/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3094866]

/lit/, do you think young people are getting dumber?

[Anonymous No.3094869]

They've gotten lazier. Which is close enough.

[Anonymous No.3094881]

sometimes I think not, but then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXFcr6oy5dk

[Anonymous No.3094886]

>>3094881

Minaj is great. Bubblegum electropop/hip-hop done nearly to perfection. Girl can lay down a beat, catchy ass rhythms. What's there not to love?

[Anonymous No.3094892]

Statistically speaking, no. I'm more worried about moral decay, cultural polarization, sloth etc.

>>3094881
Too ~postmodern~ for you?

[Anonymous No.3094897]

>>3094892
>>3094886
>Nicki Minaj
>any year
jesus christ

[Anonymous No.3094900]

>>3094897

>excluding narratives of taste

[Anonymous No.3094902]

>>3094892
no

every age this appears to happen

there's a quote from plato or some shit about the youth going to hedonism, decay &c

wish i could dig it up for you OP but your complaint is timeless

[Anonymous No.3094903]

>>3094897
>implying I'd ever listen to her

[Anonymous No.3094907]

>>3094902
Xenophanes had a view very much like that. Bitching about society putting too much emphasis on sports and what not.

[Anonymous No.3094912]

No, majority was always dumb. The only difference is that the culture didn't idolize stupidity before, it was kind of a shameful thing.

[Anonymous No.3094916]

>>3094881
damn, this song is awesome
ahahaha
they have the sensitive guitar part combined with girl meaningfulmumblesinging that hook
and then nicki minaj just starts rapping about pussy juice and date rape

i don't see how anyone could dislike this

[Anonymous No.3094921]

>>3094902
>OP

Anyway, I realize it's a timeless complaint that seems to correlate with aging but I never said people won't survive through it, even if shit can get hectic at times (civil wars). Then again, those things always seem to contribute to the downfall of great empires or civilizations.

[Anonymous No.3094931]

I think the current generation(s?) of young people is/are smarter than the boomers, easily.

[Anonymous No.3094939]

They say this generation is the first that will have it worse than preceding generations - since the great depression.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3094940]

>>3094881
ya we were def more erudite when we watched slaves mutilate each other for fun
or watching the emperor cut off ostrich heads
or gawking at "freaks of nature"
or bear-baiting
etc etc

somewhere I read that one of the oldest surviving texts in the world is some scholar dude being all "kids these days are a bunch of shits that don't respect learning," or something like that I couldn't be bothered to remember it

[Anonymous No.3094949]

Not really. Young people 50 years ago were less intelligent now just because they didn't know as much as we do now.

[Anonymous No.3094955]

Information moves faster now than it ever has. By default young people are more intelligent than ever with almost no effort.

Expect this to continue.

[subhumａn No.3094968]

>>3094881
>P-p-p-p punch line Queen, no boxer though
>Might pull up in a Porsche, no boxster though
>Tell a hater,"Yo, don't you got cocks to blow?
>" Tell em Kangaroo Nick, I'll box a ho
>Th-sai-they said I got 5 in a possible
>Don't go against Nicki, Impossible
>I done came through with my wrist on Popsicle
>Man these hoes couldn't ball with a Tosticle
>Nigga-nigga-nigga-nigga

Thought provoking

[Anonymous No.3094972]

>>3094949
>were less intelligent now just because they didn't know as much as we do now.

looks like a retard is here and doesn't understand what intelligence is.

[Anonymous No.3094974]

>>3094955
>Information moves faster now than it ever has. By default young people are more intelligent than ever with almost no effort.

THAT ISN'T FUCKING INTELLIGENCE AND IT ISN'T KNOWLEDGE EITHER

[Anonymous No.3094981]

>>3094974
Define intelligence and knowledge then, oh wise one

[Anonymous No.3094983]

>>3094974
>>3094972
So what we're trying to discuss here is whether the pattern recognition of young people has diminished? Haha. You can't get mad about that kind of definition of intelligence in when you're discussing a topic like this.

