Scientifically, why is everyone so fucking stupid?

Scientifically, why is everyone so fucking stupid?

Other urls found in this thread:

washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/5/james-clapper-calls-us-information-agency-steroids/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Hedonistic post-arboreal mammal species.

that still makes them stupid

should they be gassed?

personally, i think so

Poor education.

It's an illusion, a fantasy you create to make yourself feel a little bit better.

Bad breeding. Have you ever seen the movie idiocracy? The beginning explains why we are fucked.

lack of need to be smarter,. we need more bears... bears everywhere..

Intelligence is expensive both in energy and in nutritional resources. So evolution will only increase intelligence in the face of very strong benefits.

For most species, the benefits are not enough given the cost.

As an analogy, the same reason your laptop computer does not have 2000 Tesla GPUs. Burns too much power and costs too much to build.

This.
Combo of trends where poor people tend to have more kids, successful people tend not to have many kids, and upswing in technological innovation leads to a trend where the dumber ones among us, which have always outbred the smarter ones, don't die as frequently as time goes on, which leads to an overall larger population with a higher percentage of dummies from all groups.


We'll all be good though if we use CRISPR to fix the defective ones before we hit the point of no return. Create an IQ virus, bundle it with the kids' flu shots and call it a day.

hopefully you and those who think liekcyou will be sent to gulag soon. scum

>guy wants to improve humanity
>outright desires to save it
>you wish for his death and call him scum
way to prove his point you undeveloped retard baby

Because the education system sucks. Life should be entirely about expanding our knowledge. That's the key to happiness, the key to progress, and the key to evolving into a superorganism. But no, it's more important to become slaves of labor to produce goods that we think will make us happy.

See Moritz Schlick on the benefits of creative play for a more eloquently-worded argument.

So, sex and trees make us stupid? What?

>>>/pol

Complacency

>niggers

I like this explanation.

For similar reasons, we're physically much weaker than chimpanzees, and our mental facilities only evolved enough to accommodate communication and memory storage. Beyond that, our evolution has led to energy optimizations of our mental facilities. Rounder heads need less skull bone overall, and our brains have been shrinking as our neural architecture packs in more and more optimally. Future evolution will be more determined by any existing demographics of those who choose not to reproduce or are less likely to reproduce, and the world melting pot will ensure that brain architectures will become pretty much the same world-round if they aren't already. This leaves our ultimate evolution of intelligence up to socioeconomic dynamics.

I want to give some credence to political correctness, but in my experience, a large majority of lower-class people just don't have a great amount of working intelligence. I mean, Veeky Forums-class mathematical and logical thinking is one in many among the lower classes, but even so, I think ultimate social class correlates more with the person's ability to work than directly with the person's cognitive ability, though the two do have some positive correlation in my experience.

The question then becomes who raises smart children. Naturally, those who send their children to nicer schools will have smarter children. This means that the higher classes will be well-educated more often than the lower classes will. There are many more dynamics to this, but, with full cognizance that I might be overstepping, I'll just assert that higher classes raise smarter children and therefore somewhat perpetuate the class dynamic. These smarter children will be more likely to grow into a higher class, and the cycle will go on with the next child. But who is the rich man's partner? Well, people often meet their partners through friends in common, and their friends share some sort of background with them. Maybe they were neighbo

Individuals have an inflated sense of personal intellect because of societies technological advancements.

It's also partially because of an advertising technique equating using their product to being intelligent. "Read our news" - "Use our computer" - "Buy a """SMART""" TV" - "Read books except in digital form so you'll be extra smart" People don't need scholastic achievement to feel intelligent anymore. They just need to buy a fucking "smart" phone.
Aggressive advertising/brainwashing/propaganda can really fuck with your brain. I worry about what more unforeseen side effect there will be in the future when it's gotten more efficient and effective.

Some people in the government want to create a propaganda machine on steroids kind of group to combat all the propaganda and false news that Russia's been throwing at the US during the election season this year. Again, i worry about what side effects this'll have in the long run.

What we really need is advertising/propaganda resistance training for the general population. Does such a thing even exist?

The average person spends their time on things that aren't useful learning, often opting for other important things like work or parenting. As such, the people get fed their facts and often wind up in echo chambers on Facebook, Reddit, Tumblr, and even in real life (Veeky Forums has echo chambers and noise chambers). Intelligence roots from an impetus to learn about things that can both build upon AND CHALLENGE what you already know.

