Are people cleverer now than they used to be?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I was just chatting about this in the pub, and I'm not sure whether, on average, people are clever now than they were 50/100/200/1000 years ago. The common sense answer is that yes, people are clever now, but then you think that a lot of people don't use their brains as much now as they did years ago. Or maybe that's wrong, I dunno. What do you think?

Come Back Johnny B (Johnney B), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:05 (eighteen years ago) link

i don't think i'm up to tangling with the cold, hard science of the word 'clever'.

N_RQ, Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:07 (eighteen years ago) link

The common sense answer is yes

That's because people are stupider than they used to be

Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:08 (eighteen years ago) link

But, seriously, in my experience, the answer is a resounding "no"

Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:09 (eighteen years ago) link

Have to define clever yada yada accumulation of previous knowledge yada yada is there any change in relative average iqs? yada yada most westerners today lack the basic survival skills that their predecessors would have had 400 years ago.

Also shorter attention spans.

I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:09 (eighteen years ago) link

How do you measure cleverness? Ingenuity? The ability to learn and retain new information?

Just because we, as a species, have aquired more knowledge doesn't make the individual members "cleverer". I think people in previous ages might not have had the same access to information that we have now, but they certainly were able to do things and remember things that we would would be hard pressed to match.

Luminiferous Aether (kate), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:09 (eighteen years ago) link

i think people are cleverer.. because as a human race we acquire knowledge from history and from new, so really by default we'd be cleverer than before (in terms of knowing more, and also perhaps knowing better ways of thinking). whether that is a bliss or not, is another issue!!

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:09 (eighteen years ago) link

hey, i can use the internet -- how many cavemen you know could have done that? thickies.

N_RQ, Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:10 (eighteen years ago) link

because as a human race we acquire knowledge from history

should acquire. but usually fail to. kate OTM above.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:12 (eighteen years ago) link

I think the smartest 10% are dumber. Television etc. More of the population has "a little knowledge."

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:12 (eighteen years ago) link

pre-internet people were probably better at capitalisation though. so it's all relative

xpost

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:12 (eighteen years ago) link

i'm still thinking about what things people can't do now that people from the past could.

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:13 (eighteen years ago) link

I think that 100, even 200 years ago, "educated" people were expected to learn (fluent!) Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Most English speakers these days can't even manage a second language (jargon not included). I think that means a certain amount of mental narrowing.

Luminiferous Aether (kate), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:14 (eighteen years ago) link

Make fire with sticks!

nathalie's pocket revolution (stevie nixed), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:15 (eighteen years ago) link

Cultivate or catch and kill their own food, build themselves an effective shelter from the elements. Okay, some people can still do that but a tiny percentage compared to in the past.

I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:16 (eighteen years ago) link

I think that 100, even 200 years ago, "educated" people were expected to learn (fluent!) Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Most English speakers these days can't even manage a second language (jargon not included). I think that means a certain amount of mental narrowing.

yeah but i can speak Java, C++, Haskell, BASIC and txt msg lng?!??!?! not to mention 133+!

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:16 (eighteen years ago) link

I think that 100, even 200 years ago, "educated" people were expected to learn (fluent!) Latin, Greek and Hebrew

Well, not Hebrew

Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:17 (eighteen years ago) link

I think that 100, even 200 years ago, "educated" people were expected to learn (fluent!) Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Most English speakers these days can't even manage a second language (jargon not included). I think that means a certain amount of mental narrowing.

But that's because it's not really necessary anymore. Why learn three languages when one suffices? Only if your mother tongue is a *rubbish* language - like Dutch - you don't really need to learn another language. English is more than enough, unless of course you go to, for example, Japan.

I speak two languages very well (or at least I like to think I do) and three others I can manage to get by.

nathalie's pocket revolution (stevie nixed), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:18 (eighteen years ago) link

Cultivate or catch and kill their own food, build themselves an effective shelter from the elements. Okay, some people can still do that but a tiny percentage compared to in the past.

i think cultivating things most people can do (especially with a quick browse on the 21st century world wide web ;)!), as to catching and killing for food - isn't that a lot more to do with physical strength and skills rather than mental ability?

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:19 (eighteen years ago) link

Unwitting a cow would not appear to require much in the way of "cleverness"

Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:20 (eighteen years ago) link

Latin & Greek not so much 100 years ago, certainly 200 or 300 years ago. But only a wealthy elite, and their education had didn't contain a lot of what we consider useful knowledge today. Also, the Classics thing often produced people who looked at the world like it was still Athens in the 5th Century B.C. and that's not a fantastically progressive world-view. I love me some 18th Century men of letters but the great ones - Swift, Johnson, Pope - were reactionary gits as well as being the funniest people who ever lived.

