7 ms·

Whenever I see something like this, I'm reminded that really smart people have always existed. We're not at some pinnacle of human intelligence (the opposite ac

by nomel 5y ago

Whenever I see something like this, I'm reminded that really smart people have always existed. We're not at some pinnacle of human intelligence (the opposite actually [1]), we're just in a different context. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Fragile_Intellect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Fragile_Intellect

chrisco255 5y ago
When I see this (a relic of the Minoan civilization), I'm reminded that civilization has undergone multiple collapses as a result of disease, war, corruption, and famine, and in the process we lose skills and technology along the way, and only re-learn them (or alternative technologies) after we enter a period of new abundance, sometimes many centuries or millenia later.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  There were way fewer large scale collapses in our history than people assume. Localized ones are plentiful, but knowledge almost always gets preserved by some distant people. Lost knowledge usually happens because it stops being useful or because it wasn't actually widespread.
- JackFr 5y ago
  Although that is one way to get out of a local minimum. David Herlihy made the argument in The Black Death and the “Transformation of the West”, that much of feudal Europe prior to the plague was caught in a Malthusian deadlock, where labor was abundant and thus cheap enough that there was no return to investment in technology or capital. It was only when labor became scarce and expensive that investments in productivity were justified.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    Several centuries before the Black Plague, the Justinian Plague accelerated the decline of the remnants of the Roman Empire and plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. In the process a lot of Roman technology and skill was lost, and the burgeoning Byzantine empire failed to reach Roman heights as a result of massive losses of human life. In addition the climate got colder as a result of volcanism and caused widespread famine. Maybe the Black Plague did shake up things in what we retrospectively look at as good outcomes, but it happened at the tail end of a long period of malaise.
Manuel_D 5y ago
This hypothesis is contested. Average IQ results have gone up generation by generation. While IQ tests aren't a straightforward intelligence measure, it's at least a result based on data rather than conjecture.
- ummonk 5y ago
  The specific book linked in the grandparent’s post seems to be some silly pop science claim that human intelligence peaked a few thousand years ago when most humans were hunter gatherers, and subsequently declined. I believe you’re talking about the Flynn effect of rising IQs in the past several decades, which might have actually leveled off recently (or even reversed slightly) in developed countries.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  This doesn't really make sense as a long term trend though. If I recall correctly the Flynn Effect is something like 3 points a decade, so people born ten decades were retarded by today's standards? If you look at older literature or school tests from the 19th century or similar it doesn't seem like people one hundred years ago were dumber than modern humans.
  - SamPatt 5y ago
    Consider that the survivorship bias might be in play here. The writings / workbooks you see may have been from / for the brighter students, whereas the average may not have much work which remains today.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      It's not just the writings or workbooks that exist, but also the things that people read. For example, in his day, Mark Twain was a massively popular author. Were retarded people (projecting the Flynn Effect backwards) enjoying great literature? Seems implausible to me. If the average intellect at the time were relatively much reduced compared to the modern intellect I would expect the public to prefer simpler literature.
after_care 5y ago
> the opposite actually [1] This is a much more controversial view than as suggested in the comment -- specifically there is very little data backing up the hypothesis that intelligence is decreasing. This is compounded by the fact that we really don't have great tools for measuring intelligence or a deep understanding of how it develops and manifests in humans. IMO the jury is still out on the general direction human intelligence is moving, but realistically if you are concerned the best thing you can do is improve environmental factors and educational access.
- dclowd9901 5y ago
  There is 1) survival of the fittest and 2) random genetic mutation. To accept the theory of revolution, we accept these two premises. Without fitness being an aspect of survival, I’m curious what counter arguments there are out there to the position that we really are always getting dumber. I’ll avoid the easy target of anecdotal evidence.
  - after_care 5y ago
    1. IQ tests are actually showing higher scores over time. About 90 years of data on this. 2. We do not have genetic data to show that these mutations are happening. This is theory only without empirical data. 3. There's a lot of debate over the role of genetics and intelligence. It's very possible that our understanding and implementation of childhood development has a larger impact on intelligence than these presumed random mutations. 4. Intelligent people are more likely to pair with other intelligent people, so maybe there is still selection effect for intelligence. This effect could be increases as world travel means a greater geographic range for potential mates.
    - kovek 5y ago
      > It's very possible that our understanding and implementation of childhood development has a larger impact on intelligence than these presumed random mutations. Bones from burial sites of past hunter-gatherer societies are associated with larger jaws and mouths, while bones retrieved from former farming cultures have decreased jaw size. [0] I believe jaw development has effects on mental health. Thus, I think our non-genetic changes do happen to affect our mental capabilities. There must be other factors than jaw size that do so. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_jaw_shrinkage?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_jaw_shrinkage?wprov=sfti...
holoduke 5y ago
I don't believe that. First because we are we are with larger numbers, so more absolute numbers of smart people. Second. We have never lived so rich, free and well fed as today.
- nomel 5y ago
  > Second. We have never lived so rich, free and well fed as today. And this is the proposed driving factors for that supposed reducing intelligence.
nsajko 5y ago
It seems that intellect is actually being selected against today, i.e. smart people have less children and (importantly) have them later in life: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1600398113 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1600398113 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1612113114 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1612113114
- bloak 5y ago
  Yes. The topic is somewhat taboo, but The Economist wasn't scared of mentioning it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17303693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17303693 (I don't think it's something we should worry about, though: humanity has far more pressing and serious problems to deal with.)
throwawaycities 5y ago
> Whenever I see something like this, I'm reminded that really smart people have always existed. No doubt, but the person(s) that produced this carving don’t have to be smart, just skilled artisans/craftsman.
mejutoco 5y ago
This is I personal favourite topic of mine. If you share this interest, you might enjoy this resource at the SEP. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/#CriDocPro https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/#CriDocPro

by nomel 5y ago

chrisco255 5y ago

When I see this (a relic of the Minoan civilization), I'm reminded that civilization has undergone multiple collapses as a result of disease, war, corruption, and famine, and in the process we lose skills and technology along the way, and only re-learn them (or alternative technologies) after we enter a period of new abundance, sometimes many centuries or millenia later.

