Are humans getting smarter?

[swilow]

I got to thinking about this subject matter after encountering a few different ideas about whether humans are, in fact, getting smarter. One would argue that, with the proliferation of technology and increased scientific understanding of reality, humans are getting more intelligent (or at least getting more intelligent in certain area's).

An interview that I saw with Neil de Grasse Tyson. He countered this idea by saying (paraphrasing) that there is no biological reason for humans to be getting more intelligent; intelligence, in itself, isn't a trait that neccesarily leads to increased procreation. The mixing of genes through mating is more likely related to physical attractiveness and other perceived traits, rather then the ability to crunch complex numbers in ones head, understand and/or posit complex meanignful scientific expositions or other hallmarks of "intelligence". There is also the notion that there isn't a scientific or mathematical center in the brain that can be strengthened though inheritance, an that evolution doesn't entail the inheritance of learned traits. There's no reason to think that the son of a mathematician will be as smart as their father/mother; traits are not inherited in that way.

There is also the sexy-son hypothesis. The idea behind this is that, for a mother, the most desirable trait in a son is physical/sexual attractiveness. This attractiveness means that the son will spread his mothers genes more widely. The important genetic component isn't what tangible impact these traits have in the real world (having symmetrical features doesn't really positively effect survival or provide any physical benefit, besides more sexual partners), but the fact of sexual attractiveness, in and of itself. So a female may choose a partner that has no other beneficial traits, and might be a vicious asshole, but is sexually appealing. At no point does intelligence play a role in mate-selection, according to this hypothesis at least. I'm not sold on it, because I think that sexual appeal is largely related to perceived beneficial physical traits of a person. But it makes some sense, and is an idea that excludes intelligence from mate selection. I think it is probably outdated, but is still interesting in its own way.... Of course, humans are not statistics and are capricious; something which can never be quantified IMO, so I don't know if this idea is that applicable.

What do you guys think? Sure, we are all using complex machinery in our daily lives, and are reaping the benefits of more complete scientific and physical knowledge of the world, but I don't think this means that our capacity for understanding has increased. Perhaps the sudden profusion of mathematical/technological/physical complexity is related to the a large population of humans having maintained continuity of knowledge for an extended period. The person who uses mathematics to design an engine doesn't need to completely understand the physics and mathematics behind every component; they do not need to rediscover the rules of calculus every-time they wish to use it in calculations. Rather, they learn the rules that others have elucidated before them, sometimes over several thousand years. That humans can draw from knowledge obtained several thousand years ago is an amazing feat. It makes me believe that housing and organisation of knowledge is the vital component here, rather then increased ability to understand that knowledge. Humans are certainly intelligent, but perhaps it is our memory, our language and our institutions that maintain this, rather then genetic mixing.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Good topic/thread.

I don't see how intelligence can be completely discounted as a contributing factor towards mating.
And, I get that's not what Tyson is saying. But, that's the conclusion you seem to be drawing from it?
I mean, assuming that intelligence is a factor (no matter how insignificant), wouldn't that increase intelligence (marginally) over time?

Nobody wants to have children with a complete moron, unless they're a sperm donor.
Intelligence (perhaps not so much academic intelligence) is a huge factor in terms of whether or not people want to have kids, I think.
Maybe not a huge factor for fucking. But, definitely significant for kids/marriage.

...

Whether or not there's a mathematical part of the brain (that we can identify), we can observe that the brain has changed in size and structure.
It's a little controversial - and I don't mean any offence, by referring to it - but there's a study that compared brain size/structure of different races.

Asian brains (on average) are larger than Caucasian brains and Caucasian brains (on average) are larger than African brains.
Male brains (on average) are also larger than female brains. Perhaps this evidence suggests that the development of society increases brain capacity.

Then there's the question of: is bigger better?
If you have a larger brain, does that mean your capacity for intelligence has increased?

