Log in

View Full Version : Intelligence and Technology: they both depend on their USER


k1darkknight
05-07-2005, 10:14 AM
This post was a reply from this forum (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=341316), but I ended up saying MUCH more than fit within the confines of that particular topic (wandering though it already was...lol). That forum was about a psychiatric 'study' that found that "Email users suffered a ... drop in IQ scores". Prhitosan had mentioned that an article in "...the most recent edition of Wired {says that} the average IQ has been steadily raising due to the fact that our minds are constantly having to learn our way around new technology..."

I thought the definition of average IQ was that it = 100

aye, thats the case, but over the years they change the tests to make them more difficult. the test group takes both the old and new tests, on the old test the average was above 100, on the new one its at 100

another theory, reguarding the "increasing IQ" due to technology, & having to figure out workarounds...

I think that IQ - or intelligence - has gradually increased for MANY years, even WELL before anything resembling most modern technology. Prior to the industrial revolution, however, intelligence increased (more or less) equally, from the low end (idiots) to the high end (geniuses). In modern times, technology has enabled the more intelligent types to increase their intelligence MUCH quicker, but at the same time has caused the dumb to get dumber instead of gradually smarter. Basically, in my opinion, all technology has done is (essentially) 'separate the wheat from the chaff'.

On the other hand, as technology has gotten cheaper (relatively speaking), education (and relative intelligence) has gotten to where it depends less and less on income, social standing, or even intelligence of others. Now, an individual's intelligence depends more on the individual, than everyone else. Really, all one needs to improve one's intelligence is the will to do so. Public libraries started this trend decades ago, but the introduction of computers, and more recently the internet, makes it possible for anyONE to educate themselves on anyTHING, from (virtually) anyWHERE in the world. All one needs is the desire to do so. Show me another country where someone could go from being homeless to wealthy (and no, I don't have a specific example, that extreme, in mind), starting out with just the resources available to the general populace (in a library or otherwise)...

Can't do it?

Didn't think so!

k1darkknight aka ALWAYS learning (in the USA)

--------------------
(p.s. to avoid the flaming based on my last couple statements...I realize the same accomplishments may be possible in places like Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and other countries with similar socio-economic structures to the US, but the US was the first place that such a thing became possible to literally ANYONE who cared to try. I don't mean to imply that any of our global 'neighbors' are inferior to the US. Rather, I just mean to say that the reason the US is so great is that we basically showed everyone else how to make it possible. Anyone taking issue with any above statements will be addressed as comments warrant)
--------------------

You only stop learning when you're dead. Either literally or figuratively.

k1darkknight
05-14-2005, 10:57 PM
Annnnnnd...apparently this topic requires more 'intelligence' than many here are capable of. Either that, or no one's interested in a general technology discussion...

k1darkknight, aka (shrug)

rocky_raher
05-15-2005, 11:48 PM
This post is laden with "third rails." These days, anyone who comments on intelligence risks being branded a bigot, or worse. That said, I'm going to risk it and add my 2 cents.

I think that IQ - or intelligence - has gradually increased for MANY years, even WELL before anything resembling most modern technology. Prior to the industrial revolution, however, intelligence increased (more or less) equally, from the low end (idiots) to the high end (geniuses). In modern times, technology has enabled the more intelligent types to increase their intelligence MUCH quicker, but at the same time has caused the dumb to get dumber instead of gradually smarter. Basically, in my opinion, all technology has done is (essentially) 'separate the wheat from the chaff'.

The thoughts in this paragraph could have been expressed a little more diplomatically.
I'm not convinced that intelligence (as opposed to knowledge) can be increased or decreased. I do believe that modern society stratifies the population by intelligence. Two hundred and more years ago, anyone who had the brainpower to push a plow could get through the day as well as a supergenius could, and probably attain the same status and success in life. Today, anyone with above-average intelligence and a little drive can become a successful doctor or a lawyer. Anyone who has trouble interpreting a government form, a credit application, or a job application is at a serious disadvantage.
[Excuse me for a moment while I step over a third rail...]
This is a major theme of the book, "The Bell Curve." by Herrnstein and Murry. The authors' thesis is that modern society is being split into three strata. Those with too little intelligence to cope with modern life are being isolated and neglected, while the above-average intelligent are monopolizing power and influence. They see danger in the fact that the latter group tends to associate only with each other, and that the powerful are isolating themselves from the majority.
Of course, 100% of the press attention to that book was on one chapter, in which the authors present a case for a correlation between intelligence and race. I sincerely believe that, had that one chapter been omitted, the book would have been embraced by the same liberals who condemned it.


