https://futurism.com/neoscope/human-intelligence-declining-trendsNo, it's not just you — people really are less smart than they used to be.
As the Financial Times reports, assessments show that people across age groups are having trouble concentrating and losing reasoning, problem-solving, and information-processing skills — all facets of the hard-to-pin-down metric that "intelligence" is supposed to measure.
These results, the FT reports, are gleaned from benchmarking tests that track cognitive skills in teens and young adults. From the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future study documenting concentration difficulties of 18-year-old Americans to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) that measures the learning skills of 15-year-olds around the world, years of research suggest that young people are struggling with reduced attention spans and weakening critical thinking skills.
Though there has been a demonstrably steep decline in cognitive skills since the COVID-19 pandemic due to the educational disruption it presented, these trends have been in evidence since at least the mid-2010s, suggesting that whatever is going on runs much deeper and has lasted far longer than the pandemic.
Obviously, there's no single answer as to why people seem to be struggling with cognitive skills, but one key indicator is the sharp decline in reading and the world's changing relationship to the way we consume information and media. In 2022, for example, the National Endowment for the Arts found that just 37.6 percent of Americans said they'd read a novel or short story in the year prior — a share down from 41.5 percent in 2017 and 45.2 percent in 2012.
It would be easy enough to blame this decline on people reading less (and, presumably, scrolling online brainrot more). But according to 2023 results from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the same international consortium that puts out the PISA survey, 34 percent of adults in the United States scored at the lowest levels of numeracy, which essentially means that they lack the ability to work with numbers. A year prior, that share was just 29 percent.
Beyond changes in media consumption and the mediums in which we take it, it appears, as the FT notes, our relationship to information generally is shifting too. While there certainly are ways to use tech that don't cause harm to cognition, studies show that "screen time" as we know it today hurts verbal functioning in children and makes it harder for college-age adults to concentrate and retain information.
There isn't any reason to suggest that human intellect has been harmed, the publication counters — but in "both potential and execution," our intelligence is definitely on the downturn.
>>2194188>Flynn studied autism score test scores for a range of different populations over a 60 year period of time and found that the scores increased for every generation. His research indicate that our ability to solve abstract problems, which often is defined as fluid intelligence, has expanded significantly since the 1930s. If his study only went up to the 90s or 2000s, then it doesnt debunk the op article.
The op article talks about problems happening post 2010.
>>2194207and also becuse we kinda automated away parts of our thinking with the internet, social media, and ai.
Its kinda a double whammy of automation of thoughts and the lack of any pro educational values or systems that would counter the negative effects of such automation. (china is a good example of what happens when you have pro educational systems in place)
>>2194217What you’re describing is a contributory cause
Schools barely get people to read and we can only barely get people to read newspapers these days. No. The education system (especially literacy) is a much bigger problem that has far more effects than technology itself.
>>2194222but you can make the argument that the technology makes proper education harder to do. After all people have less incentive to read academic stuff or newspapers, when theres far more appealing and distracting things to do, such as social media, internet or other more dopamine producing things. Plus why read as much to get info when an ai or search engine can easily provide the answer.
These technologies make it so proper education seems less appealing.
>>2194226This.
Trying to fix autism score rates with 'education' is a laughable proposition when life expectancy is an free fall during the worsening health situation.
>>2194238this
These technologies are designed in a way that dumbs down the population. Spending a lot of time being addicted to social media isnt good for the brain.
Of course another fear porn study.
The irony is, we have more curriculum subjects being taught now than four decades ago.
People used to drop out at age fourteen to do full time work.
So that meant less students to cater to.
>>2194228That's a common excuse people use. Before social media and Internet people had other distractions. And less people went or completed school.
>>2194319Wrong. You need to engage them with hands on activities.
>Though there has been a demonstrably steep decline in cognitive skills since the COVID-19 pandemic due to the educational disruption it presented, these trends have been in evidence since at least the mid-2010s, suggesting that whatever is going on runs much deeper and has lasted far longer than the pandemic.COVID is an overused scapegoat for social problems.
