Mankind is degrading

[Benny1]

I mean in a mental sense.

I've been talking about this with reach a lot recently, and figured it would belong more here htan chit-chat.

What really bothers me is people who really just assume they already know it all. I can't really put it right, so I have to use an example, it's maybe a bit exxagerated, but it's the best I have. I told a friend about the space elevator (I posted an article about it earlier in chit-chat). He immediatly told me it was impossible. I asked him, why. He did not give me a single good reason for why it was impossible. All of his statements were ignorant, and not what I wanted to hear at all. And this kid I told it to is considered a fairly deep thinker by the standards of my school. What bothered me a lot about this is I gave him an article with how it could happen, and he immediatly said that was wrong and impossible. People are losing their ability to consider something that is vast, or unimaginable. I think, this is kind of like a Great Wall of China, something that seems rediculous at the time, but it ends up happening. The Great Wall didn't need any power tools to build, and they didn't have precut rocks. They did all of the labor, and it happened, and I am sure there are people who thought such a vast seeming project would be impossible. But you can see it now, it is still there, proof that the impossible is possible.

Secondly, this is more of a complain on he grading system of any school and IQ. IQ is very unreliable, and anyone who really takes an IQ test to see if they are very smart or not is probably getting wrong results. For a proper IQ test to be done well, it would need to be completely broad and cover everything in a subject, or incredibly precise, and cover everything in a subject the same way. Those kind of questions are basically unwritable. Also, with standardized testing, which seems to be the new rage, you run into many problems. I got some results from the big Illinois standardized test from 8th grade a few days ago. I got a perfect score on the math portion of the test. What bothers me though is it didn't test for anything but knowledge of how to do this and this. But there was no thinking involved. Standardized tests require no thinking. They are trying to train us to be robots that answer everything with no thought.
The funny thing is, a few days before this idea really sparked, in lit we read an article about how many ap classes are only covering the general, nonthinking knowledge, and then when they need to thinkin college, they have massive problems. This is proving my point perfectly true: standardized tests, or in this case, the AP tests, prove nothing but general knowledge. What does it really mean if you know all of these formulae, and ideas, but you don't know how to apply them, or you cam't understand WHY.
Also, I don't like many reading classes, because in my reading class, there are test questions galore with two answers. They say, Choose the best answer, but if you look at it more than one way, which they encourage a lot, you see both answers are better in a way. This is the problem with human written tests, they have massive flaws like this. Also, trying to have a human grade a paper will never work, as there will be bias.

I guess the title was a bit overboard, but still, people should be thinking more and more nowadays, but rather, with standardized tests, and IQ, people are losing all original thought, and becoming robots.

I am also aware IQ isn't new, I'm just using it right now, as my friends take it, and other people i know take it. I feel IQ is a good idea, it was done wrong though.

I'm sorry about any spelling mistakes, I'm kind of tired, I just don't want to sleep, and had this sitting on my mind ofr a while. I'm curious to see what you all think of this

[Pollux-]

RE: Mankind is degrading

Just today i was thinking about going to the moon and how they should build a big tube up to the moon.

[Varia]

RE: Mankind is degrading

I have felt this way all throughout my time in school. The people in smart classes aren't really that smart. Many of them cheat, copy, and lie to get their grades.

There was a topic about this a while ago by Reach, I think. Basically, it stated that in schools today, there is no real emphasis on critical thinking. The main focus is doing the work.

I have also never liked literature classes. I am a fairly good writer, but when it came to the assignments where there were extremely large amount of obvious bias, I did not do well. I always received poor grades on things like poems, and other types of writing where you are supposed to present your thoughts on something in a media type form. I think a large part of it was the teachers I had. In high school, two of them were around 30 years old and totally into their jobs. They read for fun and blahblahblah. In senior year, I had my first male English teacher. One of the coolest teachers ever. I don't really remember where I was going to take this, so I'm going to stop.

I'll end things simply by saying Benny is right.

[Omeganitros]

RE: Mankind is degrading

Everyone should watch the beginning of The Gods Must Be Crazy.