[Anonymous No.3094993]

>>3094955
>Information moves faster now than it ever has. By default young people are more intelligent than ever with almost no effort.

what the fuck is wrong with you?

[subhumａn No.3094998]

>>3094983
it represents the externalization of knowledge. This kind of set up does not promote development of personal intellectual abilities in the same way.

So yes, diminished.

[Anonymous No.3095006]

Every generation thought the next was full of morons. Even the Greeks and Romans did. We haven't blown ourselves out of the solar system yet, so I guess we're okay.

I think we just see the next generation of people hit our age and forget that we have gotten smarter since then. It's easy to judge someone that is just like you used to be.

[Anonymous No.3095007]

>>3094998
So intelligence has been falling since, I don't know, the invention of writing? Maybe since symbolic language itself, if we want get really real here. Alright, sick.

[Anonymous No.3095044]

>exponential population increase
>exponential increase in those receiving education both per capita and absolutely
>era of capitalist super-duper-materalist hedonism
>liberal bourgeois replace aristocracy
>scientism
>why are people getting dumber

[Anonymous No.3095050]

>>3095006
and look what happened to the Greeks and Romans

[Anonymous No.3095051]

>>3095044
This, you can pretty much pin it all down to the popularization of science.

Hopefully there will be a "spiritual" zeitgeist one of these days and we can disregard physicalism.

[Anonymous No.3095070]

We have never been stupider or known less.

It is quite shameful.

[Anonymous No.3095083]

>>3095070
?

[Anonymous No.3095095]

>>3095083
exactly

[Anonymous No.3095119]

There's a quote from a guy I heard once, was quite good.

>There are two kinds of people in this world: ones who ask questions and others who answer them

[Anonymous No.3095128]

Everyone in this thread is a retard except for this guy
>>3095044

The West barely had functioning public schools until the 20th century. Before that, half the population was as dumb as a bag of rocks, while 45% had enough education to get by professionally and read a book in their spare time, while 5% carved out their own portion of plutocracy.

Chances are, your ancestors, yes, YOUR ancestors, were nothing more than potato-eating mouthbreathers barely capable of counting past 100, much less reading anything besides the Bible. Say what you want about current generations being human scum, but we're infinitely more intelligent than any that came before.

[Anonymous No.3095129]

>>3095044
Scientism really is pig disgusting. This guy is a leading theoretical physicist, yet he clearly hasn't even taken babby's first philosophy class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM

[Anonymous No.3095131]

>>3095119
stupid quote

[Anonymous No.3095140]

>>3095128
Nope, I'm a Ashkenazi Jew and all my ancestors were doing stuff that required intelligence and were manipulating the evil goy aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.3095142]

>>3095129

[Anonymous No.3095143]

>>3094866
no, people have a habit of remembering the bad things in greater detail, so of course the bad aspects of younger generations will be remembered and therefore skew the view of the older generations to see them as worse. Also generally people are referring to teenagers when they look at the younger generations, so of course they will see things that make the young generation seem horrible. Also, with the rise of the web, news and information is more readily available, and only bad news makes the headlines consistently, I'm serious, look at any newspaper/news website. The front page will be mainly bad news. This implies that everything is going to shit, and the older generation blames the younger generation, because they didn't know/think that there was that much crime/fighting going on beforehand and the younger generation is appearing just as this apparent wave of crime is appearing as well

[Anonymous No.3095146]

>>3095143
>no, people have a habit of remembering the bad things in greater detail

why

[Anonymous No.3095160]

>>3095128
>By 1900, 34 states had compulsory schooling laws, 4 of which were in the South. 30 states with compulsory schooling laws required attendance until age 14 (or higher).[44] As a result, by 1910, 72 percent of American children attended school. Half the nation's children attended one-room schools. In 1918, every state required students to complete elementary school.[45]

oh, South, was there a time when you didn't suck?

