Are people getting dumber?

[George-ananda]

If anything, it is people with really low IQ that should feel responsible for not having many children.

Sure, but concerns for social responsibility I suspect are lower among those of lower IQ creating a vicious circle.

 

[joe1776]

Although I agree with most of what you have said, why do you think the LSAT is relevant ?

I think the RISE in LSAT scores, by both sexes, would be credibly explained by a rise in IQ. Don't you? It's possible that there's another explanation but that one cropped up first in my mind.

 

[Koldo]

I think the RISE in LSAT scores, by both sexes, would be credibly explained by a rise in IQ. Don't you? It's possible that there's another explanation but that one cropped up first in my mind.

How about people becoming better trained to do stuff like LSAT ?

 

[joe1776]

How about people becoming better trained to do stuff like LSAT ?

Possible but I doubt it because I don't think we yet know how to teach the analysis of questions such as those that appear on the LSAT. Students have always studied for it. But I think some are born to pass it and others aren't.

 

[siti]

IQ tests are designed to test the kinds of intelligence that were important to previous generations...the world is moving on and I reckon kids are just as smart as their parents and grandparents but in different ways. Its nothing really to do with education I don't think - although the ability to take the test depends on some level of education. Anyway, I don't believe people are getting dumber - but they certainly don't seem to be getting much smarter either.

 

[Koldo]

Possible but I doubt it because I don't think we yet know how to teach the analysis of questions such as those that appear on the LSAT. Students have always studied for it. But I think some are born to pass it and others aren't.

I very much doubt so. It just so happens that patterns tend to appear on tests, and if you learn the patterns beforehand you end up having an easier time to answer the questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not looking forward to the time when the people elect Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho to the Presidency of the United States.

I thought we already did that two years ago.

 

[joe1776]

I very much doubt so. It just so happens that patterns tend to appear on tests, and if you learn the patterns beforehand you end up having an easier time to answer the questions.

Here's the thing: Choose a topic, any topic, and you can make up a whole bunch of useless facts about it. Those facts will be true, but they're still useless.

A while back, I was asked my opinion of a college text entitled "Critical Thinking." It was filled with useless facts that were taught, memorized and tested. Students could learn more about thinking critically on this site than from a course built on that text.

 

[Koldo]

Here's the thing: Choose a topic, any topic, and you can make up a whole bunch of useless facts about it. Those facts will be true, but they're still useless.

A while back, I was asked my opinion of a college text entitled "Critical Thinking." It was filled with useless facts that were taught, memorized and tested. Students could learn more about thinking critically on this site than from a course built on that text.

Patterns are not useless. Far from that. By learning the patterns you get to speed up your problem solving by a lot. Have you ever tried ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would think it is because of the technological advansment that we as humans do less use of our brain then before the computer age. Since you mention Norway i can say that here all students get an Ipad or Android Pad at school so they do not need to use books or pencil and paper anymore. In my understanding this is one of the causes children getting reduced IQ

You might have a point. I remember from college that the act of taking notes drilled in the lesson through a different pathway. The few classes that I did poorly in were ones where I could not stand the prof. That made it hard to write notes.

 

[joe1776]

Patterns are not useless. Far from that. By learning the patterns you get to speed up your problem solving by a lot. Have you ever tried ?

Well, yes, we think by recognizing patterns, Give me an example of how you would teach thinking in patterns.

 

[Koldo]

Well, yes, we think by recognizing patterns, Give me an example of how you would teach thinking in patterns.

It has been a while but perhaps this will make my point of view clearer:

About 10 years ago, I participated on a test to try to become some sort of public servant. My friend was paying tuition fees and he wanted to share with me what he learned to study just so he could have a partner to study with. We had to study certain subjects like math and logic. It turns out though that learning the test subject itself was just half of the work. The other half was all about memorizing how to solve certain specific questions. It turns out that if you switch around a few variables you can create a lot of different questions. This is what creates patterns and the consequence is questions that can solved in the exact same way. If you learn how to solve them you not only score points but you also end up with extra time to solve the novel questions. Just to give you one specific example: Time and time again, at least one question involving sudoku would appear on this sort of test we were doing. We knew how to solve a sudoku because we had done so a hundred times before the test. And there it was: a sudoku question showed up on our test. Easy peasy, done in an under a minute. Had I never seen that sort of question before I would have wasted a lot of time on it.

 

[siti]

Students could learn more about thinking critically on this site than from a course built on that text.

Hmmm! It must have been pretty poor methinks.

