The Flynn Effect: Each Generation is Smarter than the Last

[JuniperWoolf]

We hear a lot of complaints about how humanity as a whole is becoming less intelligent. People come to that conclusion by comparing the best-of-the-best from the past (eg. Michelangelo, Einstein) to the worst-of-the-worst from today (eg. Jersey Shore, lolcats). It happens a lot on litnet, where people obviously keep an eye on the literature world and have noticed some subtle differences between Shakespeare and the Twilight series, so I thought it might be fun to make a thread about the Flynn Effect (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/are-smart-people-getting-smarter/). Essentially, while all older generations think that the newest generation is getting dumber, this has never been the case throughout all of human history (although, as the article notes, we might be leveling off - it seems some countries may have reached the peak of what's possible in providing good nutrition for all citizens, equal education and *not* putting lead in all of their products).

Also, according to recent studies in the cognitive sciences, texting improves language skills (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8468351.stm). Texting annoys me because I don't like it when people aren't paying attention to me and are making incessant clicking noises, but if you approach texting with an open mind it makes sense that it would improve literacy - they're not writing text messages in the time during which they would ordinarily be writing sonnets, they're texting instead of writing nothing at all, when they're just going about their day. Unexpected benefits from very recent human behaviours that were once widely believed to damage intelligence also extend to video games, which we've already discussed at length on this forum. The argument as to whether or not they improve problem solving and literacy is pretty much sealed (they do (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/gamer-decisions/)), although the debate into whether or not they make people more violent or whether violent people are simply attracted to violent games is still open in the scientific community.

[Darcy88]

Interesting thread. Its true, everyone says this is the dumbest generation even though our sciences are thriving, our arts are thriving, technology like a great miracle keeps enhancing and enhancing.

Texting is divisive for me. I like it because it helps me keep in touch with people and also co-ordinate activities. But when I'm on a date with a girl and she's texting some other guy I want to just snatch that phone out of her hand and throw it as far as I can in a random direction.

lol.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'd go along with the texting idea if I didn't see so much use of "y," "u," and "lol" in high school papers I. My very brief time student teaching.

[Paulclem]

The problem with attitudes to new stuff like texting is that whenever teachers think something new will affect learning, they immediately think that it will have a detrimental effect. I reckon it's because they don't understand it at first.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8468351.stm

When i was training as a teacher i remember the maths lecturer telling us that the maths teachng profession had braced itself for a whole raft of problems that they envisaged because of the advent of digital displays and numbers. Apparently a lot of time was spend discussing how the new forms of numbers were going to be accommodated into the curriculum etc. The problems they anticipated - the confusion they thought would be wrought by digital displays of numbers - never materialised.

It's the same with games. I think teachers criticise what they don't understand, have no contact with or whatever their assumptions tell them. Despite the billions of sales of pretty graphic fighting games, there has not been a commensurate rise in violence.

I reckon the TV series Kung Fu had more of an effect upon play fighting in playgrounds. Again though, the playground games they engendered didn't materialise into actual violence.

[stlukesguild]

The Flynn effect has always been tinged with mystery. First popularized by the political scientist James Flynn, the effect refers to the widespread increase in IQ scores over time. Some measures of intelligence — such as performance on Raven’s Progressive Matrices in Des Moines and Scotland — have been increasing for at least 100 years. What’s most peculiar is how scores have increased:

1) Scores have increased the most on the problem-solving portion of intelligence tests.
2) Verbal intelligence has remained relatively flat, while non-verbal scores continue to rise.
3) Performance gains have occurred across all age groups.
4) The rise in scores exists primarily on those tests with content that does not appear to be easily learned.

