Is humanity getting dumber as technology "advances"?

[CodeBlaMeVi]

First, understand what technology is for. Technology is to make an activity more efficient. It isn't meant to educate.

However, with the technological advances, you'd think the world would be filled geniuses. It isn't. Why not? My hypothesis is the pleasures of life are easily accessible. We're indulging in our vices more than ever.

 

[Still Benefited]

the whole of humanity is probably getting dumber, but pockets of humanity are also smarter than ever.

Id say the dumb are getting dumber,and the smart are getting smarter.....and of course the rich are getting richer as the poor get poorer.

The dumb are getting dumber in all the areas we should be smarter in,by design of course

 

[SubZero]

You pose a question and open up the forum for discussion yet you cannot even properly define the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Do you subscribe to the theory of multiple intelligences?

Spatial Intelligence
Musical-Rhytmic Intelligence
Interpersonal Intelligence
Verbal Intelligence
Logical Mathematical Intelligence
Naturalistic Intelligence
Intrapersonal Intelligence
Existential Intelligence
Bodily Kinesthetic Intelligence

You could make the argument that somethings such as interpersonal intelligence has taken a nosedive in the advent of social media and smart phones, but on the flipside you could say that naturalistic and kinesthetic intelligence have only seen improvements due to technological advancement.

In addition to that, where would you place logical mathematical intelligence on that spectrum. We continue to make innovations in those fields, i would be interested to see where you place that.

However you seem to be getting offended at my suggestion that you should define what you are talking about before asking other people to opine.

You seem sensitive, which is completely unnecessary to this conversation

I posted my musings there, albeit there have been tons of scientific researches that show how the peak of human intelligence is the Victorian era (Eurocentric as it may be). However, rather than post your opinions like the rest - you posted a condescending post asking me to define intelligence and other things. The body of what I posted wasn't even centred around intelligence per se but you just wanted to act like the smartest in the room. I ignored it. Then you posted another condescending snide attack about how threads like this one make people dumber, without positing anything cerebral.

At least, if you think you're "Mr. Know-it-all", you'll show your immaculate brain matter by picking what I posted apart, especially if you think you can't be a part of the normal discourse like everyone else. Musings are there to be discussed and I never said my opinion is the gospel truth, hence there's a question mark at the end - to create room for differing opinions. I'm not sensitive - I just called you out on your BS. Everyone is here to learn and exchange ideas. And education is a continuous process because you can't know it all.

That said, you're making my point for me with how you defined intelligence which is mostly measured based on intellectual curiosity and critical think skills than the unnecessary way we've complicated the simple term. No matter how you compartmentalize, slice, dice, add, and subtract it - it doesn't negate the fact that it's based on two components: intellectual curiosity and critical thinking.

A lot of the things we see as innovation in this era are things that make our lives much more complex, while denying us the simplicity that our existence is about. And the harder we try, the more we keep destroying the societal order that has kept humanity intact for a long time, and the less happy we've become.

Now, the best way to judge ingenuity is doing a comparative analysis of the peak of our era vis-a-vis the peak of the other eras. When you do that, you'd see that we still can't measure up, hence we are still heavily dependent on everything they left behind and there are some landmarks we're yet to reach. Yes, we might be bigger and stronger...but we are definitely not smarter.

Regardless, I don't have a problem with you but I do take offence to when people get condescending unprovoked. Respect has to be reciprocal.

 

[Black Sinatra]

1. People were getting dumber with the saturation of "entertainment" over time.
- Technology has provided newer, faster, and varieties of entertainment mediums
2. The hideous aspect of it is more in the misuse of technology over just using it as a speed feed time waster.
- FB is largly used for simping, trolling, and electronic small talk. Where as it could be used for aggregation of people, causes, and efforts. It has recently, but it's faddish.

3. The internet is not a new tech. It alone should have solved or halted a steep nose dive in intellectualism among modern populations. It hasn't, because people google stupid shyt.

Its like using a lightsaber as a cigarette lighter.

 

[Emoryal]

Nope.

 

[Gold]

I don't have a problem with you but I do take offence to when people get condescending unprovoked. Respect has to be reciprocal.

I'm working on it

I posted my musings there, albeit there have been tons of scientific researches that show how the peak of human intelligence is the Victorian era (Eurocentric as it may be). However, rather than post your opinions like the rest - you posted a condescending post asking me to define intelligence and other things. The body of what I posted wasn't even centred around intelligence per se but you just wanted to act like the smartest in the room. I ignored it. Then you posted another condescending snide attack about how threads like this one make people dumber, without positing anything cerebral.

I just felt your topic was a little too sensational and would be completely impossible to cover properly.