[Reach]

Lol.

People have always said things were impossible. 'It can't be done', and then it happens. Saying it can't be done sets oneself up for failure. I see it in school. People that think lowly of themselves do bad. If you think highly of yourself, you will do good. I had a 86 in highschool geography? What do I have now? 99.9%. I didn't get any smarter. I changed my mindset.

Standardized tests and IQ's are more or less a joke, because they are misunderstood and used to measure the wrong things. An IQ test isn't an intelligence test. The SAT is NOT an intelligence test. It's more or less all designed to push capitalism. The entire purpose is to seperate people and put them into groups. But the groups are often and almost always mislabeled, potential is wasted and or not understood. You don't need to be able to think to do well really. You need to do exactly what you've been told.

[akorn]

I don't see the problem with standardized tests... it's a method as good as any to measure people's aptitude on different subjects. Obviously, more intelligent students will have a higher score, so there's a correlation, but the SAT isn't designed to test people's intelligence anyway.

IQ tests, as the name suggests, test your intelligence quotient, it doesn't give you a numeric value proportional to your intelligence. In the end you get a number which is either above or below the mean (100), and how much you deviate from it (standard deviation for IQ is 15) tells you how many ppl are more or less intelligent than you in the general population. To be honest, I don't see how you can say it isn't an intelligence test... Sure, it separates people into groups, but so does height, and they both follow the same distribuction (a gauss curve).

Btw Reach, having a positive or negative mindset doesn't mean you'll always do better or worse... Sure, it has some influence, but in the end its a mix of work and inate ability that matter. To give an extreme example, if someone is mentally retarded, he's bound to have worse results at school than normal people, cause he isn't as intelligent. There's always some variation of characteristics between people (this applies for physical as well as mental attributes), and in the end some people will never do as good as others, no matter how hard they try.

[Reach]

I don't see the problem with standardized tests... it's a method as good as any to measure people's aptitude on different subjects. Obviously, more intelligent students will have a higher score, so there's a correlation, but the SAT isn't designed to test people's intelligence anyway.

IQ tests, as the name suggests, test your intelligence quotient, it doesn't give you a numeric value proportional to your intelligence. In the end you get a number which is either above or below the mean (100), and how much you deviate from it (standard deviation for IQ is 15) tells you how many ppl are more or less intelligent than you in the general population. To be honest, I don't see how you can say it isn't an intelligence test... Sure, it separates people into groups, but so does height, and they both follow the same distribuction (a gauss curve).

Btw Reach, having a positive or negative mindset doesn't mean you'll always do better or worse... Sure, it has some influence, but in the end its a mix of work and inate ability that matter. To give an extreme example, if someone is mentally retarded, he's bound to have worse results at school than normal people, cause he isn't as intelligent. There's always some variation of characteristics between people (this applies for physical as well as mental attributes), and in the end some people will never do as good as others, no matter how hard they try.

>_<

You fail to understand the basic concept that it is not an intelligence test. You're a perfect example of someone who's mindset has been hardwired to believe that it does.

What is intelligence? Please, define it for me. You can't? EXACTLY. (If you looked up a dictionary definition you missed the point entirely)

Thus, IQ tests are not fair. They are a waste, and are destructive. What the hell is the IQ test measuring? The ability to do well on the specific questions asked? How does that constitute one's intelligence? What about situational intelligence? Why do IQ scores go up with schooling? Why does it go up if you study the types of questions asked?

The benit and wechsler tests are a joke. They're measures of what you've learned XD Not even in an overall picture. They're very specific. They are by no means a measure of true capacity for high level thinking or how much you really know.

You can even go as far as to say the questions themselves are unfair. How can you ask a relational question? It's invalid. There are infinite number of anwsers. Why should the anwser the test designer chose be the correct anwser?

IQ tests merely measure an extremely specific region of one's ability.

