Idiocracy

[Ex-User (12972)]

I wrote an essay for school regarding the belief that the average human intelligence is decreasing.
Constructive criticism is appreciated.
__________________________________

Since the Victorian era, the average IQ has dropped 14 points. Therefore, I believe that people are gradually becoming dumber as time goes by. In addition, studies have shown that our brains are getting smaller and the average IQ has been decreasing for decades; modern technology plays a significant role in the decline of human intelligence as well.

In the past 10,000 to 20,000 years, our brains have shrunk about 10% of its original size. At a time when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers, we lived wild and undomesticated. However, studies have proven that “domesticated animals have smaller brains than their wild counterparts.”
This study leads to a well-known theory. It suggests that we have become domesticated over the years, much like cattle` or sheep. Another theory proposes that unless we are constantly storing information in our brains, it will only continue to shrink. Nowadays we use computers and books to store information.

Moreover, contradicting the Flynn Effect, (which proposes that the average IQ is increasing), is the belief that humanity is experiencing the complete opposite. There are quite a few theories that support this claim. One theory states that dysgenic mating has become more common and prevalent over the past few decades. In other words, this theory states that the probability of a newborn child being born with defects, learning disabilities, and mutations is increasing due to the breeding of people with low intelligence.

In addition, studies have shown that we have become lazier and more dependent on modern technology. For instance, we are approaching a time where people may never again be able to read a paper map due to the popularity of the GPS. Using Google, you can find the answer to just about anything without having to spend a moment to think about it yourself. It seems that with every new gadget of technology released, we become lazier and more dependent on it, to the point that some of us lack self-sufficience.

In conclusion to this speech- our brains have shrunk 10 percent. There’s been a documented rise in children born with defects, learning disabilities, and mutations. We’re breeding a generation that encourages dependence on technology which in turn promotes laziness and stupidity. Therefore it is only natural that the average intelligence would decrease.

 

[Seteleechete]

If you haven't already I'd source everything here using at least semi acceptable sources. Even in the case that sources aren't required. If you are doing a speech mentioning one or two well known sources can bring people over.

I'd add the part about forming societies(rather than using the more controversial "domesticated") requiring you to be less smart to survive and maybe alluding that progressing societies amplifies this. You should clarify that the you mean genetic IQ is decreasing since the Flynn effect does actually work as stated but masks this. That way you don't contradict that. You can use modern society in the recent decade as an example.

All in all I would still present your findings but tone down on the aggressive and demeaning rethoric you use. People would be more receptive that way.

 

[Hadoblado]

Set's on the money here.

Is it an essay or a speech?

The Flynn effect is an empirically validated effect. You're proposing a "belief" that "contradicts" it. This is not a strong way of arguing. If as Set assumes, you're proposing that both the Flynn effect and the idiocracy effect are real, you need to explain how they coexist (they're not mutually exclusive).

If you think that the Flynn effect is wrong, you need to explain why people have discovered the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.

Regarding brain size, it is not clear that there is a link between intelligence and brain size. Phrenology isn't accepted anymore. An elephants brain is much bigger than a human's, but who would win in a game of checkers? You need to explain and justify your assumption of brain size equating to brain efficiency.

You say in the last 10,000-20,000 years we've lost 10% of our brain mass. I don't really know much about this, but I thought that large a change would take longer. You need to reference this so people don't think you're making it up. Likewise with the other claims about studies and theories, references are very important. Without them, you fail to distinguish yourself from the students coasting by by making stuff up, and the teachers know this, even if everything you say is true.

While technology makes many things easier, how would this retroactively effect brainsize? If modern technology which prevents us having to think has only been around for let's say 100 years, how does this impact our evolution for the last 10,000-20,000?

Also, while some things are obviously made easier, a lot of things are more complicated. Comparing what the average person had to comprehend to get through life 1,000 years ago to say, navigating a complex bureaucracy or understanding Inception; you come out short. We are a global community with exposure to so many more ideas than people were back in the day. Surely keeping up with the complexity of modern civilization keeps us somewhat sharp?

