Human intelligence is declining according to Stanford geneticist

Human intelligence is declining according to Stanford geneticist

rt.com

Dr. Gerald Crabtree, a geneticist at Stanford, has published a study that he conducted to try and identify the progression of modern man’s intelligence. As it turns out, however, Dr. Crabtree’s research led him to believe that the collective mind of mankind has been on more or a less a downhill trajectory for quite some time.

According to his research, published in two parts starting with last year’s ‘Our fragile intellect. Part I,’ Dr. Crabtree thinks unavoidable changes in the genetic make-up coupled with modern technological advances has left humans, well, kind of stupid. He ha

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well i guess this explains a lot. Granted this is just one guy's research, but i was really interested when he commented on the emotional fitness and not just the intellectual fitness.

It seems to me he is saying people are getting more and more emotionally unstable and he has the research to prove it. Perhaps this a possible explanation of why we have had so many mental breakdowns lately. This could possibly be one reason for mass suicides and mass shootings? Who knows for sure? Just some of my thoughts.

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The equation is quite simple.

The only thing that forced homo sapiens to develop intelllect was the daily fight for survival.

You had to think think think .. how not to get eaten by predators, how to get your food, how to get through the winter, how you defend against that ugly tribe from the valley etc.

Look at nowadays modern homo sapiens. Everything is in reach with the push of a button. No-one does need to think any longer. They even make laws that do protect the most stupid imbred from getting in harms way.

So what did they expect were the consequences of all the comfort and safety ?

The brain is like a muscle. If you do not use it, it will wither.

Use it or lose it? Is it really that simple? Hopefully the coming post-apocalyptic wasteland will furnish enough intelligent survivors to kick mankind up to the next evolutionary level. I mean, somebody out there has to be using it, right?

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


This is another one of those things that never really needed to have a research project done on it. Its blatantly obvious to anyone with even a minute outside perspective.

But I guess this just makes it "official", or something.

What will they spring on us next? That life is not only restricted to a sector in the universe that accounts for only 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the whole?

Shocker!

Next theyll be telling us a study was done and confirmed that 90%+ politicians are serial liers and mostly psychopaths in suits who should never be trusted.

I think this guy has a point, but the assessment is incomplete as far as I'm concerned. I think he brings bias in the form of regarding emotional stability as a virtue on all accounts. Emotional instability, or crazes, are what seems to be a pillar of creativity, ie divergent thinking. Without our supreme creativity, we wouldn't have gotten too separated from our great ape ancestors.

I also think he's not thinking too integrally. It's not any one gene, or any grouping of genes which accounts for intelligence, it's the interlinking of all genes which may form individuals of superior intellect, or raw talent.

I would say he has a point that technological advancement has the potential for many, if not most to procreate regardless of intellectual capabilities, but it also means a place exists for creative/gifted minds to utilize all the technological advances, and knowledge gathered, to their advantage, and keep pushing the species forward.

Another thing not accessed, is the various eugenic forces which have helped to counter the dysgenic forces over the ages. Though many disagree with some of the practices on principal, it can't be denied that they have value, if we are to be intellectually honest and well informed.

As far as I can see, we periodically collapse in order to purge the species of the least fit. I have a really hard time thinking that an average man born b.c.+ would be of a higher intellect, and readily adapt to the world of today, if placed in it. I think his mind would be blown, and he'd slip into a deep psychosis.

File this with all the other information that disproves evolution.

Originally posted by yamammasamonkey
File this with all the other information that disproves evolution.

This in no way disproves the theory of evolution. You only prove your ignorance.

One word: "Idiocracy"

Some more words: If someone hasn't seen that great movie yet, well worth the watch. The first hour or so at least.

Apparantly the full movie is online, but I don't know which site is best or which to trust.

I think I disagree with him.

One of his claims from the article is:

“I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues. Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues. I would also make this wager for the ancient inhabitants of Africa, Asia, India or the Americas, of perhaps 2000–6000 years ago.

I won't quibble with the genetics, but I will quibble with the sophistication and with his idea of the "average citizen." What he REALLY means by "average citizen" is the "males of the upper classes in society in Athens" because those were the ones who were educated and had the time to sit around and discuss philosophy (while slaves and tradesmen and farmers and peasants worked. Women were NOT educated.) He's also assuming that all of Athens looked like Plato's pupils (who were rich and literate and educated and had their dialogue written by Socrates.)

The ancient citizen who was suddenly thrust into modern times would have the same trouble as any person who comes from a third world country into a first world country -- there are too many choices and they have no way of deciding which one is right. I remember reading about someone from Somalia, who was paralyzed with indecision when they got to a grocery store and saw a hundred different types of breakfast cereals.

They would have no way of dealing with news that comes in constantly, because their news was not delivered by newspaper or radio or tv, but at the public baths and in the form of gossip or in formal announcements from the city government. The educated ones had good logic tools and good reasoning skills, but it's one thing to exercise reason and logic about things within a small town (which is what Athens of that time would look like now) as opposed to dealing with issues involving cites and states and nations and a 24/7 blast of more information than we can deal with.