A brand new study, “The Flynn Effect Puzzle,” currently in press at Intelligence, and led by Jonathan Wai at Duke University, has found an interesting way to assess the right tail of the distribution. By looking at approximately 1.7 million scores of 7th grade students between 1981 and 2000 on the SAT and ACT, as well as scores of 5th and 6th grade students on the EXPLORE test, the psychologists were able to investigate the extent to which the Flynn effect exists in the right tail of the bell curve. The results were clear:

The effect was found in the top 5% at a rate similar to the general distribution, providing evidence for the first time that the entire curve is likely increasing at a constant rate. The effect was also found for females as well as males, appears to still be continuing, is primarily concentrated on the mathematics subtests of the SAT, ACT, and EXPLORE, and operates similarly for both 5th and 6th as well as 7th graders in the right tail.

In other words, the Flynn effect doesn’t appear to be solely caused by rising scores among the lowest quartile. Rather, it seems to be just as prevalent among the top 5 percent. The smartest are getting smarter.

Are humans getting smarter? I'm not certain that either the initial Flynn Effect or the later study prove that human intellect is increasing. We need to take into consideration the fact that the IQ test is not really a reliable measure of anything more than the ability to do well on IQ tests just as most standardized tests are really just a measure of the ability to do well on standardized tests. The increasing scores on such standardized tests quite likely are a result of the increased approach to "teaching the tests". As the scores of standardized test have become increasingly influential on how schools are reviewed and rated and funded, educators have made conscious and concerted efforts into analyzing the tests... recognizing which skills sets and bits of knowledge have been given the most "weight" in previous standardized tests and focusing upon these. There is also an approach to teaching the meta-skills that are learned by the best students with regard to the best strategies to test-taking.

It would be close to impossible to prove an increase in intelligence by comparing the geniuses of the past with those of the present. Obviously there are those who will always believe that everything was better in the "good old days," and there will be those who naively imagine that today represents some pinnacle of intellect never before matched. I don't think you need to make a comparison between Michelangelo and the worst painters/sculptors/architects of today to suggest that it is quite likely that there is no living artist that can match the Italian Renaissance master. I can place him in contrast to the best living painters/sculptors/architects with a great degree of certainty of the same results. I can say the same of Shakespeare or J.S. Bach. Yet this should not be taken as suggesting that no contemporary artist will ever rival the greatest artistic minds of the past. We need to remember that Shakespeare's and Bach's reputations during their own lifetime was not what it is now... and a good deal of their reputation since then is owed to their subsequent impact upon the arts and culture. While Michelangelo was acknowledged as "Il Divino" during his lifetime even his impact has increased greatly since.

At the same time, I don't think we can eliminate the notion that the artistic geniuses of our time cannot match the greatest of all time. Picasso is almost universally recognized within the art world as an artist of such superhuman achievements that he clearly rivals the greatest artists of all time. Richard Wagner, the musical titan of the last century, had an unrivaled impact upon classical music during his life time which continues into the present. One cannot imagine film composers such as Erich Korngold, John Williams, or Danny Elfman, and endless others. What of Duke Ellington... or Miles Davis? Proust? David Lean, Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock, Billy Wilder, etc...?

I think both the past and present have their strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately I don't think its possible to suggest an inherent superiority... or greater intellect... in either.

[mortalterror]

I have to agree with Stlukes here. This sounds like the product of an increasingly test conscious curriculum: more teachers teaching to the test, more kids with more experience taking tests, more weight given to test scores in funding.

Human intelligence is mostly a zero sum game. The hardware is the same and the only way to increase intelligence is the software, ie the amount of time spent training skill sets. I'm willing to bet that our average musical abilities have seen a decline since the advent of recording technology. Unfortunately, the SATs don't test for things like that, and schools all around the country keep dropping their music programs. The ACTs don't test people's fine arts abilities or their physical prowess either.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

But if we, as a society on a large scale, aren't getting more intelligent with each generation, why does technology keep improving? Why do we become more socially conscious, attempting to better ourselves through abolishing sexism, racism, and homophobia? Sure, there are, and will always be, conservative mindsets that don't want things to change, but their desires are futile; the liberal ideal of progression will always prevail, in the end. So how can these things be of we aren't getting smarter?