This opens up a bit of a can of worms.
Do women (on average) have less capacity for intelligence?
Do Africans (on average) have less capacity for intelligence?
(I'm not going to answer these questions. Just posing them.)

If our shrinking brains (which I'm not convinced of) mean that our intelligence is being reduced (even if our brains are shrinking, I'm not convinced this is evidence of reduced intelligence; see the microchip) - and human brain size is directly proportional with intelligence - then, one must also conclude that women are less intelligent than men (on average).

 

[-=SS=-]

Given how difficult it is to quantify intelligence I would say this is question is extremely difficult to answer. Some people are exceptionally smart, academically speaking, but if you posed as the wallet inspector you could snap up their cash stash without much of a qualm (Simpsons, I thank you). There are many different modes of intelligence. Then there is intuitive intelligence.. whatever that actually is, but it can provide answers that logically you would never reach otherwise. And self-awareness.. you might not be academically that bright but you may have reached a profound level of spiritual attainment, a kind of an intelligence that's even harder to quantify.

And what about learning methods? Are we actually getting smarter, or have our pedagogical methods merely improved?

People have to take in and do more than ever before in history. Our world is so fast now it borders on insanity at times. Children learn so much in their childhoods compared to what was expected 200 years ago. But.. when I looked around I don't see that much intelligence to be honest, least not how I define it. Yeh, that 8 year old in the street may be able to fix my car engine or redesign some new components in AutoCAD.. but that kid from 200 years ago could still probably beat him at hide and seek, or something involving spatial strategy for example.

I think if you took away technology we really haven't gotten that much smarter in 200 years. We like to think we have, but I don't think the difference is that much. We may have even gone backwards ever so slightly!

 

[swilow]

Good topic/thread.

I don't see how intelligence can be completely discounted as a contributing factor towards mating.
And, I get that's not what Tyson is saying. But, that's the conclusion you seem to be drawing from it?
I mean, assuming that intelligence is a factor (no matter how insignificant), wouldn't that increase intelligence (marginally) over time?

Nobody wants to have children with a complete moron, unless they're a sperm donor.
Intelligence (perhaps not so much academic intelligence) is a huge factor in terms of whether or not people want to have kids, I think.
Maybe not a huge factor for fucking. But, definitely significant for kids/marriage.

Certainly not discounting it; after all, humans have evolved into humans, a species noted for our "intelligence". Intellectual aptitude doesn't neccesarily add up increased survival though. There are reasons to think that physical traits play a more important role in survival.

De-Grasse Tyson's comment was more saying that we don't need to be getting smarter; we are unique among animals in our ability to store complex information for thousands of years. The fact that have formed civilisations is a means of safe-guarding our knowledge.

I'll see if I can find the interview.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Sorry if this wasn't a good contribution.

On the contrary. It was a valuable contribution. Thank you.
And, I agree that we're probably getting smarter in some ways and stupider in other ways.

People are doing increasingly stupid things, and increasingly amazing things.
I'm not sure who's winning, if either team.
But, I do find both of them entertaining.

People in fail videos, jumping off four story buildings onto a pile of mattresses (and such) don't necessarily have a limited capacity for intelligence. We just live in a world that embraces both extremes. Society encourages people - often from certain backgrounds - to do idiotic things.

The redneck that tapes his scrotum to a go kart, given different circumstances, might have ended up as an ivy league professor. But, honestly, I'm glad that - instead - he's decided to attach his genitals to a moving vehicle.

Maybe as natural selection and (genetic) survival of the fittest becomes less relevant, there are no common denominators in terms of who lives and who dies. The world is inhabited by the weak and the strong now. We're no longer animals, so I'm not sure if we can apply normal evolutionary standards.

 

[drug_mentor]

I think we live in an almost paradoxical world. I think that as human intelligence expands, we as a species are getting smarter (in a cumulative sense), but I also sense that a lot of technology is dumbing people down. I feel like short hand text speak and auto correct are fucking up the lay mans ability to spell, as well as eroding the necessity of being able to. I also think that in a smart phone age with google at our finger tips, people have to remember a lot less.

