This has happened before. History repeats. Machines will soon be better at everything than their creators and humanity will lose its knowledge. We're aiming for the age of enlightenment and ending up in the dark.
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
‘Idiocracy’ Come True: Even Pentagon Says Morons Are Inheriting the Earth!
- Thread starter Gypsy Nirvana
- Start date
This has happened before. History repeats. Machines will soon be better at everything than their creators and humanity will lose its knowledge. We're aiming for the age of enlightenment and ending up in the dark.
when did this happen before? did i miss some history classes?
OldSchoolGrow
Member
Not everything is taught in a school backed history book.....
Write on!
Slow your roll there, Thanos.Join the US Army, son.
I spent 17 years in Washington in the DoD and in my early years a person of very high authority explained to me that, and I quote, "The purpose of the military is not to accomplish, but rather, to employ. Ringodoggie, if I were not housing and feeding these people, would you give them a job in your company? Or, would they be unemployed?"
And, he was absolutely right.
The names were changed to protect the innocent.
Or, as Ted Knight said in Caddyshack as Judge Smails, "The world needs ditch diggers, too".
The real problem lies where these people make a better, easier living stealing and begging. If there were a zillion jobs available, these people would still be begging and stealing. The Bible says this kind will be with us, always.
I say, take everyone with an IQ under 125 and shoot them in the head and toss them in a big hole. But, nobody ever wants to play the games I want to play.
.
The rest of it I agree with you 100% though.
Electrobud
New member
I think that “most people” have the intelligence they need, but making people lazy through welfare and or handouts will foster otherwise intelligent peoples to become lazy. And thus seem like they’re unintelligent. Just my humble observation.
Something else you old fucks are not considering...... exactly what IS smart? I mean.. TODAY'S smart. And, how do we know how to test for it?
Young smart is not the same as old smart. Old smart in my day was knowing how to shoe a horse and how to build shelter. And, young smart was knowing how to ace a joystick.
All the old fucks used to say, "You damn kids can't do anything but play with that damn joystick".
Today, all the modern surgical equipment is operated by a joystick. Fighter planes? Joystick. Drones? Joystick. LMAO The world adapts,
So, what was 'stupid' yesterday is 'smart' today. And, what was smart yesterday, if fucking useless today. Who gives a fuck about the guy who is smart enough to properly shoe a horse.
So, as it relates to this thread, consider the IQ test. In most of our lives, an IQ test was designed to determine your 'problem solving' abilities given a set amount of data. e.g. If an alligators tail is half as long as his body and 3 times as long as his head, how long is his penis? Remember those type of questions on IQ tests?
That was a solid basis to determine 'intelligence' because from the 20's until now, that is what the world needed. Problem solvers.
However, as someone pointed out earlier, today's masses don't correlate data and derive hypothesis. They search Google for the answer.
So, an IQ test to determine TODAY'S intelligence might be better off testing for the ability to properly search for answers. Trust me, searching is not as easy as some of you might think. I see people searching the internet all the time with terrible inquiries. And, they get terrible results. And, search engines have changed from tags and keys to intuitive prediction. Knowing how to PROPERLY use a search engine is not easy for some ( let's call them stupid people) and very easy for others (let's call them smart people). LOL
The world is changing. And, what determines whether a person is dumb or smart is also changing.
Like Burt Reynolds said in Smokey and The Bandit, "Just how dumb or smart a person is depends on where that particular person is standing at that particular time." LOL
We don't know what it's going to take to be 'smart' in tomorrow's world. One thing I do know..... no one is going to give a fuck about the guy who can shoe a horse. At one time, he was the most important man in town. If you couldn't shoe a horse, you couldn't plow your fields for food and..... you died.
Things have changed and will continue to do so.
.
Young smart is not the same as old smart. Old smart in my day was knowing how to shoe a horse and how to build shelter. And, young smart was knowing how to ace a joystick.
All the old fucks used to say, "You damn kids can't do anything but play with that damn joystick".
Today, all the modern surgical equipment is operated by a joystick. Fighter planes? Joystick. Drones? Joystick. LMAO The world adapts,
So, what was 'stupid' yesterday is 'smart' today. And, what was smart yesterday, if fucking useless today. Who gives a fuck about the guy who is smart enough to properly shoe a horse.
So, as it relates to this thread, consider the IQ test. In most of our lives, an IQ test was designed to determine your 'problem solving' abilities given a set amount of data. e.g. If an alligators tail is half as long as his body and 3 times as long as his head, how long is his penis? Remember those type of questions on IQ tests?