I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:21 (eighteen years ago) link

catching and killing without modern weapons would have required a certain amount of ingenuity i imagine

gem (trisk), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:21 (eighteen years ago) link

like, it's not that individuals are incapable of doing these things, they just don't need to

(of course you can argue that back in the days people don't really need to know how to drive for there was no cars)

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:21 (eighteen years ago) link

ken I think you should strand yourself on a desert island for a year to test the truth of your thesis.

I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:22 (eighteen years ago) link

I find it astonishing that people did things like build bridges and castles and huge buildings WITHOUT THE AID OF COMPUTERS OR CALCULATORS OR POWER TOOLS OR EVEN ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS SOMETIMES in the olden days. Which nobody would even attempt today to put up a shed, let alone London Bridge. (OK, that fell down seven times, but lots of other things are still standing.)

Luminiferous Aether (kate), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:23 (eighteen years ago) link

but it's precisely that being a 21st century individual i have better sense than to strand myself on a desert island!!!

xpost

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:23 (eighteen years ago) link

People didn't learn Latin or Greek to speak it necessarily but so they could read classic literature, philosophy and science - and they were certainly still doing it in the 20th century!

Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:24 (eighteen years ago) link

yeah that fully astounds me too kate. when i was in europe i would stand underneath medieval castles and churches and such like in complete awe.

gem (trisk), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:24 (eighteen years ago) link

i learned latin in 1994/95!

gem (trisk), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:25 (eighteen years ago) link

I find it astonishing that people did things like build bridges and castles and huge buildings WITHOUT THE AID OF COMPUTERS OR CALCULATORS OR POWER TOOLS OR EVEN ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS SOMETIMES in the olden days. Which nobody would even attempt today to put up a shed, let alone London Bridge.

once again, being smarter!

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:25 (eighteen years ago) link

They were still doing it in the 20th century of course, I meant that Classics stopped being regarded as an essential part of education and became a specialism.

I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:25 (eighteen years ago) link

Face it, not only are we stupid nowadays but we're arrogant enough to think we're smarter

Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:26 (eighteen years ago) link

Whenever I read novels or criticism or whatever from previous eras I'm struck by how little I know compared to them - they could quote things! speak latin! had read the canon! etc. It's not cleverness, not intelligence, simply how much you've been taught perhaps or have learned of a certain thing that might not even be all that useful, but it is something we're lacking. And of course that kind of knowledge was restricted to a very small if vocal section of society, whereas I think it's probably wider now even if there's less of it.

I doubt people are, on average, any cleverer or stupider than they have been in previous eras - they just have different priorities and value different skills, innit.

spontine (cis), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:27 (eighteen years ago) link

spontine otm

i'd be able to learn heaps more stuff an' that like poems if i didn't have a telly.

gem (trisk), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:28 (eighteen years ago) link

I blame Makosi

Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:28 (eighteen years ago) link

Then again, I think how much better I'd be at playing the piano if I didn't own a CD player. Sigh.

Luminiferous Aether (kate), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:29 (eighteen years ago) link

People used to play instruments more too but only because they were desperately waiting for somebody to invent the gramophone.

I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:29 (eighteen years ago) link

They were so fucking bored, they had nothing better to do that plonk out a few tunes on the old joanna

Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:30 (eighteen years ago) link

you can learn poetry from watching Science

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:31 (eighteen years ago) link

personally, i despair of "people" ... but that's mostly because i've just had a particularly idiotic e-mail from our IT department, who have sunk to an all-time low.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:31 (eighteen years ago) link

you should share it

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:31 (eighteen years ago) link

i never watch Science though. only the news, travel docs and midsomer murders.

gem (trisk), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:32 (eighteen years ago) link

teleological history says smarter, seeing humans on a uni-linear train from ignorance to Enlightenment, but, beyond the people who unfortunately rule America, this notion of progress hasn't seemed as popular since 1945.

barbarian cities (jaybob3005), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:32 (eighteen years ago) link

but, beyond the people who unfortunately rule America, this notion of progress hasn't seemed as popular since 1945.

because people have learned to know better than this since?

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:33 (eighteen years ago) link

I'm less clever than I used to be.

JimD (JimD), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:33 (eighteen years ago) link

are you quoting kings of leon?

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:34 (eighteen years ago) link

But the Nazis were totally products of the Enlightenment! Better killing through science, grandiose plans to improve the human condition, virile defence of Western Culture. Soviet Communism too, but a bit crapper.

I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:34 (eighteen years ago) link

i don't think 'knowing more science stuff' = cleverer

gem (trisk), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:35 (eighteen years ago) link

actually i don't know the actualy lyrics to that song.. i was thinking of the one that goes "mumble mumble mumble mumble used to be"

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:35 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't think being able to quote Juvenal from memory = cleverer either.