At least, if you think you're "Mr. Know-it-all", you'll show your immaculate brain matter by picking what I posted apart, especially if you think you can't be a part of the normal discourse like everyone else. Musings are there to be discussed and I never said my opinion is the gospel truth, hence there's a question mark at the end - to create room for differing opinions. I'm not sensitive - I just called you out on your BS. Everyone is here to learn and exchange ideas. And education is a continuous process because you can't know it all.

I actually don't disagree with your premise (in some respects at least). I just purposefully wanted to be contrarian in this thread because I didn't like your title.

That said, you're making my point for me with how you defined intelligence which is mostly measured based on intellectual curiosity and critical think skills than the unnecessary way we've complicated the simple term. No matter how you compartmentalize, slice, dice, add, and subtract it - it doesn't negate the fact that it's based on two components: intellectual curiosity and critical thinking.

Hmm I think that's somewhat debatable, and I would offer Kinesthetic and Musical intelligence as my counterpoints. However I think that innovations in all fields of technology are certifiably based on intellectual curiosity and critical thinking.

A lot of the things we see as innovation in this era are things that make our lives much more complex, while denying us the simplicity that our existence is about. And the harder we try, the more we keep destroying the societal order that has kept humanity intact for a long time, and the less happy we've become.

There's your thesis statement right there ^

I wanna come back to this after this post because I want to play devils advocate some more.

Now, the best way to judge ingenuity is doing a comparative analysis of the peak of our era vis-a-vis the peak of the other eras. When you do that, you'd see that we still can't measure up, hence we are still heavily dependent on everything they left behind and there are some landmarks we're yet to reach. Yes, we might be bigger and stronger...but we are definitely not smarter.

And this is where we butt heads.
In what ways?

But going back to what you wrote above, now that i'm done being a condescending a$$hole , what do you see as the next stage of human societal evolution? I'm only asking because I think it loops back into to what this thread is about.

What societal period would be more "intelligent", The Pax Romana, or the Renaissance, or maybe the Industrial boom of WW2?

I know this isn't the direction your thread is going, but it would make a great spin thread if you decide to make it

I promise i wont be an ass in it

 

[SubZero]

I'm working on it

I just felt your topic was a little too sensational and would be completely impossible to cover properly.

I actually don't disagree with your premise (in some respects at least). I just purposefully wanted to be contrarian in this thread because I didn't like your title.

Hmm I think that's somewhat debatable, and I would offer Kinesthetic and Musical intelligence as my counterpoints. However I think that innovations in all fields of technology are certifiably based on intellectual curiosity and critical thinking.

There's your thesis statement right there ^

I wanna come back to this after this post because I want to play devils advocate some more.

And this is where we butt heads.
In what ways?

But going back to what you wrote above, now that i'm done being a condescending a$$hole , what do you see as the next stage of human societal evolution? I'm only asking because I think it loops back into to what this thread is about.

What societal period would be more "intelligent", The Pax Romana, or the Renaissance, or maybe the Industrial boom of WW2?

I know this isn't the direction your thread is going, but it would make a great spin thread if you decide to make it

I promise i wont be an ass in it

I'm mobile and I'll number my rebuttals to make the post clearer, since I won't be about to use the structural quoting style effectively. And I'll say I find the contrarian approach to things refreshing and I believe eccentricity is a great quality. However, there are ways to go about it without being condescending. Also, I apologize for my outburst...my rules of engagement are based on Netwon's third law which is about: equal and opposite reaction to every action.

1). There's nothing sensational about the topic since I didn't make a declaration and I did leave room for differing opinions by adding a question mark at the end of the header. Those are my musings and there are scientific researches that add credence to everything I posited. However, I do know that opinions aren't finite, unless they become laws.

2). For kinesthetic and musical intelligence to thrive, you need intellectual curiosity because the curiosity deals with the desire, while the cerebrum part of the brain which deals with intellect also controls body movement and the discernment needed to get in rhythm with music. The only thing debatable is the application of critical thinking which is needed most of the time no matter how you slice it.

3). To go by our current civilization (western civilization), I think the peak was the Victorian era. And the decline started as we moved into the 20th century. We fought two devastating world wars after that and I don't think we made any progression whatsoever, apart from being cognizant with the essence of territorial integrity. The end of world war 2 just ushered an era of capitalism shrouded in materialism/consumerism but I don't think we evolved. That's just my opinion.

Perhaps, I'll do that another time and hopefully a lot if people will contribute. And once again, I didn't set out to be disrespectful and I do apologize for what I said.

 

[SubZero]

Let me quickly corroborate my opinion with an interesting example since you need intellect for oratory skills. Obama's greatness has a lot to do with being a great orator. But most of the times, he needed a TelePrompter and he is gaffe prone without it. You'd see that despite his Harvard and Columbia University education, teleprompter - he can't compete with either MLK or Malcolm X.