Are we getting stoopider?

[fstratzero]

The claims debunked. The pre 1970's results are skewed by the method of measurement, and stimulus.
http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/

"His(The orginal reaction time researcher,Galton's) apparatus was described in an 1889 paper and employed a half-second pendulum, whose duration could be estimated using very basic mathematics. Its release occurred concomitantly with the concealing of a white paper disk, which functioned as the stimulus - depressing a key facilitated its capture, registering the reaction-time score."

Link to his reaction time machine.
http://galton.org/cgi-bin/searchImages/s...2_0252.htm


However it would be interesting to do the same reation time IQ test on a frog, cat, or other species to see how "smart" they are.

[bbeljefe]

(19-05-2013 07:18 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  This recent paper on intelligence compares current population and people in Victorian Age. The findings claims that our RT (reaction times to visual stimuli, an intelligence marker) have decreased.

The crux, according to the researchers, is

"The researchers claim this proves that people have grown "less clever" over time. They back up their claim by suggesting they know the reason for the decline in intelligence—smarter people having fewer children, while the less smart, have more."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-victorian-e...s.html#jCp

Looked up the paper but only the Abstract available for free and I don't want to pay $31.50...see...we're not dumberer

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...9613000470

My first question would be are they equating "less smart" to "less successful"? If the Victorian Age material only comes from test subjects that were already successful then the data is skewed. If this is the case then my take is that anecdotally this doesn't hold up. Too many brilliant minds have come from less well-to-do families.

So are we becoming less intelligent? What do you all see happening out there in the educational world?

Discuss.

PS What a great site! http://www.hub.sciverse.com/action/home/proceed

That thesis contradicts the Flynn affect, which is a demonstrable trend. So I'm going to argue against their conclusion... and here's why:

It is true that kids are being graduated from high school in a state of functional illiteracy. If I remember correctly, about 80% of graduates in New York meet that criteria. And it is true that 150 years ago, about 98% of Americans were literate, with most kids who read, reading complex books like Moby Dick.

However, intelligence isn't a measure of how much you know, it's a measure of your ability to learn. Therefore, one can be highly intelligent and not very knowledgeable at the same time. And with the example of illiterate graduates, the problem isn't that they're unintelligent, the problem is that they're not interested in learning, so they don't. This is why I argue so vociferously against public schooling.

And I agree with your assessment of the Victorian samples. It sounds to me as though this research isn't very well thought out.

[fstratzero]

http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/

134.3-234.3 ms
^ Victorian reaction time to beat

[evenheathen]

(19-05-2013 11:43 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  

(19-05-2013 07:18 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  This recent paper on intelligence compares current population and people in Victorian Age. The findings claims that our RT (reaction times to visual stimuli, an intelligence marker) have decreased.

The crux, according to the researchers, is

"The researchers claim this proves that people have grown "less clever" over time. They back up their claim by suggesting they know the reason for the decline in intelligence—smarter people having fewer children, while the less smart, have more."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-victorian-e...s.html#jCp

Looked up the paper but only the Abstract available for free and I don't want to pay $31.50...see...we're not dumberer

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...9613000470

My first question would be are they equating "less smart" to "less successful"? If the Victorian Age material only comes from test subjects that were already successful then the data is skewed. If this is the case then my take is that anecdotally this doesn't hold up. Too many brilliant minds have come from less well-to-do families.

So are we becoming less intelligent? What do you all see happening out there in the educational world?

Discuss.

PS What a great site! http://www.hub.sciverse.com/action/home/proceed

That thesis contradicts the Flynn affect, which is a demonstrable trend. So I'm going to argue against their conclusion... and here's why:

It is true that kids are being graduated from high school in a state of functional illiteracy. If I remember correctly, about 80% of graduates in New York meet that criteria. And it is true that 150 years ago, about 98% of Americans were literate, with most kids who read, reading complex books like Moby Dick.

However, intelligence isn't a measure of how much you know, it's a measure of your ability to learn. Therefore, one can be highly intelligent and not very knowledgeable at the same time. And with the example of illiterate graduates, the problem isn't that they're unintelligent, the problem is that they're not interested in learning, so they don't. This is why I argue so vociferously against public schooling.

And I agree with your assessment of the Victorian samples. It sounds to me as though this research isn't very well thought out.

This was my initial reaction. I don't think "dumb" or "stupid" are accurate words to describe what is perceived. Just different due to a completely different learning environment. Apples to oranges.

[FSM_scot]

(19-05-2013 08:57 AM)bemore Wrote:  Testing reaction times

I bet an 8 year old playing call of duty has much better reflex reactions than someone from the victorian ages.

Which leads me to my next point... our ways of life are completely different now.

This hit the nail on the head.

Because of the different lifestyles there are far to many variables for this to be a fair comparison.

[Full Circle]

(19-05-2013 10:48 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  

(19-05-2013 07:18 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  This recent paper on intelligence compares current population and people in Victorian Age. The findings claims that our RT (reaction times to visual stimuli, an intelligence marker) have decreased.

The crux, according to the researchers, is

"The researchers claim this proves that people have grown "less clever" over time. They back up their claim by suggesting they know the reason for the decline in intelligence—smarter people having fewer children, while the less smart, have more."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-victorian-e...s.html#jCp

Looked up the paper but only the Abstract available for free and I don't want to pay $31.50...see...we're not dumberer

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...9613000470

My first question would be are they equating "less smart" to "less successful"? If the Victorian Age material only comes from test subjects that were already successful then the data is skewed. If this is the case then my take is that anecdotally this doesn't hold up. Too many brilliant minds have come from less well-to-do families.

So are we becoming less intelligent? What do you all see happening out there in the educational world?

Discuss.

PS What a great site! http://www.hub.sciverse.com/action/home/proceed

I found the whole paper for free.
http://ge.tt/352reKg/v/0

You da man! Thanks.

Crap, now I have to read it...

[Full Circle]

(19-05-2013 11:33 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  The claims debunked. The pre 1970's results are skewed by the method of measurement, and stimulus.
http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/

"His(The orginal reaction time researcher,Galton's) apparatus was described in an 1889 paper and employed a half-second pendulum, whose duration could be estimated using very basic mathematics. Its release occurred concomitantly with the concealing of a white paper disk, which functioned as the stimulus - depressing a key facilitated its capture, registering the reaction-time score."

Link to his reaction time machine.
http://galton.org/cgi-bin/searchImages/s...2_0252.htm


However it would be interesting to do the same reation time IQ test on a frog, cat, or other species to see how "smart" they are.

The link you provide at the top concludes with the following:

"In conclusion, whilst Rabbitt’s criticisms are interesting, they are clearly insufficient grounds for rejecting the central claims made in our paper – namely that the secular trend in increasing simple reaction time latency is robust and translates into a decline of -1.23 IQ points per decade or -14.1 points since Victorian times."

The paper argues FOR less intelligence by the authors of the original findings in rebuttal to a Mr. Rabbitt.

[LadyJane]

When I read these articles I get this feeling of round pegs in square holes.

[KVron]

(19-05-2013 10:32 AM)DLJ Wrote:  It took me over three hours to react to the visual stimuli on this thread.

Not bad for a man of my age.

Yes.
and change your picture, you're too old for a picture like that!