Idiocracy 2

[Steezie]

I recently watched the movie Idiocracy and it spawned a couple of posts.

The basic premise of the movie is a future where everyboddy has become so dumb because of society catering to the lowest common denominator that the world is in pieces.

I personally think that isnt a too far-fetched assessment.

Dysgenics is the evolutionary weakening of a population of organisms relative to their environment, often due to relaxation of natural selection or the occurrence of negative selection.

We humans have reached a point where Darwin has been taken out of our evolution. We dont have disease or predators to weed out the sick, the stupid, and the weak. We also go as far as we can to protect EVERYBODDY from harm, regardless of thier condition. We also actively ENCOURAGE stupidity. Our entertainment, our art, our music, our schools, they all encourage a "Less effort" mindset that teaches people that complex is scary and simple is better.

Look at the internet, punch "sex" into Google, how many results do you get? You get ABOUT 469,000,000. Now punch in "particle physics" and you get 28,000,000. Some of the most popular search terms in the US are "sex" "pamela anderson" "brittney spears" and "viagra". Look around various forums or chatrooms, watch how people talk and what they say. Look at our movies, we have whole movies with just one joke after the other and has no other purpose but to make fun of other movies. We have an anti-intellectual mindset in this country where if its smart, it sucks.

This has lead to a "Culture of Retardation" where EVERYTHING must be totally safe and non-harmful. This allows people who have a tendency to do stupid things to go on doing stupid things and to reproduce.

Who has the most children? Is it the PHDs or the GEDs? Statistically speaking, the lower your IQ, the more likely you are to have children ( Lynn, Richard; Van Court, Marilyn (2004). "New evidence of dysgenic fertility for intelligence in the United States")

So now you have a society that caters to and encourages dumb people, and you have dumb people reproducing faster and more frequently than the smart people.

Add to that, we are wasting our smart people. We have thousands of scientists working on ways to give you a better erection or re-grow your hair or help you lose weight and we throw unlimited ammounts of money at them so they can accomplish these things. But when it comes to something like developing better sources of energy for our homes or a way to safely and cleanly dispose of waste, we make scientists beg and scrape for whatever they can get.

We spend BILLIONS on a space program that we havent really done anything with since the end of the moon landings. We send robots up occasionally, but the resources put into the projects we send up could be put to far better use here on Earth, fixing our own problems FIRST.

I think in five or six hundred years, we will notice a marked decline in average intelligence across the globe.

I KNOW someboddy is going to call Flynn Effect here but we have evidence to suggest that the Flynn Effect has stopped taking effect. (Teasdale, Thomas W., and David R. Owen. (2005). "A long-term rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The Flynn Effect in reverse." Personality and Individual Differences. 39(4):837-843.)

Basically the Flynn Effect is a rise in the average of IQ scores worldwide. The problem with the idea of the Flynn Effect is the IQ scale itself is flawed and that many people do not take these tests.

The only question now is, what do we do about it?

 

[Steezie]

NOBODDY has anything to say? I find that hard to believe

 

[baobobtree]

I'm sorry man, but this is how society works. Society carters to your average man, and your average man wants a longer erection, and a way to stop himself from balding, not a way to safely dispose of waist, or find a cure for AIDS. It aint pretty, but that's the way it is.

 

[quatona]

I recently watched the movie Idiocracy and it spawned a couple of posts.

The basic premise of the movie is a future where everyboddy has become so dumb because of society catering to the lowest common denominator that the world is in pieces.

I personally think that isnt a too far-fetched assessment.

Dysgenics is the evolutionary weakening of a population of organisms relative to their environment, often due to relaxation of natural selection or the occurrence of negative selection.

We humans have reached a point where Darwin has been taken out of our evolution. We dont have disease or predators to weed out the sick, the stupid, and the weak. We also go as far as we can to protect EVERYBODDY from harm, regardless of thier condition. We also actively ENCOURAGE stupidity. Our entertainment, our art, our music, our schools, they all encourage a "Less effort" mindset that teaches people that complex is scary and simple is better.