People are definitely more informed, but the question is whether this equates to greater knowledge and understanding, or if it is just a reflection of current technology and established knowledge. I tend to think that people aren't truly smarter in terms of IQ/capacity for critical thought/potential for knowledge/etc. There has always been people like Aristotle and Isaac Newton, the average person could never hope to match their intellect, regardless of the established knowledge they have at their disposal.

Sure, we are all using complex machinery in our daily lives, and are reaping the benefits of more complete scientific and physical knowledge of the world, but I don't think this means that our capacity for understanding has increased. Perhaps the sudden profusion of mathematical/technological/physical complexity is related to the a large population of humans having maintained continuity of knowledge for an extended period. The person who uses mathematics to design an engine doesn't need to completely understand the physics and mathematics behind every component; they do not need to rediscover the rules of calculus every-time they wish to use it in calculations. Rather, they learn the rules that others have elucidated before them, sometimes over several thousand years. That humans can draw from knowledge obtained several thousand years ago is an amazing feat. It makes me believe that housing and organisation of knowledge is the vital component here, rather then increased ability to understand that knowledge. Humans are certainly intelligent, but perhaps it is our memory, our language and our institutions that maintain this, rather then genetic mixing.

This is an interesting point, and it has some interesting implications. I agree with you that people have a much greater foundation to work from now. Forgive me because I am totally maths illiterate, but I believe that a good number of decades ago Alan Turing wrote a paper which demonstrated that no matter how advanced our understanding of mathematics became, we could never resolve every mathematical problem. The reason for this is because for every problem we solve and every new rule we create/discover, this will lead to new and more complex problems. From this we might conclude that no matter how many answers we generate we will always generate more questions, in this sense there will probably always remain a relatively proportionate amount of answered and unanswered questions. I don't know the paper off the top of my head, but if you are interested I could probably chase it up for you.

I believe that human understanding will never be complete, and while it is great that we get to constantly build on our foundation of knowledge, each answer raises more questions, just as Turing shown with maths however long ago.

We're no longer animals, so I'm not sure if we can apply normal evolutionary standards.

This seems like self-refutation to me (since humans are, by definition, animals. Even if they weren't they could only get there via evolution, so it is unclear to me why evolutionary standards would no longer apply) and I was hoping you could clarify this position.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I said normal evolutionary standards.
Sure, we're still animals biologically.
But, we don't behave like animals.

We don't exist within the food chain.
Survival isn't selective.
Even the weakest survive.
That's all I'm saying.

 

[swilow]

Survival isn't selective.
Even the weakest survive.
That's all I'm saying.

Nice almost haiku.

 

[tantric]

hmm - my heretical views on evolution? the following is NOT accepted theory

Evolution inherently leads to greater and greater complexity. Also, as time goes on, we see a greater degree of encephalization and the development of more and more complex symbiotic relationships (including both parasites and mutualists). If there were no direction to evolution, the Earth would still be covered in prebiotic slime. It may very well be that evolution always produces sapience and even technological civilizations (Fermi paradox aside) that ends in a full Gaian planet-mind. We don't know.

I agree that there is no purpose to evolution, as that implies a guiding intelligence, but there is obviously direction. Do you expect multicellular life to be replaced by bacteria? Even if some external force caused this, I would fully expect complex organisms to evolve again, because that's how it goes.

The Red Queen says that there is no progress, that the cheetah never beats the gazelle because both continue to evolve. This is manifestly untrue in the case of humans - our prey did not get smarter as we did, and, as far as it is possible, we 'won'. I don't expect humans to resume their place in the food web any time soon. We exterminated our predators, something that no prey species has ever done. The germs might catch up, but the tigers are done, except as domesticates.

 

[Foreigner]

Smarter than what, or who? It's hard because we have no basis for comparison, other than comparing to earlier humans.