That was a solid basis to determine 'intelligence' because from the 20's until now, that is what the world needed. Problem solvers.
However, as someone pointed out earlier, today's masses don't correlate data and derive hypothesis. They search Google for the answer.
So, an IQ test to determine TODAY'S intelligence might be better off testing for the ability to properly search for answers. Trust me, searching is not as easy as some of you might think. I see people searching the internet all the time with terrible inquiries. And, they get terrible results. And, search engines have changed from tags and keys to intuitive prediction. Knowing how to PROPERLY use a search engine is not easy for some ( let's call them stupid people) and very easy for others (let's call them smart people). LOL
The world is changing. And, what determines whether a person is dumb or smart is also changing.
Like Burt Reynolds said in Smokey and The Bandit, "Just how dumb or smart a person is depends on where that particular person is standing at that particular time." LOL
We don't know what it's going to take to be 'smart' in tomorrow's world. One thing I do know..... no one is going to give a fuck about the guy who can shoe a horse. At one time, he was the most important man in town. If you couldn't shoe a horse, you couldn't plow your fields for food and..... you died.
Things have changed and will continue to do so.
.
are we talking about Atlantis? i doubt they got even nearly as dumb as we are, in fact their society was destroyed by a comet most likely. we on the other hand are the first of earths societies that is busy working on our own dumbing down leading to our own destruction through poisoning the air, water and food we need to survive, at the same time we contaminate the oceans with nuclear waste when it's convenient, (fukushima). while we bury the rest in vaults and containers that are made to last a few hundred years, while the stuff inside the barrels will be radioactive for thousands and thousands of years. so yeah i don't think humanity has ever been even close to where we are now, let alone at the future presented in the movie idiocracy.
Love this post... You sound like me with more years, or more adderall. I think about the "search engine talent" a lot... The ability to grasp what you dont know, in order to successfully solve that problem, and fill the void most efficiently. Most people type full questions in google, and it does work but...meh... In the beginning of the internet it was more empty, and harder to find knowledge. It has got easier now so people can be sorta dumb, and still find the info but..... Now marketing has come in to play, and you have to be wise enough to know the influence behind the knowledge on the web... New talent, and IQ of the future will be discerning information quality, and the ability to ask the hard\right questions, instead of the easy questions. People putting priority in human life, with a blind eye to its impact on nature is the current problem. With the other people putting traditions, and financial stability over human life.
Along with being the mission of the C. I. A., also that of the Jesuits. World domination over an ignorant, passive populace. Easiest way to dominate. Not explained in classes, or it might not work.
Replacing horses with tractors is easy I guess, if we overlook the dependence on a large industrial supply chain, the exploitation and pollution of oil, etc. Considering the nature of the petro dollar, the reliance on oil is pretty vicious in nature, most of it goes into plastic and chemicals. Considering the filth that most modernization really is, I'm not prepared to call it much but comforts and conveniences provided at a high toll. It may be clever, but I don't see it as intelligence.
Not only does the typical driver have little clue about general vehicle maintenance, some of them don't know what the stuff on the dashboard is. It takes ever more training to be able to fix a car, but I'm not persuaded we should be doing it at all. It's mostly going to emit carcinogens and run over animals.
Massive amounts of facts and information wrapped over a bad idea means that it's still a bad idea, which summarizes most of industrialization.
it will take exactly one nasty pulse from a solar storm/sun spot or an electromagnetic nuclear warhead detonated in the atmosphere on this planet to render joy-stick technology useless. we won't go back to horses, but points/plugs/carburetors (and the ability to adjust them) will suddenly become relevant once more. MOST small farmers will not miss a beat. everyone i know has an old diesel tractor that requires knowing WHERE to hit it with a hammer before it will start...
Brother Nature
Well-known member
I really doubt that society is becoming dumber, it simply doesn't make evolutionary sense. We no longer live in the dark ages, the rate of technological advancement is unlike anything in history. In fact, there are many studies showing that the average IQ test score is increasing as humanity ages. (Here's a reference to one such study http://www.intelltheory.com/flynneffect.shtml)
I think the problem lies in man kinds propensity for group thought and the hubris and avarice of those who elevate themselves above that. It's not dumb-asses destroying the world, it's the elites whose ego's and greed prevent them from producing a better future for all. Sure, there is a lot to feel bleak about in the world, but we are exponentially better off than in the feudal ages, for example. Idiocracy is a bad movie, in my humble opinion, as it promotes the group thought that intrinsically some are better than others, does that sound familiar to anyone? It's a dangerous viewpoint, which can be exemplified by one poster here even calling for the death of people under a certain IQ level. It seems the majority of posters in this thread hold themselves in 'high intellectual regard' compared to the masses' Perhaps we should look at ways of changing the masses instead of shunning or killing' them?