[Calidore]

But if we, as a society on a large scale, aren't getting more intelligent with each generation, why does technology keep improving? Why do we become more socially conscious, attempting to better ourselves through abolishing sexism, racism, and homophobia? Sure, there are, and will always be, conservative mindsets that don't want things to change, but their desires are futile; the liberal ideal of progression will always prevail, in the end. So how can these things be of we aren't getting smarter?

In your examples above, improvements in technology are the result of previous knowledge being built on, then that knowledge being built on in turn. Social improvements could be considered growth of maturity as a society, and also builds on previous milestones. So I guess it depends on how you define intelligence--brain capacity or knowledge. I don't know whether human brain capacity is increasing as time goes on.

[OrphanPip]

Human intelligence is mostly a zero sum game. The hardware is the same and the only way to increase intelligence is the software, ie the amount of time spent training skill sets. I'm willing to bet that our average musical abilities have seen a decline since the advent of recording technology. Unfortunately, the SATs don't test for things like that, and schools all around the country keep dropping their music programs. The ACTs don't test people's fine arts abilities or their physical prowess either.

While I don't necessarily disagree with Stlukes assessment of recent increases in scores, intelligence is a bit more complicated then being "hardware," so to speak. There is ample evidence that intelligence has radically been improved in the general populace through an increase in pre-natal care and more emphasis on early childhood education.

I think it's uncontroversial to say that the general populace today is probably more intelligent (due to improvement in nutrition alone) and more educated than the general population of the 18th or 19th century. A good portion of children in that time were likely born cognitively impaired due solely to a lack of folic acid in the diet of mothers, since leafy vegetables or vitamin tablets were not widely available. Not to mention that they didn't know about foetal alcohol syndrome.

[NikolaiI]

We hear a lot of complaints about how humanity as a whole is becoming less intelligent. People come to that conclusion by comparing the best-of-the-best from the past (eg. Michelangelo, Einstein) to the worst-of-the-worst from today (eg. Jersey Shore, lolcats). It happens a lot on litnet, where people obviously keep an eye on the literature world and have noticed some subtle differences between Shakespeare and the Twilight series, so I thought it might be fun to make a thread about the Flynn Effect (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/are-smart-people-getting-smarter/). Essentially, while all older generations think that the newest generation is getting dumber, this has never been the case throughout all of human history (although, as the article notes, we might be leveling off - it seems some countries may have reached the peak of what's possible in providing good nutrition for all citizens, equal education and *not* putting lead in all of their products).

Also, according to recent studies in the cognitive sciences, texting improves language skills (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8468351.stm). Texting annoys me because I don't like it when people aren't paying attention to me and are making incessant clicking noises, but if you approach texting with an open mind it makes sense that it would improve literacy - they're not writing text messages in the time during which they would ordinarily be writing sonnets, they're texting instead of writing nothing at all, when they're just going about their day. Unexpected benefits from very recent human behaviours that were once widely believed to damage intelligence also extend to video games, which we've already discussed at length on this forum. The argument as to whether or not they improve problem solving and literacy is pretty much sealed (they do (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/gamer-decisions/)), although the debate into whether or not they make people more violent or whether violent people are simply attracted to violent games is still open in the scientific community.

Great thread. A related idea is the now common knowledge in psychology that each generation is mentally healthier than the previous one. Now, this is not a concrete law, but a general rule that holds true in the large majority of cases.

[Jack of Hearts]

Of course this discussion is heading to the question of how can intelligence be measured. But that's not nice to talk about. Maybe for SAT scores we're just being tamed.

As far as generations are concerned, there's a quote from Thomas Jefferson's dubious foreward to Jon Stewart's America: The Book that comes to mind:


"But in the 18th century it was nearly impossible not to invent something. "What if we put this refuse in a receptacle?""Oh my God you just invented a sanitation system!" We lived in primitive times. Hell, I **** in a bucket and I was the president."

So it's either splinters or time that makes for the genesis of invention.

This reader's opinion is that education is broken. Not just financially, but in more fundamental ways. What should be included in a genuine education? From his personal observation of the top tiers of academia, this reader thinks it seems funny to think that our most 'educated' people can be so emotionally broken, egotistical or just plain miserable. Somewhere there's a clip on Youtube of W.V.O. Quine saying that travelling is not worth the hassle, he'd rather stay at home- and there's a Droopy Dog look on his face. Granted, it's only an illustrative example, not sufficient to be considered genuine evidence of the state of the man at the time, but you get the idea.

Someone said that education is just a form of socialization. Hmmm...

So if the question is are we getting smarter? (which it may not be, this reader couldn't actually find a question in the OP), this reader can't say. But he does believe we are getting worse.

No piece of paper you sell yourself for can save you from your own life- this, coming from a person who has sold himself for a piece of paper, a social dowry. But sometimes, in spite of themselves, a teacher gives a wayward thought that sticks with you for awhile. And even then it's best to take them out of context.


"All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation."





J

[Alexander III]

But if we, as a society on a large scale, aren't getting more intelligent with each generation, why does technology keep improving? Why do we become more socially conscious, attempting to better ourselves through abolishing sexism, racism, and homophobia? Sure, there are, and will always be, conservative mindsets that don't want things to change, but their desires are futile; the liberal ideal of progression will always prevail, in the end. So how can these things be of we aren't getting smarter?

Because to put it very simply, a dwarf standing atop the shoulders of a giant can see further than the giant.

And I was going to say that I believe man now is just as he was 10,000 years ago, and just as he shall be in 10,000 years time. We neither gain in intelligence or loose it, like water, we constantly change, yet remain always the same.


But St.Lukes beat me to the punch with his disquisition.

[Alexander III]

Great thread. A related idea is the now common knowledge in psychology that each generation is mentally healthier than the previous one. Now, this is not a concrete law, but a general rule that holds true in the large majority of cases.

Really? Then again is due to to us, or simply our great fortune. Think of the wwI generation, they were unlucky. So far we have been lucky. I find it misleading to ascribe our betterment to anything other than good fortune. Were there to be a war similar to the great one now, I assure you we would be as subject psychologically as any other generation which has experienced a great war.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't buy the "we're only building on knowledge from previous generations" excuse for saying we're not any smarter, because even if that's true (and I'm not disputing it), we're still figuring things out that previous generations didn't. And here's the thing: if we are only building on previous knowledge, that's pretty much admitting that each successive generation is smarter than the previous, in that more knowledge has been acquired.

[Alexander III]

I don't buy the "we're only building on knowledge from previous generations" excuse for saying we're not any smarter, because even if that's true (and I'm not disputing it), we're still figuring things out that previous generations didn't. And here's the thing: if we are only building on previous knowledge, that's pretty much admitting that each successive generation is smarter than the previous, in that more knowledge has been acquired.

So for you knowledge=intelligence ? following that definition the answer must of course be yes. Since the dawn of man (except for a brief stint after the collapse of rome) mankind has been constantly getting smarter. I cannot argue that.

But what I can argue, is your axiom, that knowledge=intelligence. While knowledge I believe is certainly an aspect of intelligence I do not believe it is the end unto itself. For it is a passive view of intelligence, intelligence is action, not passivity. For what value has theory which is not applied. Following your argument, Sun Tzu and Clausewitz would be considered the most intelligent generals of human history. For no one has yet to create military theories to surpass their in genius. Yet, For all their theory, have Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon Shivaji and Napoleon anything to envy of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz? Whom do you value most, the man who will teach you how to conquer the world(yet he never conquered much) or the man who conquered the world?

Deed's have long spoken more than words.

Harold Bloom and Samuel Johnson, and Vasari - why are they not our greatest artistic geniuses, can anyone doubt that they are amongst the most erudite, far surpassing in erudition to many artists, who have created works of beauty which far exceed anything they could manage to create.


Were I to look upon Dante's Library I would find that at the age of 19, I have read more books of more diversity than he. Now Mutatis would you say that my intelligence in the field of literature surpasses that of Dante, simply because I posses more knowledge?

