic example, I do not lament literacy or the information age, its just an easy example to illustrate for you.

However if people goodle answers they don't think or do proper research, mobile communications can stunt human interaction and lead to undeveloped social skills. Can this have an eventual effect on human intelligence. Possibly so.
We cant tell though because first evolutionary changes dont occur at the same pace of technological changes, while excessive early age access to electronics media can stunt development by bypassing human interaction, those are social changes not evolutionary ones. Take the electronic toys away and kids adapt to talking and playing ball with each other quickly enough.
More importantly the wide breadth of human technology may increase intelligence by providing stimuli that previous generations could not experience. Googling information may lead to lazy research and copy/paste coursework, but on the flip side it opens a large proportion of the canon of human knowledge to the everyday common man and child.

Fan Club
https://www.facebook.com/Femitheist

A Men's Rights Activist claims a youtuber by the name of Femitheist Divine", a.k.a. "Krista Jane Heflin" committed suicide two years ago...
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/femitheist-divine-suicide/

A blonde Southern sounding girl (to my British ears anyway) - very much alive - performs the Ice Bucket Challenge in a video posted two days ago on the Femitheist Divine channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfUB2GWDmms&list=UUsEq_XHRKHP1_b5ZM58B6AA

Femitheist Divine is "not a Feminist".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvEJfN-jiS4&list=UUsEq_XHRKHP1_b5ZM58B6AA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnGu4lSfEi8

This is some weird gak...

My resistance to the idea is that there is 0 evidence for it. Just subjective opinion and doom saying hiding behind illogical arguments and trumped up data.

the parallel with dogs and wolves showed that wolves were better at solving problems.

Chimpanzees have a smaller brain than a gorilla (and about the same ratio), yet are better problem solvers than their larger cousins. So yes, again. Brain size has been proven to have no correlation to intelligence. On top of that, Chimps have a high brain-body mass ratio than humans, yet are not as intelligent as us.

Again, you don't even need studies to prove that some studies are all smoke and mirrors. Basic fact gather is all that's necessary to show that intelligence is infinitely more complex than simple things like brain mass, volume, or body mass ratio.

I'm familiar with the Flynn effect. If you go read the page yourself you will see that there are plenty of explanations and criticisms, which make it of questionable relevance here.

The criticism in the article are about the question "what is intelligence" which is a whole barrel of monkeys (Flynn took his effect as proof that IQ doesn't actually measure intelligence at all), but that's beyond this. Really it just goes into the point that the 'we're getting dumber' arguments all start with false basis to begin with, since they solely tackle things like IQ and brain mass, which have been proven not to have significant correlates to intelligence. That's all aside from the issue that defining intelligence itself is a big argument to itself.

That was not my intention, or something I'm very interested in.

I'm not saying you do, I'm referring to the studies I've read about the subject. When they go into "why" they always seem to go that way, which is a very good sign that the people writing them are very bad scientists (or not scientists at all).

And stated that it was my opinion because it is how I interpret the evidence.

I'm saying the evidence is bad.

"My brain is smaller, that must mean I'm getting smarter"

No, my opinion is "scientists who study the brain say this whole 'we're getting dumber' thing isn't true and has no evidence to back it up." Which isn't even an opinion it's just a statement of fact. The brain's mass has decreased because it is becoming more efficient. It's entirely possible this means the brains cognitive abilities have decreased (as improved efficiency in a system != improved or equal system out put), but none of the studies suggest that. They solely sought to answer the question "what has brain size decreased in modern humans."

There is really no need to be rude and patronizing.

I apologize for that. I see bad logic/arguments and am compelled to say so (it's a gift... and a curse). I do tend to get a little over zealous

I'd make a comment about her looks, but seeing her body I'd feel like a pedo. Like...gal, you look like a 14 year old :/

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Website Linky for the non FB crowd?

http://www.femitheist.net/

There ya go.

Her CSS sucks.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Fan Club
https://www.facebook.com/Femitheist

A Men's Rights Activist claims a youtuber by the name of Femitheist Divine", a.k.a. "Krista Jane Heflin" committed suicide two years ago...
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/femitheist-divine-suicide/

A blonde Southern sounding girl (to my British ears anyway) - very much alive - performs the Ice Bucket Challenge in a video posted two days ago on the Femitheist Divine channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfUB2GWDmms&list=UUsEq_XHRKHP1_b5ZM58B6AA

Femitheist Divine is "not a Feminist".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvEJfN-jiS4&list=UUsEq_XHRKHP1_b5ZM58B6AA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnGu4lSfEi8

This is some weird gak...