I've seen Idocracy a couple of times and while it's a funny movie, but anyone who thinks it's prophetic is suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I think the problem lies in man kinds propensity for group thought and the hubris and avarice of those who elevate themselves above that. It's not dumb-asses destroying the world, it's the elites whose ego's and greed prevent them from producing a better future for all. Sure, there is a lot to feel bleak about in the world, but we are exponentially better off than in the feudal ages, for example. Idiocracy is a bad movie, in my humble opinion, as it promotes the group thought that intrinsically some are better than others, does that sound familiar to anyone? It's a dangerous viewpoint, which can be exemplified by one poster here even calling for the death of people under a certain IQ level. It seems the majority of posters in this thread hold themselves in 'high intellectual regard' compared to the masses' Perhaps we should look at ways of changing the masses instead of shunning or killing' them?
I've seen Idocracy a couple of times and while it's a funny movie, but anyone who thinks it's prophetic is suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Here is an article I found from 2 years ago in The Guardian on this topic.
Beyond the Flynn effect: new myths about race, family and IQ?
James Flynn is a hero to many for his work on genes and IQ, but his latest book, Does Your Family Make You Smarter?, contains provocative claims about black parenting
Prof James Flynn, pictured in Oxford. Nearly all psychologists now accept what they call ‘the Flynn effect’, demonstrated by his research more than 30 years ago.
In the garden of a terraced house in Oxford, on the hottest, sunniest day of the year, I meet Professor James R Flynn, an American-born academic who is a hero to many people. More than 30 years ago, he discovered a phenomenon that revolutionised the study of IQ and seemed finally to settle the argument over nature versus nurture. He showed that, across the world, average IQs had risen by roughly three percentage points every decade since at least 1930, and probably much longer.
Since evolution doesn’t work fast enough to produce genetic upgrading on that scale, it seemed that environment must be the dominant influence. According to Flynn, rising IQs went hand-in-hand with modernisation, which involves more years of education and more jobs that require analytic abilities and abstract thinking. The belief that better schooling, and positive discrimination in favour of disadvantaged children, could make a difference was seemingly vindicated.
The view, put forward by a number of British and American academics at that time, that black people’s IQs were genetically inferior to those of whites and Asians was finally discredited. So was the idea that African countries were poor because their inhabitants were stupid. IQs in developing countries also rise as they modernise and will eventually catch up those in developed countries. Best of all, rising IQs led to better moral reasoning, putting racism and sexism on the defensive.
Nearly all psychologists now accept what they call “the Flynn effect”, a remarkable accolade for a man who isn’t even a specialist in psychology, his academic subject being political studies. This is not the only reason to admire “Jim”, as family and friends call him. He is also an ardent democratic socialist who left an academic career in the US because he believed he was held back by his political views and his activity in the civil rights movement. He exiled himself to New Zealand in the 1960s, becoming a professor at the University of Otago in Dunedin. There, he helped found the Alliance party, and stood unsuccessfully for parliament against the local version of New Labour. He named his son, Victor, now an Oxford maths professor, after Eugene Victor Debs, five times presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.
This, I think, as we sit in Victor’s garden, is like meeting Einstein or Freud, men who changed for ever the way we see the world. Flynn, now 82, speaks fluently and wittily in Irish-American cadences (his grandfather, a teacher, fled the 19th-century Great Hunger in Ireland). He runs twice a day “though not as fast as I did 10 years ago”. He still teaches four-fifths of a timetable at Otago and writes nearly a book a year.
We are here to talk about his latest book, Does Your Family Make You Smarter? Having explored IQ differences between generations, he has turned his attention to those within generations, which is a different matter. It is already evident to me, after reading the book, that the Flynn effect doesn’t settle as much as some of us thought or hoped it did. And that by 21st-century standards, perhaps Flynn doesn’t quite measure up as a liberal hero.