[Anonymous No.3095168]

>>3095146
several explanations:
from an evolution perspective we need to care more about the things that can harm/kill us
from the personal perspective, you generally are hit more than once by a bad thing. Say you break your arm, there is the initial breaking, which is painful, but then there is the rehabilition and surgery
there are others, google can help with those

[Anonymous No.3095178]

>>3095168
>from an evolution perspective we need to care more about the things that can harm/kill us

>evolution perspective
this needs to be made into a official fallacy

[Anonymous No.3095182]

>>3095178
>scientific facts should be fallacies

[Anonymous No.3095184]

Humans are totally awesome because our brains take longer to develop than every other animal, we don't run on instinct like most other organisms. I feel like since people are living longer now the general population is stuck in the "i am a retard please help me live" stage for longer.

[Anonymous No.3095187]

>>3095184
>we don't run on instinct like most other organisms

[Anonymous No.3095188]

>>3095129
This video is embarrassing to watch. Scientists and STEM majors are powerful calculators taped to to illiterate peasants.

[Anonymous No.3095191]

>>3095187

Oh I'm sorry did you start walking as soon as your mother shit you out?

[Anonymous No.3095192]

>>3095168
>evo psych

>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.3095194]

>>3095182
>hypothetical speculation that rarely touches biologically grounded observations
>scientific facts

[Anonymous No.3095195]

>>3095129
>everything is random
>and therefore we have free will

[BetaPictoris !NLqByHLcRc No.3095197]

>>3095182
Evo-psych is too unrefined to justify any assertions we can make.

And most biologists and anthropologists agree that the inherent male dominance and alpha male shit are just the musings of jackasses that don't bother to know the field.

[Anonymous No.3095199]

>>3095197
>And most biologists and anthropologists agree that the inherent male dominance and alpha male shit are just the musings of jackasses that don't bother to know the field

Feminists are this delusional.

[Anonymous No.3095205]

>>3095197
Human gender relations are essentially hypergamous and polgynous. Most of your ancestors were women. This is well-known. Guess why this is? Hint: It's not because all the weakest, stupidest, and least virile men are fucking a disproportionate amount of the women!

[Anonymous No.3095218]

>>3094866

yes. im a 25-year-old junior in college, surrounded by people younger than me. People my age are pretty dumb, but jesus fucking christ i met a grown man (21) who told me the last book he read willingly (i.e. not for school) was Captain Underpants. He also didnt know that the Lord of the Rings was a book before it was a movie.

[subhumａn No.3095246]

>>3095007
No. You misinterpret.

Development of Knowledge necessarily derives from application. However, once the application has built up to the point of diminishing the NEED to generate knowledge, actual understanding and complexity declines. All that is left is understanding of the sequence of events needed to keep the system moving, not actually understanding.

Just because information exists, does not mean that people are intelligent.

[subhumａn No.3095247]

>>3095246
forgetting my sage like a motherfucker these days. What has the world come to?

[Anonymous No.3095273]

>>3095205
>Guess why this is

War.

take your selfish gene bullshit somewhere else

[Anonymous No.3095274]

>>3095197

>inherent male dominance and alpha male shit are just the musings of jackasses

The entirety of human history would disagree with you.

Surely you can't be this fucking moronic?

[Anonymous No.3095279]

>>3095273
>war

for millions of years of human and hominid history

and you think nearly half of every generation of males is wiped out in prehistoric unevidenced "war"

[Anonymous No.3095280]

>>3095274
>The entirety of human history would disagree with you.

What the fuck does that even mean?

Alpha/beta male does not apply to humans and that is a fact. DEAL WITH IT

[Anonymous No.3095282]

>>3095279
What you are saying relies on the concept of the selfish gene and the selfish gene concept is bullshit and therefore what you are saying is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3095285]

>>3095280
Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women?

It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children.

Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

[Anonymous No.3095290]

>>3095280

>Alpha/beta male does not apply to humans

Lose the denial, it won't make you any less beta.

[Anonymous No.3095291]

>>3095285
Right now our field is having a lively debate about how much behavior can be explained by evolutionary theory. But if evolution explains anything at all, it explains things related to reproduction, because reproduction is at the heart of natural selection. Basically, the traits that were most effective for reproduction would be at the center of evolutionary psychology. It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences.