I'm not trying to shut you down, but these are questions your essay/speech begs. You're approaching this as a belief (doesn't need justification), but when you're sharing it with people like this you need to approach it more like a theory with competitors. You write well, it's the form that needs work.

 

[Grayman]

I would look the number of neurons in the cerebral cortex in humans vs animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons

I have read somewhere that a higher number of synapsis can increase thought process but too much leads to autism... http://newsroom.cumc.columbia.edu/blog/2014/08/21/children-autism-extra-synapses-brain/
But it would seem that autism is caused more by the inability to remove damaged or unused connections.

Overall learning is about mapping, the creating of removal of connections in the brain. The more neurons and synapse you have the more 'data' you have to store.

I don't know if any of this can be used but I thought it might lead you into further study that might help you in your essay.

Here is some good data: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html

 

[Happy]

I strongly agree that this needs to be referenced. I understand that you're in school and that there probably isn't a strong emphasis on academic standards at the level you're at. However, I also believe it will be very helpful to you to build the habit of referencing everything you are stating - and building the habit as early as possible - especially if what you say in your user title (Wannabe Historian) is true.

So, build that reference list.
When I read a piece of academic writing, I first read the abstract, then I turn to the reference list/bibliography, then I return to the beginning of the piece and commence reading. Citation/referencing is crucial.

Also, if you're planning to do a lot of research on similar topics, I'd suggest to start using a citation software like EndNote or something to keep everything organised.

I'm not meaning to sound like a condescending dick. Just trying to help.

 

[QuickTwist]

I agree that the general population is probably getting dumber every generation, however, I do think that some people are getting smarter. You know all those fancy gadgets that you say we are becoming reliant on? Well people have to develop that technology, and that takes brains. Other than that, I'd say its not a bad paper at all.

 

[redbaron]

IQ is a standardized test, so increases and decreases don't really happen. If the average raw score increases, the new standard of 100 IQ depicts a higher level of intelligence than before.

On that note, the Flynn effect is supported by the fact that raw scores on intelligence tests are increasing over time across the board. People are scoring higher in almost every reproducible measurement of intelligent that we have.

Need sources for the apparent change in brain size.

The rise in apparent birth defects and/or mutations can also be linked to our ability to detect them. Needs more data to clarify.

Also, reliance on technology doesn't imply a lowering of intelligence so much as a changing of practical necessity. Before smartphones we needed to remember phone numbers, so we committed frequent numbers to longterm memory. Not committing these to memory isn't a function of lowered intelligence - we simply don't need to anymore.

It increases our reliance on tools, but that's not a depiction of intelligence as I see it. We learn other things in place of old. Older generations learned to write, now we learn to type. Is one motor skill more intelligent than another?

Or before where we used diaries, we now use an electronic list. Is it less intelligent to use one form of storage over another?

 

[Ex-User (12972)]

If it was a proper essay I would have included references and emphasized on the theories provided. However, it was a speech that was supposed to last 2-4 minutes long so I couldn't make it too informative.

 

[Urakro]

Cool, was the assignment handed in yet?

I always sucked at literature classes, essays and writing is the worst when put under pressure. Though I did like learning about essay structure for some reason.

I only took a quick look, and there seems to be something off with the first sentence of the conclusion. It references to one of your supporting arguments instead of summarizing the main thesis of the whole work. Though don't take my suggestion too seriously, but perhaps reworking the last paragraph. For instance:

"As modern technology continues to advance, humans will become more reliant on externalizing their mental capabilities and further the trend of becoming lazy thinkers. I'd suggest we look at how we utilize these modern tools to bring their use to more beneficial applications that enhance thinking"

Or a way that better brings it back to how the essay was started.

 

[Patch]

"In the past 10,000 to 20,000 years, our brains have shrunk about 10% of its original size."

I would love to see the source for this.

 

[ENTP lurker]

It is not true. If you look at history more throuhgly you see how everything tends to collapse or gets hindered at some point. However general trend is progression. Therefore I propose continous IQ curve with local maximas and minimas where IQ as function of time tends to increase for each period at its local extremas.