The answer to the question in the title, Flynn explains, is that your family environment’s effect on your IQ almost disappears by the age of 17. An important exception is in the vocabulary component of IQ tests, where the effect persists into the mid-20s and can make a big difference, at least in the US, to the chances of getting into a top university. The home has most influence in early childhood but is swamped by later environments at school, university and work. And they will more closely match your genes because you will seek out (and be chosen for) environments that match your “genetic potential”, whether it’s basketball, carpentry or mathematics.
So having taken genes out of the equation, Flynn has apparently put them back in. Nurture hasn’t won after all. Over the years, a modernised environment will raise everyone’s game. But within each generation, the gap between groups – classes, races, genders – can, at least theoretically, remain the same as they were. In practice, groups previously excluded from full access to education and professional careers will close the gap.
Flynn emphasises that a rise in the potency of genes isn’t matched by a corresponding decline in the potency of environment: “The potency of one is added to the potency of the other.” Moreover, 20% of IQ differences are attributable to neither environment nor genes but to “chance factors” of which our ability to improve ourselves is the most important.
“You can be at the 98th percentile [more intelligent than all but 2% of the population],” he says. “At school, you kick teachers in the ankles, don’t hand in your homework, get into fights and end up being suspended. You become a bricklayer in a humdrum environment and it costs you, say, 10 IQ points. Then you think: to hell with this, all these guys talk about is girls and football, I’m going to university. Your IQ could rise from 120 to 130 and you’ve leapfrogged four-fifths of the people ahead of you.”
We are talking averages, of course. So I ignore the implied slur on bricklayers, accept the good news – that free will has a significant role – and move on.
If we are all getting brighter and better at moral reasoning, how does Flynn account for Donald Trump? “The rise of visual culture means far fewer people read serious novels and history. They live in a bubble of the present, believing what they are told because they have nothing to position it against. Improved analytic abilities do not make you a better citizen.”
And if we bring back grammar schools, is it possible to set a tutor-proof 11-plus exam? “Yes, but only by giving everyone a tutor.”
I have many more questions but one in particular looms over discussions about IQ and we both know we can’t avoid it. It was, after all, to challenge the late Arthur Jensen, professor of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley – who claimed the genes of African Americans were responsible for their inferior IQ scores – that Flynn began to examine the evidence on intelligence. But a sentence from his new book is nagging away at me. American blacks, it says, “come from a cognitively restricted subculture”.
This is hugely sensitive territory because, while it may be good to say genes don’t make people stupid, it isn’t so good to tell anyone their way of life does. Flynn, however, makes no apologies. “It’s whites, not blacks, who complain,” he says. “Blacks know the score. Facts are facts.” On recorded IQ tests, he says, African Americans have persistently lagged behind [pdf] most other ethnicities in America [pdf] (including, according to some commentators, black immigrants from, for example, the Caribbean) and this cannot be explained by the Flynn effect since, as he puts it, “blacks don’t live in a time warp”.
He then tells what sounds like a version of those dodgy jokes about the Irishman, the Scotsman and the Englishman. Except this isn’t a joke. “Go to the American suburbs one evening,” says Flynn, “and find three professors. The Chinese professor’s kids immediately do their homework. The Jewish professor’s kids have to be yelled at. The black professor says: ‘Why don’t we go out and shoot a few baskets?’”
As I emit a liberal gasp, he continues: “The parenting is worse in black homes, even when you equate them for socio-economic status. In the late 1970s, an experiment took 46 black adoptees and gave half to black professional families and half to white professionals with all the mothers having 16 years of education. When their IQs were tested at eight-and-a-half, the white-raised kids were 13.5 IQ points ahead. The mothers were asked to do problem-solving with their children. Universally, the blacks were impatient, the whites encouraging. Immediate achievement is rewarded in black subculture but not long-term achievement where you have to forgo immediate gratification.”
He tells me of research showing that “when American troops occupied Germany at the end of the second world war, black soldiers left behind half-black children and white soldiers left behind all-white. By 11, the two groups had identical average IQs. In Germany, there was no black subculture.”
Flynn refuses to speculate about the lingering effects of slavery and subsequent discrimination that have prevented African Americans from entering colleges and professional careers. Universities, he thinks, should do more research on racial differences and a new version of that 1970s study. “I have shown – this wicked person who actually looks at the evidence – that blacks gained 5.5 IQ points on whites between 1972 and 2002. There’s been no changes in family structure [the incidence of single-parent families], no gains in income. I suspect it’s an improvement in parenting. But I can’t prove it.”