For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky).

[Anonymous No.3095295]

>>3095291
The huge difference in reproductive success very likely contributed to some personality differences, because different traits pointed the way to success. Women did best by minimizing risks, whereas the successful men were the ones who took chances. Ambition and competitive striving probably mattered more to male success (measured in offspring) than female. Creativity was probably more necessary, to help the individual man stand out in some way. Even the sex drive difference was relevant: For many men, there would be few chances to reproduce and so they had to be ready for every sexual opportunity. If a man said “not today, I have a headache,” he might miss his only chance.

Another crucial point. The danger of having no children is only one side of the male coin. Every child has a biological mother and father, and so if there were only half as many fathers as mothers among our ancestors, then some of those fathers had lots of children.

Look at it this way. Most women have only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen — but many fathers have had more than a few, and some men have actually had several dozen, even hundreds of kids.

In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners.

To put this in more subjective terms: When I walk around and try to look at men and women as if seeing them for the first time, it’s hard to escape the impression (sorry, guys!) that women are simply more likeable and lovable than men. (This I think explains the “WAW effect” mentioned earlier.) Men might wish to be lovable, and men can and do manage to get women to love them (so the ability is there), but men have other priorities, other motivations. For women, being lovable was the key to attracting the best mate. For men, however, it was more a matter of beating out lots of other men even to have a chance for a mate.

[Anonymous No.3095309]

>>3095050
I'm glad someone said this.

[Anonymous No.3095305]

>>3095273
>War

In modern urban societies where a 10% decrease in breeding population constitutes a "demographic catastrophe", is it still war?

Because hypergamy and polygyny are still the norm, in peacetime societies as well of course.
http://www.nber.org/public_html/confer/2008/si2008/EFABG/saint-paul.pdf
http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/erose/hypergamy_v2a_paper.pdf
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000202
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2743334
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v41/n1/abs/ng0109-8.html

[Anonymous No.3095311]

>>3095285
>>3095291
>>3095295
>>3095305
>muh good about men mra bias copypasta

go back to reddit, mra shill

[Anonymous No.3095315]

>>3095129
Hey, guys, you know who warned us pretty heavily against this kind of shit?

Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.3095318]

>>3095140
Same here, bro. Feels good, bro.

[Anonymous No.3095325]

>>3095315

[Anonymous No.3095351]

Most IQ tests say we're getting smarter. But those IQ tests are written and administered by the same organ that's telling you it's getting smarter, so what do you think?

[Anonymous No.3095354]

>>3095197
They would agree that the evidence isn't found in evo-psych, but they wouldn't argue that there is no evidence.

See: difference of male and female lip-movements in the womb

See: any boys raised to believe they were girls

See: height biases, deep-voice biases, the culture-nature dichotomy, and the manifold other biases (hand-size, strength, biological consistency).

It's undeniable that there's a difference, and how the difference is playing out is obvious. The biologists (anthropologists are a discussion for another day) are only agreeing that it's the explanations of these 'jackasses' (hormone levels, neurology, &c.), not the existence of their related phenomena (the existence of which they're agreed upon), which fall short of rigour.

[Anonymous No.3095361]

>>3095354
this just gets you off, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.3095366]

>>3095361
Please try and contain your rectal bleeding.

[Anonymous No.3095367]

>>3095280
>DEAL WITH IT
>Reading anything else in your post.
I don't think so, luvva-boy.

[Anonymous No.3095374]

>>3095366
>misogynist bias

[Anonymous No.3095406]

>>3095374

>No counter-argument except for "durr bias"

Can you be anymore of a mouth-breather?

[Anonymous No.3095417]

>>3095406
>muh rights
>fuck women
>muh rights

[Anonymous No.3095425]

>>3095417
>ctrl+f: 'rights'
>3 results
3rd is 'All trademarks and copy-rights- on this page...' at the bottom.

[Anonymous No.3095427]

>>3095406
It's a metaposter who takes issue with off-topic shitposting on /lit/ more than the content itself. He'll post lowercase "lol reddit mra" until you get asspained, to kill the thread.

