We're being outnumbered

[RGClark]

That's ridiculous. IQ tests measure proficiency at taking IQ tests, nothing more. The entire idea of a unified "intelligence unit" is laughable.

I agree that the entire concept of human intelligence can not be measured by IQ tests. But they do measure something important. For instance they measure pretty much the same thing as the SAT exams. While some believe there is an over reliance on the SAT's in college admissions, few people would say they are unimportant and tell nothing about the students abilities.


Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------

What type of problems though? I would wager that, if you present someone with an IQ of 75 and a person of IQ 175 a problem having to do with a non-functioning car, the person of IQ 75 would be able to identify it more quickly. I'm not saying that 'stupider' people tend to be better with automotive problems, or that those problems are 'below' higher IQs, it just seems to be more likely for that to happen. My hypothesis is that those with lower IQs don't tend to study academic material, and instead use the time that the person with the 'genius' IQ would spend studying, to learn about other things, in this case cars. Of course, anyone can enjoy cars regardless of intelligence, but when you aren't preoccupied with your 'genius' studies you have more time to do so.
Of course, if the problem was something else, perhaps finding the area bounded by a curve or some-such, yes, it is true that the IQ of 175 would be more likely to solve the problem with ease. Does this mean they are smarter? Academically, perhaps, but functionally? I'm afraid not. Knowing trigonometry well is not going to get you to work in the morning if your car has broken down. It is too often that people consider academic aptitude as the sole qualifier for intelligence.

Very good points. I'm pretty sure there is some kind of exam that measures mechanical aptitude. My guess is but don't know for sure is that this would not necessarily be correlated with IQ. It would be really interesting to find out if this kind of intelligence is also showing an increasing trend over the years.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

The most reliable test: Drop a football on a busy corridor and watch how the people react to it.

 

[fireballs619]

Yeah and this is how it started with the jews in germany back in WW2. They were portrayed as inferior to mankind and like RATS in a sewer. Should all people believed to be Stupid,ignorant,mentally challenged be put in a concentration camp? Because the people that "THINK" the are smart say so? And of course I have yelled at the driver in front of me in traffic and called him stupid among other things,BUT, that don't make it right nor does it legitimize this thread.

I would like to point out that although the discussion in the thread has since turned away from genocide, discrimination against the 'stupid' still persists in many of the world's education systems. Not as drastic as putting them in a concentration camps, but having special 'remedial' classes for those of lower ability tends to hurt them more than help them. Why are they in these classes? Because the 'smart' administration at the school say so.

 

[garyw]

having special 'remedial' classes for those of lower ability tends to hurt them more than help them. Why are they in these classes? Because the 'smart' administration at the school say so.

I have to agree and disagree :lol:

in some cases, yes remedial classes are a terrible idea but they helped me when I started out at school. I never have been good at math and I was falling all the tests in maths so I was put into a 'special' class and it really worked out for me. There was 12 or so in the class (instead of the normal 30), it was with kids who wanted to learn but didn't pick it up things as quickly as others and it was a great class.

Yes, there was a stigma associated with it and the other kids were pretty much idiots about it but we were all young and stuff happens.

On the subject of intelligence, with the exception of certain mental handicaps EVERYONE is intelligent and EVERYONE is dumb.

Come to where I work. I'll put you in front of a server with a typical 'fix it' support ticket. You will fail and I won't - why? Am I more intelligent than you? No but I know the systems, the likely problems. Depending on the person or team who has the problem I can infer more data than just whats in the ticket. Experience allows this.

Now, swap roles and I'll be the dumb one.

As has been pointed out - intelligence can lead to arrogance which can lead to stupidity. It's inherient in all of us. If you think you are more intelligent than some one else just stop and think of all the things they can do and you can't - are you really more intelligent than them or just skilled in different areas?

 

[T.Neo]

One day, not long from now (in geological terms), our population will be counted in trillions,

Our population will soon be in the trillions, only after we are all extinct.

But the whole "overpopulation" argument does have an interesting parallel with the "idiocracy is becoming real" concept. And that's one to do with "nurtured stupidity".

And by that I mean, the people who shy away from your traditional "book smart" archetype, and (generally, anyway) become interested in cars, clothes, music, and the opposite sex. In that case, yes, such people are more likely to have children at a young age, and have many children.

But that doesn't mean that they're "stupid" and they'll pass their "stupid gene" onto their kids, who will then also be "stupid". Indeed, their personal traits which make them shy away from academic pursuits in the first place need not be genetic at all- they could be influenced by early childhood experiences, or strong perceptions of certain things while growing up.

But "nutured stupidity" may in itself reproduce- not as people, but as ideas. If it's cool to be a hipster who has sexual exploits with as many people as possible, then people will flock to that sort of cliche to fit in (another annoying human trait, it seems); even if they are people who would potentially follow more academic pursuits otherwise.

Everyone can understand fast cars and short skirts, but when some scientists is talking about things like hawking decay, or particle colliders, or orbital physics... people aren't necessarily going to understand a lot of the concepts he's putting forth (consciously or unconsciously), and it can become... intimidating.

The other thing that tends to happen, is that things probably aren't as bad as you think. Each generation has been "going down the drain", when compared to the last generation. The 1960s didn't have Jersey Shore, sure- but it did have a lot of things that annoyed the previous generation.

Then again, there's a difference between "new" and "stupid", and there's a threshold beyond which an amount of stupidity is not sustainable. But there's no reason to assume that because stupidity exists, everyone is stupid. I believe there was a Gandhi quote or similar that states something about oceans of humanity and drops of stupidity... or something like that.

On the other hand, the "have many kids" might not be that stupid a life-strategy, in some cases at least. In undeveloped nations where birthrate is high, people might have more children to make up for bad child mortality rates, to (eventually) assist or support them, or some absolute worst cases, to attract welfare benefits. In that case, the people are not 'stupid', but their situation most definitely is.