I leave that sunlit garden in a troubled frame of mind. Flynn has made a great contribution to human knowledge and understanding. But he hasn’t settled the nature-against-nurture debate – and I wonder if he is now muddying the waters, constructing theories about parenting from flimsy evidence.
https://www.theguardian.com/educati...ce-iq-myths-does-your-family-make-you-smarter
Beyond the Flynn effect: new myths about race, family and IQ?
James Flynn is a hero to many for his work on genes and IQ, but his latest book, Does Your Family Make You Smarter?, contains provocative claims about black parenting
Prof James Flynn, pictured in Oxford. Nearly all psychologists now accept what they call ‘the Flynn effect’, demonstrated by his research more than 30 years ago.
In the garden of a terraced house in Oxford, on the hottest, sunniest day of the year, I meet Professor James R Flynn, an American-born academic who is a hero to many people. More than 30 years ago, he discovered a phenomenon that revolutionised the study of IQ and seemed finally to settle the argument over nature versus nurture. He showed that, across the world, average IQs had risen by roughly three percentage points every decade since at least 1930, and probably much longer.
Since evolution doesn’t work fast enough to produce genetic upgrading on that scale, it seemed that environment must be the dominant influence. According to Flynn, rising IQs went hand-in-hand with modernisation, which involves more years of education and more jobs that require analytic abilities and abstract thinking. The belief that better schooling, and positive discrimination in favour of disadvantaged children, could make a difference was seemingly vindicated.
The view, put forward by a number of British and American academics at that time, that black people’s IQs were genetically inferior to those of whites and Asians was finally discredited. So was the idea that African countries were poor because their inhabitants were stupid. IQs in developing countries also rise as they modernise and will eventually catch up those in developed countries. Best of all, rising IQs led to better moral reasoning, putting racism and sexism on the defensive.
Nearly all psychologists now accept what they call “the Flynn effect”, a remarkable accolade for a man who isn’t even a specialist in psychology, his academic subject being political studies. This is not the only reason to admire “Jim”, as family and friends call him. He is also an ardent democratic socialist who left an academic career in the US because he believed he was held back by his political views and his activity in the civil rights movement. He exiled himself to New Zealand in the 1960s, becoming a professor at the University of Otago in Dunedin. There, he helped found the Alliance party, and stood unsuccessfully for parliament against the local version of New Labour. He named his son, Victor, now an Oxford maths professor, after Eugene Victor Debs, five times presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.
This, I think, as we sit in Victor’s garden, is like meeting Einstein or Freud, men who changed for ever the way we see the world. Flynn, now 82, speaks fluently and wittily in Irish-American cadences (his grandfather, a teacher, fled the 19th-century Great Hunger in Ireland). He runs twice a day “though not as fast as I did 10 years ago”. He still teaches four-fifths of a timetable at Otago and writes nearly a book a year.
We are here to talk about his latest book, Does Your Family Make You Smarter? Having explored IQ differences between generations, he has turned his attention to those within generations, which is a different matter. It is already evident to me, after reading the book, that the Flynn effect doesn’t settle as much as some of us thought or hoped it did. And that by 21st-century standards, perhaps Flynn doesn’t quite measure up as a liberal hero.
The answer to the question in the title, Flynn explains, is that your family environment’s effect on your IQ almost disappears by the age of 17. An important exception is in the vocabulary component of IQ tests, where the effect persists into the mid-20s and can make a big difference, at least in the US, to the chances of getting into a top university. The home has most influence in early childhood but is swamped by later environments at school, university and work. And they will more closely match your genes because you will seek out (and be chosen for) environments that match your “genetic potential”, whether it’s basketball, carpentry or mathematics.
So having taken genes out of the equation, Flynn has apparently put them back in. Nurture hasn’t won after all. Over the years, a modernised environment will raise everyone’s game. But within each generation, the gap between groups – classes, races, genders – can, at least theoretically, remain the same as they were. In practice, groups previously excluded from full access to education and professional careers will close the gap.
Flynn emphasises that a rise in the potency of genes isn’t matched by a corresponding decline in the potency of environment: “The potency of one is added to the potency of the other.” Moreover, 20% of IQ differences are attributable to neither environment nor genes but to “chance factors” of which our ability to improve ourselves is the most important.