As people get grounded in their political ideologies, marketing ploys and television shows designed to make them feel smart already, and the people's biases leaking into our educators, they lose their motivation to go out and get the facts themselves. You wind up with an intellectually burnt-out populous whose mental capacity is taken up by loads of redundant information, especially after times of crisis like the financial bubble of 2008, where people looked to their media outlets and got the loudest possible echo chambers that would just keep doing more of the same because it nets ratings. It's why we have an influx of hyperpolitical movements like SJWs, the alt-right, 4th-wave feminism, and the Tea party. They're too afraid to learn about things that fall outside of their comfort zones, and that's why people seem all-around dumber nowadays. No learning means no smart.

>What we really need is advertising/propaganda resistance training for the general population. Does such a thing even exist?

Critical thinking? Yeah it exists, albeit in scarcity these days

lead

the reality is that you're really stupid and just think you're intelligent, so you see intelligent people as stupid.

Does anyone even know what intelligence actually is? I've never met anyone who does.

nice meme

it's what science says it is

unintelligent and violent thugs are just recycled back into culture after committing a serious crime instead of being euthanized.
women are preconditioned by people with short term motives to be attracted to these types rather than intelligent 'beta males'.
this process is not fit for a spacefaring species, and will only serve to make a dumber, more violent and dangerous race until we are no longer capable of using tools other than a stick.
you can already see the results everywere you look.

Yeah, we're regressing. But eh, we probably wouldn't have gotten far anyway, gamma rays are a bitch.

Were definitely not regressing. We are more capable of solving problems now, and we do it faster than ever before with technology, though some special conceptual ones still elude us. The world's potential for advancement and breakthroughs only gets better every year.

We just look dumber when you walk down the street because we have made breakthroughs which allow the dumb to love longer than they would otherwise, which leads to even more dumb people being able to breed and dumb people tend to breed like rabbits to start with. Those dumb people are honestly humanity's true state outside of the harsh rules of mother nature. Their surplus breeding doesn't mean we are all getting dumber or that they themselves will get even dumber than they already are. Rather it's just going to be a fixed state where nothing changes because we are outside of the game of natural selection now.

Tl;dr-its not a regression wherein the species is genetically getting dumber. It's just dumb people being allowed to have higher numbers.

As a science teacher I can tell after 2 weeks what kids will have a future and which are walking memes.

As a social science teacher, I believe that every little dumbshit deserves to have his or her dick sucked until they come into the US presidency. Y'know, like Bush.

Because we're not smart, that's why we're stupid.

The person might have had pretty bad parents. Scientifically, really good question. Maybe how stupid you are might be how your brain develops.

>Talks about other people having no future
>Is a teacher

Because most people are followers and are content to fall in line when leaders tell them how things should be. It is in their nature not to question or challenge things, so their normal state is defined by ignorance and a lack of critical thinking. You could feed them actual shit and say it's God's decree, or spout some platitudes like "well we all just have to tough it out and eat shit" and they'll just nod as if you've given sage wisdom.

If there is a genetic component I don't think it's inherently to be stupid, but rather to be submission might let you keep your head long enough to reproduce.

Fuck you. FUCK YOU.
Cunts like you are the reason so many people are scientifically illiterate

>the good education meme
Listen. It's like this. If you have a smaller cup, no matter how much water you try to pour in it, it will always contain less water than a bigger cup could.

A filled tiny cup is better than an empty tiny cup.

Yeah. It is a little bit better.

Except knowledge doesn't equate to water. It more likely equates to more tools you can use to better hold the water. The water is just data. What's poured into the cup is methods for processing and handling it. Which means if you say kid x is a meme and quit on him, he won't be able to handle the water because he doesn't have the tools in his cup for handling it.
You know what. It's be better to switch from cups to belts.

>tools
I guess those would be more like skills. Skills I would say are habits developed by repetition and practice. Knowledge, to me, are facts, raw data, information.

If we're going to get into defining things, what is wisdom? I'd say wisdom is like life skills, as opposed to purely practical skills.

And that's the problem with honing skills. You can't actually force students to work hard. That is on them and always will be.

Bad culture

Our present-day culture is precisely the absence of culture. It is exactly what we all enjoyed doing when we were still swinging from trees, plus modern technology.

Human beings grow in understanding based on their own individual experiences, and willingness to accept what each person has learned at each their own pace.

Lack of experience, and lack of willingness to accept the results of those experiences inhibits a person from knowing, understanding, and moving forward.

You learn based on your experience. You advance by accepting and adapting to change.

You seem rather stupid OP, for not knowing, or understanding that.

I mean, if you take the blacks out, we wouldn't be AS stupid.

You just have a giant ego.

low dopamine from chronic excessive blue spectrum light exposure.

After a certain point, I stopped thinking that I was smarter than everyone around me and realised I was probably average.

As I became happier, I started to consider that I was probably below average. How can I be intelligent if my life lacks stress?