marcosdumay 5y ago
There were way fewer large scale collapses in our history than people assume. Localized ones are plentiful, but knowledge almost always gets preserved by some distant people. Lost knowledge usually happens because it stops being useful or because it wasn't actually widespread.
JackFr 5y ago
Although that is one way to get out of a local minimum. David Herlihy made the argument in The Black Death and the “Transformation of the West”, that much of feudal Europe prior to the plague was caught in a Malthusian deadlock, where labor was abundant and thus cheap enough that there was no return to investment in technology or capital. It was only when labor became scarce and expensive that investments in productivity were justified.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Several centuries before the Black Plague, the Justinian Plague accelerated the decline of the remnants of the Roman Empire and plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. In the process a lot of Roman technology and skill was lost, and the burgeoning Byzantine empire failed to reach Roman heights as a result of massive losses of human life. In addition the climate got colder as a result of volcanism and caused widespread famine. Maybe the Black Plague did shake up things in what we retrospectively look at as good outcomes, but it happened at the tail end of a long period of malaise.

Manuel_D 5y ago

This hypothesis is contested. Average IQ results have gone up generation by generation. While IQ tests aren't a straightforward intelligence measure, it's at least a result based on data rather than conjecture.

ummonk 5y ago
The specific book linked in the grandparent’s post seems to be some silly pop science claim that human intelligence peaked a few thousand years ago when most humans were hunter gatherers, and subsequently declined. I believe you’re talking about the Flynn effect of rising IQs in the past several decades, which might have actually leveled off recently (or even reversed slightly) in developed countries.
ALittleLight 5y ago
This doesn't really make sense as a long term trend though. If I recall correctly the Flynn Effect is something like 3 points a decade, so people born ten decades were retarded by today's standards? If you look at older literature or school tests from the 19th century or similar it doesn't seem like people one hundred years ago were dumber than modern humans.
- SamPatt 5y ago
  Consider that the survivorship bias might be in play here. The writings / workbooks you see may have been from / for the brighter students, whereas the average may not have much work which remains today.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    It's not just the writings or workbooks that exist, but also the things that people read. For example, in his day, Mark Twain was a massively popular author. Were retarded people (projecting the Flynn Effect backwards) enjoying great literature? Seems implausible to me. If the average intellect at the time were relatively much reduced compared to the modern intellect I would expect the public to prefer simpler literature.

after_care 5y ago

> the opposite actually [1] This is a much more controversial view than as suggested in the comment -- specifically there is very little data backing up the hypothesis that intelligence is decreasing. This is compounded by the fact that we really don't have great tools for measuring intelligence or a deep understanding of how it develops and manifests in humans. IMO the jury is still out on the general direction human intelligence is moving, but realistically if you are concerned the best thing you can do is improve environmental factors and educational access.

dclowd9901 5y ago
There is 1) survival of the fittest and 2) random genetic mutation. To accept the theory of revolution, we accept these two premises. Without fitness being an aspect of survival, I’m curious what counter arguments there are out there to the position that we really are always getting dumber. I’ll avoid the easy target of anecdotal evidence.
- after_care 5y ago
  1. IQ tests are actually showing higher scores over time. About 90 years of data on this. 2. We do not have genetic data to show that these mutations are happening. This is theory only without empirical data. 3. There's a lot of debate over the role of genetics and intelligence. It's very possible that our understanding and implementation of childhood development has a larger impact on intelligence than these presumed random mutations. 4. Intelligent people are more likely to pair with other intelligent people, so maybe there is still selection effect for intelligence. This effect could be increases as world travel means a greater geographic range for potential mates.
  - kovek 5y ago
    > It's very possible that our understanding and implementation of childhood development has a larger impact on intelligence than these presumed random mutations. Bones from burial sites of past hunter-gatherer societies are associated with larger jaws and mouths, while bones retrieved from former farming cultures have decreased jaw size. [0] I believe jaw development has effects on mental health. Thus, I think our non-genetic changes do happen to affect our mental capabilities. There must be other factors than jaw size that do so. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_jaw_shrinkage?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_jaw_shrinkage?wprov=sfti...

holoduke 5y ago

I don't believe that. First because we are we are with larger numbers, so more absolute numbers of smart people. Second. We have never lived so rich, free and well fed as today.

nomel 5y ago
> Second. We have never lived so rich, free and well fed as today. And this is the proposed driving factors for that supposed reducing intelligence.

nsajko 5y ago

It seems that intellect is actually being selected against today, i.e. smart people have less children and (importantly) have them later in life: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1600398113 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1600398113 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1612113114 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1612113114

bloak 5y ago
Yes. The topic is somewhat taboo, but The Economist wasn't scared of mentioning it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17303693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17303693 (I don't think it's something we should worry about, though: humanity has far more pressing and serious problems to deal with.)

throwawaycities 5y ago

> Whenever I see something like this, I'm reminded that really smart people have always existed. No doubt, but the person(s) that produced this carving don’t have to be smart, just skilled artisans/craftsman.

mejutoco 5y ago

This is I personal favourite topic of mine. If you share this interest, you might enjoy this resource at the SEP. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/#CriDocPro https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/#CriDocPro