It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Victorians were smarter than us, study suggests.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on May, 21 2013 @ 12:11 AM
reply to post by mykingdomforthetruth

While the understanding of Latin can be beneficial to understanding the origins of both individual words and languages of Western Europe, I fail to see what connection it would have to the understanding of mathematics other than the ability to read treatises on mathematics in the original Latin. I'm sure most non-Western mathematicians would also fail to see a connection, having never learned Latin and apparently doing quite well in the field.

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 12:16 AM
Reading the study now, but keep in mind this is first impressions. Not all the way through. I suppose I feel a bit tired of this constant assumption that modern people are stupid, yesterday was better, and we're all on the highway to hell, but am trying to be objective.

IQ is debatable of a measure of full actual intelligence and can be influenced by things like education level very strongly. IQ tests also rely strongly on things like maths and basic number bonds, not critical thinking. Income and upbringing also factor into this.

Video gamers according to this study should be off the charts yet are blamed regularly for the downfall of society. I actually imagine that people who are good at games may have a slightly higher IQ and maybe even better critical thinking than average, but not enough to match up with this study.

Say perhaps we had an international ruler catching championship ... I doubt world renowned physicists would be winning even if they did attend.

I imagine persons who play sports and do a lot of manual work would have faster reaction times than a lot of smart people and we now spend a lot of times doing office work and indoor things which should be a massive factor.

Also with the study being a 'meta-analysis' I'd propose that this is drawing correlations after the fact. For some reason or another, educated / high IQ may correlate roughly with reaction times now ... but that could mean anything from educated people being attracted to certain types of tasks or activities, to having more free time to stay fit and healthy etc ...

I'll see if I can read all the way through it and its sister studies, but so far it just seems like another study being published on a slow news day relying on confirmation bias so no one looks into it too deeply.

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 02:17 AM
reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

Interesting post !

I don't think we are any less intelligent than the Victorians, though.

I just think our thinking and analysing skills have been negated by T.V, the shallow " Celebrity " culture, electronic media, etc. Too many mindless distractions in modern life, which overwhelm our thought processes, maybe ?

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 02:48 AM
This is pretty much how the prophetic movie Idiocracy begins.

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 04:36 AM
I thought humanity was evolving like the science of evolution teaches.
Oh well many said it was a stupid theory.....
here we go again

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 04:53 AM
reply to post by borntowatch

People losing their intelligence has nothing to do with evolution.

It's a completely artificial man made cultural, and social disorder.

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:05 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

Now that is pretty scary!

Gonna watch that movie later, thanks.

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:15 AM

Originally posted by borntowatch
I thought humanity was evolving like the science of evolution teaches.
Oh well many said it was a stupid theory.....
here we go again


By intervening nature, to let people live longer or simply prevent them from dying, where nature would have pulled the plug.
Creating a society where there are no groups of people isolated from the rest we have made evolution almost made impossible.
As a mutation has to give an advantage, to make people with it, live longer then does who don't. If that would happen you would have a bigger possibillty the mutation survives and gets past on.

We aren't gonna see it happen among our fellow man.

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 04:43 PM
Oh really, no more evolution?
Nice theory, sounds as feasible as the first one.
We cant evolve any more because we have friends?????

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Elimination of isolated groups decreases the likelihood of recessive genes, beneficial or not, coming to the fore. An example of such a recessive gene is found in the Kermode bear, which has resulted in approx. 1/10 of that black bear sub-species a white coat.

It does not eliminate evolutionary pressures.

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

I think it the issue is debatable in several instances but in general I expect that the conclusion is mostly obvious.

Individual intelligence decline is almost a indisputable fact. From general changes in lifestyle, lead and other environmental poisoning that directly influences brain development it is clear that a decline was inevitable in the new environment and sociologically there has been a push to make us more interdependent in regards to capabilities and know how. This lead to the discussion that even as a individuals humans are getting less intelligent they are also becoming less physically fit to survive in a natural environment to a point this was expected as we as a species tend to adapt the environment to our needs and rarely adapt ourselves to the environment (with few exceptions), but as a species we are more intelligent than ever and access to all type of information has never been so accessible...

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by erwalker

We are not bears.

Humans show less variety in their genetic make up then 2 gorillas do living on the same mountain.

Anyone thinking they can witness evolution, doesn't really understand the concept imo

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

Reaction times – a reliable marker of general intelligence – have declined steadily since the Victorian era from about 183 milliseconds to 250ms in men, and from 187ms to 277ms in women.
op source

I like to know what method they used to keep track of milliseconds back in the good old days and if the same method was used in the latest tests. If not, the most logical conclusion might have something to do with like.. different accurateness of the measuring equipment used.

The 1916 Heuer Mikrograph made history by being the first stopwatch capable of timing to 1/100th of a second. Previously timing was only precise to 1/5th second.

How does a Victorian measure 183 milliseconds anyway?

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:11 PM
Sorry, dont agree with this at all.

The Victorian era was one of cruelty and injustice, particularly if you were a child or illiterate, which was about 90% of the population.

Because of the Industrial revolution, millions of children from 8 years old, worked in factories and everywhere else in appalling conditions, with no safety, no education, disease ridden, minute income etc etc, all to make the Gentry even fatter and wealthier.