As for the SAT, lol! More INTELLIGENT students will do better? Are you kidding me? Look at the questions on the test. I didn't have to write the SAT, but after looking at some of the problems from the SAT I laughed. They're ALL directly related to questions you get in your math class. That and the english questions are fairly irelevant to your intelligence half the time. Why would knowing the definition of a word make you more intelligent? What if I understand how stars form? Why isn't that on the test? Pulling a word noone uses out of the dictionary like that is like doing...just that.

And we all know school grades don't relate to your intelligence. If you think so, you are highly mistaken. If they arn't, and the sat is related to what you have LEARNED in school, how is it an intelligence test? That's right. It's not.

I see right through these tests. They're useless(on a personal level), and invalid. This is also coming from someone with a high IQ and 96ish% average in all extremely high level courses. Am I more intelligent than you? Possibly. Based solely on my test scores? Of course not! Only small minds that don't want to degrade their achievements will tell you otherwise.


Oh and, yes akorn, not everyone has the same ability. Point being, EVERYONE has the ability to improve upon what they do have. Especially in school, which is not about your mental ability. If you try as hard as you possibly can and learn to play the game of school, you can come out a winner. Most of these 'learning disabilities' may be more environmental than anything, not because they didn't have the ability to begin with. There are always extremes, like being born with a small brain or unable to comprehend the most simple tasks. But that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm sick of wasted potential. People THINK they can't do things. This is where mindset comes into play. They assume grades are something that is 'set' and unchangeable, and accept it. They THINK they are less intelligent, and thus do not work hard in school and learn the required skills needed to do well in life. What, do you think that girl with 100% in all her classes just magically walked in and got those grades? Do you think Mozart just sat at the piano and played a masterpiece on his first attempt? Do you think Einstein just 'came up with' relativity instantly? That's not how things work. These people worked hard for what they wanted, and used the talents they were given. Understanding how they really do work is the basis to begin changing things and getting what you want. Nothing is set in stone.

I'm done for now.

[Lightknight924]

Can't your IQ be based upon how hard you try. I mean, if I for on quater of the school year decided to do my extreme hardest to achieve 100% Overall Average for the quater then does that mean I got smarter? No, it means I tried harder. A lot harder.

[akorn]

Your post seems to revolve around the idea that inteligence is some kind of esoteric concept, that can't be put into words and has no way of being analised. Look at it this way though:

As you may know, Einstein's brain was preserved for scientific study... I think we can reasonably admit that Einstein was an intelligent guy. What they found is that, anatomically, there was no difference between his cerebral cortex and a normal brain. They did find that nervous support cells (glia) were more abundant than normal, but how that relates to cerebral function is unknown. So intelligence isn't something anotomical.

Biochemically, there is a process in which synaptic formation and neurotransmitter transfer are facilitated when that particular pathway suffers frequent use, which makes that synapse "stronger", in simple terms. This process is widely regarded as the foundation for learning. So maybe intelligence is the frequency this process is called upon.. But I digress, my point was that everyone has some grasp on the concept, you don't need an actual definition to talk about it.

When you answer an IQ test (not that I'm defending IQ tests, I just think your view on them is wrong), you answer those questions, and whether you get the answer right or wrong is determined by, as you said, schooling, having made IQ tests before, the relative answer the testmaker picked, the way the moonlight is being reflected by that pond to your left, causing you to misread question number 23... and a wacky ability some people have of getting the answers right by thinking about them.

If you had an ideal situation (where all the other factors involved were somehow removed.. like having 2 ppl with the same upbringing, same teachers, same age, never touched an IQ test before, etc) all that would influence the result would be intelligence, and that's what the IQ tests aim to quantify.It's not perfect, but despite all the bias and problems it has (some of which you mentioned), it works.

If your point is that IQ tests are nothing more than a group of questions that sort people into a statistical distribution according to the results, thats ok.. but those results are, ultimately, correlated with one's intelligence.

About SATs, I wouldn't know since I've never done any (I don't live in the US). I imagine getting a good grade on them probably means that you've studied hard rather than being extremely bright. My point is that someone who is more intelligent has a bigger potential scorewise, as in, if he worked just as hard as the guy next to him, since he has an easier time learning/relating things, his score will be better. See my point?