If you actually want to talk about shit like this on a board whose regulars are mostly SA expatriates you gotta learn to ignore the empty posts. There are a dozen or so people here who regularly post in every single thread on the front page with their lowercase sarcastic opinion of it.

[Anonymous No.3095432]

>>3095128
Public schooling has not made people smarter, but rather gone a long way to further false consciousness. It's a means of institutionalized social control and a way to legitimize the plutocratic state post hoc by setting up a system that maintains the appearance of being meritocratic but still grants massive advantages to the bourgeoisie.

[Anonymous No.3095433]

>>3095427
well go to fucking /pol/ then you pieces of shit

[Anonymous No.3095441]

>>3095427
It's far more likely people have advanced past the mental development of a redneck and have no interest in long-winded posts consisting of pseudoscientific biotruths. People have already heard all this glib horseshit before, believe it or not.

[Anonymous No.3095449]

>>3095432

> It's a means of institutionalized social control
okay

>and a way to legitimize the plutocratic state post hoc
okay

>by setting up a system that maintains the appearance of being meritocratic
okay

>but still grants massive advantages to the bourgeoisie
okay

>Public schooling has not made people smarter
But this is wrong. Perhaps more importantly, it has absolutely nothing to do with the aforementioned correct assumptions.

[Anonymous No.3095455]

>>3095449
Damn, he nearly caught me with that. Thanks for de-constructing it.

[Anonymous No.3095459]

>>3095449
It depends on what you mean by "smart". Better at identifying their own political and socioeconomic interests? Better at understanding the world in which they live? There's a case to be made that those things have actually gotten worse, not better.

I mean if we're going solely by something as basic as literacy, math skills, or general knowledge, then we're simply buying into the same false consciousness the system has already created - we must assume it fulfilled its purpose because by its own metrics it has. We're improving lives and making you smarter!

[Anonymous No.3095477]

>>3095459
>literacy, math skills, or general knowledge

I'm not sure public school ever advertised anything more than this. Absolutely it doesn't encourage revolutionary thought, but then why would it? In addition, how is a public school to identify political and socioeconomic interests when kids come from diverse backgrounds? The socioeconomic interests of a child in poverty are a lot different from the socioeconomic interests of a child who comes from the suburbs.

[Anonymous No.3095482]

>>3094866
People's intelligence isn't regressing but I do think there's a significant rise in cynicism and egotism in young people.

Social networking/internet has engendered everyone with an ability to promote their own opinion, refine and proliferate it. It's also caused a whole generation to jealously scrutinise what's been called out over the internet and to brutalise anything that they disagree with.

Of course I don't think it helps when baby-boomers seem to be generationally obliged to criticise and denegrate them. Not only will they be pessimistic assholes, they'll also be devoid of a 'self' or of any confidence.

[Anonymous No.3095524]

>>3095050
>>3095309
What happened to them?

[Anonymous No.3095527]

>>3095477

>I'm not sure public school ever advertised anything more than this.

It didn't, but those are skills that are quite necessary to the type of capitalism practiced today.

> In addition, how is a public school to identify political and socioeconomic interests when kids come from diverse backgrounds? The socioeconomic interests of a child in poverty are a lot different from the socioeconomic interests of a child who comes from the suburbs.

I'm not strictly talking about revolutionary thought. Most people cannot even adequately manage their finances and think labor unions are some ominous vector for Stalinism and/or the Italian mob. The things education omits or downplays in its curriculum ensure media/marketing propaganda takes its place. See also the illusion of meritocracy it creates.

[Anonymous No.3095561]

No, but the main issue in modern culture is that businesses and corporations have control of most creative forms and are able to pump out crap people will enjoy with greater speed and consistency than ever before.