I think you ascribe to high a value to knowledge, for once something has been discovered even the roughest illiterate peasant can learn it and come to posses it as part of his knowledge. Yet tell me could he have just as equally discovered it? We have all learned to master how to drive a car, so you would call us equals to the man who invented it? Anyone can read a book, but to write it that is a whole different story.

[OrphanPip]

And I was going to say that I believe man now is just as he was 10,000 years ago, and just as he shall be in 10,000 years time. We neither gain in intelligence or loose it, like water, we constantly change, yet remain always the same.


Well that's just sophistry, of course we change, we're biological organisms so we evolve and respond to our environments. We're taller than we were 10,000 years ago, and like I said earlier, the Western population is certainly more intelligent on average today than they were 200 years ago.

[mortalterror]

Well that's just sophistry, of course we change, we're biological organisms so we evolve and respond to our environments. We're taller than we were 10,000 years ago, and like I said earlier, the Western population is certainly more intelligent on average today than they were 200 years ago.

We are taller because we have better diets and childhood health, not because we have changed on a biological level. As far as intelligence goes, I think that a person from 10,000 years ago has the same brain as a modern man. It's just in education and technology that we've surpassed the ancients. Our book learning, our academic abilities are finely tuned, but how would we fare in the wild? Can you find potable water on a hot day? Can you fletch your own arrows, set a trap, or hunt with a knife? Can you farm or start a fire? Do you know what plants in your neighborhood are poisonous or good to eat? Can you make your own tools? How fast can you build a shelter? Ancient peoples weren't exactly dummies just because they couldn't read or drive a car.

[Alexander III]

We are taller because we have better diets and childhood health, not because we have changed on a biological level. As far as intelligence goes, I think that a person from 10,000 years ago has the same brain as a modern man. It's just in education and technology that we've surpassed the ancients. Our book learning, our academic abilities are finely tuned, but how would we fare in the wild? Can you find potable water on a hot day? Can you fletch your own arrows, set a trap, or hunt with a knife? Can you farm or start a fire? Do you know what plants in your neighborhood are poisonous or good to eat? Can you make your own tools? How fast can you build a shelter? Ancient peoples weren't exactly dummies just because they couldn't read or drive a car.

Good point, to to think of it, by their standards we would be considered retarded. Of course after I just said that, ones mind jumps and say's wait! That is unjust to judge our intelligence by their standards, of course we would appear stupid if we were to use their value of intelligence...oh wait, what were we saying before about how people were less intelligent once upon a time, using our value of intelligence?

[Alexander III]

Well that's just sophistry, of course we change, we're biological organisms so we evolve and respond to our environments. We're taller than we were 10,000 years ago, and like I said earlier, the Western population is certainly more intelligent on average today than they were 200 years ago.

Sophistry?

I don't quite understand that word, here let me use it in a sentence and see if I am right.

Boy A says that mankind has always been on the same level of intelligence- Boy B be counters that by saying that that is not true, we are not the same because mankind's height has changed from the past. Boy B was using sophistry, unless Boy B beliefs that height has something to do with intelligence.

I always suspected dwarfs were more stupid than normal people, I just have yet to find the evidence to support me.

[OrphanPip]

We are taller because we have better diets and childhood health, not because we have changed on a biological level. As far as intelligence goes, I think that a person from 10,000 years ago has the same brain as a modern man.

What you're trying to say is that they had the same genes, which they most likely had most of, certainly there was a substantial amount of genetic change over 10,000 years since modern man is only roughly 200,000 years old. However, it is too simplistic to reduce the development of intelligence solely to the genes or anatomy. It's true that we are taller because of better diets, and it is equally true that we are smarter because of better diets. However, more than that we become smarter because of cultural developments as well. Many anthropologist would suggest that the development of language had a huge impact on the cognitive development of human beings. The fact of the matter is that our brains do not develop in a one to one relationship to some genetic code, but they are also shaped by experience, including diet and exposure to things like language. It is very likely that our cognitive development has changed from 10,000 years ago, because our lifestyle has substantially changed, and it is more likely I think that our current lifestyle favours certain markers of intelligence over others.