 

[joe1776]

It has been a while but perhaps this will make my point of view clearer:

About 10 years ago, I participated on a test to try to become some sort of public servant. My friend was paying tuition fees and he wanted to share with me what he learned to study just so he could have a partner to study with. We had to study certain subjects like math and logic. It turns out though that learning the test subject itself was just half of the work. The other half was all about memorizing how to solve certain specific questions. It turns out that if you switch around a few variables you can create a lot of different questions. This is what creates patterns and the consequence is questions that can solved in the exact same way. If you learn how to solve them you not only score points but you also end up with extra time to solve the novel questions. Just to give you one specific example: Time and time again, at least one question involving sudoku would appear on this sort of test we were doing. We knew how to solve a sudoku because we had done so a hundred times before the test. And there it was: a sudoku question showed up on our test. Easy peasy, done in an under a minute. Had I never seen that sort of question before I would have wasted a lot of time on it.

It's very hard from your description to determine whether you're giving me something useful that would apply to the LSAT or not.

You've seen lists of logical fallacies on almost every site on the Internet about Logic. Each one of those fallacies is a pattern that can show up in arguments in many variations. I was looking at a list of more than 200 not long ago. That list can be taught and the students will pass the test given immediately thereafter.

But will they recognize the flawed pattern in an argument on the LSAT six months later? Probably not unless they were born with the ability to recognize logical fallacies, IMO.

I'm checking out for the evening. I'll check tomorrow if you have more thoughts on this.

 

[Koldo]

It's very hard from your description to determine whether you're giving me something useful that would apply to the LSAT or not.

You've seen lists of logical fallacies on almost every site on the Internet about Logic. Each one of those fallacies is a pattern that can show up in arguments in many variations. I was looking at a list of more than 200 not long ago. That list can be taught and the students will pass the test given immediately thereafter.

But will they recognize the flawed pattern in an argument on the LSAT six months later? Probably not unless they were born with the ability to recognize logical fallacies, IMO.

I'm checking out for the evening. I'll check tomorrow if you have more thoughts on this.

I would consider knowing that list as merely knowing the subject. When I speak about patterns I am talking about knowing what sort of question is asked in the test.

When you get asked a novel question you use up some of your time thinking about how to solve the question. In a sense you get to devise how to solve the problem from scratch. However, when you know the pattern you just know how to reach the answer when you start reading the question. It is as if you had the instructions' manual in your brain which is much more efficient to reach the answer than trying to figure out where to start all by yourself.

Imagine I ask you to solve a Rubik's cube. You may devise a logical way to solve it but I would bet my money that any kid that knew beforehand how to solve it would do it much more efficiently than you. And worst of all: Not only would they be able to solve it quicker, the time they take to solve it can't be used to assess how smart they are in any way.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I feel like the modern-day human species as I see it, has a bit of a "Tribe" mentality rather than being more of free-thinkers.

However, if you were to take that out of the picture... I'm skeptical people are getting dumber.

 

[joe1776]

I would consider knowing that list as merely knowing the subject. When I speak about patterns I am talking about knowing what sort of question is asked in the test.

When you ask what sort of question my mind jumps to broad categories: reading comprehension, analytical, logical, and so on. But that's not what you mean because that's not much help when tested.

When you get asked a novel question you use up some of your time thinking about how to solve the question. In a sense you get to devise how to solve the problem from scratch. However, when you know the pattern you just know how to reach the answer when you start reading the question. It is as if you had the instructions' manual in your brain which is much more efficient to reach the answer than trying to figure out where to start all by yourself.

The Rubick's cube is a unique kind of problem. There are sample LSAT questions on the Internet. If you could give me one or two actual examples, it would help me understand.

Is there an explanation of the process you're describing on the 'net?

 

[Cooky]

I came across this study today.

Opinion | Many developed countries are getting dumber, and the U.S. is likely next

The fact that people with lower levels of intelligence produce children who are likely to be less smart adults is not new and not surprising. No one gives what they don't have and parents who didn't have a good education can't provide one for their offspring.
I was a bit puzzled by this paragraph though:
"However, a 2018 study of Norway has punctured these theories by showing that IQs are dropping not just across societies but within families. In other words, the issue is not that educated Norwegians are increasingly outnumbered by lower-IQ immigrants or the children of less-educated citizens. Even children born to high-IQ parents are slipping down the IQ ladder."
Normally the next generation has a higher education than the previous ones and given all the information available today, that should continue to be the case. If anything, kids should be getting smarter, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Any thoughts on that?

Don't ever trust Norway. They'll find a way to not blame migration. And this "study" is just that.

 

[joe1776]

Hmmm! It must have been pretty poor methinks.

RF is one of the best sites around for exposure to logical fallacies.

 

[Koldo]

When you ask what sort of question my mind jumps to broad categories: reading comprehension, analytical, logical, and so on. But that's not what you mean because that's not much help when tested.

The Rubick's cube is a unique kind of problem. There are sample LSAT questions on the Internet. If you could give me one or two actual examples, it would help me understand.

Is there an explanation of the process you're describing on the 'net?

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.