[Anonymous No.3095572]

I have a 6 year old nephew who doesn't know what year we are living in, that there are 12 months in a year, that there are years, that it is November. He owns a PS3 but he can't read, and his listening skills are pretty tardish - he can't perfectly repeat or mimic anything he hears, like clever illiterates. He's not completely illiterate, he knows a few adverbs, articles, a few basic pronouns and most forms of the verb "to be" and other basic verbs. I helped him out with his reading homework. He fell far behind his classmates. He's in a poor househould (my sister's) and he is a bastard who has almost no access to his father. His mother, my sister, is criminally feckless and teaches them nothing.

[Anonymous No.3095579]

>>3095572
Cont.

I asked him 'What came first: the video game, the movie, or the comic book of Batman?'

He didn't know and his answers were in this order: the video game, the movie, the comic book.

[Anonymous No.3095616]

yes, and smarter, too

[Anonymous No.3095627]

The access to information has undoubtedly rendered this generation more intelligent than the last.

[Anonymous No.3095629]

>>3095579
>>3095572

This honestly just sounds like an innately low IQ paired with little cognitive stimulation; partnered by culture that doesn't appreciate nor teach intellectualism.

It is said somewhere around 40-60% of intelligence is inherited and the rest is left to nurture. And based on his seemingly absolute lack of intuition I feel I may be correct about the moderately low IQ.

This is of course not to take a stab at someone you care about.

[Anonymous No.3095631]

>>3094931
>They say this generation is the first that will have it worse than preceding generations - since the great depression.

This. Just because we're in the situation where no one knows what model for society/economy we should try out next, doesn't mean we're giving it less thought.

[Anonymous No.3095652]

>>3095561
I agree but I also think the internet has made it so that the corporate control of culture is living on borrowed time. Note that academia is also part of this process of gatekeeping culture, however.


>>3095627
That doesn't have much to do with the public school system in itself, but I see what you mean. Simply being literate is still a boon in this process.

[Anonymous No.3095674]

>>3095482
>>3095631
are you me?

[Anonymous No.3095709]

>>3095629
Probably spot-on but I don't think much of "IQ" as a useful concept, because clearly the environment he is in and which I lightly sketched is completely anti-intellectual and even anti-pedagogical or at least hostile to education in the form of pure indifference and distracting in its technological fetishism.

[Anonymous No.3095714]

>>3095482
How are baby boomers "generationally obliged" to criticise them? Is that different from any other generation before or afterward?

As for being devoid of self, don't you think virtual reality has some pernicious effect on our generation's "self"?

[Anonymous No.3095717]

>>3095572
Mike?

[Anonymous No.3095725]

>>3095629
That comes from the oft-cited, never-read book "The Bell Curve", which snuck in that gem into a larger wash of seemingly innocuous arguments about intelligence. The authors of the Bell Curve had no citation for this "fact" that 40-60% of intelligence is inherited. Further, IQ (and g) are highly controversial. Intelligence is not a quality of the brain one can measure in material reality, as one might measure seratonin or cortisol.

[Anonymous No.3095726]

>>3095051
You are a retard, and I hope you die. #scientificillumism

Population sizes are so huge nowadays that your experiences don't mean anything.

[Anonymous No.3095727]

>>3095131
Explain.

[Anonymous No.3095729]

>>3095709
I agree, IQ scores are relativley innacurate.

I once read an article about the trend in rising IQs since the 50's. It mentioned something called screentime.

Our generation has been conditioned to learn information by scanning and not fully absorbing the concept of the material.

We value so much on good grades that we forget on learning critical thinking skills. South Korea is gonna be a disaster in the future because of this mentality

[Anonymous No.3095734]

>>3095709

Well I don't think that just because his environment is austerily anti-intellectual doesn't mean that you should disregard his likely low IQ or even regardd IQ as not useful or an unquanitifiable concept.

Getting an understanding of his intelligence, strengths and weaknesses, can help him in the future.

[Anonymous No.3095751]

>>3095725

I've never picked up the bell curve, I just have a knack for reading all things psychology. I've read that in many peer-reviewed papers, articles, book publishings. In books discussing introversion, depression, evolution, etc. Disregarding something most scholars agree on as an accurate statistic is sort of strange to see on /lit/

[Anonymous No.3095756]

>>3095734
I find "IQ" to be a pretty dry and empty formal concept with almost no useful practicality and that it has a tendency to produce statistical, cultural truths and tautologies about people's intellects.