“You can be at the 98th percentile [more intelligent than all but 2% of the population],” he says. “At school, you kick teachers in the ankles, don’t hand in your homework, get into fights and end up being suspended. You become a bricklayer in a humdrum environment and it costs you, say, 10 IQ points. Then you think: to hell with this, all these guys talk about is girls and football, I’m going to university. Your IQ could rise from 120 to 130 and you’ve leapfrogged four-fifths of the people ahead of you.”
We are talking averages, of course. So I ignore the implied slur on bricklayers, accept the good news – that free will has a significant role – and move on.
If we are all getting brighter and better at moral reasoning, how does Flynn account for Donald Trump? “The rise of visual culture means far fewer people read serious novels and history. They live in a bubble of the present, believing what they are told because they have nothing to position it against. Improved analytic abilities do not make you a better citizen.”
And if we bring back grammar schools, is it possible to set a tutor-proof 11-plus exam? “Yes, but only by giving everyone a tutor.”
I have many more questions but one in particular looms over discussions about IQ and we both know we can’t avoid it. It was, after all, to challenge the late Arthur Jensen, professor of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley – who claimed the genes of African Americans were responsible for their inferior IQ scores – that Flynn began to examine the evidence on intelligence. But a sentence from his new book is nagging away at me. American blacks, it says, “come from a cognitively restricted subculture”.
This is hugely sensitive territory because, while it may be good to say genes don’t make people stupid, it isn’t so good to tell anyone their way of life does. Flynn, however, makes no apologies. “It’s whites, not blacks, who complain,” he says. “Blacks know the score. Facts are facts.” On recorded IQ tests, he says, African Americans have persistently lagged behind [pdf] most other ethnicities in America [pdf] (including, according to some commentators, black immigrants from, for example, the Caribbean) and this cannot be explained by the Flynn effect since, as he puts it, “blacks don’t live in a time warp”.
He then tells what sounds like a version of those dodgy jokes about the Irishman, the Scotsman and the Englishman. Except this isn’t a joke. “Go to the American suburbs one evening,” says Flynn, “and find three professors. The Chinese professor’s kids immediately do their homework. The Jewish professor’s kids have to be yelled at. The black professor says: ‘Why don’t we go out and shoot a few baskets?’”
As I emit a liberal gasp, he continues: “The parenting is worse in black homes, even when you equate them for socio-economic status. In the late 1970s, an experiment took 46 black adoptees and gave half to black professional families and half to white professionals with all the mothers having 16 years of education. When their IQs were tested at eight-and-a-half, the white-raised kids were 13.5 IQ points ahead. The mothers were asked to do problem-solving with their children. Universally, the blacks were impatient, the whites encouraging. Immediate achievement is rewarded in black subculture but not long-term achievement where you have to forgo immediate gratification.”
He tells me of research showing that “when American troops occupied Germany at the end of the second world war, black soldiers left behind half-black children and white soldiers left behind all-white. By 11, the two groups had identical average IQs. In Germany, there was no black subculture.”
Flynn refuses to speculate about the lingering effects of slavery and subsequent discrimination that have prevented African Americans from entering colleges and professional careers. Universities, he thinks, should do more research on racial differences and a new version of that 1970s study. “I have shown – this wicked person who actually looks at the evidence – that blacks gained 5.5 IQ points on whites between 1972 and 2002. There’s been no changes in family structure [the incidence of single-parent families], no gains in income. I suspect it’s an improvement in parenting. But I can’t prove it.”
I leave that sunlit garden in a troubled frame of mind. Flynn has made a great contribution to human knowledge and understanding. But he hasn’t settled the nature-against-nurture debate – and I wonder if he is now muddying the waters, constructing theories about parenting from flimsy evidence.
https://www.theguardian.com/educati...ce-iq-myths-does-your-family-make-you-smarter
Last edited:
Brother Nature
Well-known member
That's quite interesting Gypsy, Flynn is a very interesting man and I've gone to see him speak a number of times, hence my reference to the Flynn effect. I think that Guardian article is a little sensationalist in terms of his remarks about race though, he's just following the data and if we start speaking on subcultures, it could go on and on with no end in sight.