It's just in education and technology that we've surpassed the ancients. Our book learning, our academic abilities are finely tuned, but how would we fare in the wild? Can you find potable water on a hot day? Can you fletch your own arrows, set a trap, or hunt with a knife? Can you farm or start a fire? Do you know what plants in your neighborhood are poisonous or good to eat? Can you make your own tools? How fast can you build a shelter? Ancient peoples weren't exactly dummies just because they couldn't read or drive a car.

But those things are equally just different kinds of knowledge and technology. Fletching arrows is a technological skill, so it seems silly to say that we surpass them technologically, but hey most people can't fletch arrows today? However, I'd bet that we have the knowledge in math and chemistry to develop ways to fletch arrows far superior to theirs.

This doesn't matter though, because my main point is that cognitively we are likely very different from ancestors of 10,000 years ago. We are in general probably better off than people just 200 years ago, because the population has much more access to the food and experiences required to develop to our full cognitive potential.

I would go on to argue that not only are we likely more intelligent in terms of knowledge and cognitive ability, but that a greater proportion of people have the opportunity to put their intelligence to use than ever before. Whether it be a form of athletic intelligence, or to maths ability, intelligence is allowed to be fostered much more than in a society dedicated entirely to surviving.

The phenomena of brain plasticity requires us to think a little more about our capacity to change. Because we know, empirically, that we have the ability to radical improve intelligence of a sample of children by changing their environment. So, considering that we live (in the West) in substantially different environments from our ancestors, it is perfectly reasonable to expect our cognitive development to be different.


Sophistry?

I don't quite understand that word, here let me use it in a sentence and see if I am right.

Boy A says that mankind has always been on the same level of intelligence- Boy B be counters that by saying that that is not true, we are not the same because mankind's height has changed from the past. Boy B was using sophistry, unless Boy B beliefs that height has something to do with intelligence.

I always suspected dwarfs were more stupid than normal people, I just have yet to find the evidence to support me.

Well you said that we haven't changed at all since 10,000 years ago, I said that this is not true merely in terms of physical averages at the least. And then I went on to reference my previous post for why we have changed cognitively on average in as short a period as 200 years. Read the thread more attentively, then re-read my response to you, and then respond to me again when you have something substantial to say.

[Alexander III]

Well you said that we haven't changed at all since 10,000 years ago, I said that this is not true merely in terms of physical averages at the least. And then I went on to reference my previous post for why we have changed cognitively on average in as short a period as 200 years. Read the thread more attentively, then re-read my response to you, and then respond to me again when you have something substantial to say.

I did make the point that to apply our value of intelligence to other eras is pointless. Ofcourse if we apply our value of intelligence it appears we are getting smarter, because in our age people are thought to focus upon our values of intelligence - before in otehr eras they were thought to focus upon their values of intelligence.

You say the average population of the west is smarter now that 400 years ago - why because everyone can read? Sure we can all read, but how many of us can hunt? A genius in their time may have dedicated his genius to hunting. A genius now may dedicate his genius to scholarship. Is one the less valid than the other. You clearly seem to be saying yes, but what you have yet to answer is why? Why do we automatically assume that our values of what is important in regards to intelligence are superior to those of other times. You seem to be repeating the same thing over and over agin, without answering the key question of the matter.

Also considering the thread was about intelligence, what else could my comment have been about? Seriously I don't go to threads discussing the change of human height over time, and counter points by talking about hair color.

[OrphanPip]

I did make the point that to apply our value of intelligence to other eras is pointless. Ofcourse if we apply our value of intelligence it appears we are getting smarter, because in our age people are thought to focus upon our values of intelligence - before in otehr eras they were thought to focus upon their values of intelligence.

You say the average population of the west is smarter now that 400 years ago - why because everyone can read? Sure we can all read, but how many of us can hunt? A genius in their time may have dedicated his genius to hunting. A genius now may dedicate his genius to scholarship. Is one the less valid than the other. You clearly seem to be saying yes, but what you have yet to answer is why? Why do we automatically assume that our values of what is important in regards to intelligence are superior to those of other times. You seem to be repeating the same thing over and over agin, without answering the key question of the matter.