But off topic, and I don't derive that from this particular experience as your reading of my posts seems to suggest.

Your last sentence is pretty true, but it's a platitude. Obviously helping him would require environmental changes.

[Anonymous No.3095784]

>>3095756

Well that's just it. Some IQ tests i'll accept as being rather vague, but for the most part nowadays a pschologist administered assessment can cover pretty much all aspects of intelligence. These tests are researched and perpetually developed to improve test accuracy since the early 1900s. Mounds of research are put into these things.

They correlate with many capabilities. I'e personally sat down for an hour and a half and taken one.

Maybe you could elaborate on your stance?

[Anonymous No.3095802]

>>3095784
I'm pretty sure your post doesn't criticise any specific point of my stance, or ask specifically anything about it. What in particular do you want me to develop or flesh out for you?

[Anonymous No.3095813]

>>3095802

I apologise. I can't seem to wrap my head around why you think IQ is a null concept. I think there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary (correlations on just about everything, character traits, research).

It seems you disregard it, am I wrong? Even saying it's inaccurate or incomplete seems inaccurate in 2012.

[Anonymous No.3095819]

>>3095813
I don't know where this evidence is?

Intelligence, like another poster mentioned, is not an objective or quantifiable "thing." Certain things can be quantified and then called "intelligent", but that's begging the question.

[Anonymous No.3095828]

>>3095813
Not the anon you replied to, but! It isn't without its uses, but it's not universally reliable, either. The samples used are very, very disproportionately pulled from white, western, urban middle-class people. It's just horribly skewed.

I don't disagree with you, and the theory is very solid, but its figures are flawed.

[Anonymous No.3095830]

>>3095828
Also, adding that despite the relevance of IQ, it could stand to take the Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences into account.

[Anonymous No.3095833]

>>3094866
Too often "intelligence" is just reduced to a synonym for "socially useful."

[Anonymous No.3095835]

>>3095819

It's getting late so I'm off to bed, but the evidence blatantly everywhere. There's tons of things to read, PhDs to talk to.

And we'e devised ways to test every aspect of what scientifically we consider intelligence. Sure can say you can't test wisdom or creativity, but we can test decision making and problem solving.

I can't discernably reason why you seem to want to deny facts. Either way, goodnight.

[Anonymous No.3095841]

>>3095835

We can even get an indicator of cqrystallized intelligence through testing fluid intelligence, everything correlates and matches up.

Sorry for all my typos so far, maneuvering a phone keyboard is tricky.

[Anonymous No.3095842]

>>3095714
Well there's practical evidence that's reflected in the real apprehension for boomer employers to hire young, able and competent staff. This is far more prevalent now due to media proliferation of anti-youth sentiments.

[Anonymous No.3095863]

>getting

[Anonymous No.3095893]

They're getting smarter on the average, there's just so many out there and most of them are dumb, just like it has always been.

[Anonymous No.3095918]

>>3095863
Yes, >getting.
Perhaps you took a wrong turn in your Delorean; it's 2012.

[Anonymous No.3095943]

No. People seem to have been complaining about young people getting dumber for about as long as they have been able to do so through writing, which means that either ancient societies were populaed almost exclusively by geniuses from which we have been gradually devolving or the people that say this stuff are full of shit.

[Anonymous No.3095954]

>>3095943
xckd confirmed for jew

>hurrr the more niggers the better!!! i'm so progressive!

[Anonymous No.3095960]

>>3095943
It's probably because people tend to forget how stupid they were themselves when they were young. Yesterday I found something I had read at 13 years old and nearly had a panick attack. I had no idea I was actually this dumb.

That comic is shit though, eugenics are awesome and the lower classes and their breeding really are a problem compared to earlier times, since we have eliminated most factors that would kill them.