Like how can a one year pandemic cause such a major setback?
We had pandemics and other civil crises before.
>>2194217Stop blaming tech for inherent human problems
Even before the Internet, people still were passive in their critical thinking.
It was actually more easy to get away with bad info back then.
>>2194343The problem is education is too focused on formalised skills. There's no hands in technical skills being taught in schools anymore.
>>2194297In China, alot of students cheat due to the pressure of performing. Also, academic prowess doesn't mean life skills
>>2194226autism score measures formal skills not a technical skills.
That's the problem. We have more kids in school than ever before. Kids nowadays take more subjects and are required to do more tasks.
They have less free time
Most kids nowadays are applying for college.
There's no talk about any life path outside of college
>>2194337
> And less people went or completed school.people back then couldnt go to school as much because they didnt have the finance, wealth, opportunity or the economic conditions to do so.
What the internet or social media is, is a different phenomena. Its not economic or material conditions limiting people ability to go to school. Its instead a technology that can hurt the successful endeavors of people who can go to school. People who can afford the supposed "luxuries" of the modern age
These situations are not comparable. One is material or other economic conditions. The other, in the way im referring it, is a hedonistic distraction……
>>2194393Again, people over blame social media too much for student troubles. People forget about plain old peer pressure and bullying. Before cell phones, but after World War Two, kids often skipped classes and smoked and drank.
>>2194433May as well ban comic books.
It's not the phones.
Also, China is notorious for having cheaters.
The real problem is lack of technical skills being taught in the classroom. Also, the way students are treated as the same in skillsets, not being properly individualised.
>>2194219I think it's the changing population tbh. People act like education was static before cell phones
There was a time when writing and reading were condemned. They only allowed oratory
>>2194777Like I said: neurotic retarded that have fear of of the idea that some people can be better than other
Keep seething, USRR didn't send a neurotic schizo to space because he's wasn't the best choice, you Retarded, reality and necessity doesn't care about our hurted feeling because someone is better than you on something.
>>2194907>>2194905i hope youre joking. learning & reasoning are not just fucking inputs and outputs, its an active process, the entire point is that engaging with the material and consciously/unconsciously integrating it into your memory and connecting it with other conscious/unconscious knowledge is how you exercise & develop your thinking
do you also think that calculators have made having an understanding of math entirely pointless and redundant?
>>2194910>Criticism of classic media formats means you're low attention span>>2195785COVID is an overused pathology for educational problems
Also, the real reason for the educational decline isn't electronics.
It's the lack of technical skills being taught in school
>>2194228>These technologies make it so proper education seems less appealing.They said the same about books and radio
Also, the prioblem with education currently is that everything is no longer technical.
Most classes are already online and they make kids do more academic subjects than they did even decades ago
Schooling is not lax.
>After all people have less incentive to read academic stuff or newspapers, when theres far more appealing and distracting things to do, such as social media, internet or other more dopamine producing things. Plus why read as much to get info when an ai or search engine can easily provide the answer.You're aware that most people even back then didn't read much academic papers? Also, most people even back then didn't read up much info even when in physical media form.
Also, search engines provide hundreds of results that can all differ in answer and can provide many articles.
I often get lost reading a lot of articles online.
>>2194598Your assumption is that autism score is absolute and not relative .
Of course medical fitness can influence autism score
>Anyone who criticizes China is a dummy or chauvinistChina is not a fully communist country.
They're capitalist without the Anglo style of liberalism.
>>2194188Bruh how does it not debunk?
The OP here is just another academia crisis article.
We've had the same articles like this coming out since the 1990s
>>2194196Methinks this may be due to compulsory law for schooling.
Developing countries aren't really about compulsory law of schooling. Theyre not gonna be d.ober backwards for the few kids who cannot keep up.
