Do ideas, both in quality and quantity, grow just as our population grows?

[tmdoca]

If you look at a plot of the world population, it is clear that over the last 200 years, the number of minds on this planet has skyrocketed. So, has the field of philosophy responded in this exponential way with this exponential increase in thinking units?

I think that the number of original ideas that occur is probably following this trend, but something else that is following is the difficulty in breaking through to popularity. So while there are more ideas, with so many people now all going to college and sharing things over the internet, it is actually harder to appear unique and be listened to.

 

[Abject]

No.

 

[trees_please]

I dont see how simple thought processes would follow any sort of trend like that, but the logic is interesting so i thought id offer my 2 cents.

 

[L2R]

originality is not essentially related to uniqueness. they can correspond, but don't have to. two people can have the same high quality and genuinely new idea independantly from one another. therefore, the appearence of uniqueness is not a way to measure creativity.

ideas are a small part of what makes a thing real. you know what they say, 1% inspiration/99% persperation. people come up with ideas all the time, it is just most of us do not have the skill or training to translate that idea into art or a scholarly endeavour. the trick is mastering a tool, any tool, in order to do that translation. that is how a person makes an idea into something almost magical.

i can see a face clearly in my mind, yet why can't i draw it? ... training and skill, or the lack thereof.

 

[tmdoca]

I dont see how simple thought processes would follow any sort of trend like that, but the logic is interesting so i thought id offer my 2 cents.

Sorry, I guess the title makes it sound like I'm referring to intelligence. I guess I meant more like this. One person trapped on an island has some ideas of how to survive/escape. 2 people have more ideas, and within a hundred people, one of them might spontaneously figure out how to build a boat or something. So since we have 10 times as many people as we had before, would there have been a 10x greater chance of there being a person able to integrate and progress a philosophy simply because there are more people?

originality is not essentially related to uniqueness. they can correspond, but don't have to. two people can have the same high quality and genuinely new idea independantly from one another. therefore, the appearence of uniqueness is not a way to measure creativity.....

i can see a face clearly in my mind, yet why can't i draw it? ... training and skill, or the lack thereof.

Right, but if there are 10 times as many people in a school or country or something, would there be about ten times as many people who happen to be able to draw faces? And what you said about difference between uniqueness and originality is a very good point.

 

[L2R]

true, if the average number of people who are "creative" is say, 20%. 20% of 6 billion is far more than 20% of 2 billion.

it's hard to say if the number has any indirect consequences. i could very well imagine a greater population to have a dissuasive effect in having more people compete with one another, creative arts may be reduced. at the same time more people can generate more inspiration through more complex social networks, thus creating more source material. who knows.

 

[pharmakos]

ideas obviously must be growing in quantity

whether or not they're growing in quality is uncertain and possibly completely objective

more people does equal more collective thinking power, but it also means more noise

 

[rangrz]

I would think it does, and it's self evident to see those results.

The scientific/medical/engineering progress made in the 1900's and 2000's vastly dwarfs the combined output of all human history before it.

I bet on a single day in 2013, more progress is made in curing diseases and understanding nature than in 10 Years in classical antiquity would of yielded.

10 years of dedicated effort in the middle ages got you a fancy building to talk to a non-existent man in the sky. 10 years of dedicated effort in the 1960s put an actual man on an actual Moon in the Actual sky.

 

[pharmakos]

the population is SO much larger than it was 100-200 years ago, though. i think the ratio of [[extraordinarily intelligent people :: average/below average people]] is probably lower than it was in the 1800s.

the smartest of the smart are smarter today than they were in the 1800s. but i feel like the average is lower.

 

[Pariahprose]

the population is SO much larger than it was 100-200 years ago, though. i think the ratio of [[extraordinarily intelligent people :: average/below average people]] is probably lower than it was in the 1800s.

the smartest of the smart are smarter today than they were in the 1800s. but i feel like the average is lower.

I agree. Also when it comes to ideas being of quantity and quality in our time,that it actually stays constant over time. If you have 10 people who all want one slice of pizza with individual toppings which would be easier, ten individual pizzas with just a slice eaten out of each or one pizza with each slice catered to individual wants? This idea still holds with 20 pizza but now one extra pizza would have to be created. The number of people change so to compensate,so must how many pizzas made.