I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:35 (eighteen years ago) link

i think spontine is right. no one period of time is cleverer or dumber - just different.

gem (trisk), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:36 (eighteen years ago) link

It wasn't even that popular in 1945! people have been disproving that 'all evolution is GOOD PROGRESS' theory since ever!

Thing is, like, back in the day people were forced to memorise poems in school and stuff, weren't they? (I base this on swallows and amazons where they have to recite casablanca or something for the evil great-aunt) And to have piano lessons and do their practice and speak proper and all; but no-one would be so inhumane as to force kids to do that now as it is horrendously dull and unpleasant for most people and the benefits aren't all that proveable, are they.

spontine (cis), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:37 (eighteen years ago) link

Juvenal = songwriter of kings of leon?

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:37 (eighteen years ago) link

above == multiple xposts obv.

I wish I could quote juvenal from memory! I know some catullus tho.

spontine (cis), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:38 (eighteen years ago) link

i think only very immature people should quote Juvenal from memory

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:38 (eighteen years ago) link

But the Nazis were totally products of the Enlightenment! Better killing through science, grandiose plans to improve the human condition, virile defence of Western Culture. Soviet Communism too, but a bit crapper.
-- I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle_vagu...), September 1st, 2005

i think this is a little undialectical.

i think spontine is right. no one period of time is cleverer or dumber - just different.
-- gem (gemilyinterrupte...)

are you, by any chance, a schoolteacher?

N_RQ, Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:39 (eighteen years ago) link

no. i'm a law student. why?

gem (trisk), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:39 (eighteen years ago) link

"I'm not as smart as I used to be" is actually the Dandy Warhols, fool!

Luminiferous Aether (kate), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:40 (eighteen years ago) link

yeah, exactly. the whole extremely influential adorno/horkheimer thesis that 'the road of enlightenment leads to auschwitz' has held sway over large areas of academia since the 50s.

people haven't got cleverer; power has got cleverer. the powerful use technological advances to safeguard and butress their own positions. people in general have got stupider because we place increasing faith in technology (in the sense that we rely on it to do everyday tasks which would previously have required individual competence) but our access to that technology and our entire relationship with it is not controlled by us. this will be borne out as government's place increasing control over the internet. ilx addicts will become increasingly forlorn as they realise that their desire to post conflicts with their desire not to have every post scrutinised by people looking for intentions to commit unsociable activities. etc. etc.

barbarian cities (jaybob3005), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:41 (eighteen years ago) link

xxx post

But as a thickie 21st century boy, I don't speak any dialects. Also, Hegel was a wanker.

I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:41 (eighteen years ago) link

yeah but those people who knew a lot were the elite, the aristocrats, etc. -- how much of the general population did they represent? 5%? if that? I think on average people are more cleverer today - but back then, the clever people, wow, were they clever!

Homosexual II (Homosexual II), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:41 (eighteen years ago) link

barbarian cities, you might want to ease up on the crystal meth and the Philip K. Dick books.

I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:42 (eighteen years ago) link

i mean really, those rich people back in the day, besides having slaves and nasty stuff, they really knew how to be good rich people. I think all rich people should be totally all-knowing, clever and able to draw a quote from some obscure text at any given moment -- rich people nowadays are really violating their legacy

Homosexual II (Homosexual II), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:43 (eighteen years ago) link

yeah but there are like well smart people nowadays! (they just aren't necessarily the richest)

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:44 (eighteen years ago) link

xpost

i was joking.

i do think that we know comparatively little now in terms of being able to fend for ourselves tho.

barbarian cities (jaybob3005), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:45 (eighteen years ago) link

i think people are about as clever as ever but maybe less "ignorant" -- we know more *stuff*.

N_RQ, Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:45 (eighteen years ago) link

Sorry, irony detector malfunction. Yeah, I said upthread, a modern day Robinson Crusoe prob'ly wouldn't last a week.

I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:46 (eighteen years ago) link

I are smarter than yesteryear yup.

Kv_nol (Kv_nol), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:46 (eighteen years ago) link

i wonder if we put a dude from 2000 years ago in a fight now with a dude from now, no weapons allowed, who would win.

the 2000 year old dude may well have more muscles etc. but then again the dude from now might know MARTIAL ARTS (or have at least watched WWE)

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:47 (eighteen years ago) link

but thinking we know more stuff makes us stupider, surely

there's also the whole case for information overload making us stupider. the internet's kinda overwhelming innit.

barbarian cities (jaybob3005), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:48 (eighteen years ago) link

we now know too much for our own good!!