Another rather interesting person with insight into the cultural psyche is a Jungian Analyst based out of UC San Francisco named Samuel Kimbles. He touches on what Flynn doesn't in relation to the following quote;
He speaks about the contribution of the unconscious cultural experience and how it relates to the evolution of subcultures and culture as a whole. His book is titled "Phantom Narratives: The Unseen Contributions of Culture to Psyche
." For those of you interested in this stuff, I'll leave a short synopsis of the book, I don't have any links to a free online copy, but as those of you who have been in the[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] cannabis and advanced biology section of this site know, it's not to hard to find anything online 
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Another rather interesting person with insight into the cultural psyche is a Jungian Analyst based out of UC San Francisco named Samuel Kimbles. He touches on what Flynn doesn't in relation to the following quote;
He speaks about the contribution of the unconscious cultural experience and how it relates to the evolution of subcultures and culture as a whole. His book is titled "Phantom Narratives: The Unseen Contributions of Culture to Psyche
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
In Phantom Narratives: The Unseen Contributions of Culture to Psyche, Samuel Kimbles explores collective shadow processes, intergenerational transmission of group traumas, and social suffering as examples of how culture contributes to the formation of unseen, or phantom, narratives. These unseen narratives bundle together a number of themes around belonging, identity, identification, shadow, identity politics and otherness dynamics, and the universal striving for recognition. These dynamics enter the superego of our collective consciousness long before we are conscious of how they contribute to the shaping of our attitudes toward self and others, us and them (significantly contributing to scapegoat dynamics), emotionally generating fascination, possessiveness, disavowal and entitlement, and shame and fear. Also included in this book is an elaboration of Bion’s work on groups in the context of thinking about cultural complexes that helps to flesh out how human groupings generate processes that support and hinder the development of consciousness in both individuals and groups. Kimbles argues that the awareness that can come through an understanding of cultural dynamics as manifested through cultural complexes and cultural phantoms in combination with the development of cultural consciousness can lead to an understanding of how groups can develop and individuals in groups can individuate.
Last edited:
Yes 'The Flynn Effect' came up quite often in my research around this topic, so I tracked a fairly recent article down about Flynn to put here.....I guess that its a very touchy subject to get embroiled in this whole race v IQ question, and Flynn does raise some interesting thoughts about it concerning parenting etc...If you're parents are smart college professors who really care about getting you educated as well as possible, and bring you up in a healthy, loving, positive environment wouldn't that give you an advantage?
So are we actually 'dumbing down?'....or is the overall/average intelligence of humanity increasing from generation to generation?
We seem to have arguments from both sides. 1. That says we are getting dumber and dumber, and 2. the other side that says we are actually getting smarter?
* I must look into this Jungian Analyst based out of UC San Francisco named Samuel Kimbles.
So are we actually 'dumbing down?'....or is the overall/average intelligence of humanity increasing from generation to generation?
We seem to have arguments from both sides. 1. That says we are getting dumber and dumber, and 2. the other side that says we are actually getting smarter?
That's quite interesting Gypsy, Flynn is a very interesting man and I've gone to see him speak a number of times, hence my reference to the Flynn effect. I think that Guardian article is a little sensationalist in terms of his remarks about race though, he's just following the data and if we start speaking on subcultures, it could go on and on with no end in sight.
Another rather interesting person with insight into the cultural psyche is a Jungian Analyst based out of UC San Francisco named Samuel Kimbles. He touches on what Flynn doesn't in relation to the following quote;
He speaks about the contribution of the unconscious cultural experience and how it relates to the evolution of subcultures and culture as a whole. His book is titled "Phantom Narratives: The Unseen Contributions of Culture to PsycheView Image." For those of you interested in this stuff, I'll leave a short synopsis of the book, I don't have any links to a free online copy, but as those of you who have been in the[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] cannabis and advanced biology section of this site know, it's not to hard to find anything online
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
* I must look into this Jungian Analyst based out of UC San Francisco named Samuel Kimbles.
Last edited:
Thats not how iq tests work. The IQ test is trying to measure your innate intelligence, as opposed to quizzing you on particular facts you might or might not have learned. Ideally your score should be independent of the language you know, and independent of your upbringing and cultural background.
This is why they are based upon pattern recognition, of all mental abilities this type of intelligence is said to have the highest correlation with the general intelligence factor.
OldSchoolGrow
Member
OldSchoolGrow
Member
How about Rome and the lead pipes?
U
Ununionized
"The Peter Principle" is an interesting observation on just how intelligence is metered, and rewarded in a rough and tumble world.
A man named Mr Peter described in a book how bureaucracy rewards intelligence, it used to be required reading for people who were trying to learn how to sort through the world, in part using intelligence.
A man named Mr Peter described in a book how bureaucracy rewards intelligence, it used to be required reading for people who were trying to learn how to sort through the world, in part using intelligence.