The neolithics might be able to function in Athens after a long number of years (where they were privately educated -- and only if they were good students.) But dealing with modern society?

No, I disagree with his conclusions.

I believe that we are learning to think differently, but I'm not ready to sneer at modern man just yet.

(though, sometimes I feel as though the collective IQ of the internet appears to be marginally above the freezing point of water.)

Originally posted by yamammasamonkey
File this with all the other information that disproves evolution.

Actually, it would prove evolution (but he doesn't have any hard data that he's basing this on, as I understand it.)

Evolution says that organisms change over time depending on their environment -- so his idea that the brain has changed in certain ways is, yes, evolution in action.

Hi, intelect watchers!

I have read/seen/watch/heard not long ago that the USA mean IQ (for what it's worth) is 92.
It also said that an IQ of 140 is near "genious",
and an IQ of 70 is near "handicapped" !!

Sooooooo, from which side of the range is the USA mean 92 IQ closer to ???? B-))))

[ I show no link because I don't remember where I got this,
but I remember clearly the numbers !! ]

CQFD.

Blue skies.

reply to post by Byrd


what hard data do you need to know that we, as a society, are getting dumber?

Ever heard of Honey Boo Boo?

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


If we wanted to, we could go on about our daily routines on "autopilot", you know, where your milk is in the fridge, the way to work, your work, your ats profile... and so on,,
at least i have to struggle, to keep my brain active and creative, it doesnt come naturally, in the current society..
sometimes i feel that we are currently quite literally, a waste of space..
we have the potential to be something great, yet we are something destructive and unbalanced,,
well i guess thats creative too,,
it really isnt easy, to wipe out so much of animal, insect, and plant species,,

reply to post by C-JEAN


It's 97, not 92.

Also: compared to whom?

The median is statistically always 100.

We are 3 points off the global median.

There is no correlation between "genius" as a measurement of profound contribution in the arts, sciences, or politics, beyond an IQ120.

There IS indication that IQ may be detrimental after approximately 3 deviations over the norm.

The optimal range appears to be between 120-145, considering a standard deviation of 15 points.


reply to post by Crakeur


That would be the culture. Our collective internal values are ... a miss, it seems. They will flip back towards a more progressive path in time, I assume.

It is no a "study" - it is a "provocative hypothesis- there is no data to actually support it as a firm conclusion.

It is based upon the number of requirements we now know support intelligence, and the apparent fragility of that total genetic package - there is a lot of genetics involved in intelligence, therefore the possibility that some of them are being erroded over time due to changed nature of human society seems significant.

The development of our intellectual abilities and the optimization of thousands of intelligence genes probably occurred in relatively non-verbal, dispersed groups of peoples before our ancestors emerged from Africa," says the papers' author, Dr. Gerald Crabtree, of Stanford University. In this environment, intelligence was critical for survival, and there was likely to be immense selective pressure acting on the genes required for intellectual development, leading to a peak in human intelligence.

From that point, it's likely that we began to slowly lose ground. With the development of agriculture, came urbanization, which may have weakened the power of selection to weed out mutations leading to intellectual disabilities. Based on calculations of the frequency with which deleterious mutations appear in the human genome and the assumption that 2000 to 5000 genes are required for intellectual ability, Dr. Crabtree estimates that within 3000 years (about 120 generations) we have all sustained two or more mutations harmful to our intellectual or emotional stability.

- Medical express

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by Byrd

 

what hard data do you need to know that we, as a society, are getting dumber?

Ever heard of Honey Boo Boo?

Exactly!

It is a combination of the "herd mentality" and the internet.

Stay online too much for too long, and you can expect to be infected with nearly lethal levels of stupidity and ignorance.

Originally posted by yamammasamonkey
File this with all the other information that disproves evolution.

no - actually the reasons for it a ARE evolution.

See my previous post.....

In earlier times before doctors and techniques and cures got so advanced, lots of people would die from simple mistakes where the injury now would be mended relatively easily. If someone was emotionally unstable or dumb there would be a lot more chances for them to hurt themselves. There wasn't as much sympathy for people who needed help or weren't all the way there to keep them around to pull down their averages. Everyone gets to live now. I still wouldn't brand humankind as on the decline. As for the general lack of morals, poor taste and trash culture promoted now that isn't an accurate indicator which sounds like it has about the objectivity of the study provided by this professor of the world to prove such an enormous leap of a hypothesis.

"We, as a species, are surprisingly intellectually fragile and perhaps reached a peak 2,000 to 6,000 years ago," he writes. "If selection is only slightly relaxed, one would still conclude that nearly all of us are compromised compared to our ancient ancestors of 3,000 to 6,000 years ago.”

I've often thought that from the moment we stored info, from stone tablets to ipads, we began to dumb down. The switch from internal storage of data to external storage may have effected the way we evolved mentally. In saying that though i feel we still have access to more "brain power/genetic heritage" when the chips are down.
if you truly want to work your brain get dirt poor in a country without welfare. You'll sharpen up real quick.
I guess the same could also be said for apocalypse survivors.