You mentioned that I've been hardwired as to how IQ tests are a measure of intelligence. Maybe you've hardwired the opposite by your own reasoning and logic. That doesn't mean it's true.

Last thing (phew long post). I consider myself to be a logical and intelligent person, also with a high IQ and whatnot (and dont assume this is based on web IQ test or something), I also finished high school with a 19.1 average for the college I applied for (20 is the max, that's 95.5%) but, as you say, academic achievements aren't a reflection of intelligence. You say that you're possibly more intelligent than me? (sorry, I couldn't let this one slide though I wanted to :P ) well, since there's no way to measure intelligence (according to you), we'll never know.

[Benny1]

I'm really bad at wording things so this post might not flow all to well.

So Akorn, if Einstien's brain was not any different, you just dug yourself in a hole. You just proved IQ is not how smart you are, it is how well you have set your mind to learn things. If you choose to learn, you have a high IQ. If you choose not to learn, you have a low IQ. You just proved exactly how IQ is bs. And standardized tests are bs because you don't need to think, you just need to have the mindset to absorb knowledge. All of your knowledge is based off of your mindset. I have a great mindset for most of my classes, and what am I getting? A B+ in basically everything, and an A- in a math class that is TWO YEARS AHEAD OF WHAT I NORMALLY TAKE. I tell myself, I can do this, and you know, I memorized all of the thereoms I need to use. Everyone else has their thereom sheets to say what the thereoms are. I had a good mindset and memorized them all. I didn't even try. I can tell you right now, the two thereoms I heard once for the first time today are totally set in my head. The median of an isoceles trapezoid is the average of the top and bottom. Base angles are congruent on an isoceles trapezoid. Oh, also, the diagonals are congruent. This is the result of a good mindset, and trying to learn this stuff. If I had a bad mindset, and said, eh I can't do this, I would not know those, I can garuntee you.

The only class I have a bad grade in is lit. And I hate my teacher too. She is the kind of teacher who tells you exactly what you need to do to get an A, you do a bit more than that, and she gives you a D (I have had this happen to me twice now from her). This is what makes makes any lit standardized test obsolete: Humans grade erroneously all the time. If they were handed a perfect paper (thereoticially) they could possibly give it a D, because it just wasn't what they wanted.

Akorn, Einstein failed classes. Are you saying you are smarter than Einstein?

[jewpinthethird]

Re: RE: Mankind is degrading

The people in smart classes aren't really that smart. Many of them cheat, copy, and lie to get their grades.

I have noticed this too. At my old high school there was no Advanced Placement. Instead, we had the "International Baccalaureate Programme;" IB for short. Most of my friends were in the program, as was I and I know for a fact that almost everyone in the program cheated, including myself, save for a handful of people. Mind you, this is just a mere reflection of our how our economy is run. Yes, those who work hard do recieve a better grade, but so do those who cheat. If someone manages to get caught cheating there are consequences, but only a small percentage of people ever get caught.

The problem with the educational system in America is that it is run like a business. Schools benefit (by increased government funding) when their students get higher test scores, that is why so my emphasis is placed on test taking. Thus making the goal of the administration profit (in a sense), and not the education of their students. This is also why so much money is spent on sports (mainly football) because sports bring in a lot of revenue. Which ironically is spent on my football equipment.

Just so you know, I am merely rephrasing what Albert Einstein wrote in his essay entitled "Why Socialism." Only, I am speaking from personal experience.

[Benny1]

RE: Re: RE: Mankind is degrading

Okay, great, I love this analogy I just thought of.

So you can't define intelligence, yet we try to measure it in IQ.
IQ could be the totally wrong thing.
It's like trying to measure weight in centimeters, it's impossible.

