Stagnation of Intelligence?

[Merc]

40 Years After Moon Landing: Why Aren't People Smarter?
LiveScience.com has an interesting (albiet short) article on why we've been to the moon but we haven't seemed to get that much smarter. I wish they had expended some of their arguments a bit more but it does lay the groundwork for a good discussion.

 

[Ozymandyus]

This article is very poorly thought out in my opinion. First, How can we say intelligence has stagnated? Up until at least '90 we saw a consistent rise in IQ... To even bring the moon landing into it is silliness. We have made some gigantic strides in technology since the moon landing, they may not be as flashy but we certainly are lightyears ahead of where we were in the sixties in terms of knowledge.

The main reason intelligence as a whole is not increasing quite as quickly in the last 50 years as it did the 100-400 years before that is because we already got past the exponential growth period in human intelligence, as soon as we starting offering education to everyone we saw a big rise across the board in intelligence that could only last so long until everyone caught up. Furthermore, We are smart in Different ways than we once were, there is so much to learn in terms of utilization of technology that has decreased our ability to do certain types of problem solving, but we are still much more intelligent in terms of our ability to use technology without a doubt. Of course, we are all a hell of a lot stupider in terms of being able to farm or provide for ourselves...

As for the main point of the article... yes in recent years, education has been put on the backburner in a lot of ways... teaching methods have become so mired with politicization and teacher legacies that we have not seen a lot of improvement in those areas. I personally think its a result more of a change in priorities than a problem with the way we teach though. There can be no doubt that parents as a whole put less emphasis on education than they used to. One could certainly argue that in the sixties we abandoned many of the traditional norms of hard-work and studies being one of the most important thing in life and the solution to all life's problems. Yes people still fall for old tricks. but hey it actually works for them in a way, makes them feel better, makes them feel in control.

The argument is that perhaps human life isn't JUST about intelligence, and we should forsake it sometimes for happiness. Are people really Happier now that we are 'more intelligent'? For all the increases in standards of living, have we really lived richer, more fulfilling lives? Those were the questions that the 60-70s answered with a resounding NO... sadly being intelligent just doesn't seem to be that important to people.

Always enjoyed this video, which kind of puts how fast we are still moving in terms of innovation.

 

[Artsysiridean]

...but it does lay the groundwork for a good discussion.

That it does. *Puts on his thinking cap for once.*

Benjamin Radford puts an much emphasis on critical thinking being the root of the problem, where I'd argue it's merely one of many. He brought up an example involving Critical Thinking not being required to pass benchmark tests around the world, but within that Critical Thinking can be replaced. Using that logic one can say lack of repetition is a cause, being a vague answer to a vaguer question. To get to the bottom of this you'd have to understand what it is you're looking for down the the point.

With all involving this article I'd say: things aren't stagnated, they've just changed. Instead of going foreward and becoming Smart-er we've become a different kind of Smart, replacing one thing with another. Way back in the 1900's, as he brings up, people had different ways of determining whether something was bad or good, leaving results which are highly different from what we'd expect today. While charlatans aren't treated with as much danger as they were way back when disease takes it's place in our mind's eye.


Ozy raises a few good points, too.

 

[MtheoryGuy]

That really is ground work for a good discussion.

If we are are to pick on specifics, There is a very strong argument to be made that human intelligence has not stagnated at all. Surely those who say there has been no progress in the field of space exploration are few. There has been tremendous insight into the very nature of the universe in these forty years. Perhaps humans have not demonstrated our increased prowess of technology with such feats as putting men on the moon lately because we know so much more. The computers aboard the Apollo capsules would have inferiority complexes to modern calculators. Perhaps we were insane to go to the moon in the first place*.

If we are to be less specific however and focus on the topic of this specific thread "Stagnation of Intelligence" and apply a literal biological meaning, then, perhaps. I have heard this argument before. It contests that the very knowledge brought about by expanding human intelligence may now be halting it. We no longer live in caves, we no longer hunt for food (with very few exceptions) heck, a vast number of people have air conditioning. It would seem that humans have broken free of natural selection. A dumb person nowadays is as likely to breed and spread his/her genes as a genius ( I have heard from many academics that they might even make as much money ). If this is truly happening then, evolutionarily speaking, intelligence is literally stagnating. Although, obviously, this is fiercely contested by some.

A very good article.

*A valid counterpoint to this would be that, despite the risks, most Apollo missions were successes, or "successful failures".

 

[ladiesman391]

Our civilization has always learnt from and progressed more when we educate and communicate with other humans, this began back in the stone ages when we used to share tool making techniques with other nomads, nowadays we have the capability to share an infinite amount of knowledge over the internet and we have scientific methods to educate and communicate with people anywhere in the world. We have quick, easy access to more information than any civilization has ever had and this is exponentially growing (refer Ozy's video post), we've created an environment for our civilization that encourages intelligence to prosper. Many neurologists believe we have an infinite potential in our brains, some people of course will probably never try to use it, but others will....
Check this quick link out it has references to Australian Neurology Nobel Laureate Sir John Eccles: http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/how.html

 

[salko7]

i think we all are able to solve problems and find solutions to them
but its rather how and what kind of information we use in the process, take it as this image :

-you have possibilities these are effected by what info ,facts and beliefs you have about them
in this case its not how smart is the person but how educated they are and what beliefs they hold.

-in the other hand education it self...is it used in every day life ?
many of you see people in school and college that do use what they learn in their lives and such many others don't
at least here in saud arabia many students only want the grades ,it does not matter if they learned any thing at all (its sad imo)
in this way its hard to be "smarter"(use what you have learned) if you dont think of it as useful.

tho we have to look at the source of information as we cant know all the info about something but we go to a person who have studied it and understands it , tho we have to remember this person too is effected by what facts and beliefs they have
in this case we have to look at it critically and use our own facts and understanding (peer review is a better way to describe it).

but the topic was about simple stuff to a high-school education... as i said many do not care to understand the world around them as long as they are happy (as said by ozy).