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:49 (eighteen years ago) link

the 2000 year old dude may well have more muscles etc. but then again the dude from now might know MARTIAL ARTS (or have at least watched WWE)

-- ken c (pykachu10...), September 1st, 2005.

mai non, he would be about 5ft tall, i think. less well-built anyhoo.

N_RQ, Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:50 (eighteen years ago) link

maybe the adage 'it's not size, it's what you do with it that counts' would apply to a vicious, hirsute neanderthal accustomed to tearing apart frightening animals with only his hands and teeth.

barbarian cities (jaybob3005), Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:52 (eighteen years ago) link

Yeah, my money would be on the 2000 years ago bloke. He'd fight way dirty.

I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 1 September 2005 13:06 (eighteen years ago) link

haha like rick flair

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 1 September 2005 13:10 (eighteen years ago) link

we seem more dependent but i don't think we are. the advances made by people in the past seem incredible - building bridges without computers at all, etc., and it seems like an incredible leap to go from no bridges to bridges. but i think the leaps we make today are as important, even if we're standing on the shoulders of giants. it's impressive that people could figure out not only concepts but the values of things like gravity, seemingly from scratch, but what we do with those inventions/discoveries is also impressive. plus, more people have greater access to more knowledge, which is a feat, even if human capacity for great thinking is a constant over time.

carly (carly), Thursday, 1 September 2005 13:12 (eighteen years ago) link

Keep in mind that before radio, television, and recorded sound, people had to MAKE their own entertainment. Skills in conversation and repartee were probably more valued; wit couldn't be imported through the airways. I imagine people are less interesting now, as a rule.

Robert T., Saturday, 3 September 2005 01:05 (eighteen years ago) link

i think we are much more dependent (tho i totally agree with the rest of your post, carly), but the other side of the coin is that we have the potential to be much more dependable in large collectives because of the sheer amount of technology and communication at our disposal, so that doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. clearly this week is showing that it is a problem, we're not following through with all the potential we have, so i'm kind of pessimistic about cleverness in terms of problem-solving (as opposed to learning massive amounts of information, which i think we've become quite good at).

Maria (Maria), Saturday, 3 September 2005 02:24 (eighteen years ago) link

I always joke that if you dropped my parents off in a forest and came back in 9 mos, you'd find them having tea on their porch (house built by my dad and full of labor-saving devices) and wearing linen suits (my mother having grown the flax and etc). This *probably* isn't entirely true but they are MASSIVELY resourceful people. I will be proud to carry on even a portion of their skills (although I take a pass on the crochet -- HOW MANY DOILIES does one family need??).

I am, however, really interested in the ways thought patterns change, esp the whole pre-literate thing and the increased reliance on symbol & metaphor and how that's tied to religious beliefs. Not that I've done any heavy reading on the subject, you understand -- but I will! Erm, might.

I haven't answered the orig question, so shoot me -- but haven't we resolved this silly issue already?

Laurel, Saturday, 3 September 2005 02:44 (eighteen years ago) link

Unwitting a cow would not appear to require much in the way of "cleverness"

That's stupidity and docility are two of the things cows have been bred for. You try outwitting an auroch - the wild cow, about 50% larger than a modern cow and a hell of a lot smarter and more aggressive.

Oh, and with pointier horns too.

I find it astonishing that people did things like build bridges and castles and huge buildings WITHOUT THE AID OF COMPUTERS OR CALCULATORS OR POWER TOOLS OR EVEN ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS SOMETIMES in the olden days. Which nobody would even attempt today to put up a shed, let alone London Bridge. (OK, that fell down seven times, but lots of other things are still standing.)

The things that are still standing were hugely over-engineered, mostly by accident. It was only in the 20th century that materials science at all developed as a subject, and engineers started to learn things such as: how dangerous things like sharp steps and corners are.*

Medieval cathedrals were built over several decades, largely by trial and error. If it looks like it's going to fall outwards, you add extra flying buttresses. If the foundations start moving, you either start again or do your best to make stuff lighter (see: Ely cathedral). If it looks like it's going to fall inwards, you try to add flying buttresses on the inside of the building (see: Wells cathedral).

People used to play instruments more too but only because they were desperately waiting for somebody to invent the gramophone.

OTM. Instead of buying an album, you'd buy the sheet music for the latest popular songs and learn to play them yourself.

personally, i despair of "people" ... but that's mostly because i've just had a particularly idiotic e-mail from our IT department, who have sunk to an all-time low.

Hurrah for IT!

* the rules for this are rather non-intuitive. If you drill a hole in a stressed object, the stress around the hole is multiplied by three whatever the size of the hole. If it's a square hole, the stress at the corners is multipled a couple of hundred times.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Saturday, 3 September 2005 06:25 (eighteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.