Leading Geneticist: Human Intelligence Is Slowly Declining

[TheResearcher]

http://naturalsociety.com/leading-ge...wly-declining/

" “I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues. Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues,” the geneticist began his article in the scientific journal Trends in Genetics."

Let's see...he works in academia so what type of humans does he have the most contact with? Especially at Stanford...of course! Lyberals! Good call, prof!

[ms maggie]

Do other posters post things without reading them?

[boink]

so is athleticism and physical prowess...
----------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-..._b_836265.html
...The weak truly have inherited the earth...

http://phys.org/news175332184.html

The book, Manthropology: The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male, by Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister, describes many examples of the inadequacy of the modern male, calling them as a class, "the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet."

Given spiked running shoes, Indigenous Australians of 20,000 years ago could have beaten today's world record for running 100 and 200 meters. As recently as last century, some Tutsi males in Rwanda could have easily beaten the current high jump world record, and bodybuilders such as Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been no match in an arm wrestle with a Neanderthal woman.

Twenty thousand years ago six male Australian Aborigines chasing prey left footprints in a muddy lake shore that became fossilized. Analysis of the footprints shows one of them was running at 37 kph (23 mph), only 5 kph slower than Usain Bolt was traveling at when he ran the 100 meters in world record time of 9.69 seconds in Beijing last year. But Bolt had been the recipient of modern training, and had the benefits of spiked running shoes and a rubberized track, whereas the Aboriginal man was running barefoot in soft mud. Given the modern conditions, the man, dubbed T8, could have reached speeds of 45 kph, according to McAllister.

[bmorepunk]

From McCallister's article:

There are, however, two problems. The first is that even the most dedicated gym junky rarely matches the level of exertion many tribal peoples do. The Tarahumara, for example, a cave-dwelling people from northern Mexico famed for their endurance running, have been found to produce about 10,000 kcals of work effort during one of their 24- to 48-hour "kickball" races -- more than modern Tour de France competitors.

At one point he's comparing strength and then he's comparing endurance. If you train low-impact endurance you will sacrifice strength; one simply cannot train for both adaptations. He talks mostly about strength and then goes to this example of the Tarahumara, who were not a particularly strong people as they were adapted for endurance.

The comparison to Arnold Schwarzenegger is dicey. If you read more into what he wrote, he indicates that a Neanderthal woman had the potential to be nearly as strong as Schwarzenegger with the right stimulus, but she could beat him arm wrestling because of leverages. This is of course ignoring technique, which is actually the most important part of arm wrestling (strength and levers are only dominant if you are using good technique). I wouldn't use Arnold as the gold standard for strength (he was a bodybuilder); instead I'd use a strongman or powerlifter who are much stronger than the former governor in his prime.

I agree that people are getting much weaker, even when compared to recent history. There are some people in the modern world (and even in our own country) who receive the right kind of adaptive stimulus growing up to be very, very strong. Generally these are people who grew up on farms or worked hard jobs their whole life.

We could fix this in gyms but the biggest problem is that gyms suck now. It used to be that when you went to gyms you would learn strongman and gymnastics movements. Now we have "safe" isolation movements, low-impact cardio, and general silliness (bosu ball). Everybody wants to "tone" and lose weight, with the end result being a bunch of weak people.

You can take just about any individual (even children and the elderly) and put them on a basic barbell training program with qualified coach (I'm not talking about your average idiot physical trainer at a big box gym here) that uses squats, deadlifts, and presses and they will be reasonably strong in a very short period of time. Who wouldn't want increased strength, motor recruitment, bone density, and connective tissue strength?

Probably the "toning" crowd.

[Bmoreteacher]

http://naturalsociety.com/leading-ge...wly-declining/

" “I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues. Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues,” the geneticist began his article in the scientific journal Trends in Genetics."

Let's see...he works in academia so what type of humans does he have the most contact with? Especially at Stanford...of course! Lyberals! Good call, prof!

The irony of what you just posted has more layers than an onion

[bullmikey]

How do you get to be a "Leading Geneticist"? Do your fellow geneticists vote you the title or what? And who is it exactly you're leading - the other geneticists who nominated you to be their leader? - and where are you leading them to?

[Chesapeake Spirit]

Proof of devolving intelligence is in ample supply on these boards.

[ms maggie]

How do you get to be a "Leading Geneticist"? Do your fellow geneticists vote you the title or what? And who is it exactly you're leading - the other geneticists who nominated you to be their leader? - and where are you leading them to?

