We're being outnumbered

[fireballs619]

Education, skill learning, it's hardly done for non profit, personal improvement.

I beg to differ at this point. Many skills that people learn are done just for the fun of it. Riding a bike, new languages, advanced mathematics (that do not have to do with your career path) are among some of the things people teach themselves in their free time. Any athletic activity you can think of are skills that people teach themselves - most of the time without any intention to profit from it. While it is true that education/skill learning is used to open careers to you, I believe that they are equally used for enjoyment in your free time.

Also in regards to my previous post, I found a link to the Wikipedia page about that experiment [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott"]here[/ame]. An excerpt:

Their grades also improved, doing mathematical and reading tasks that seemed outside their ability before. The “inferior” classmates also transformed – into timid and subservient children, including those who had previously been dominant in the class. These children’s academic performance suffered, even with tasks that had been simple before.

 

[jedidia]

I know that I am in a bad position here with my views, but I consider it deeply ironic, if the smartest idea, that self-declared smart people have for solving humanity's problems, is simply committing a genocide on 90% of the population.

a hundred times this. I cannot quite believe some stuff I'm reading in this thread. Some Ideas are basically fashism with an I.Q. test instead of genealogy... :facepalm:

Never mind that an I.Q. test shows pretty much nothing universally aplicable, because you cannot test "inteligence" on a broad spectrum. You can only test the capability of a person to solve a specific range of problems. They might be utterly useless for solving a different range.

 

[RisingFury]

Build a bunker put all the smart people (like me) into it and push the big red button.
Simple.

It'll be so much more funny if we leave you outside the bunker

 

[PennyBlack]

So why am I attempting (rather clumsily) to learn French? Or learning to write PHP/MySQL/JavaScript? None of those will help me earn more money.

I speak from experience of those around me and not those I do not know tblaxland. The only time they improve themselves where I live is when the government requires them to do so. To comply with benifits or job search. In future I will remember those I post with on this forum when making a sweeping statement. :thumbup:

Good luck with that French stuff.

 

[RGClark]

I have just spent the afternoon watching CNN and I have come to the following conclusion.
It suddenly occurred to me, as the years pass, there are fewer and fewer brilliant minds per capita.
Every day the human race becomes (on average) stupider and stupider by the moment.
Back in their day.. for every 'einstien' or 'bohr' or 'tesla', there were thousands of (relatively) stupid(er) people in society.
But now: for every 'stephen hawking', there are MILLIONS of stupid people. what gives!?
We're to the point now, in today's society, where we think donald trump is some kind of genius.

(the people we look to, for wisdom, are a bunch of freaking turnips).
HOW did this happen?
Answer:
--> stupid people reproduce at a faster rate that smart people. (we're doomed).
On the one extreme: people with high I.Q are waiting until they are 40 to EVEN have a baby.
They go out and study, get educated, get established (financially), and then, finally, 40 years later, they grace us with their (singlular) offspring.
At this rate, it takes 80 years to conjure 2 generations of smart people (at a dwindling ratio of 2:1, parents per child).
Meanwhile: stupid people get pregnant at the age of 15. they live on welfare and get rewarded for each additional offspring.
They have six kids by age 24 and they collect 'child benefits' for each kid. in 80 years they churn out 5 generations (at a ratio of 2:6, parents per child).
Yes. These are extreme examples.. but the point is valid: as time goes on, the stupid people are outnumbering the smart people.
Eventually we WILL become a RACE of "turnips". with donald trump as president.

(we're doomed). *sigh**
[/end rant]

This is commonly thought but in point of fact the intelligence of the human population is actually getting higher, at least as measured by IQ tests. This is true to such an extent that the scaling has to be changed every decade or so on such tests.
This was discussed some years ago on sci.psychology.misc:

==========================================
Newsgroups: alt.psychology, rec.arts.sf.misc, rec.arts.sf.science, sci.anthropology, sci.archaeology, sci.bio.misc, sci.cognitive, sci.psychology.misc, sci.psychology.theory
From: "Robert Clark" <[email protected]>
Date: 1997/09/21
Subject: The Future of Human Intelligence. Large Bulbous Heads?