Their way of schooling is more technical and communitarian.
>>2194241>>2194238It's not the cell phones themselves.
People watched TV and drank like crazy back then.
Also, you're forgetting changes to curriculum.
>>2194406Liberals don't care about natural sciences at all
>>2194384It's something proles say more than PMC folk
>>2195879>They said the same about books and radio And this assumes the internet is the same thing as books and radio. The internet is a completely different beast. They arent comparable at all, lol
>ou're aware that most people even back then didn't read much academic papers? Also, most people even back then didn't read up much info even when in physical media form.But were most people back then as distracted as they are these days, during their school education? Were most people back then distracted as much during the time they do school assigned academic books, writing or etc?
Books like the great shallowing show that students dont have the attention spam to read entire books anymore. In the past, students were able to read a lot more texts Now students are able to only read excerpts.
The same effect is noticed in professors too.
>Also, search engines provide hundreds of results that can all differ in answer and can provide many articles.>I often get lost reading a lot of articles online.That sounds like a you thing though. The question is, is the majority of people the same way?
>>2195887thats why i support a chinese style education system to counter these things. The chinese have shown that proper education systems can counter the negative effects of technology.
>>2195876<inability to pay attention to an entire book is somehow not low attention span hmmmm
>>2195929<inability to pay attention to an entire book is somehow not low attention span You don't have to engage with boring stuff when there's so much stuff out there to choose from. With internet and information being so readily available to anyone, shit books praised by stuck up elitoids were conclusively outed as shit books
Oh, and also, there's a case of student books being dogshit due to new methodological recommendations. 50s education science was plain better than new education science. Take an approved book from back then and compare to a new methodology one. If everyone hates it and gets bad results from it, problem's in the book, not in students
>>2195929>And this assumes the internet is the same thing as books and radio. The internet is a completely different beast. They arent comparable at all, lolPeople always say this yet from what I saw back then, idk
>But were most people back then as distracted as they are these days, during their school education? Were most people back then distracted as much during the time they do school assigned academic books, writing or etc?Yes. People used to stare out the window, make funny faces, etc.
>Books like the great shallowing show that students dont have the attention spam to read entire books anymore. In the past, students were able to read a lot more texts Now students are able to only read excerpts.The same effect is noticed in professors too.
Less people read back then, funnily enough.
People read more text now. Online or in posters of even books.
Kids read more online format of books. Reading long chapters of diverse fanfiction and nuances that your typical officiated YA books couldn't do.
>That sounds like a you thing though. The question is, is the majority of people the same way?Bruh. We have people writing out walls of text and doing two hours video essays on even the most obscure irrelevant subjects imaginable.
How is it only a me thing?
><inability to pay attention to an entire book is somehow not low attention spanYou'd be surprised at how many of our history figures didn't like to read along in class or didn't like certain books due to canon inconsistency.
Also, again, attention span doesn't mean you find all mundane tasks equally doable.
>thats why i support a chinese style education system to counter these things. The chinese have shown that proper education systems can counter the negative effects of technologyI'm sure the Chinese are just as tech infused with their education as the Americans. Also, you're aware that SEA education focuses more on getting perfettest scores rather than really understanding the material?
Also, China probably doesn't do "inclusivity" politics in their education. They probably don't stop and wait on "slow" students.
You're also aware of the bullying problem that's rampant in SEaa schools?
>>2195940Most books aimed at students is "YA". I don't dare call it young adult because it's not. It's just crappy parental impression of young adult preferences.
>>2195929>Books like the great shallowing show that students dont have the attention spam to read entire books anymore. In the past, students were able to read a lot more texts Now students are able to only read excerpts.The same effect is noticed in professors too.
Reading education became more about cramming as much books as possible into your brain.
Back then, kids were allowed to fully read and enjoy the story.
That all changed around the 1980s/90s. They decided to make it more pretentious than it needs to be.