What. The hell.

So she has been arrested and there is currently a hoax going around saying she killed herself.

Interesting.

As sooner as she is forced to see a therapist, the better.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Fan Club
https://www.facebook.com/Femitheist

A Men's Rights Activist claims a youtuber by the name of Femitheist Divine", a.k.a. "Krista Jane Heflin" committed suicide two years ago...
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/femitheist-divine-suicide/

A blonde Southern sounding girl (to my British ears anyway) - very much alive - performs the Ice Bucket Challenge in a video posted two days ago on the Femitheist Divine channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfUB2GWDmms&list=UUsEq_XHRKHP1_b5ZM58B6AA

Femitheist Divine is "not a Feminist".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvEJfN-jiS4&list=UUsEq_XHRKHP1_b5ZM58B6AA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnGu4lSfEi8

This is some weird gak...

What. The hell.

So she has been arrested and there is currently a hoax going around saying she killed herself.

Interesting.

Or... the internet has finally obtained the power to raise the dead @_@

Dear god it's like the plot of Transcendence.

 Sigvatr wrote:
As sooner as she is forced to see a therapist, the better.

Agreed. I hope it is not contagious and more people aren't 'inspired' to do similar things.

Or... the internet has finally obtained the power to raise the dead @_@

Dear god it's like the plot of Transcendence.

My god.
*takes off glasses*
What have we done.
The internet has gained far too much power. Quickly to the dakka cave!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

This isn't feminism, this is A. the plot of the Anne Rice novel "Queen of the Damned" turned into a political movement and B. crazier then a weasel stuffed in a redneck's overalls.

you forgot C:

90% of dakkanites fantasy (so long as they are not part of the culled)

and D:

That episode of Sliders



It could be one of those as well.

 LordofHats wrote:
My resistance to the idea is that there is 0 evidence for it. Just subjective opinion and doom saying hiding behind illogical arguments and trumped up data.

I don't think it is fair to say that there is 0 evidence. The evidence for the human brain shrinking over time is quite good. And the evidence for a connection (albeit a complex one) between brain size and intelligence is also good. It is clear that our brain has been changing. I agree that it is difficult (perhaps impossible) to know exactly what has changed. To say our brains have become more efficient is just as speculative as saying they haven't.

the parallel with dogs and wolves showed that wolves were better at solving problems.

Chimpanzees have a smaller brain than a gorilla (and about the same ratio), yet are better problem solvers than their larger cousins. So yes, again. Brain size has been proven to have no correlation to intelligence. On top of that, Chimps have a high brain-body mass ratio than humans, yet are not as intelligent as us.

Humans have a much higher encephalization quotient than chimps, and chimps are also higher than gorillas. I disagree that there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence,and I disagree strongly that this has been 'proven'. Certainly not to my satisfaction, or to the satisfaction of the scientists who developed things such as encephalization quotient.

Regardless chimps and gorillas are different animals so compering them is always going to be fraught with difficulty. I find the experiment with wolves and dogs compelling because wolves are the direct and recent ancestor of dogs. Wolves are to dogs, as Cavemen are to us. Like us, dogs have lost brain mass since being wolves. Their brains have also changed. They are much better at reading people's emotions and gestures than wolves. But in raw problem solving they weren't quite as fast. You might not find this compelling, I'm sure you could poke holes in it all day (as you can quite a lot of experiments). I think it's interesting, and "if" it is a good parallel of human evolution then it does indicate that we might not be quite as sharp as our ancestors. I don't know if there is any shame in that. They obviously lived much more difficult lives, and lived or died on their wits.

I apologize for that. I see bad logic/arguments and am compelled to say so (it's a gift... and a curse). I do tend to get a little over zealous

While having my use of logic referred to as "bad" is quite a cutting blow, I accept your apology good sir!

 Smacks wrote:

While having my use of logic referred to as "bad" is quite a cutting blow, I accept your apology good sir!

I'm trying to say I could put more effort into being less snippy about things I find I don't like

Femitheist is a bit of a dumb isn't she?

 Banzaimash wrote:
Femitheist is a bit of a dumb isn't she?

Its quite common really.

Stupidity i mean.

I am not in anyway implying women are dumb or men are dumb.

I mean people in general have a excelling degree of stupidity.

Interesting, does she want to kill most males how about gay men, they are not a threat. Concentration camps for men?

Does she have a kickstarter for her plans of world domination

You know, my question is how she'll convince women to go along with this plan. I don't think many outside of individuals who share her beliefs will agree to have their sons/husbands/friends killed just for the sake of someone's personal ideology.