Look at the internet, punch "sex" into Google, how many results do you get? You get ABOUT 469,000,000. Now punch in "particle physics" and you get 28,000,000. Some of the most popular search terms in the US are "sex" "pamela anderson" "brittney spears" and "viagra". Look around various forums or chatrooms, watch how people talk and what they say. Look at our movies, we have whole movies with just one joke after the other and has no other purpose but to make fun of other movies. We have an anti-intellectual mindset in this country where if its smart, it sucks.

This has lead to a "Culture of Retardation" where EVERYTHING must be totally safe and non-harmful. This allows people who have a tendency to do stupid things to go on doing stupid things and to reproduce.

Who has the most children? Is it the PHDs or the GEDs? Statistically speaking, the lower your IQ, the more likely you are to have children ( Lynn, Richard; Van Court, Marilyn (2004). "New evidence of dysgenic fertility for intelligence in the United States")

So now you have a society that caters to and encourages dumb people, and you have dumb people reproducing faster and more frequently than the smart people.

Add to that, we are wasting our smart people. We have thousands of scientists working on ways to give you a better erection or re-grow your hair or help you lose weight and we throw unlimited ammounts of money at them so they can accomplish these things. But when it comes to something like developing better sources of energy for our homes or a way to safely and cleanly dispose of waste, we make scientists beg and scrape for whatever they can get.

We spend BILLIONS on a space program that we havent really done anything with since the end of the moon landings. We send robots up occasionally, but the resources put into the projects we send up could be put to far better use here on Earth, fixing our own problems FIRST.

You are assuming that the attitude towards things used to be different in former times?

 

[Steezie]

You are assuming that the attitude towards things used to be different in former times?

There WAS a time in human history where the educated were respected and looked up to.

 

[non-religious]

Two things spring to mind here:

1) You seem to be quite bitter

2) You obviously have waaaay to much time on you're hands.

There you go. There's my intelligent, educated and profound input

 

[quatona]

There WAS a time in human history where the educated were respected and looked up to.

Passive tense alert.
(Using the passive tense makes a statement pretty unprecise and hard to discuss. Usually there is a reason why somebody keeps the subject unmentioned. What is yours?)
Who respected them back then, and who respects them today?
Are you speaking statistically (more people respected them back then than today)? In which case I´d ask you to support this claim.
Or is your claim as absolute as it sounds: Everyone respected the educated, and nobody respects them today? (In your place I would be careful with such a claim, because it can easily be refuted by showing one exception).

Or is this merely the good old "things used to be better in the past" rant (which actually would suit an old fart like me better than a spring chicken like you ).
This rant and the opinion that the current age is the age of decline has been around since mankind started to leave records of its thinking.

Everything used to be better in the past, even the future.

 

[Steezie]

Using the passive tense makes a statement pretty unprecise and hard to discuss.
Who respected them back then, and who respects them today?
Are you speaking statistically (more people respected them back then than today)? In which case I´d ask you to support this claim.
Or is your claim as absolute as it sounds: Everyone respected the educated, and nobody respects them today? (In your place I would be careful with such a claim, because it can easily be refuted by showing one exception).

During the classical ages, the educated were generally looked uppon favorably by people in general. There were some notable exceptions (Sparta) but for the most part knowleage was celebrated by a great many people.

Today it just seems to be ridiculed for being "gay" or "stupid"

(which actually would suit an old fart like me better than a spring chicken like you )

Im a little different than most people my age. I happen to think the biggest tradgedy in history (Like EVER) was the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria. Followed closely by the assassination of JFK

This rant and the opinion that the current age is the age of decline has been around since mankind started to leave records of its thinking

True

 

[quatona]

Here´s a possible reason why the educated don´t receive as much respect as they think they deserve:
They fail to demonstrate that they are the educated.

 

[quatona]

During the classical ages, the educated were generally looked uppon favorably by people in general. There were some notable exceptions (Sparta) but for the most part knowleage was celebrated by a great many people.

You remain in unspecific ranting mode. You still don´t support your claim. You still use the passive tense.
If you think this is sufficient for an argument, then it is sufficient to do the same to refute it: The educated weren´t looked upon any more favourably in the past than today. See there.

Today it just seems to be ridiculed for being "gay" or "stupid"

"Seems" being the keyword here. I cannot and won´t dispute your subjective impressions.

Im a little different than most people my age. I happen to think the biggest tradgedy in history (Like EVER) was the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria. Followed closely by the assassination of JFK.