Say if there were just 10 people alive in 1800 and only one of them were "intelligent". Well, to make it to 1900 which in this example has 200 imaginary people they would either have to live a very long time or the number of intelligent people would be reflected as a constant in comparison to the total number,100people=1 intelligent,200people=2 intelligent,300people=3 intelligent and so on.

If anything,the rapid growth of the human population is going to eventually displace this constant due to the average intelligence slowly getting lower.

 

[rangrz]

But average intelligence is getting higher. It can be shown by comparing IQ tests of different eras, modern people writing older IQ tests tend to score higher than the average scores for those tests when they where originally put out.

Undergrad students today grasp material that was considered esoteric when it came out and understood with great difficulty, by selected experts in the particular field.

 

[7ca5p]

the population is SO much larger than it was 100-200 years ago, though. i think the ratio of [[extraordinarily intelligent people :: average/below average people]] is probably lower than it was in the 1800s.

the smartest of the smart are smarter today than they were in the 1800s. but i feel like the average is lower.

Education and technology have advanced a huge deal since the 1800's.

For example, nearly everyone from adolescence upwards knows about NMRI Technology, something that would have been considered outlandish back in the 1800's.

Young people today are learning from the works of two centuries more work and technological advancements in comparison to their 1800's counterparts.

 

[Journyman16]

Browsing around and found this old thread. So while I wait for my downloads to rebuild my PC... :D

Some thoughts...

I would be cautious about using IQ as some kind of guide to creative processes. There are some high IQ Accountants around. :D (sorry tax guys :D) IQ is a much over-rated measurement and at the very best, merely shows an ability to handle the questions and problems presented in the IQ test. There are many lower IQ types who have become great successes and many higher IQ types who have failed miserably at life.

Is a person more worthy because they can easily see that #4 picture is the next one in the series?

Also, something to think about, and it was kind of edged towards in a comment earlier - what if there is a limited pool of new ideas? The comment was about how two individuals, unknown to each other, can come up with the same new idea almost simultaneously. (almost as in, it might be different days but the gap is too short for communication from one location to another)

Many of the geniuses we give accolades to have claimed the ideas do not come from them, and many of them have particular actions they perform to cause the new ideas to come to them - I think it was Edison who used to sink the the bottom of a pool until he nearly passed out, to spark his creativity.

And the honest ones usually tell us they built on the work of others, not normally by following their paths but by noticing the odd bits that stick out, or asking the "but what if...?" questions.

Probably the major reason for the explosion of 'advancement' in recent times is not that we are any brighter, nor even more creative, but that basic data is now available far more easily than ever before. So anyone interested doesn't have to spend 30 years learning to precipitate a substrate to design a basic transistor, they can look it up or even just go buy the one they need.

Another caution is maybe we shouldn't be pointing at technology and "Ooh, Shiny!" things and associating them with advancement. If we take a careful look at the history of Science, we can see that once, basic research was considered the best investment and it paid off, over and over. But these days the research is targetted. The funders want very specific results, so much so that contrary results are hidden or suppressed and only ones that back up the marketing potential are shown.

But a lot of advancements in Science came from when things went wrong.

So yes, we have lots more shiny new toys now, but they last only a month or so past the warranty, where once the goal was to build for quality. Yes we have fantastic new devices to make life easier, but we work 60 or more hours a week to pay off the accumulated debt from them all. Granted we have lots of leisure activities and PVR's and distractions galore, but look around - have we even heard of an angrier society than one where the elderly get the crap beaten out of them by bored adolescents, or 90yo's get raped for the hell of it, or grimacing/gesturing at someone who cuts you off in traffic gets us chased and assaulted or killed?

Is it really a better place or more inventive when advancements are seen to be a new type of TV screen that is barely distinguishable from the old one?

 

[ForEverAfter]

There are many lower IQ types who have become great successes and many higher IQ types who have failed miserably at life.

Failing in life doesn't imply that you have lesser intelligence than someone who succeeds.
I know a lot of very intelligent people who - despite their intellect - don't have the motivation to succeed career-wise.
Historically, highly intelligent people have been linked with depression and addiction and other functionality compromising traits.

I'm not sure what your measure of success is.
Personally, I don't think being a billionaire is being successful.
In fact, I think it takes a bit of an idiot to spend their life pursuing dollars they won't spend and don't need.
I'm not sure that there is any objective definition of a failure, nor am I sure it is possible to fail.

Is a person more worthy because they can easily see that #4 picture is the next one in the series?

