Are people getting dumber?

Could it be that the concept that people are dumber is only because people are getting lazier.
For example read some of the post on this website.
Misspelled words, incoherent sentences that one has to try and interpret, misuse of words, and other idiosyncrasies in the use of the language (excluding those that the English language is not their first language) Is it because they don't know or because they don't care? If they do know but are too lazy to correct their initial mistake, could this lead to further speculation that people are getting dumber? If it is because they don't know, then it falls back to their education; which could be because they are not taught or they were just too lazy to learn.
Another example is the use of electronic devices, for an example the calculator that removes the knowledge and reasoning on how to solve a mathematical problem. Not that one needs to know how to solve higher mathematical problems but removes the function of stimulating the thought process. How many young people know how to balance a checkbook? Try reading comprehension, how well does the modern generation do in this area. Do we try and comprehend what someone has written or is it we just don't care?
Has the "dumbing" (if this is a fact) of the population been caused by the increased use of the advancement in technology, the anonymity of electronic social media, or just plain lazy?

Koldo said:

I will give you an example from another test:

The clipboards of Ana, Bianca and Clara are made, not necessarily on this order, of iron, wood and plastic. One of the clipboards is white, one is green and the other is blue. Ana's clipboard is white, Clara's is made of plastic and Bianca's is not green nor made of iron. The colors of the iron, wood and plastic clipboards are respectively:

a) white, blue and green
b) white, green and blue.
c) blue, white and green.
d) blue, green and white
e) green, blue and white.

Notice that if I change the names, the materials and the colors, for example, I still have the same sort of question which is solved in the exact same way. This is what I mean by patterns. If you have never seen this pattern before nor any similar to it, you will take extra time to figure out how to approach the question and have an increased risk of messing up.

Click to expand...

Practice exams are useful. I think when students take practice exams, they will encounter questions like your example. And, with each encounter, they will improve their method for dealing with similar questions. But students have been doing that for ages. I thought you were offering a new learning concept (maybe I just don't see it).

I think of the IQ factor as being like any other in-born talent. Students with less talent can outwork and out-perform more talented students. But, when the effort is the same, the higher IQ will outperform on the LSAT.

There are some concepts too difficult for the lower IQ to comprehend. There are also concepts that are easy-to-understand but the higher IQ will see many more applications for it, applications that will never occur to the lower IQ. And, there's nothing that can be done to offset the IQ advantage.

joe1776 said:

Practice exams are useful. I think when students take practice exams, they will encounter questions like your example. And, with each encounter, they will improve their method for dealing with similar questions. But students have been doing that for ages. I thought you were offering a new learning concept (maybe I just don't see it).

I think of the IQ factor as being like any other in-born talent. Students with less talent can outwork and out-perform more talented students. But, when the effort is the same, the higher IQ will outperform on the LSAT.

There are some concepts too difficult for the lower IQ to comprehend. There are also concepts that are easy-to-understand but the higher IQ will see many more applications for it, applications that will never occur to the lower IQ. And, there's nothing that can be done to offset the IQ advantage.

Click to expand...

I am not talking about merely taking practice exams. I am talking about being taught how to answer specific questions, like the one I just presented to you.

If you try to figure out what to do all by yourself you might not find the best way to solve it. You might not even notice there is a pattern between certain questions or even that the same way to solve one question can be used to solve others. When you are properly trained you know exactly what to do once you read the question. It becomes instinctive.

What I am saying is in essence that the higher results might be explainable by having better teachers. Those don't merely teach the subject of the test, but that also teach how to deal with the questions that are gonna show up in the test.

Koldo said:

I am not talking about merely taking practice exams. I am talking about being taught how to answer specific questions, like the one I just presented to you.

If you try to figure out what to do all by yourself you might not find the best way to solve it. You might not even notice there is a pattern between certain questions or even that the same way to solve one question can be used to solve others. When you are properly trained you know exactly what to do once you read the question. It becomes instinctive.

What I am saying is in essence that the higher results might be explainable by having better teachers. Those don't merely teach the subject of the test, but that also teach how to deal with the questions that are gonna show up in the test.

Click to expand...

OK, I understand. I have no idea of how many questions on the LSAT are built on such patterns, but there are some no doubt.