Out of interest: Do you think you are one of those whom you call "the educated" and who deserve respect?

 

[ScMay]

There is also the possibility that intelligence could isolate populations from each other, who is a smart person more likely to have children with? Another smart person or a dumb person? You could (eventually) have a large dumb population Homo Stupidus and a smaller genetically isolated smart population Homo Intelligentus, as to what would happen then... who knows.

Really though I find all these crystal ball gazings into our evolutionary future to be utterly stupid. We have no way of knowing what the selective pressures will be in a few hundred years, what is being selected for now won necessarily be selected for then just as it wasn't necessarily selected for a few hundred years in our past. Secondly if our advances in genetics continue all this will be totally irrelevant since we will be able to take control of our evolution ourselves with GM humans should we need to, even if its not soon it will happen long before any 'dumbing down' through evolution can occur. There is nothing to worry about.

 

[quatona]

There WAS a time in human history where the educated were respected and looked up to.

They say there was also a time when the old were respected by the young and looked up to.
Maybe there´s a connection between the two issues?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Personally, I don't think there are any particularly notable signs to suggest a significant decrease in the average intelligence of the populace. Unless someone has the results of a large study contrasting the IQ scores of a previous generation with those of people today, all we have is pure conjecture.

peace

 

[Steezie]

You remain in unspecific ranting mode. You still don´t support your claim. You still use the passive tense.
If you think this is sufficient for an argument, then it is sufficient to do the same to refute it: The educated weren´t looked upon any more favourably in the past than today. See there.

The idea of a "polymath" (or "having learned much" polymathes in Greek) originated with the Greeks. The Greeks placed a high value on learning, people would come from all around to hear philosophers or study at Greek libraries. They also placed value on the physical, but there was still that value of education.

During the Renaissance period, there was the idea of the Renaissance Man. The Renaissance Man included such examples as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo Buonarroti, and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. A gentleman of that time period was expected to have knowleage in a broad range of disciplines. It was the Renaissance ideal and you were expected to fulfill it by speaking several languages, making music, writing poetry, or being educated in varried fields.

"Seems" being the keyword here. I cannot and won´t dispute your subjective impressions.

Can you deny that there is an anti-intellectual atmosphere in MOST of America today?

Out of interest: Do you think you are one of those whom you call "the educated" and who deserve respect?

Those who do not abuse thier education.

 

[Futuwwa]

First of all, wow. This is the first time I see someone on CF make references to named scientific articles to support his claims. Would you know where I can find this article by Lynn et al, I'd be interested in taking a look on it. Google Scholar didn't know a thing.

 

[Maxwell511]

The idea of a "polymath" (or "having learned much" polymathes in Greek) originated with the Greeks. The Greeks placed a high value on learning, people would come from all around to hear philosophers or study at Greek libraries. They also placed value on the physical, but there was still that value of education.

During the Renaissance period, there was the idea of the Renaissance Man. The Renaissance Man included such examples as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo Buonarroti, and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. A gentleman of that time period was expected to have knowleage in a broad range of disciplines. It was the Renaissance ideal and you were expected to fulfill it by speaking several languages, making music, writing poetry, or being educated in varried fields.

It is difficult to be a polymath these days as knowledge has become so specialized, people spend years doing doctorates on very narrow subject matter. Although by your definition of polymath my girlfriend is one. I'm a bad one along with every other kid that goes through the Irish education system.

 

[Steezie]

First of all, wow. This is the first time I see someone on CF make references to named scientific articles to support his claims. Would you know where I can find this article by Lynn et al, I'd be interested in taking a look on it. Google Scholar didn't know a thing.

Ill go back through my history to see if I can find it again, I just remember it being REALLY late when I found it last and I dont remember exactly where it was

 

[quatona]

The idea of a "polymath" (or "having learned much" polymathes in Greek) originated with the Greeks. The Greeks placed a high value on learning, people would come from all around to hear philosophers or study at Greek libraries. They also placed value on the physical, but there was still that value of education.

Well, yes, the greek had a word for it that we don´t use today. Other than that I know a lot of people today who place a high value on learning and value education.
You have to keep in mind that what we see from ancient Greece are the products of the educated elite, and there is such an educated elite still today. We don´t know much about the education of the ancient Greek average Joe. Any idea about the percentage of people who could read and write vs. analphabets was back then, for example?
On another note, I´ll go out on a limb asserting that a person of mediocre education today knows significantly more than an elite polymath in ancient Greek.