Principle of least effort

It's what's being tested for in intelligence tests, duh.

I see no difference between "stupid" and your choice of "f'n stupid," so I'll address stupid.

Everyone includes you. Since you're asking for answers you obviously do not have answers.

Yes, all of us are stupid, to some degree. Note the parenthetical comma. Trump and his kind are an example of an extreme degree of stupid: He can't admit he's stupid because he's so stupid that pretending he's smart and ill-gotten gains is all he has to boast about.

I, on the other hand, see I am extremely well read in the sciences and humanities so self-labeling myself stupid is a way to see I continue to learn. Trump is too old, fixed (closed-minded), racist and classist to learn now without major external help. He has dollars, but no cents. There isn't anyone I look up to intellectually so being called stupid doesn't bother me: most people babbling here can't spell small words, punctuate or write grammatically correctly sentences.

Stupid = ignorant = an ignoring, denying attitude [in fear of one's inadequacy, incompetence and "no idea what's going on (true or false)." They lack science, logic, sense and basic science (many are now 60-year-old valley girls whose every fifth word is "like" or "right?").

Thinking is the HARD work, studying studiously and learning earnestly. It requires courage and strength to face one's potential negativities (inherited ignorance) for evaluation of truth or lie. Most are too afraid, confused and hormoned to learn beyond public school. All of us started out 100% ignorant of thinking, thoughtfulness and consideration for others (empathy). Most took the easy way: the least effort and work so they grew up ignorant and so today we have the masses that are extremely ignorant (stupid, stupor, tupor, sluggish, slow) so their representatives are extremely ignorant.

They are offensive, the extremely ignorant masses: They're so stupid that they're dangerous (texting driving are severely stupid and obviously fatally dangerous).

>Some people in the government want to create a propaganda machine on steroids

CIA much? JTRIC, etc.

is this bait?

Clinton supporters are the selfish city-goers who can't empathize. They are the ones who speed and cut you off while you are driving. They have no practical intelligence, and think their in-depth book memorization of an impossible political system (perfect communism) = knowledge. Trump was the only candidate out of the republican line up with any genuine compassion for his fellow man. Hillary was 1 of 2 candidates out of the democratic lineup without such compassion. Most smart people in the real world outside of academia follow Trump. They support Trump because of basic logic.

Re.8587966
@8587998

Intelligence is a bit of a hairy topic to cover, however, Lisa Barrett's approach might offer a more palatable framework than sociocultural studies for those in Veeky Forums. A brain-based epistemology for psychology has slowly but surely been in the works and I hope will begin getting more recognition soon.

First off, the way evolution is handled in psychology misunderstands Darwin. Emotions for example, do not correspond to specific end-goals, as if fear essentially results in homogeneous instances of behavior such as fleeing or freezing, or that anger specifically has functional ties to aggression. In essence, emotions are not teleological with essentialized effects. Psychology has tackled emotion myopically, looking into specific emotions while consistently borrowing from folk / everyday life concepts. A more plausible hypothesis is that emotions, all of them, point toward domain-general operations that allow for adaptations to a variety of environmental factors, rather than domain-specific responses to specific environmental correlates. They are argued to be situated conceptualizations of bodily sensations that allow for functions not readily present in the physical properties of the body. For example, how could a rise in heart rate, blood pressure, and skin conductance necessarily lead to an instance of anger? It may well be fear, anxiety, happiness, excitement, and so on. These emotion words are culturally relative, constructed and maintained in language and social function while reflected in the body and brain not by specific neural patterns or physiological responses but by domain-general systems that construct an instance of emotion bounded to the sensations from the body and the world at a given point in time.

This affects our approach to intelligence. While the constructionist research program does not explicitly tackle intelligence, it does provide some direction.

The psychological constructionist findings provide support for social constructionist views. Emotions and intelligence existing in a social reality does not deny the physical properties in the brain and body that allow this to happen (i.e. a nature-nurture binarism is dissolved). Patterns in discursive and material frameworks (yes, the sociocultural studies done by 'people who can't do science') have already identified strong reasons for OP's question.

Do people generally have a culture that promotes intellectualism? (very vague and unusable research question for a paper by the way)
What factors constrain and enable valuations of work that promotes intelligence?
Do socioeconomic factors play a part in intelligence?

These questions, rough as they are, should be enough to point out that people exist in a social and material world that in varied ways, can promote and constrain the development of intelligence (insofar as that is itself an abstract social category).

Other more interesting points that one could have gotten from reading the previous post would be whether or not intelligence is still a scientifically valid category. It is after all, an abstraction populated with heterogeneous instances. Is there an essence to "smart" behavior? Does this have an essentialized physical type in the brain? The difficulty that psychology has had so far in answering these questions points towards a change in our approach.