Also considering the thread was about intelligence, what else could my comment have been about? Seriously I don't go to threads discussing the change of human height over time, and counter points by talking about hair color.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall because I haven't once defined intelligence in terms of scholarly ability. I said quite clearly that cognitive development, i.e. just the development of the brain's ability to process information, has been improved. I can not think of a more unbiased way to think of intelligence, because it incorporates everything from physical to "scholastic" ability. Thus, my reference to the development of language in pre-historical man as having a massive influence on the cognitive abilities of humanity. And from there the widespread availability of education and proper nutrition in the West has similarly had a massive influence on the cognitive ability of Western populations.

The human brain has changed and it will continue to change just because that's the way biology works.

[stlukesguild]

I don't buy the "we're only building on knowledge from previous generations" excuse for saying we're not any smarter, because even if that's true (and I'm not disputing it), we're still figuring things out that previous generations didn't. And here's the thing: if we are only building on previous knowledge, that's pretty much admitting that each successive generation is smarter than the previous, in that more knowledge has been acquired.

What you are speaking of is knowledge, not intelligence. The average second year med student knows more about anatomy, physiology, disease, and the immune system than the greatest doctor in Renaissance Italy. Knowledge, however, is simply something acquired and today's med students have acquired their knowledge of anatomy, physiology, disease, and the immune system from all those who went before them. As Alex stated... they are standing on the shoulders of their predecessors.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yeah. I messed up, I guess. I'm bowing out; it's just not a discussion I feel like getting in to at the moment.

[NikolaiI]

The human brain has changed and it will continue to change just because that's the way biology works.

Yes.


Really? Then again is due to to us, or simply our great fortune. Think of the wwI generation, they were unlucky. So far we have been lucky. I find it misleading to ascribe our betterment to anything other than good fortune. Were there to be a war similar to the great one now, I assure you we would be as subject psychologically as any other generation which has experienced a great war.

Yes. Really. It's really true.

I think you may have a tendency to make things more complicated than they are. It's now known that yes, as a general rule, each generation is better adjusted emotionally than the previous one. This is things like emotional health and mental health. Cycles of violence or substance abuse or mental disorders - generation to generation, as a general rule, they become lessened; each generation is mentally healthier, the 'cycle of violence' is usually much lessened. I would recommend reading The Farther Reaches of Human Nature by Abraham Maslow, for, well, everyone. It's a great book.

Anyway, like I said this is now known. It seems rather simple that each generation is smarter as well - again, as a general rule, not as a concrete absolute. After all, parents impart the best of the knowledge they've gained to their children. The snippets of wisdom that they've picked up in the world, the things they've tested and found to be true - In other words, all the figuring out of the world they've done, they're able to pass on.

[tonywalt]

I feel like I'm talking to a wall because I haven't once defined intelligence in terms of scholarly ability. I said quite clearly that cognitive development, i.e. just the development of the brain's ability to process information, has been improved. I can not think of a more unbiased way to think of intelligence, because it incorporates everything from physical to "scholastic" ability. Thus, my reference to the development of language in pre-historical man as having a massive influence on the cognitive abilities of humanity. And from there the widespread availability of education and proper nutrition in the West has similarly had a massive influence on the cognitive ability of Western populations.

The human brain has changed and it will continue to change just because that's the way biology works.

I think what drives us off track on this and simliar discussions is the sort of fall or relegation of high culture (The taste that dare not speak it's name. A long discussion, but we know what I mean) to a lower social currency. Whilst lowbrow culture is celebrated with giddy enthusiasm i.e. Jersey Shore, Housewives of this and that, Posh and Becks, etc..

The above strangely has no effect on our intelligence, just look at strides in technology, science, and medicine - but it's an odd and discomforting cultural shift for many here and it's constantly surfaces.