[akorn]

RE: Re: RE: Mankind is degrading

I knew someone would come back with the "Einstein was bad at school" stuff xD

Einstein's brain wasn't any different from a histological (look it up) point of view. It was made of the same exact stuff your brain and mine is made of. His IQ, however, was very high (noone argues with this I think), as in, he was much more intelligent that the average person. What I wanted to get across in this example is that intelligence isn't measuerd by what your brain is made of. The difference between a smart brain and a dumb brain is in the interconnections made by neuronal axons and dendrites, but that's neuroanatomy and I don't want to go there.

If you choose to learn, you have a high IQ. If you choose not to learn, you have a low IQ.

I didn't understand whether ou got that from my post or just posted it. Either way, if that was true, Einstein wouldn't be a genius since he failed classes, but I'm sure you can agree he had a high IQ. This would show on an IQ test regardless of him flunking literature lessons or not xD

[Benny1]

RE: Re: RE: Mankind is degrading

I told you I would word stuff wrong.

I basically just wrote that, based off of Reach's mindset stuff. And you know, although he did npt learn in school, he definetly chose to apply himself afterwards. He didn't just quit after school. Trust me, you don't discover such increidble things like the therory of relativity without applying yourself. Thus, he applied himself after school (chose to learn) and became one of the smartest people ever.

[Reach]

Intelligence isn't definable. Not yet anyway. The point still stands, we don't know what we're measuring with IQ tests. Jewpin brought up some good points.

Schooling just isn't intelligence based. That's a fact. Noone can argue. Oh and wait, IQ scores go up with schooling? Why is this? Because school boosts and trains your ability in SPECIFIC areas. Yet you claim IQ tests to measure one's intelligence? How well the brain works...what about the other areas?

The easiest way to define intelligence would be: 'the ability to solve problems'.

But this requires you to define problems. It is again, something vast. There are many types of problems.

And yes akorn, It's very possible I could be smarter than you. This wasn't some sort of insult though, as you seem to have taken it by your little not in brackets. The fact is, my test scores don't measure my intelligence. So obviously yes, we will never know.

''other regions on each side were a bit enlarged—the inferior parietal lobes. These regions are known to have something to do with visual imagery and mathematical thinking. Thus Einstein was apparently better equipped than most people for a certain type of thinking.''

''You mentioned that I've been hardwired as to how IQ tests are a measure of intelligence. Maybe you've hardwired the opposite by your own reasoning and logic. That doesn't mean it's true. ''

Sure it doesn't mean it's true. But then why do the people making these tests still not properly understand them? Why did the woman with the highest IQ score ever admit that it's measurement was not a proper or near complete representation of one's intelligence? An IQ test measures specific abilities, cognitive, spatial ect...and we know these are very specific abilities. Since when was intelligence something this specific? If you score high on an IQ test, you probably have good abilities in THESE AREAS. It doesn't mean the rest of your brain is working up to par, or above someone else's that is better in other areas.

It doesn't work.

''If you had an ideal situation (where all the other factors involved were somehow removed.. like having 2 ppl with the same upbringing, same teachers, same age, never touched an IQ test before, etc) all that would influence the result would be intelligence, and that's what the IQ tests aim to quantify.It's not perfect, but despite all the bias and problems it has (some of which you mentioned), it works. ''

No. Wrong again. The IQ test questions measure small portions of one's ability.



Here, this is what you are saying. A perfect analogy.

I am good at games. You are good at games. You can beat me at stepmania, thus this makes you a better gamer.

This is an untrue statement, no matter which way you look at it. Even if you try and change the definition of intelligence. It's NOT a specific thing. It's an overall ability that applies to EVERYTHING. IQ tests measure abilities in areas. It would be just like the analogy above.

So your IQ is 190 and mine is 101. You could say...your skills at performing on tests, cognitive, spatial, memory, math and vocabulary skills are better than mine. This doesn't mean, you could think at a higher level than me, be more creative than me, know more than me, understand and play music better than me, solve puzzles better than me, play sports better than me, debate better than me, solve mazes faster than me.... I could go on forever.

Oh and yes, that means I don't think we'll ever be able to truely measure intelligence.