10 Year old girls were sent to work on rich peoples "Estates" as, maids, slaves, house girls/sex slaves for the Masters.

This was ALL throughout Europe/USA and some other new World colonies, (not all).

Cleanliness and public utilities didnt exist, disease was everywhere.

People were still being sent to the other side of the World for "The term of their Natural Life" incarceration.

The USA still had Slavery, ask how smart the African slaves were....they all were'nt Django!!
Not to mention a country wide war.

My ancestors left Prussia in the mid 1850s. After years of Franco/Prussian wars, Russia/Prussia Wars, famine because of the mini ice age of that period etc etc...only to have a Great Uncle return in WW1 to fight his Deutche cousins and die in France.

Ordinary White people in those days had 14+ children, so any that survived, could fight all the Wars and do all the dirty work for the Privileged Gentry and Old Money Wealthy Aristocrats.

Even the great capitalists of the time got richer on the backs of cheap, almost slave, labour.

No wonder there was talk of Socialism, Communism, Utopia, Vril/Thule societies, et all.

No, leave the Victorian era buried in the mud of the past.

Unless you had money and privilege, life was much tougher and certainly not very smart.

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:16 PM
Reaction time doesn't have to have anything to do with intelligence, actually it can have an opposite effect. If something isn't thought through enough mistakes, which can be costly and destructive, can be made. If a thought travels around in the brain and is properly compared to the knowledge we hold it will take more time to make a reaction. The more it whirls around the more precise the answer many times, but that should generate more questions and a need for more knowledge. I see way to many mistakes being made in society because people inappropriately think that the faster the response the more intelligent the outcome. Look around us. Look at the constant misconceptions that are made.

By drinking caffeine we can accelerate the speed of our thinking but it can make a signal go straight in one direction then any consequences are not ignored. This can form ignorance. It can also speed up the signal through the right channels also, making it more efficient. Coffee is more than just caffeine, it contains B Carbolines which help a person think deeper. This can help to alleviate the problems sometimes.

Now that I have put in the perk for coffee I can conclude my post
None of what I have said so far addresses the laziness of people. Some people will use other peoples knowledge to come to a conclusion without actually thinking if it is pertinent, a process that takes even a fast mind a second or two. This laziness comes with pride in oneself, giving oneself a pat on the back for held knowledge instead of properly assessing the situation. That last statement is the biggest downfall of mankind and one of the reasons we have not become a great race yet. Maybe someday this will change but it is not foreseeable in my lifetime.

S&F for giving me something very good to comment on

edit on 21-5-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:59 PM
reply to post by steaming

Apologies, In the above I should have wrote Isle of Wight and not the Isle of Man.

Yes, and you should have wrote it with a pen and ink, too, not on a computer.

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:07 AM
reply to post by erwalker

I fail to see what connection (understanding Latin) would have to the understanding of mathematics.

It has none. I think your poster was simply illustrating the point of the thread.

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:23 AM
reply to post by ANOK

People losing their intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. It's a completely artificial man made cultural, and social disorder.

The environments we live in now are largely artificial, no question. However, an artificial environment exerts selective pressure on its occupants just as surely as a natural one does.

This selection is natural, not artificial, because it is not intended by the creators of the environment - in fact, they don't so much create it as evolve it. Even when there is a deliberate attempt to influence health or behaviour by means of the environment – that is, some kind of 'social engineering' – the results very rarely come out as intended.

Evolution by natural selection doesn't stop just because an environment is artificial. In fact, it doesn't ever stop. We are still evolving, and we will continue to do so until we become extinct.

All the same, it is impossible to believe that any noticeable, genetically-driven change in intelligence could possibly have occurred in our species over just five generations. Victorians were no smarter than we are; neither were they, and nor are we, any smarter than any well-nourished ancestor of ours 15,000 years ago.

This is junk science, or junk science reporting at the very least. How were reaction times measured then? How are they measured now? The difference in measurement techniques alone could easily account for the difference.

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:31 AM
reply to post by rickymouse

Reaction time doesn't have to have anything to do with intelligence, actually it can have an opposite effect.

Researchers have reported medium-sized correlations between reaction time and measures of intelligence: There is thus a tendency for individuals with higher IQ to be faster on reaction time tests... Several studies have reported association between simple reaction time and intelligence of around (r=−.31), with a tendency for larger associations between choice reaction time and intelligence (r=−.49)

Mental chronometry and cognitive ability

All you had to do to prove yourself wrong was to google '"reaction time" intelligence'.

Here, go test your reaction time and see how smart you are. I already tried; I'm very stupid.

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:38 AM
reply to post by Astyanax

I decided to try the test and got a cup of coffee and lit a cigarette up and clicked on start the test. I was on question seventeen on the test before it cut me off. Maybe I shouldn't have been smoking and drinking the coffee
The strange part is the results said I completed 21 questions and had seventeen right
Maybe they need to teach that program to count right. I only did seventeen. I also took my time to make sure they were all right. I guess I am stupid also, since I wasted my time on taking that stupid test. Now I'll be thinking about how I answered twenty one questions while answering seventeen the rest of the day. I must have somehow clicked when I scrolled down at about the twenty one mark or something when I initially scanned the page.

I guess it doesn't really matter anyway, I still got the same score, seventeen right out of thirty. This judges speed and correctness at the speed. It is in no way a judge of intellect.

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in