Technology doesn't make us smarter. Humans as a species are great adapters when it comes to using tools, but only a few humans know how to make the tools we all use today. I can't make a computer or smart phone, I wouldn't even know where to begin. If we took away all technology and modern conveniences, most humans alive today would die not long after. (I suppose I have some raw survival skills that would work in my favor as barter or trade, but really? I'd be screwed.) So "smart", in terms of what we know and how to implement it? Not so sure we're that much better off, in terms of what's needed for survival. Capitalism has allowed most humans to be provided for without even knowing how to make the very goods they're consuming. Money is now the resource that most humans go after, but it's a fake resource.

The only way humans could objectively become more intelligent is if humans were born with new evolutionary traits and abilities. Some humans have these traits, but they're viewed as oddities or deformations. I'm thinking about polymaths or those who can learn a language in a few days, or those who have an extremely intelligent intuition that can predict events.

So on that note, I don't think most humans can even recognize someone smarter than them. Have you ever been the most intelligent person in a conversation? People don't even know what you're talking about. They're so stupid that they think you're the stupid one.

 

[swilow]

Smarter than what, or who? It's hard because we have no basis for comparison, other than comparing to earlier humans.

Smarter then past humans, yes. I guess the question is: is there a reason why intelligence (perhaps intelligence as an increased capacity for comprehension of complexity) would increase? Is there a selective pressure which pushes towards greater intelligence? Is the state of our current civilisation/s evidence of increased intelligence?

The only way humans could objectively become more intelligent is if humans were born with new evolutionary traits and abilities. Some humans have these traits, but they're viewed as oddities or deformations

That's exactly right. That is evolution, the arising of new traits. Ones that are kept are those that increase survival and, thus, increase the capacity for reproduction. I can't see any reason why polymaths or genius physicists would procreate more and share more of their particular genetic code. Socially, this doesn't seem to have been the case historically, given the current rarity of such traits.

This raises the question as to whether such a thing as intelligence exists in a genetic sense, or whether the disciplines such as science, maths, literature, art, music are acquired through being alive. Is our technological prowess and ability to use language and mathematics to coherently describe the universe something which has evolved in more recent homo sapiens, or is it inherent in our species? Is the proflieration of technology indicative of increasing intelligence, or is it a natural emergent phenomenon arising from thousands of years of civilisation and searching for knowledge; is it inevitable?

I don't believe humans are getting more intelligent in some areas. I don't think we have procured the ability to comprehend maths better through genetic mutation. I think we've developed brilliant languages to encode information within, and this has enabled us to progress without any real interregnum in that progress; knowledge gained by past generations is not encoded in their genome and so is not retained in this manner, but it is retained and cast within unchanging conceptual language (though the actual symbols used change). Hence, we can still make sense of early geometry of several thousand years ago, and we still use it. No other animal has been able to explicitly communicate with future generations in the way humans have, so either they must advantageously mutate, or each individual must largely relearn everything. Perhaps that is what culture is; a means of encoding important information for future peoples, to ensure that it isn't lost. Given our ability to do this, perhaps there is no selective pressure on us to become more intelligent in that sense. Our language already stores all this information; we don't need to be able to understand it, to use it.

 

[tantric]

please also consider Dual Inheritance Theory: biocultural evolution. Evolution is not tied to genetics - the theory existed long before DNA was discovered.

Culture capacities are adaptations

The human capacity to store and transmit culture arose from genetically evolved psychological mechanisms. This implies that at some point during the evolution of the human species a type of social learning leading to cumulative cultural evolution was evolutionarily advantageous.
Culture evolves

Social learning processes give rise to cultural evolution. Cultural traits are transmitted differently from genetic traits and, therefore, result in different population-level effects on behavioral variation.

this is pretty accepted theory in evolutionary biology - its used to describe how whale migration patterns evolve. if you consider human culture and technology as a product of evolution, then yes, we are getting smarter. we didn't spend a million years improving our brains physically, we used what we already have to improve them technologically.

