NationStates Jolt Archive

...Than we have been in the history of civilization? Does our greater access to information give us a clear intellectual advantage over the people of yesteryear? Or have we actually been dumbed down?

Has our education system embraced inert ideas? Or does a broad range result in more adjusted humans?

Just as I was getting bored and ready to leave, an interesting thread shows up... nice.

I think in some respects we have been dumbed down. But if you just isolate the smartest of the smart and compare them with the smartest of the smart from a while back, nowadays would be smarter.

I don't think you can compare ... different problems, different social, economic, spiritual and scientific dynamics in play, different technology. It's comparing apples and oranges really.

I think more people have access to education today, and more people have access to information today. This by no means makes us smarter.

Of course, we do have the benefit of having access to a lot of the learnt material of past generations. Again, this doesn't make us smarter, but gives us an edge in that we can learn from others experiences.

NO! we are way dumber. Im not gonna provide, evidence, facts, or proof, becuase I dont need it. Its true, Look at it....:headbang:

NO! we are way dumber. Im not gonna provide, evidence, facts, or proof, becuase I dont need it. Its true, Look at it....:headbang:

I think you may have inadvertently just provided the proof! ;)

Perhaps not dumbed down, but certainly too specialized. Used to, people knew a little about a lot of things. You weren't just a physicist, you were also an astronomer, an artist, a mechanic, etc. Now, a scientist might be able to tell you what a quark is, but have no clue what continent Togo is on.

I think you may have inadvertently just provided the proof! ;)
He provided that proof on purpose, in a witty way, which makes him look somewhat smart, which disproves his point, which makes him look like an idiot, which ends up proving his point again....

He provided that proof on purpose, in a witty way, which makes him look somewhat smart, which disproves his point, which makes him look like an idiot, which ends up proving his point again....

Therefore, he is a genius. *head explodes*

The basic human capacity to learn has not increased or decreased as far as I can tell. But increasing access to information and ability to exchage ideas (Printing Press, Internet, etc.) have certainly made it far easier to learn and grow intellectually, at least in the first world, and increasingly in more disadvantaged places as well. However, this has been temperered by an increase in distraction brought on by modern society and technology. So I guess advancement is a double-edged sword: some who may have wound up illiterate centuries ago now have the chance to become great thinkers. Others who would have been intellectuals in a past era today are attracted more to endless hours with videogames and T.V (although imho neither is bad in moderation). In conclusion, there is no yes or no answer: Changing times affect different people differently.

Yes, people are in general smarter than they were say 100 years ago. Its called the flynn effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1569

Stupid AOL security, can't even see my own link. What does it say?

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1569

Stupid AOL security, can't even see my own link. What does it say?

Comparing apples and oranges: a randomised prospective study

James E Barone, surgeon in chief.

Stamford Hospital, Stamford, CT 06904, USA

drjbarone@stamhosp.chime.org

For many years the comparison of apples and oranges was thought to be impossible. Many authors use the analogy of the putative inability to compare apples and oranges as a means of scornfully reviewing the work of others. The titles of some recent publications 1 2 suggest an actual comparison of apples and oranges, but the authors do not, in fact, compare these two fruits. Our laboratory has been interested in this problem for many years. We attempted numerous pilot studies (unpublished data) but had not accomplished a true comparison until now. At last, successful comparison of apples and oranges has been achieved and is the subject of this report.


Methods and results
Top
Methods and results
Comment
References

We investigated many different varieties of apples and oranges in pilot studies; for this study, however, red delicious apples were compared with navel oranges. A total of 12 objects (6 apples, 6 oranges) made up the experimental population. Measurements were performed using a standard tape measure (Pseudoscientific Instruments, Lodi, NJ). Weight was recorded to the nearest tenth of a gram using a scale. Sweetness was quantified by the Licker scale (1=kind of sweet; 2=sweet; 3=very sweet; 4=really very sweet). Statistical calculations were performed using FudgeStat (Hypercrunch Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA) on an Apple Macintosh 8500 computer (Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA). No significance should be inferred from the type of computer used, nor was any bias introduced because of this. Six oranges and five apples survived the experiment. (Before the study was completed, the author's 12 year old son, Thomas, inadvertently consumed one of the objects, an apple.) Non-parametric background comparisons are shown in table 1. A striking and heretofore unappreciated similarity was noted. In only one category, that of "involvement of Johnny Appleseed," was a statistically significant difference between the two fruits found.

Subjective findings and objective data are presented in table 2. A significant difference between apples and oranges was identified only in the categories of colour and seeds.


Comment
Top
Methods and results
Comment
References

The study reported herein represents a breakthrough in the comparison of apples and oranges. These two fruits appear to have many features in common, as we noted differences in only three of 15 areas.