It would seem that humans have broken free of natural selection. A dumb person nowadays is as likely to breed and spread his/her genes as a genius ( I have heard from many academics that they might even make as much money ). If this is truly happening then, evolutionarily speaking, intelligence is literally stagnating. Although, obviously, this is fiercely contested by some.

yes iv allways looked at it that way , sick , weak and less educated can survive thanks to advances that humans have made
but maybe it well effect humans if less and less people are trying to advance using science and logical thinking, many depend on others to do it for them (not thats a bad thing) but its when they don't have respect for those who do, some people would tell you doctors are no good and/or just trying to suck money off you, if people can look at some of the medical advances like this without understanding of how it works and not wanting to use it (the irony is when one rejects it and then needs the advances that it made for the cure).

 

[Counterpoint]

How has our intelligence improved since we first landed on the Moon? We have made great, great strides since then. I don't understand how you think we haven't.

 

[e2iPi]

Okay, not my field so understand that I'm talking out of my ass here.

A quick Google search on intelligence gave me the impression that although we may have an intuitive grasp of the concept of intelligence, we really have no idea what is truly is. Different fields of define it quite differently or even identify multiple aspects of intelligence which are not necessarily correlated, and there seems to be no scientific consensus of a definition for intelligence. So right off the bat, the question is loaded with a disputable term. For the purposes of this post, I'm going to use the 1st and 3rd definitions given at dictionary.com which are:

1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
3. the faculty of understanding.

Based on my extensive research (I checked the wikipedia page for intelligence ), roughly 3/4 of intellectual capacity is determined by genetics. The short answer is even if there were significant natural or sexual selection pressures for higher intelligence, the human species simply has not had enough time in 40 years for evolution to do its work.
Although I doubt there are many reproductive advantages to having a high intelligence in today's society, there may be a slight reproductive disadvantage to a very low intelligence, however (remember the really cute girl/guy - until they open their mouth). This wouldn't serve to increase the maximum intelligence of humans, but it would serve to increase the AVERAGE intelligence of humans. Of course this change would take place at evolutionary speeds based solely on sexual selection since there are no natural selection factors - we actually go out of our way to ensure stupid people survive (I am speaking specifically of the United States and 1st world countries in general).

As for the other 1/4 of intelligence, again I cite my extensive research . It would appear that environmental factors contribute during childhood, but the effects of environment disappear by adolescence. So even taking this into consideration, we are still looking at something which could improve - at best - at generational time frames.

Of course, if you are talking about the advancement of scientific knowledge or technology, just look around. I'm typing this on an inexpensive laptop which quite probably have more computing power than every computer at mission control on that fateful day 40 years ago. I can communicate with people anywhere on the globe at near instantaneous speeds. We have seen to the very edge of the universe and discovered the smallest particles of matter (except that damn Higgs guy, he's a slippery sucker). Medical knowledge has increased a thousandfold since 1969. Hell, we even found the Titanic!

I'm not sure who asked the the question, but my response it WTF do you WANT? Hovering skateboards?

i^2

 

[ninja_lord666]

I just love how you're all saying that our intelligence is not stagnating and pointing to our technology and research as verification. KNOWLEDGE IS NOT INTELLIGENCE! Sure, our amount of gathered knowledge has exploded and continues to grow, but that has no bearing on whether or not our intelligence is improving. As e2iPi pointed out, intelligence is the ability to learn, understand, and think critically. How do iPods prove that we have increased that capability? They don't. Intelligence is an intrinsic part of the human being, not something you can just 'learn'; it's not some 'skill' as the author of that article states. I've been thinking critically since before I even knew what that meant. Before even going to school, I was expressing my intelligence by finding ways to make my lego buildings more structurally sound, so how did school have any affect on that? Some people are just naturally smart which is why we pursue careers in science and mathematics. Other people are just stupid, and they become sports stars or super models...or burger flippers. Intelligence is largely genetic, and 40 years is too short a time for there to be any measurable change.

PS.
@ Ozymandyus: "Up until at least '90 we saw a consistent rise in IQ..." Yeah? So? What's your point? The IQ point system is incredibly outdated and has been proven multiple times to be so watered down as to be meaningless. There are so many forms of 'intelligence' that one number cannot accurately describe it. Some people are more acutely acclimated to sound and pitch and can create beautiful music that others can't. They're smart, but an IQ test won't show it. Some people can easily bypass security systems on a computer while others are dumbfounded. They're smart, but an IQ test won't show it. The IQ test is a failed attempt to define 'intelligence', something we can only define once we actually understand what it is.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Guys... I think you're falling into the same trap that the creationists always stumble on:

EVOLUTION TAKES TIME!

How much evolution is going to happen in 40 years? Enough to show massive improvements in intelligence? Probably not.

 

[Marcus]

As e2iPi and NL666 said, the problem with the question is a definitional one. There are a number of fields that deal with "intelligence" and, as a former researcher in one of these, I'll appeal to my own authority to say that the only consensus is that "intelligence" is next to impossible to define in a complete and consistent manner. IQ is definitely a poor measure - mine tended to get measured at over 160, but that's only because the types of "intelligence" I'm good at (mathematical, logical, visual, spatial, verbal) are exactly the ones being measured by IQ tests.

That said, what "intelligence" is certainly not is an accumulation of knowledge, whether by an individual or by the human species collectively.