 

[socko]

NO. People are definitely degenerating. People are stupider, fatter, more ignorant, lazier than ever before.

Dumb & Dumber - Scientific Proof That People Are Getting 'Stupider'

Submitted by Michael Snyder of The American Dream blog,

Are people dumber than they used to be? Were previous generations mentally sharper than us? You may have suspected that people are getting stupider for quite some time, but now we actually have scientific evidence that this is the case. As you will read about below, average IQs are dropping all over the globe, SAT scores in the U.S. have been declining for decades, and scientists have even discovered that our brains have been getting smaller over time. So if it seems on some days like you woke up in the middle of the movie “Idiocracy”, you might not be too far off. Much of the stuff that they put in our junk food is not good for brain development, our education system is a total joke and most Americans are absolutely addicted to mindless entertainment. Fortunately we have a lot of technology that does much of our thinking for us these days, because if we had to depend on our own mental capabilities most of us would be in a tremendous amount of trouble.

Sadly, this appears to be a phenomenon that is happening all over the planet. As a recent Daily Mail article explained, IQ scores are falling in country after country…

Richard Lynn, a psychologist at the University of Ulster, calculated the decline in humans’ genetic potential........
source:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-25/dumb-dumber-scientific-proof-people-are-getting-stupider

Think Fast, Are We Really Getting Dumber?



David DiSalvo ,CONTRIBUTOR
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/05/26/think-fast-are-we-really-getting-dumber/

A new study suggests that people living today are considerably less intelligent than people living a couple centuries ago, to the tune of 14 fewer IQ points on average.

The metric evaluated to reach this conclusion isn’t one most would guess. Rather than comprehensive IQ test scores declining over time, researchers focused on declining reaction times–a metric that correlates with general intelligence for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.

In psychological parlance, the study of reaction times is called mental chronometry. If you participated in a mental chronometry study, you would be presented with a stimulus (let’s say an intermittently flashing blue light on a monitor) and asked to react to the stimulus as quickly as possible (in this example by pushing a button when the blue light flashes). How quickly you react is thought to be a measure of your brain’s processing speed.

General intelligence (also called the “g factor”) is comprised of multiple parts, mental processing speed among them. And it’s this speed that researchers analyzed using psychometric data from the Victorian era beginning in 1884, up through 2004, culled from 14 intelligence studies conducted during that span (the handy thing about reaction time is that it’s testable with several different methods, and older methods are still considered valid). The results aren’t flattering to us moderns: IQ, as measured by reaction time, dropped 1.23 points per decade, for a total of 14 points in the hole.

From my own personal experience, no. Only a few people have made the great achievements that benefit society today, and only a few every generation build upon those achievements while the great mass of people remain the same today as they were a thousand years ago. Vindictive, petty, violent, superstitious, and generally ignorant.

What is worse is that those who hold power everywhere, from your lowly boss to heads of corporations to rulers are either stupid and/or selfish and hold back the few smart people who come along.

............
So on that note, I don't think most humans can even recognize someone smarter than them. Have you ever been the most intelligent person in a conversation? People don't even know what you're talking about. They're so stupid that they think you're the stupid one.

I meet a lot of people in fields that require a lot of higher education. Around half of them are very smart, and within a few minutes, I can usually spot the ones who are smarter than me and those who are not so smart. Very often, those who aren't so smart lack the self-awareness to know it. They think they are Visionary Philosophers. So, what you describe happens to me all the time. The stupider they are, the more insolent they are, especially if they are a boss or old or have some position of authority. Stupid, especially when it has arbitrary authority, assumes everything that disagrees with it is wrong and stupid. Stupid people who lack the self-awareness to know it are almost always rude, nasty, condescending POS. Bluelgihts own CE&P is a good example of this phenomenon.