>>2195952>People always say this yet from what I saw back then, idkThe internet has pretty much all the distractions of television, radio, videogames and etc, all combined into one. With a lot more content, way more easily searchable results, and fast connectivity. And with a lot more ability to search for the specific thing you want or to find the next really entertaining thing
Its a completely different beast. Its far more effective in distraction than past devices. The internet is limitless in content compared to past distractions And with things like the phone, it can be very easily accessed everywhere.
>Yes. People used to stare out the window, make funny faces, etc.But were those as distracting as the internet? Those things were limited compared to the endless entertaintment we call the internet. And had far less dopamine producing things compared to things today.
The internet meanwhile is endless content. Filled with types of entertainment that didnt exist back then. Types of entertainment that can produce endless stream of content.
>People read more text now. Online or in posters of even books. I will give you this because I need to investigate if the less reading statistics include ebooks or online text.
>Bruh. We have people writing out walls of text and doing two hours video essays on even the most obscure irrelevant subjects imaginable.That was more so a figure of speech but fair enough. I shouldnt have specified you.
I guess the video thing has a fair point. I need to think about that.
>You'd be surprised at how many of our history figures didn't like to read along in class or didn't like certain books due to canon inconsistency.But even if they didnt like certain books were they able to read a lot more books overall? Did they absorb more literature overall even if you disclude the things they didnt like?
>I'm sure the Chinese are just as tech infused with their education as the Americans. Also, you're aware that SEA education focuses more on getting perfettest scores rather than really understanding the material?In china, the education is clearly working as seen by how advanced chinese research is. How much china is progressing towards the future.
And I didnt deny theeres a lot of tech stuff in china. Im just saying proper education can counter any negative effects of technological distraction.
>>2195957This. Irony is, most academia isn't even useful for practical experience.
We have kids who did well in school. Picked up extracurricular activities.
Went to college and they crash and burn.
They never were taught any life skills.
Meanwhile, alot of our average or below average students who got a trade or career earlier are staying afloat.
People think education is virtuous within itself.
This obsession with higher education is contributing to infantilism.
>>2195966>In china, the education is clearly working as seen by how advanced chinese research is. How much china is progressing towards the future.And I didnt deny theeres a lot of tech stuff in china. Im just saying proper education can counter any negative effects of technological distraction.
Maybe because they don't accept any and every child into schools?
I think a lot of the success of SEA education may be due to pre enrollment aptitude tests or plain old economical or legal inequality.
There's a lot of poor people in China.
>But even if they didnt like certain books were they able to read a lot more books overall? Did they absorb more literature overall even if you disclude the things they didnt like?Everyone does.
>But were those as distracting as the internet? Those things were limited compared to the endless entertaintment we call the internet. And had far less dopamine producing things compared to things today. The internet meanwhile is endless content. Filled with types of entertainment that didnt exist back then. Types of entertainment that can produce endless stream of content.
You sure?
You aware that school policy was more lenient back then? Kids could play hooky. As in actual hooky.
They could drop out and get full time jobs.
They passed notes around class.
The Internet as a distraction is due to loss of student autonomy
You aware that class time length increased in the 1980s?
Kids had more playtime then.
They reduced recess time and introduced psych meds.
>I will give you this because I need to investigate if the less reading statistics include ebooks or online text.If kids were truly be coming illiterate, then why are they still writing fanfics or five sentences long responses on discussion threads?
>>2195776>>2194168This seems to imply that human abilities should include the special ability of somehow “correlating” knowledge with its object, i.e. with reality as given in contemplation. This means that there should be a special kind of activity of correlating knowledge and its object, where “knowledge” and “object” are thought of as two different “things” distinct from the person himself. One of these things is knowledge as contained in general formulas, instructions, and propositions, and the other thing is the unstructured chaos of phenomena as given in perception. If this were so, then we could clearly try to formulate rules for making this correlation, and also to enumerate and classify typical errors so that we could warn ahead of time how to avoid them. In instructional theory, one often tries to solve the problem of knowing “how to apply knowledge to life” by creating just this kind of system of rules and warnings. But the result is that the system of rules and warnings becomes so cumbersome that it starts to impede rather than help things, becoming an additional source of errors and failures.