Just heard on public radio about a report in the American Scientist, Sept-Oct 1997, http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/97articles/neisser.html,
[that link expired. Use this link instead:

Rising Scores on Intelligence Tests.
Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial.
Ulric Neisser
This article originally appeared in the September-October 1997 issue of American Scientist.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/rising-scores-on-intelligence-tests/1 - R.G.C.]

that there has been a consistent increase of scores of IQ tests of the order of 3 pts. per decade on general tests and 7 pts. per decade on math oriented. So that if the average person today took a test created in the 1930's he would score 120, which is close to gifted. Because of this, IQ tests have to be consistently renormed so that the average is once again 100. Science fiction writers have long suggested that human intelligence will increase over the centuries, but that idea was discounted by biologists on the grounds that evolution was directed by necessity and since in "civilized" societies anyone can grow to reproductive age regardless of their intelligence, human intelligence should stay pretty much static. (Hmm, cloning, space travel, life on other planets, evolution of human intelligence, are science fiction writers psychic?)
In any case, the psychologists interviewed all gave sociological reasons for the increase. I'm betting on biological. After all, there has always been a strong social push towards "intelligent" mates even in civilized societies. In prehistoric times, there would be a tendency toward intelligent mates since they would be the ones who be most able to survive, hunt good food, create good shelter, etc. Over time we might surmise that it became a genetic disposition to seek intelligent mates. In surveys of what we find attractive in a potential mate intelligence always comes high in the list.
If one looks at what is the most salient feature that distinguish us from other animals, its our intelligence. Just as the most salient features of birds is flying ability and there would be strong genetic push towards increased flying ability so would be the same thing for us in regards to intelligence. There are 5 billion of us on the planet, no other large animal even comes close to that number, probably throughout all of history. This suggests to me a strong biological success in our genetic endowment.
Any comments?


Bob Clark
==========================================
http://groups.google.com/group/sci...._frm/thread/4b417f3234efc9cf/b6d9e963a671dda3

 

[Jarvitä]

That's ridiculous. IQ tests measure proficiency at taking IQ tests, nothing more. The entire idea of a unified "intelligence unit" is laughable.

 

[agentgonzo]

That's ridiculous. IQ tests measure proficiency at taking IQ tests, nothing more. The entire idea of a unified "intelligence unit" is laughable.

IMO opinion, this is partly true. Properly administered IQ tests take about two hours to do and test a huge amount of stuff. Online ones that ask you 25 questions and are done in 10-15 minutes are pointless. You are correct that you can get higher IQ test scores by training yourself to do the tests too. Ranking people on a linear scale of intelligence is a massive oversimplification of the populous.

Having said that, someone with an IQ of 175 is going to be on average a lot better at solving problems requiring thought than someone with one of 75.

 

[deltawing777]

This thread in itself is arrogant....Who are we to judge other people and call them ignorant and stupid?

 

[fireballs619]

Having said that, someone with an IQ of 175 is going to be on average a lot better at solving problems requiring thought than someone with one of 75.

What type of problems though? I would wager that, if you present someone with an IQ of 75 and a person of IQ 175 a problem having to do with a non-functioning car, the person of IQ 75 would be able to identify it more quickly. I'm not saying that 'stupider' people tend to be better with automotive problems, or that those problems are 'below' higher IQs, it just seems to be more likely for that to happen. My hypothesis is that those with lower IQs don't tend to study academic material, and instead use the time that the person with the 'genius' IQ would spend studying, to learn about other things, in this case cars. Of course, anyone can enjoy cars regardless of intelligence, but when you aren't preoccupied with your 'genius' studies you have more time to do so.

Of course, if the problem was something else, perhaps finding the area bounded by a curve or some-such, yes, it is true that the IQ of 175 would be more likely to solve the problem with ease. Does this mean they are smarter? Academically, perhaps, but functionally? I'm afraid not. Knowing trigonometry well is not going to get you to work in the morning if your car has broken down. It is too often that people consider academic aptitude as the sole qualifier for intelligence.

 

[PennyBlack]

Of course, if the problem was something else, perhaps finding the area bounded by a curve or some-such, yes, it is true that the IQ of 175 would be more likely to solve the problem with ease.

All you need is formula. Even an idiot could work it out with the education to work the formula I think.

 

[N_Molson]

Intelligence and stupidity are perfectly compatible. There are lots of brillant but narrow-minded scientists. Stupidity can be caused by arrogance, too.

 

[fireballs619]

All you need is formula. Even an idiot could work it out with the education to work the formula I think.

Well then surely the person who can fix the car is the smarter one here, if both can simply use the formula for the mathematics!

 

[PennyBlack]

Well then surely the person who can fix the car is the smarter one here, if both can simply use the formula for the mathematics!

Are we the stupid ones, trying to work out who is smarter than who based on our personal conjecture, experience and alternate perception of what being smart actually is.
I've never taken an IQ test. I left school with no qualifications and I'd hate to think I'm stupid and would live in denial to be honest, rather than take the test to prove what I already suspect.

I'll just say, we are all smart in our own way. Nobody is smarter than me though, I'm a genious. :lol:

Besides, we can learn how to be smart. All it takes is a book and fine direction.

 

[Face]

This thread in itself is arrogant....Who are we to judge other people and call them ignorant and stupid?

Good question. Unfortunately, most of us do it every single day, without second thoughts.

Just think about traffic. Did you never judge your fellow driver as stupid and ignorant, just because he ignored your right of way? In such situations, we tend to be ignorant (how ironic!) to other explanations like that the other driver may have overlooked us, or just was not focussed enough, or was in a rush. No excuses, sure, but an explanation outside of "ignorant and stupid". Still we judge him immediately, most of the time just because we are angry in the very moment.

I think this is the reason why many people believe they are "better" and not so "stupid" as their fellow men: forejudgement based on emotions.

The thing here is, that the theory may sound like it is reasonable, but it simply is not. IMO it is flawed by wrong understandings of genetics: the believe that stupid people always get stupid children and clever people always get clever children.

What makes someone stupid or clever is not ONLY determined by gene, it is environment, education, and yes, even love. The Idiocracy theory is ignoring these factors. Instead it replays the evolution doctrine of the survival of the fittest, and somehow derives that "most clever"=="fittest". Where did that came from? From "stupid" people?

I may be wrong, but I believe that you can't put a metric on what we call intelligence in a way to deterministically decide who should be "in the bunker" and who should get the outcome of "the big red button". IMHO, everyone who says he can do this is just plain lying. Or as arrogant, ignorant, stupid - or whatever attributes you find for "inferior" people - as the one he wants to dismiss.

regards,
Face

 

[fsci123]

My theory is that most smart people like me attempt to act stupid...
Or there is just more people...
Maybe there is a fluxuation of smart and dumb generations...

 

[C3PO]

Having said that, someone with an IQ of 175 is going to be on average a lot better at solving problems requiring thought than someone with one of 75.

"... on average" being the operative word. You cannot apply this to any specific problem, except maybe taking another IQ test.

 

[deltawing777]

Good question. Unfortunately, most of us do it every single day, without second thoughts.

Just think about traffic. Did you never judge your fellow driver as stupid and ignorant, just because he ignored your right of way? In such situations, we tend to be ignorant (how ironic!) to other explanations like that the other driver may have overlooked us, or just was not focussed enough, or was in a rush. No excuses, sure, but an explanation outside of "ignorant and stupid". Still we judge him immediately, most of the time just because we are angry in the very moment.

I think this is the reason why many people believe they are "better" and not so "stupid" as their fellow men: forejudgement based on emotions.

The thing here is, that the theory may sound like it is reasonable, but it simply is not. IMO it is flawed by wrong understandings of genetics: the believe that stupid people always get stupid children and clever people always get clever children.

What makes someone stupid or clever is not ONLY determined by gene, it is environment, education, and yes, even love. The Idiocracy theory is ignoring these factors. Instead it replays the evolution doctrine of the survival of the fittest, and somehow derives that "most clever"=="fittest". Where did that came from? From "stupid" people?

I may be wrong, but I believe that you can't put a metric on what we call intelligence in a way to deterministically decide who should be "in the bunker" and who should get the outcome of "the big red button". IMHO, everyone who says he can do this is just plain lying. Or as arrogant, ignorant, stupid - or whatever attributes you find for "inferior" people - as the one he wants to dismiss.

regards,
Face

Yeah and this is how it started with the jews in germany back in WW2. They were portrayed as inferior to mankind and like RATS in a sewer. Should all people believed to be Stupid,ignorant,mentally challenged be put in a concentration camp? Because the people that "THINK" the are smart say so? And of course I have yelled at the driver in front of me in traffic and called him stupid among other things,BUT, that don't make it right nor does it legitimize this thread.

 

[RisingFury]

This thread in itself is arrogant....Who are we to judge other people and call them ignorant and stupid?

Me? I'm the supreme enlightened, of course!! How dare you question me?

 

[Face]

Yeah and this is how it started with the jews in germany back in WW2. They were portrayed as inferior to mankind and like RATS in a sewer. Should all people believed to be Stupid,ignorant,mentally challenged be put in a concentration camp? Because the people that "THINK" the are smart say so? And of course I have yelled at the driver in front of me in traffic and called him stupid among other things,BUT, that don't make it right nor does it legitimize this thread.

The traffic example is of course not making forejudgment here any better, but I wanted to show that it is a very human thing to do. Your WW2 reference above is only highlighting this.

Instead of rendering the thread as "illegal", I think it is better to explain why the very idea of having to "get rid of the inferior for humanity's sake" is deeply flawed due to the lack of having a metric that maps into [inferior, superior]. I'd say someone who doesn't get that simple concept is "stupid", too, and should as such apply the theory to himself.
EDIT: the last sentence sounds like "the concept" is "rendering thread illegal instead of explaining". Of course I ment the "no metric that maps" concept... *sigh* those emotional topics make me walk on eggs *sigh*

regards,
Face

 

[jedidia]

Somehow I think this might be relevant, despite not being directly on topic (apart from it being really well made):