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.

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.

Perhaps we are mistaking immaturity for stupidity. People are not expected to grow up as quickly these days.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Think about everything you do in a day, and ask yourself: how much of it did you actually learn in school?

In high school I learned the two most valuable lessons I've ever learned:

1: Honesty usually isn't the best policy.

2: One must jump through hoops.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Perhaps we are mistaking immaturity for stupidity. People are not expected to grow up as quickly these days.

What does maturity constitute?

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.

 dogma wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Perhaps we are mistaking immaturity for stupidity. People are not expected to grow up as quickly these days.

What does maturity constitute?

Yeah, I'm with Dogma on this one... I've seen complete and total idiots that are mature, they just lack the knowledge to form a complete thought.

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.

Here`s my 2 cents worth:

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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?

That's knowledge, not intelligence.

 azazel the cat wrote:

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."

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

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?

 sebster wrote:

 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?

 dogma wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

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?

Because you never know when you'll need it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

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.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

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?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

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.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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?

 dogma wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

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.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

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.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

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?

 Orlanth wrote:

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?

 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.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Incorrect. ADSD is genetic in over 3/4 of the cases.

I would be interested to see any proof you have of this.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Incorrect. ADSD is genetic in over 3/4 of the cases.

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]

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Surprisingly, in a rainforest, there's wood around you, and it's not that hard to find dry wood, leaves or fungi.

Really? Its hard to find dry wood in Wisconsin after a smattering of rain.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

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:

 azazel the cat wrote:

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.

EDIT: yup, he did.

Orlanth wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 azazel the cat wrote:

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

And yeah, best not to derail the thread.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.