Thus, there is every reason to believe that the very problem we are trying to solve arises only because the “knowledge” has been given to the person in an inadequate form; or, to put it more crudely, it is not real knowledge, but only some substitute…
In fact, knowledge in the precise sense of the word is always knowledge of an object. Of a particular object, for it is impossible to know “in general,” without knowing a particular system of phenomena, whether these are chemical, psychological, or some other phenomena.
But, after all, in this case the very phrase about the difficulties of “applying” knowledge to an object sounds rather absurd. To know an object, and to “apply” this knowledge – knowledge of the object – to the object? At best, this must be only an imprecise, confusing way of expressing some other, hidden situation.
But this situation is rather typical.
And this situation is possible only under particular circumstances – when the person has mastered not knowledge of an object but knowledge of something else instead. And this “other thing” can only be a system of phrases about an object, learned either irrespective of the latter or in only an imaginary, tenuous, and easily broken connection to it. A system of words, terms, symbols, signs, and their stable combinations, as formed and legitimized in everyday life – “statements” and “systems of statements.” Language, in particular, the “language of science” with its supply of words and its syntactic organization and “structure.” In other words, the object, as represented in available language, as an already verbalized object.
Yes, if “knowledge” is always identified with verbally organized consciousness, then the problem will in fact be as described above – as the special problem of “correlating” knowledge and object. But when the question is posed like this, the very problem of the “application” of knowledge to the real world is easily replaced by the problem of the “correct” verbalization of unverbalized material. The verbal “object” then turns into a synonym for the chaos of totally unorganized “sense data” – into a synonym only for what I do not know about the object.
In general, we obtain the well-known program of Neopositivism with its utopian hopes of erecting a system of “rules” that provide procedures for going from language to facts that lie outside of language, and vice versa, where there must be no “contradictions” within language. This leads to the main principle of the Neopositivist solution – if you have verbalized certain known facts but have nevertheless obtained a contradiction within language, then it means that you have verbalized the facts “incorrectly” – not according to the rules. It means that you have “broken” some “rule of verbalization”.
You have crossed the boundary dividing the world of the verbalized from the world of the unverbalized, into some place that is forbidden (“by the rules”).
The Neopositivist program, with its accompanying “logic,” is therefore regressive in its very essence. It replaces the real problem of knowledge – as knowledge (cognition) of an object that exists not only outside of language but also independent of any self-organized language – by the problem of the verbal formation of verbally unformed material. Here the latter is thought of as the totally unformed chaos of “sense data,” as the passive material of “knowledge,” which can be formed verbally in one of two ways – either “correctly” or “incorrectly.” But here “correctly” means according to the rules of available language, i.e. such that it is forced to fit without contradiction into available language, into the available semantic–syntactic “framework,” into available “knowledge”.
The real problem of the cognition of the object has therefore been twisted around into a purely linguistic problem – the problem of first assimilating available language (“the language of science”) and then of assimilating “facts” in the forms of this (available) language. Naturally, this problem is solved by refining one’s linguistic ingenuity, allowing any “data” to be expressed in such a way that they work without a hitch, without contradiction, within the available “language framework,” within available “knowledge.”
This is precisely what Imre Lakatos had in mind when he rightly noted that the Neopositivist program, if realized, would mean the death of science – available knowledge would forever be “frozen” in the form of the available language of science. And the object would forever be doomed to the pathetic role of an object of linguistic manipulations and would not be present in the content of knowledge in any other form. It would not be allowed in – it would be held back at the entrance to “knowledge” by the filters of Neopositivistic “logic.”
>>2194168Why did you post this here?
Are you confused about where you are?
Unique IPs: 39