[Anonymous No.3095967]

>>3095960
>2012
>lower classes

[Anonymous No.3095978]

>>3095954
>>3095960
/pol/? What are you doing here?

[Anonymous No.3095979]

>>3094866
yes, just look at the state of this board.

[Anonymous No.3096023]

>>3095979
>implying any conversation in the forums of Athens was ever as erudite as this

[Anonymous No.3096032]

I think we're getting smarter, it's just that we moved from the majority being uneducated dumb to the majority being pseudo-intellectual, so it's going to hurt even more for few decades before all gets fine

[Anonymous No.3096485]

It's not the average person getting dumber that concerns me, because they've always been idiots. What's worrisome is that the intelligentsia, those who are supposed to be smart, are completely failing to maintain the rigorous standards of their predecessors.

[Anonymous No.3096487]

>>3094886
My ears recoil, but my dick leans in closer

[Anonymous No.3096490]

Young people are generally stupid, as ever, simply because of the sub-culture of disesteeming learning and anything which had once been 'good'. Outside of that sub-culture young people can still be intelligent and, occasionally, interesting.

[Anonymous No.3096495]

>>3095524
A crippling financial crisis and total imperial collapse, respectively.

[Anonymous No.3096501]

>>3095751
I'd like to see these articles, papers, and books. Also, bullshit gets picked up by journalists all the time.

>According to the Today show and the Boston Globe and the American Family Association and most of what pops up when you google "kids and porn," DAD, you're three years late to this pants-shitting party. "The average age a child first views internet pornography is 11," Matt Lauer warned parents on Today seven years ago. "And those kids don't look away."

>But the alarming statistic Lauer cited—which was used to justify all sorts of proposed crackdowns on online porn—turned out to be total bullshit. Way, way back in 2005, Seth Lubove, a writer for Forbes, traced the stat back to its source. The Today show got it from the Boston Globe, the Boston Globe got it from Family Safe Media, "a small firm in Provo, Utah, [which] is in the business of scaring parents into buying software to protect their kids from internet smut." Family Safe Media got it from Internet Filter Review, a website that markets content-blocking software. Internet Filter Review got it from The Drug of the New Millennium, a self-published book about the dangers of porn addiction. Lubove tracked down the self-published author, and guess what? He couldn't recall where he got that stat.

[Anonymous No.3096508]

███░█░░█░██░███░█░░█░███░███░███
░█░░██░█░█░░░█░░██░█░░█░░░█░░██░
░█░░█░██░██░░█░░█░██░░█░░░█░░█░░
███░█░░█░█░░███░█░░█░███░░█░░███
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░███░███░███░███░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░█░░██░░█░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░█░░█░░░░░█░░█░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░█░░░███░███░░█░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░███░░███░█░█░█░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░█░░█░█░░░█░█░█░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░█░░█░██░░█░█░█░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░█░░█░█░░░█░█░█░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░███░░█░░░░█░█░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

[Anonymous No.3096510]

>>3095205
What? By definition, ~50% of my ancestors have to be female, except for cases of incest.

[Anonymous No.3096530]

>>3095572
He's 6, dumbass. 6-year-olds aren't known for their awareness of time, knowledge of pop-cultural history, or linguistic ability.
> Bullshit! At his age I had already published my first collection of poems!
Well aren't you fucking special. Just cause you're and INTJ little Einstein doesn't mean the majority of kids are or ever were like that. To suggest that this somehow proves our society is in intellectual decline is idiotic.

[Anonymous No.3096541]

>>3095967
>thinks classes don't exist
>2012

[Anonymous No.3096557]

>>3096510
50% of any single person's ancestors were female as they were male, but in the aggregate with multiple people having a single father...

[Anonymous No.3096622]

>>3096530
are you fucking kidding me, when I was 6 I was hungry for information

to be 6 and illiterate, not even knowing what year it is is definitely not normal

[Anonymous No.3096633]

I think people are becoming emotionally stupider and less adapt at social interaction, but I have absolutely no non-anecdotal evidence to support it

[Anonymous No.3097558]

>>3096622
autist detected