 

[One Thousand Words]

How does one quantify this? If you tested every newborn you would get a poor result when compared to the same number of university students. Seperate two twins and raise them in differing environments and you will manipulate eaches perceived intelligence, yet the initial capacity to develop this intelligence is the same.

Other outside forces also exist. Politics suppressing and censoring particular ideas, or promoting a train of thought which creates a society where fart jokes are revered does nothing to dispel the theory that we are getting dumber, yet eliminate this pressure and the next generation would be allowed to nurture their problem solving or intellectual skills and it is difficult to argue that we have suddenly devolved over night.

Perhaps the rapid increase in atheism is a sign of humans increasing intelligence?

 

[tantric]

21st century man is smarter because we have evolved the internet, the web, information storage, etc. humans have evolved technology the same way beavers evolved dams. it isn't separate from us, everything we are is part of nature and all of it is a product of evolution. humans evolved via genetics the kind of brain that makes cultural evolution possible. there are crows in japan that have learned to open nuts - by placing them on roads and letting cars run over them. this is nothing in their genes, it's learned behavior passed from one crow to another - memes instead of genes. animal behaviorists talk of whale cultures, ape cultures, crow cultures.

 

[tantric]

And a paper, even, while not directly relevant, that should be of interest to anyone following this thread:

Brains, innovations, tools and cultural transmission in birds, non-human primates, and fossil hominins

 

[Jabberwocky]

Sure seems like it Tantric, here's a cute little example of stray dog culture. Have you heard of the stray dogs in moscow that ride the subway to commute to work in search of food. A short little video:

[video]https://youtu.be/AHSHeMjY9J8[/video]

 

[One Thousand Words]

21st century man is smarter because we have evolved the internet, the web, information storage, etc. humans have evolved technology the same way beavers evolved dams. it isn't separate from us, everything we are is part of nature and all of it is a product of evolution. humans evolved via genetics the kind of brain that makes cultural evolution possible. there are crows in japan that have learned to open nuts - by placing them on roads and letting cars run over them. this is nothing in their genes, it's learned behavior passed from one crow to another - memes instead of genes. animal behaviorists talk of whale cultures, ape cultures, crow cultures.

Yet cut the electricity and our intelligence evaporates. Technology is a powerful tool sure, but it's more akin to an animal living safely behind a fence on a farm. Take away that fence and the animal is no more advanced than its wild relative.

Humans have created an environment where evolution in a pure sense is no longer as relavant. The normal pressures of disease and environmental dangers have be completely eliminated, placing a hand brake on natural selection. Intelligence from a genetic position is no longer selected as it may have once done. Then again it could be argued that great minds like Stephen hawking may not have been elected to breed if normal evolutionary pressures were at play, so it is swings and roundabouts

 

[swilow]

There is a movie, set in the future, where humans have become almost cattle-like in our docility and stupor. I can't remember what it is though....?

 

[tantric]

Yet cut the electricity and our intelligence evaporates. Technology is a powerful tool sure, but it's more akin to an animal living safely behind a fence on a farm. Take away that fence and the animal is no more advanced than its wild relative.

Humans have created an environment where evolution in a pure sense is no longer as relavant. The normal pressures of disease and environmental dangers have be completely eliminated, placing a hand brake on natural selection. Intelligence from a genetic position is no longer selected as it may have once done. Then again it could be argued that great minds like Stephen hawking may not have been elected to breed if normal evolutionary pressures were at play, so it is swings and roundabouts

no, and no again. evolution is a separate concept from genetics. take away our electricity? defang a tiger. same thing. we evolved the use of electricity culturally. besides the basic fact that you simply cannot stop evolution short of extinction. evolution does not have a direction - it's change over time. in every cell, your mitochondria where once independent organism that entered into a symbiotic mutualistic relationship with early eurkaryotes. it's a matter of pure hubris to look at humans and our domestic species any differently. since the neolithic, we've been a a collection of mutually dependent organisms. a metaorganism. if you take away a leafcutter ant's fungus garden, they die. they aren't leafcutter ants anymore.