A Medline search found 52 publications unrelated to the actual study of fruit with the words "apples" and "oranges" in their titles; most are letters to the editor or editorials. Articles in the medical literature on the subject of apples and oranges are increasingly being published (see figure). Every one of these studies asserts that a comparison of apples and oranges is impossible. At first glance, some papers seemed to have addressedthe important topic of a real comparison of apples and oranges. Table 3 reveals the truth.



View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]


Table 1. Non-parametric background fructological information



View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]


Table 2. Subjective and objective comparison of apples and oranges



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Incidence of "apples and oranges" in the medical literature



View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]


Table 3. Actual subjects of selected papers purported to be comparisons of apples and oranges

This article, certain to become the classic in the field, clearly demonstrates that apples and oranges are not only comparable; indeed they are quite similar. The admonition "Let's not compare apples with oranges" should be replaced immediately with a more appropriate expression such as "Let's not compare walnuts with elephants" or "Let's not compare tumour necrosis factor with linguini."

Footnotes

This paper was presented in part as the presidential address at the Connecticut Society of American Board Surgeons, December 1998.

Funding: None.

Competing interests: None declared.


References
Top
Methods and results
Comment
References

1. Johnson W. Comparing apples with oranges. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 1591-1592[Free Full Text].
2. Lubarsky DA. Comparing apples to oranges. Anesth Analg 1995 Aug; 8: 428-429.
3. Cummins RO, Hazinski MF. Apples and oranges. Ann Emerg Med 1999; 33: 602-603[Medline].
4. Petty TL. Apples and oranges: flaws and guffaws. Chest 1999; 116: 1137-1138[Free Full Text].
5. Monahan CM. Comparing apples and oranges in the Plio-Pleistocene: methodological comments on meat-eating by early hominids at the FLK 22 Zinjanthropus site, Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania): an experimental approach using cut-mark data. J Hum Evol 1999; 37: 789-792[CrossRef][Medline].

Therefore, he is a genius. *head explodes*
Good point. Most idiots have a difficult time causing the human head to explode.

Others who would have been intellectuals in a past era today are attracted more to endless hours with videogames and T.V (although imho neither is bad in moderation).

What about spending too much time on NS General?

Yes, people are in general smarter than they were say 100 years ago. Its called the flynn effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

From your source:

The Flynn effect is a perplexing phenomenon for those who believe that IQ tests represent a true measure of human intelligence, as it would suggest that people today are in general considerably more intelligent than those of previous generations. Flynn himself does not believe this to be the case. It is conceivable that something about modern society is responsible, e.g the greater need for abstract thinking, presence of computers, more visually-oriented culture.

From your source:

The Flynn effect is a perplexing phenomenon for those who believe that IQ tests represent a true measure of human intelligence, as it would suggest that people today are in general considerably more intelligent than those of previous generations. Flynn himself does not believe this to be the case. It is conceivable that something about modern society is responsible, e.g the greater need for abstract thinking, presence of computers, more visually-oriented culture.

I meant smarter in that IQ has risen. Not innate, i.e. genetic, intelligence.

*snip*

Cool, thanks. Take that post #3!

Cool, thanks. Take that post #3!

Well technically if you look at the part called contrary evidence we're getting slightly stupider than we were in the late 90's. :p

What about spending too much time on NS General?
NS General is totally an intellectual presuit and, besides, I can stop anytime I want...really...I just don't want to...*Shiftyeyes*

I meant smarter in that IQ has risen. Not innate, i.e. genetic, intelligence.

Exactly. IQ is not a measure of actual human intelligence. I dont think IQ rates have a real bearing on this argument, though any statistics are welcome.

Well technically if you look at the part called contrary evidence we're getting slightly stupider than we were in the late 90's. :p

I was just attacking the apples and oranges part. I don't even know what the post says after that.

I was just attacking the apples and oranges part. I don't even know what the post says after that.

Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about the Flynn effect; not the incomprehensible apple and oranges crap. :p

I don't think people are smarter now than years before because it seems like discoveries made now in science for example are so much less fundamentally ground breaking than ones that have gone before. Like my science teacher in highschool (and Isaac Newton) used to say "we are standing on the shoulders of giants"

...Than we have been in the history of civilization? Does our greater access to information give us a clear intellectual advantage over the people of yesteryear? Or have we actually been dumbed down?

Has our education system embraced inert ideas? Or does a broad range result in more adjusted humans?


There are so many different levels of intelligence. We have more information now but do we use it wisely? Probably not. Personally I think its amazing that people survived through out the ages, the made use of the information and knowledge, tomorrow if an alien race landed on earth they probably would be smarter because they are more advanced than we are.

(finished work in 4 minutes woo hoo)