During the Renaissance period, there was the idea of the Renaissance Man. The Renaissance Man included such examples as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo Buonarroti, and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. A gentleman of that time period was expected to have knowleage in a broad range of disciplines. It was the Renaissance ideal and you were expected to fulfill it by speaking several languages, making music, writing poetry, or being educated in varried fields.

And howmany gentlemen of that sort were there back then? More than today, in percentage? Of course, we just see the works of those few excellent gentlemen today. Do you have any idea what the average Renaissance Joe was occupied and concerned with?

Can you deny that there is an anti-intellectual atmosphere in MOST of America today?

I´m not American. Here in Europe there isn´t such anti-intellectualism. I have indeed - and to my surprise - seen anti-intellectual statements coming from Americans. I don´t know how typical and representative they are, though.

Those who do not abuse thier education.

And whether they abuse it is decided by whom? According to you it would take an educated guy to decide whether someone deserves to be called "educated". The logical problem is obvious.

 

[Steezie]

Well, yes, the greek had a word for it that we don´t use today. Other than that I know a lot of people today who place a high value on learning and value education.

I might inquire as to the education level of those with which you interract most

You have to keep in mind that what we see from ancient Greece are the products of the educated elite, and there is such an educated elite still today. We don´t know much about the education of the ancient Greek average Joe. Any idea about the percentage of people who could read and write vs. analphabets was back then, for example?

We have good evidence that most Greek citizens could read, write, and do basic arithmetic. Obviously, the wealthy had a better education than the poor or middle class. Slaves were not educated and very often couldnt read or write

And howmany gentlemen of that sort were there back then? More than today, in percentage? Of course, we just see the works of those few excellent gentlemen today. Do you have any idea what the average Renaissance Joe was occupied and concerned with?

Its likely that the average person in that time (The "Average Joe" as you call it) was most likely concerned with education. If they themselves were not educated, they sought out solutions to problems from educated minds.

I´m not American. Here in Europe there isn´t such anti-intellectualism. I have indeed - and to my surprise - seen anti-intellectual statements coming from Americans. I don´t know how typical and representative they are, though.

The academic and intellectual world has isolated itself from the rest of society because of our negative view of intellectual pursuits. Small attempts are made to incorporate more people into an intellectual mindset, but these attempts fail or are half-hearted more often than not.

And whether they abuse it is decided by whom? According to you it would take an educated guy to decide whether someone deserves to be called "educated". The logical problem is obvious.

Not so. A person who spends years perfecting the newest hair-growth treatment or the next Viagra or weight-loss pill is doing a dis-service to his or her education.

 

[quatona]

I might inquire as to the education level of those with which you interract most

Hard to say. Slightly above average, I think.

We have good evidence that most Greek citizens could read, write, and do basic arithmetic.

1. Care to point me to the evidence?
2. Today the vast majority of people can read and write and do more than basic arithmetic.

Obviously, the wealthy had a better education than the poor or middle class. Slaves were not educated and very often couldnt read or write

Which does not exactly support your idea that people were better educated back then than today.

Its likely that the average person in that time (The "Average Joe" as you call it) was most likely concerned with education. If they themselves were not educated, they sought out solutions to problems from educated minds.

I observe the same today, throughout all parts of society.

The academic and intellectual world has isolated itself from the rest of society because of our negative view of intellectual pursuits. Small attempts are made to incorporate more people into an intellectual mindset, but these attempts fail or are half-hearted more often than not.

Concerning the situation in America I have to take your word for it. However, I do not really see that you have given any evidence that more people were incorprated into an intellectual mindset in ancient times.

Not so. A person who spends years perfecting the newest hair-growth treatment or the next Viagra or weight-loss pill is doing a dis-service to his or her education.

This is inaccurate. You may not particularly appreciate such findings (neither do I), yet they add to the overall amount of knowledge.
But, Steezie, the way you selectively describe reality is distorting.
Howmany people out there are occupied with these tasks?
And, while talking about medical achievements, why didn´t you mention the great number of life-saving pills and methods that are researched and invented all the time?