Are we (as a species) becoming too stupid to survive on our own?

[Slytovhand]

I dunno about some of these arguments.

I'm inclined to think (which is part of the point) that with the advances in technology, we're letting that technology take over too much - like thinking!

I'm relatively good at math - in my head (when it doesn't break). I can do simple math problems easily enough, but I know far to many people who 'can't' - in quotes, cos they can if they really want to! No, I'm not talking having particular and specific issues, but just in general.

People are becoming stupider, because they don't need to think as much... too many schools and tertiary education places are placing more emphasis on money, or just in passing people, than they used to. Having a degree used to really mean something - any degree - even Arts! Now, because a degree is less prestige, and they're much easier to get into, they have also been dumbed down (in some places). For instance, when I did my degree, at the first university I was at, I was getting 80% which would give me a Credit (below Distinction and High Distinction). At the second university, 80% was a First Class Honours mark... the highest they gave.

So, it's getting easier to be or remain dumb!

Look at the threads we have on such subjects... people who never have to face the consequences of their actions when they fail, 'failure' as a word is getting phased out, everyone is getting all these chances.... success now doesn't take much effort, and you get multiple chances at it anyway. Your mechanic may have scraped through on the third go, or may be absolutely brilliant - but the piece of paper will never show that like it used to! (well, for some things, at any rate - in Australia, we went from a grading system to competency based training - so instead of Very High, High etc, it went to Competent and Not Yet Competent).

[Boozy]

For instance, when I did my degree, at the first university I was at, I was getting 80% which would give me a Credit (below Distinction and High Distinction). At the second university, 80% was a First Class Honours mark... the highest they gave.

So, it's getting easier to be or remain dumb!

So you're drawing the conclusion that the entirety of humanity is getting dumber based on your experiences with the grading systems at a few universities?

I disagree with the process that led you to that conclusion.

[joe hx]

Back in caveman days, the stupid got eaten by sabre toothed tigers and speared by wooly mammoths and no-one lifted a finger to try and save them.

You remember?

Yes there are more stupid people know. But in order for them to survive, it seems that they have to rely on something... or someone... and that someone is smart people!! (yea for bad grammar)

As long as we don't start watering our crops with gatorade, I think we're safe.

[jackfaire]

As long as we don't start watering our crops with gatorade, I think we're safe.

Even then as long as we can find a working time machine we are good.

[Slytovhand]

So you're drawing the conclusion that the entirety of humanity is getting dumber based on your experiences with the grading systems at a few universities?

I disagree with the process that led you to that conclusion.

Way cool! A post with over 300 words gets reduced to a mere 50 - starting with 'For instance', and that becomes the be all and end all of my argument.....

[Lace Neil Singer]

You remember?

It was a form of speech. It's only in recent times that we're making all sorts of laws and rules to save the stupid, such as warnings about bags of mixed nuts containing nuts. Back in the old days, it was survival of the fittest, now it's save the stupid.

[Boozy]

Way cool! A post with over 300 words gets reduced to a mere 50 - starting with 'For instance', and that becomes the be all and end all of my argument.....

If that's not the entirety of your argument, then I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. I didn't see any other evidence offered in your post -- only conjecture.

[XiaoTortuga]

Way cool! A post with over 300 words gets reduced to a mere 50 - starting with 'For instance', and that becomes the be all and end all of my argument.....

Since you require an in depth analysis of every aspect of your post in order to value the response, I will try to match or even exceed your 300+ words.

1. Is being able to do math in your head a sign of being smart? How much math? I know people who can do extensive and complex math problems in their heads. Are you dumb because you cannot? Maybe not. You didn't actually say anything beyond you can do simple math and people don't because they choose not to. Okay.

2. I take many issues with what you put forward in the paragraph about the educational system.
a. I do not agree that formal education has any correlation to being smart. Formal education has to do with learning style, opportunity, goals, and many other factors. Attending or not attending school has no bearing on whether you are smart or not.
b. In order to discuss the purported decline in academic standards, you have to look at the historical context of educational systems and their purpose and then compare that to what is prevalent today.
"The characteristic conviction of the school promoters was that mass schooling could be an effective instrument for instilling appropriate modes of thought and behaviour into children; in their minds, the purpose of mass schooling did not primarily involve the acquisition of academic knowledge. School systems were designed to solve a wide variety of problems ranging from crime to poverty, and from idleness to vagrancy. "
(from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...=A1ARTA0002538, which is in agreement with what I have heard numerous scholars of formal education say.)
I would argue that to a large extent this is still the purpose of educational system, to create appropriate citizens, not to create academically brilliant individuals.
c. The historical context of higher education was racist and sexist and generally prejudicial to anyone who was not a privileged white male (and yes, my knowledge on this topic comes from North America and Europe mostly). In recognizing that all those are people are not inherently stupid, schools had to restructure how they admit students, as well as how students are taught and evaluated. Having to allow a diversity of students in the classroom creates a different environment and some times can slow down or change the academic progress of the students.
d. I feel that the comparison of two universities you personally experienced is anecdotal at best and quite insufficient to draw any conclusions.
e. The quality of education varies from institution to institution, from field to field, and from teacher to teacher. Getting 100% in an Introduction to Anthropology course is quite easier than getting 100% in Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, at least for someone with my academic strengths and weaknesses.

3. I quite agree that children are more and more being taught that they can't fail, both in schools and at home. Everyone fails eventually. Most of us many times. This has nothing to do with being smart or not, but rather with a hyper-focus on self-esteem that I feel is quite destructive, but that is another topic for another day.
A piece of paper cannot, and never has, indicated whether someone is a good mechanic, lawyer, doctor, teacher, physicist, etc. It merely indicates that you managed to get through an academic experience. Aside from someone's actually work, to get an idea of their actual competence you would have to evaluate their performance in each class, each assignment, and determine what each class was worth as far as actual ability and then look at the person's performance. Nobody wants to do that, even if they could. A piece of paper means you have the ability to go through the process and therefore may be able to complete the processes of your employment with some ability.
There have always been incompetent doctors who got through medical school. There have always been brilliant scientists who had minimal schooling.


Now a general commentary on the original topic, are people becoming too stupid to survive on their own?
People have always been too stupid to survive on their own. Communities were developed to help increase the chances of survival. People survived before fire, before stone, and later metal, weapons, and on and on. When these new technologies came around they made life easier, safer, more efficient, and so on. Do we lament the fact that we generally no longer have the ability to catch fish with our bare hands or start fires with just two stones (and of course some flammable material)? I generally don't hear that. And why should we? Nets, fishing rods, matches, lighters... none of these things are going away. But I would say we are "stupider" in that we no longer have the knowledge or skill to do those things.

However, I do look around at my fellow human beings and wonder just how anybody survives given the apparent absence of any functioning brain cells.