Think it's like, beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Your idea is more fun though.

[Smokey 1]

I think another reason for the decline is that women today select mates more for appearance rather than intelligence.

[octoburn]

Proof of declining intelligence is easily observed by the number of people who depend on other sources to do their "thinking" for them. They then cut and paste those opinions on here daily once they learn what their "opinion" will be. It eliminates the need for actual critical thinking when they can post someone else's thoughts and opinions or simply parrot what they hear on the radio that which is intended to appeal to them. All that's left for them to do is basically go to their sources to be told what to think and paste the usual "Me too! THIS is what I think today! And you should too!"

Very convincingly, too, I might add.

[soulflower]

Given how much we rely on electronics to do our thinking and memorizing things for us today, I certainly believe that humans today may not be as intelligent as we were say, 200 years ago or even 50 years ago.

For example, my mom can memorize phone numbers and birth dates like Rainman. I can't memorize those simple things if my life depended on it. I'd be lost without my smartphone but I'm sure I could adapt eventually if I suddenly didn't have a smartphone or computer.

The thing to keep in mind is that there are different types of intelligence. I feel that discussions about intelligence tend to be too generalized when they should instead focus on the different types of intelligence.

[Retired Ramp Guy]

Proof of declining intelligence is easily observed by the number of people who depend on other sources to do their "thinking" for them. They then cut and paste those opinions on here daily once they learn what their "opinion" will be. It eliminates the need for actual critical thinking when they can post someone else's thoughts and opinions or simply parrot what they hear on the radio that which is intended to appeal to them. All that's left for them to do is basically go to their sources to be told what to think and paste the usual "Me too! THIS is what I think today! And you should too!"

Very convincingly, too, I might add.

Gosh, I would like to agree with you on this statement, but if I do, someone may think I went to a sources and was told "This is what I think today"

[Steveg85321]

Given how much we rely on electronics to do our thinking and memorizing things for us today, I certainly believe that humans today may not be as intelligent as we were say, 200 years ago or even 50 years ago.

For example, my mom can memorize phone numbers and birth dates like Rainman. I can't memorize those simple things if my life depended on it. I'd be lost without my smartphone but I'm sure I could adapt eventually if I suddenly didn't have a smartphone or computer.

The thing to keep in mind is that there are different types of intelligence. I feel that discussions about intelligence tend to be too generalized when they should instead focus on the different types of intelligence.

I think you are onto something there. Another example: 40 years ago when I had to research for a school paper, I went to the library, looked up sources in the card catalog, read books and periodicals, made notes, etc.; now I Google. Not much challenge there for the brain cells.

I'd also bet that our diet of processed, genetically modified foods is not as useful to our brains and bodies as the natural foods we were evolved to eat, and it stands to reason this would affect the effectiveness of our overall systems, including thinking, retaining, and creatively using knowledge.

[bmorepunk]

I think another reason for the decline is that women today select mates more for appearance rather than intelligence.

I don't think reasonably good looking dudes have ever had trouble finding women. Neither have dudes with a lot (or the appearance of) money. There are and always have been tons of awkward, not attractive smart guys who have trouble.

[soulflower]

I think another reason for the decline is that women today select mates more for appearance rather than intelligence.

IMO, they decide to marry more for financial security in a man than looks and there's nothing wrong with that...

[bmorepunk]

I think the looks/financial curve is age dependent. Also, super attractive people tend to not be off bad financially because people are tripping over themselves to provide them with opportunities.

[Smokey 1]

IMO, they decide to marry more for financial security in a man than looks and there's nothing wrong with that...

Yes, that too. It is a valid survival strategy but it doesn't necessarily add to the overall intelligence of the species.

[skeemer]

Idiocracy

[soulflower]

I think the looks/financial curve is age dependent.

I agree. When looking for someone to "hook up" or have fun with, looks matter most. When looking for someone to settle down with, emotional and financial security matter most. People with above-average intelligence tend to be more financially secure.

Also, super attractive people tend to not be off bad financially because people are tripping over themselves to provide them with opportunities.

I don't know how true that is. I'm sure it helps to be attractive but you still have to acquire certain skills for certain jobs...

[soulflower]

Yes, that too. It is a valid survival strategy but it doesn't necessarily add to the overall intelligence of the species.

I'm sticking with my opinion that technology makes us mentally lazy