More worthy or more intelligent?

 

[Journyman16]

I didn't say failing means less intelligence, I was saying that IQ doesn't determine success or failure. Which means maybe we agree on something.

I would say my measure of success is finding what one loves to do and being able to do it. Whether that is painting church rooves or chasing the white whale.

I am asking is a person more worthy because they can solve a basic IQ question - seems straightforward enough to me.

Are you trying to find things wrong with my post?

 

[ForEverAfter]

I'm not trying to find things wrong, no.
I'm stoned.

I don't know what you mean/meant by worthy.
Maybe I shouldn't have attempted to engage you again?

Personally, I think people - worldwide - are far more intelligent/educated than any other point during history.
If IQ tests were simple, more people would get over 150.

The pizza analogy doesn't really hold up, for me.
Inspiration is caused by influence. The more people, the more influence.
If there was only one person, in a void, there would be nothing to inspire them.

You can't equate people and cancel them out. Because every person is different.
And we all influence each other (especially these days, with internet technology.)

 

[Birc0014]

I know a lot of very intelligent people who - despite their intellect - don't have the motivation to succeed career-wise.

The smartest guy I know works as a travel agent part time. PhD in Philosophy and Masters in Chemical Engineering also had a sixth dan black belt by the time we were 18. Its a strange fucking world we live in sometimes, makes me think of John Conner without SkyNet

 

[Journyman16]

I'm not trying to find things wrong, no.
I'm stoned.

I don't know what you mean/meant by worthy.
Maybe I shouldn't have attempted to engage you again?

Personally, I think people - worldwide - are far more intelligent/educated than any other point during history.
If IQ tests were simple, more people would get over 150.

The pizza analogy doesn't really hold up, for me.
Inspiration is caused by influence. The more people, the more influence.
If there was only one person, in a void, there would be nothing to inspire them.

You can't equate people and cancel them out. Because every person is different.
And we all influence each other (especially these days, with internet technology.)

OK... I wasn't sure, so I asked.

IQ tests are pretty simple but they are testing for a very specific set of tools in use. Whether that equates to Intelligence or not is up for grabs.

I doubt the 'intelligent/educated' assertion, only because we build on what has gone before. Even with the woeful condition of education in the recent decades, people learn a lot about what others, all around the world, have learned already. That makes it difficult to base IQ on how well someone might be able to fix a car engine, or solve a quadratic, or even work out which pattern follows which.

Who is more intelligent, the guy who works out how to make a computer game and hasn't a clue how to make an electronic circuit or even construct a working circuit board from a bin of parts, or the guy who sat down and worked out how to make fire, a wheel, or a spear when nobody else had ever done it?

One person in a void kinda describes God - are you saying s/he wasn't inspired to create the universe? :D

 

[ForEverAfter]

Who is more intelligent, the guy who works out how to make a computer game and hasn't a clue how to make an electronic circuit or even construct a working circuit board from a bin of parts, or the guy who sat down and worked out how to make fire, a wheel, or a spear when nobody else had ever done it?

Neither, generally.
It really depends on the person.
Electrical engineering and programming / game design require different skill sets.
The intelligence quotient is designed to assess non-specialist (or general) intelligence.
Someone who has the natural ability to play music is more gifted than intelligent. (Potentially both, of course).

I doubt the 'intelligent/educated' assertion, only because we build on what has gone before.

Most fields are progressive, yes, but surely we're more intelligent than the first human?
Otherwise, what is intelligence?

Any term in the English language can be dissected until it is meaningless.

One person in a void kinda describes God - are you saying s/he wasn't inspired to create the universe?

You've anthropomorphized God twice in a single sentence.

Literally, by making God a person... then, by implication, with the inspiration comment.
You're assuming that God functions as a person functions.
That God is inspired, like we are, and then creates.

Creation, in my opinion, is an inevitability.
God creates, just as we procreate.
God creates, just as rain falls.

If you're going to argue against religion, you should give yourself a challenge.
Setting up pins just to knock them down is unworthy of your intelligence.

 

[pill_billy]

IQ tests are pretty simple but they are testing for a very specific set of tools in use. Whether that equates to Intelligence or not is up for grabs.

in general, IQ tests are designed to evaluate a persons problem solving and pattern recognization skills, which do measure how smart a person is... does that mean the test shows how successful a person will be? no, not at all