There are many points that are equally important that could not be discussed. I'm still in the process of reading, but for more exciting insights read the Psychological Construction of Emotions. I recommend this for people who often carried a disenchantment for psychology and the social sciences in general. They provide sound criticism on the current paradigms of psychology and offer a brain-based approach that threatens to finally reintegrate cognition, emotion, and social psychology underneath one cohesive framework.

It's not bait; it's Benl

>Scientifically, why is everyone so fucking stupid?

Because statistically that's how averages work op. Even in populations with high IQ averages, half the population is still (relatively speaking) stupid.

And any attempt to cull them will shift the average and create a new "stupid" portion of people. Even meme shit like CRISPR will fail to fix the situation properly because it will just turn into a rat race of one uping each in intelligence.

Alternative solutions to the stupidity problem like making everyone "informed" or "educated" will usually succumb to fallacious cognitive processes because the human brain typically prioritizes local activity as oppose to distant activity due to innate survival tendencies.

The best solution would probably require humans to no longer be "human" anymore to avoid these kind of pitfalls.

Underrated.

Director of Intelligence, James Clapper, just spoke to congress using those exact words. With our next president it'll likely happen.

washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/5/james-clapper-calls-us-information-agency-steroids/

>propaganda and false news

Mindlessly repeating MSM narratives does not make you smart.

Stupid people can be skilled. I know 90 IQ blue collar workers who can do things that you'd never be able to do without years of practice.

Quite a bit of being smart is feeling smart.

See glasses. Its engraved in some to think "Gee, that person is smart." from the sight of glasses or smart attire. Even if that person is naturally a dumbass the belief or confidence that comes from being called gifted can go a long way. Maybe its gene expression. Or like how having a Power stance before an interview causes physical changes.

Personally I believe that people change to accommodate the needs of the collective.

is this what your fuckhead philosophy teacher told you?

This.
>What we really need is advertising/propaganda resistance training for the general population. Does such a thing even exist?
The US has propaganda tools of its own more sophisticated than anything the Rooskie could develop.
If you thin making people resistance to such influence is the goal- then you'd be mistaken.

>Wearing glasses makes you smart

You are not very smart.

As example of US propaganda working well is this guy thinking that Russia "hacked" the elections.

We know that regulation of gene expression exists. Its a fair conclusion that personality is dependent on environmental stimuli.

Where did I say "wearing glasses makes you smart"?

It's more like how girls pretend to be especially dumb in social environments.

>With our next president it'll likely happen.
Hahaha
If you think it hasn't been 1/2 of their main mission for decades, you have been selectively ignoring US and world events.

The CIA hates pres Trump. Trump is good for the people.

The way I see it, stupidity is the state of not having the faintest idea about what intelligence even looks like. Consequently, stupid people are completely blind to intelligence.

Convientlly leaves out the part about genocide...

Genocide? A genetic IQ virus distributed to all is the opposite of a genocide. It's elevating everyone to an equal playing field, assuming IQ is genetic.

we are ALL somewhere in between einstein and 1 man 1 jar

Ah, I see where the other user is coming from.
A "IQ virus" could be thought of as a virus that targets and sterilizes those with a low IQ.

I guess those are two ways to achieve the same goal (everyone having equal IQ). In fact a genocidal virus is more likely than a very precise retrovirus. One only requires us to know of the genetic markers for intelligence or stupidity and the other would require leaps in engineering..

Well I mean if we ever do find the genetic markers for intelligence, we could use a manufactured retrovirus to either increase the alleles for those of us with lower intelligence, or inject whatever is missing.

That would be more ethical and way more logical than putting out some IQ seeking retrovirus that activates whenever someone has a low IQ. We'd need bodybags for half the populaton and there'd be a war. Just raising everyone fixes the problem.

*some lethal or sterilizing IQ seeking retrovirus that activates whenever a person has low IQ

Both would require leaps in engineering honestly. It just depends on if you want to do something evil or good once you have the virus able to seek out the IQ genes.

I get what you're saying.
But defense contractors have already invested a bit into developing viruses that only attack a specific population (you can imagine the utility in war).
Plus with CRISPR/Cas9 its only a matter of time until we can identify which genes are responsible for intelligence or personality.

That is to say- its much easier to kill someone than to change all the trillions of cells found in the body.

I dunno. I think it actually may be of use for groups who still have their brains developing, like children. Bundling IQ virus with kids flu shots prior to puberty is enough time to induce genetic change if necceary and then puberty can handle all the work of actually making the changes specified in the retrovirus code.

But I definitely agree that it probably won't work or be an easy task to accomplish for adults who already have completed development.