Show me another country where someone could go from being homeless to wealthy (and no, I don't have a specific example, that extreme, in mind), starting out with just the resources available to the general populace (in a library or otherwise)...

The example which comes to mind is J.K. Rowling, in Britain, who went from public assistance (if not actual homelessness) to being wealthier than Queen Elizabeth.

Jon Westfall
05-16-2005, 01:30 AM
The truth to this is that no one in psychology is really sure why intelligence has steadily risen. Those who endorse a static intelligence would state that our measures have just become negatively skewed so that the normal curve isn't as normal around 100 as it used to be (perhaps the whole curve has shifted...). Those that endorse a more fluid theory state that society has been changing as a whole, and tests are less valid than they used to be. Who knows, but it is fun to speculate.

Personally, I don't place too much importance on IQ. I'm more of a person who believes in multiple intelligences (Somewhat like what Gardner proposes).

SteveHoward999
05-16-2005, 03:22 AM
I think there is confusion here over intelligence (intellectual potential or capacity) and education.

The definition of intelligence preferred by groups like MENSA measures mental capacity, or agility if you will, whereas the usage of intelligence in the opening post on this thread appears centered around education.

In other words, MENSA would argue that no amount of visiting the library will effect anyone's intelligence because no amount of learning will effect it. They also will contend that any test which shows otherwise is flawed - giving too much weight to numeracy and literacy for instance, which can really only improve with education and/or practice.

Jon Westfall
05-16-2005, 04:00 AM
I think there is confusion here over intelligence (intellectual potential or capacity) and education.

The definition of intelligence preferred by groups like MENSA measures mental capacity, or agility if you will, whereas the usage of intelligence in the opening post on this thread appears centered around education.

In other words, MENSA would argue that no amount of visiting the library will effect anyone's intelligence because no amount of learning will effect it. They also will contend that any test which shows otherwise is flawed - giving too much weight to numeracy and literacy for instance, which can really only improve with education and/or practice.

Every intelligence battery I know is flawed in the sense that intelligence is not a crystalized thing, no matter how much MENSA wishes it was. Implicit learning will cause anyone to score higher on a WISC or Stanford-Binet, as both of these employ Kohs block design tasks, which a participant will get better at with practice. Education and intelligence are linked. Anyone can have higher mental capacity with sufficient training.

k1darkknight
10-09-2005, 05:52 AM
This post is laden with "third rails." These days, anyone who comments on intelligence risks being branded a bigot, or worse. That said, I'm going to risk it and add my 2 cents.
I think that IQ - or intelligence - has gradually increased for MANY years, even WELL before anything resembling most modern technology. Prior to the industrial revolution, however, intelligence increased (more or less) equally, from the low end (idiots) to the high end (geniuses). In modern times, technology has enabled the more intelligent types to increase their intelligence MUCH quicker, but at the same time has caused the dumb to get dumber instead of gradually smarter. Basically, in my opinion, all technology has done is (essentially) 'separate the wheat from the chaff'.
The thoughts in this paragraph could have been expressed a little more diplomatically.Yeah, so I've never liked 'political correctness'...besides, what's so 'correct' about politics?
(Aww, c'mon...it wasn't THAT bad!)

Today, anyone with above-average intelligence and a little drive can become a successful doctor or a lawyer.Not so sure about the lawyer requiring intelligence...lol

[Excuse me for a moment while I step over a third rail...]
This is a major theme of the book, "The Bell Curve." by Herrnstein and Murry. ...had that one chapter been omitted, the book would have been embraced by the same liberals who condemned it.
:jawdrop:
What? Liberals condemning a book? Never!
(was my sarcasm THAT obvious?)

Show me another country where someone could go from being homeless to wealthy (and no, I don't have a specific example, that extreme, in mind), starting out with just the resources available to the general populace (in a library or otherwise)...
The example which comes to mind is J.K. Rowling, in Britain, who went from public assistance (if not actual homelessness) to being wealthier than Queen Elizabeth.Okay...that's one...but we're so similar (overall, not in specifics) to the UK, that it barely counts...I guess my point was, show me a society that's significantly different from ours, where...etc.
That, and I'd had a brief surge of partriotism...don't remember exactly why, (shrugs) but I get those, from time to time...

(That, and I'll reserve my opinion of Harry Potter and his author for less...civilized conversations...lol)