 

[Yellow]

It's true that the human brain appears to have shrunken over the last 10,000-20,000 years. However, we have no leading explanation. We may never know, because we have nothing to compare to other than general brain size (we cannot compare physical brains, as the tissue degrades so quickly). Therefore, we cannot know what parts of the brain have been more affected, or whether our tissue is being used more efficiently.

This leads to several lines of speculation based on what we do know (in order of probability as things currently stand).

1. Humans have gotten much smaller (in muscle mass, especially) over the last 20,000 years. It makes sense that our brain-to-body-mass ratio would dictate a smaller brain too. There's less to have to control. Since the muscle-control part of the brain is more primitive, it's less efficient, and likely to have taken up more mass-per-function than the higher thinking regions.

2. We may be getting dumber, though not idocracy-style. Based on what we look for in an IQ test, it's true that we've gotten much smarter over time, but there is more to mental stimulation than just knowledge and aptitude for pattern recognition. We are mostly living lives outside of a wild environment. Specifically, we no longer live as humans lived when we emerged as a species. It's possible that our lifestyle, while fact-packed, has dumbed us down in other ways, requiring less brain mass

3. We aren't just smart because we have large brains. We have more efficient brain layering in our outer cortex, giving us more to work with. Maybe this layering has become even more efficient than before.

If you think about it, the "idiocracy theory" doesn't account for a 10% loss in mass. The only one that could account for all that in such a short period is option 1, regarding our decreased body mass. It's just that a scientist made an off-the-cuff remark about Idiocracy to the wrong person, and pop-journalists ran with it.

Chances are that all three possibilities may play a part (along with factors yet to be considered) in the reduction in mass. Probably not equally, but still in some way.

..and out like a phantom

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

YELOOW
♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡

 

[ummidk]

1. Humans have gotten much smaller (in muscle mass, especially) over the last 20,000 years. It makes sense that our brain-to-body-mass ratio would dictate a smaller brain too. There's less to have to control. Since the muscle-control part of the brain is more primitive, it's less efficient, and likely to have taken up more mass-per-function than the higher thinking regions.

Has the brain to body ratio decreased, increased, or stayed the same?

 

[kjsippeljr]

Set's on the money here.

Is it an essay or a speech?

The Flynn effect is an empirically validated effect. You're proposing a "belief" that "contradicts" it. This is not a strong way of arguing. If as Set assumes, you're proposing that both the Flynn effect and the idiocracy effect are real, you need to explain how they coexist (they're not mutually exclusive).

If you think that the Flynn effect is wrong, you need to explain why people have discovered the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.

Regarding brain size, it is not clear that there is a link between intelligence and brain size. Phrenology isn't accepted anymore. An elephants brain is much bigger than a human's, but who would win in a game of checkers? You need to explain and justify your assumption of brain size equating to brain efficiency.

You say in the last 10,000-20,000 years we've lost 10% of our brain mass. I don't really know much about this, but I thought that large a change would take longer. You need to reference this so people don't think you're making it up. Likewise with the other claims about studies and theories, references are very important. Without them, you fail to distinguish yourself from the students coasting by by making stuff up, and the teachers know this, even if everything you say is true.

While technology makes many things easier, how would this retroactively effect brainsize? If modern technology which prevents us having to think has only been around for let's say 100 years, how does this impact our evolution for the last 10,000-20,000?

Also, while some things are obviously made easier, a lot of things are more complicated. Comparing what the average person had to comprehend to get through life 1,000 years ago to say, navigating a complex bureaucracy or understanding Inception; you come out short. We are a global community with exposure to so many more ideas than people were back in the day. Surely keeping up with the complexity of modern civilization keeps us somewhat sharp?

I'm not trying to shut you down, but these are questions your essay/speech begs. You're approaching this as a belief (doesn't need justification), but when you're sharing it with people like this you need to approach it more like a theory with competitors. You write well, it's the form that needs work.

I like your brain. Also, kudos to the op for even tackling such a topic.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk