Leading Geneticist: Humans Getting Dumber

[Pearl]

Would you be surprised to hear that the human race is slowly becoming dumber, and dumber? Despite our advancements over the last tens or even hundreds of years, some ‘experts’ believe that humans are losing cognitive capabilities and becoming more emotionally unstable. One Stanford University researcher and geneticist, Dr. Gerald Crabtree, believes that our intellectual decline as a race has much to do with adverse genetic mutations. But human intelligence is suffering for other reasons as well.
According to Crabtree, our cognitive and emotional capabilities are fueled and determined by the combined effort of thousands of genes. If a mutation occurred in any of of these genes, which is quite likely, then intelligence or emotional stability can be negatively impacted.

Read more: Leading Geneticist: Human Intelligence is Slowly Declining


The article goes on to say that our food system may be playing a role, with fluoride and high fructose corn syrup lowering our IQs. Interesting. Our food is making us more fat and possibly dumber.

But I'm sure we've all been noticing that generally people seem to be getting more dimwitted. The American education system focuses more on students passing tests than learning problem solving skills and critical thinking. Many admire celebrities for being rich than smart.

This article also says our emotional intelligence is declining, which is interesting because emotional intelligence is a new concept. I say it may likely because of our fast-paced, stress filled lives. I also think technology may play a role, which is ironic because I am right now using the Internet to communicate to people.

Anyway, I think this is a good topic.

[Irvine511]

i don't think this is true?

Are We Getting Smarter?: Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century
by James R. Flynn
Cambridge University Press, 310 pp., $22

IN THE MID-’80s, the political philosopher James Flynn noticed a remarkable but puzzling trend: for the past century, average IQ scores in every industrialized nation have been steadily rising. And not just a little: nearly three points every decade. Every several years, IQ tests test have to be “re-normed” so that the average remains 100. This means that a person who scored 100 a century ago would score 70 today; a person who tested as average a century ago would today be declared mentally retarded.

This bizarre finding—christened the “Flynn effect” by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in The Bell Curve—has since snowballed so much supporting evidence that in 2007 Malcolm Gladwell declared in The New Yorker that “the Flynn effect has moved from theory to fact.” But researchers still cannot agree on why scores are going up. Are we are simply getting better at taking tests? Are the tests themselves a poor measure of intelligence? Or do rising IQ scores really mean we are getting smarter?

In spite of his new book’s title, Flynn does not suggest a simple yes or no to this last question. It turns out that the greatest gains have taken place in subtests that measure abstract reasoning and pattern recognition, while subtests that depend more on previous knowledge show the lowest score increases. This imbalance may not reflect an increase in general intelligence, Flynn argues, but a shift in particular habits of mind. The question is not, why are we getting smarter, but the much less catchy, why are we getting better at abstract reasoning and little else?

Flynn starts from a position that accepts the idea of IQ—a measure that supposedly reflects an underlying “general” intelligence. Some researchers have objected to this concept in part because of its circular definition: psychologists measure general intelligence by analyzing correlation patterns among multiple intelligence tests; someone with greater general intelligence will perform better on all these subtests. But although he does not quibble with the premise, Flynn argues that an increase in general intelligence is not the full story when it comes to the past century’s massive score gains.

If we were really getting smarter overall, scores should be going up across all the subtests, but that is not the case. To understand the score gains, then, we need to set aside issues of general intelligence and instead analyze patterns on the IQ subtests. Doing so opens a window into cognitive trends over time and reveals a far more interesting picture of what may be happening to our minds. This inquiry is at the heart of Flynn’s thirty-year career, and it drives his thoughtful (though occasionally tedious) book.

As Flynn demonstrates, a typical IQ test question on the abstract reasoning “Similarities” subtest might ask “How are dogs and rabbits alike?” While our grandparents were more likely to say something along the lines of “Dogs are used to hunt rabbits,” today we are more likely to say the “correct” answer, “Dogs and rabbits are both mammals.” Our grandparents were more likely to see the world in concrete, utilitarian terms (dogs hunt rabbits), but today we are more likely to think in abstractions (the category of “mammal”). In contrast, the Arithmetic IQ subtest and the Vocabulary IQ subtest—tests that rely on previous knowledge—show hardly any score increase at all.

Why has this happened? The short answer, according to Flynn, is that a convergence of diverse social factors in post-industrial societies—from the emphasis of scientific reasoning in school to the complexity of modern video games—has increasingly demanded abstract thinking. We have begun to see the world, Flynn says, through “scientific spectacles.” To put it even more broadly, the pattern of rising IQ scores does not mean that we are comparing “a worse mind with a better one,” but rather that we are comparing minds that “were adapted to one cognitive environment with those whose minds are adapted to another cognitive environment.” Seen in this light, the Flynn effect does not reflect gains in general intelligence, it reflects a shift to more abstract thinking brought about by a changing social environment. We aren’t getting smarter; we are getting more modern.

Meehan Crist and Tim Requarth Review James R. Flynn's "Are We Getting Smarter?: Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century" | New Republic

[Pearl]

Why has this happened? The short answer, according to Flynn, is that a convergence of diverse social factors in post-industrial societies—from the emphasis of scientific reasoning in school to the complexity of modern video games—has increasingly demanded abstract thinking. We have begun to see the world, Flynn says, through “scientific spectacles.” To put it even more broadly, the pattern of rising IQ scores does not mean that we are comparing “a worse mind with a better one,” but rather that we are comparing minds that “were adapted to one cognitive environment with those whose minds are adapted to another cognitive environment.” Seen in this light, the Flynn effect does not reflect gains in general intelligence, it reflects a shift to more abstract thinking brought about by a changing social environment. We aren’t getting smarter; we are getting more modern.

Hmm, that's an interesting point. Obviously we'd have to think differently according to our environment. But I've heard claims that our diet and pollution is hurting our IQ levels. I remember reading years ago about some towns where there are chemical plants nearby having high cases of learning disabilities.

The human brain is easy to manipulate, basically. I guess how we should manipulate it is up for debate.

[Danny Boy]

Originally Posted by Pearl

The article goes on to say that our food system may be playing a role, with fluoride and high fructose corn syrup lowering our IQs. Interesting. Our food is making us more fat and possibly dumber.

But I'm sure we've all been noticing that generally people seem to be getting more dimwitted. The American education system focuses more on students passing tests than learning problem solving skills and critical thinking. Many admire celebrities for being rich than smart.

None of these environmental factors have anything to do with a genetic drift toward higher or lower intelligence. It's possible that people living right now are "dumber" because of environmental exposures and poor educational trends, but it has nothing to do with whether their children or grandchildren will have higher or lower cognitive potential.

The only way we become dumber as a species is if there is some reproductive advantage toward having a lower IQ. If you can demonstrate that dumb people are reproducing faster than smart people, you may have something.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Danny Boy

The only way we become dumber as a species is if there is some reproductive advantage toward having a lower IQ. If you can demonstrate that dumb people are reproducing faster than smart people, you may have something.

Its well-known that more educated people have fewer children, so...

[MrsSpringsteen]

I see evidence of it on a daily basis

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Its well-known that more educated people have fewer children, so...

Does education level actually relate to IQ?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Pearl

But I'm sure we've all been noticing that generally people seem to be getting more dimwitted. .

Relative to what? If we're arguing for a genetic basis, you most certainly haven't noticed any change as your evolutionary perspective is insignificant.
It's far more likely that, with social media, we're just more aware of other people and the dumb things people occasionally say are more likely to stick in our minds.
Studies like this are no more than sensationalism with little substance

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Does education level actually relate to IQ?

Yes. IQ can be improved and it's more or less a social construct.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

It's far more likely that, with social media, we're just more aware of other people and the dumb things people occasionally say are more likely to stick in our minds.

That's probably it.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Studies like this are no more than sensationalism with little substance

Well, Irvine's article points out how measuring IQs can change over time, and it says a lot about our societies. And the part about the chemicals in our food is interesting. After all, if all the crap in processed food makes us fat why won't it have some impact on our brain if food and chemicals can do that? Then again, I'm getting more health conscious and looking into detox diets to see if they're worth it.

[Jive Turkey]

Just eat healthier food and avoid any diets with the words 'toxins' 'detox' 'cleanse'. A healthy diet isn't brain surgery despite what the nutritionists would like you to believe

[the iron horse]

Quick!!! Reply

Don't cheat and look it up!


-Internal combustion engine / How does it work?

-Microwave oven / How does it work?

-Why is your fridge cold?

[Jive Turkey]

Unless you expect me to know how the microwave generates microwaves, as opposed to how microwaves (the actual waves) make things hot, I can answer all of those. I'm sure most people here can

[Diemen]

[Jive Turkey]

If I was being insincere, wouldn't I have just googled the answers first, then pretended I just saw the question?

Or would I?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

-Internal combustion engine / How does it work?

By igniting a type of fuel and using the energy produced from the expansion of gas.

Originally Posted by the iron horse

-Microwave oven / How does it work?

By pushing power, an allotted time, and then start.

Originally Posted by the iron horse

-Why is your fridge cold?

Because it's plugged in.


So did you prove something about IQ? Or did you just prove that questions when asked a certain way have multiple answers.

[PhilsFan]

Iron Horse (a teacher) is right! IQ tests should be based entirely on whether or not you have learned the mechanisms of machinery.

[Jive Turkey]

I think what iron horse was trying to illustrate is that, 1000 years ago, people understood how the tools they used every day work. They knew how the mill ground wheat (that's what a mill does, right?), they knew how the pulley that lifted their bails of hay worked and they knew how to fix it all. I suppose he's contrasting that with modern society using tools that we aren't always sure how they operate. Problem is, the people who knew how their mills worked also thought the Sun revolved around the Earth and that disease was spread by 'bad air', so I'm not sure that comparison is very useful

[Danny Boy]

I think he was trying to point out that many IQ tests are not a pure measure of cognitive potential because they require the subject to apply some learned knowledge.

But I'm really not sure that was his point.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Danny Boy

I think he was trying to point out that many IQ tests are not a pure measure of cognitive potential because they require the subject to apply some learned knowledge.

But I'm really not sure that was his point.

If I had to guess, this is a little closer to what I would imagine IH was trying to get at...


Different social circles measure intelligence in different ways. Some will measure you by the books that you've read, others by the historical facts you know, some by if you can do math in your head, and some by if you know how to frame a house or rebuild a carburetor.

Framing a house and rebuilding a carburetor often require great problem solving skills in addition to manual skills, and if I were to guess I think he was saying that these skills are often underestimated when it comes to IQ.