Gen Y Article About Why Their Lives Suck
- Thread starter Fiver
- Start date
I logged in just to say how awesome statelizard has been. Level headed reasoning backed by great coherence when communicating.
One thing I will say, is that while the general character of people has been slowly improving since the dawn of humanity, there has been a shift of late; over the last 150 years or so.
Some might call it a dumbing down. But that is a rather imprecise use of language, because as statelizard pointed out, humans are better educated than before. As guerilla would say; 'define dumbing down'
I forgot where I read it (48 laws of power? nietzsche?) but someone wrote something along the lines of:
Before, for the most part, there were the educated and the uneducated. The educated were protected from charlatans due to their high level of education. The uneducated were protected by common sense. There were very few semi-educated. But now these are the majority. Too educated to be protected by common sense, too uneducated to be protected by reason.
I think this is what many are referring to when saying people are getting stupider.
From an evolutionary stand point (as pointed out by Idiocracy), natural selection is getting to be weaker and weaker within our species. I remember George Carlin talking about child safe products saying "what happened with the kid who swallowed too many marbles doesn't get to grow up and have kids of his own?" - It is hard to argue that there just aren't leaders like there were before. You can say that this is because the system has changed, but it has only changed because the people changed. No system can change without the underlying support of the populace.
Now I'll admit this isn't anything new, and the change from one generation isn't as sharp as most would make it out to be, but there is a trend, and it is accelerating. Of course, there are far too many variables for anyone to predict where it is heading exactly or even how great the general shift is. And I agree, trying to dissect these broad trends now is rather silly.
One thing I will say, is that while the general character of people has been slowly improving since the dawn of humanity, there has been a shift of late; over the last 150 years or so.
Some might call it a dumbing down. But that is a rather imprecise use of language, because as statelizard pointed out, humans are better educated than before. As guerilla would say; 'define dumbing down'
I forgot where I read it (48 laws of power? nietzsche?) but someone wrote something along the lines of:
Before, for the most part, there were the educated and the uneducated. The educated were protected from charlatans due to their high level of education. The uneducated were protected by common sense. There were very few semi-educated. But now these are the majority. Too educated to be protected by common sense, too uneducated to be protected by reason.
I think this is what many are referring to when saying people are getting stupider.
From an evolutionary stand point (as pointed out by Idiocracy), natural selection is getting to be weaker and weaker within our species. I remember George Carlin talking about child safe products saying "what happened with the kid who swallowed too many marbles doesn't get to grow up and have kids of his own?" - It is hard to argue that there just aren't leaders like there were before. You can say that this is because the system has changed, but it has only changed because the people changed. No system can change without the underlying support of the populace.
Now I'll admit this isn't anything new, and the change from one generation isn't as sharp as most would make it out to be, but there is a trend, and it is accelerating. Of course, there are far too many variables for anyone to predict where it is heading exactly or even how great the general shift is. And I agree, trying to dissect these broad trends now is rather silly.
Speaking on behalf of suburban raised white chicks I'd just like to say "Fuck you" to this thread
... I'd like to but I can't. A lot of it is really true. I think what popped the entitlement bubble for me was my mom insisting on us doing volunteer work. Soup kitchens, government funded nursing homes... when you start to talk to people in dire straits and realize that they are in fact very much like you in many important ways then you start asking the important questions that by their very nature make you less selfish. Suddenly whining about not getting all the expensive toys I wanted made me feel dumb after meeting homeless vets, orphans and people that die of loneliness in nursing homes.
Flipside: My best friend is divorced, bitter, overweight and hates everything about her life except for herself. She does nothing to change anything and instead it's as if she is treading water waiting for a buff Prince Charming with a full head of hair to come haul her heavy ass out of the water and speed off into the sunset in his late model yacht full of money and flowers. She's overdue for the soup kitchen fieldtrip.
... I'd like to but I can't. A lot of it is really true. I think what popped the entitlement bubble for me was my mom insisting on us doing volunteer work. Soup kitchens, government funded nursing homes... when you start to talk to people in dire straits and realize that they are in fact very much like you in many important ways then you start asking the important questions that by their very nature make you less selfish. Suddenly whining about not getting all the expensive toys I wanted made me feel dumb after meeting homeless vets, orphans and people that die of loneliness in nursing homes.
Flipside: My best friend is divorced, bitter, overweight and hates everything about her life except for herself. She does nothing to change anything and instead it's as if she is treading water waiting for a buff Prince Charming with a full head of hair to come haul her heavy ass out of the water and speed off into the sunset in his late model yacht full of money and flowers. She's overdue for the soup kitchen fieldtrip.
@statelizard I think you're missing a point. It's never been about a specific generation. Placing people into categories (like generation X, Y, it doesn't matter, i can label anyone of any age into my own bullshit categories). I believe this topic of generations blaming other generations is more of an issue regarding socialization and cultural values. Cultural values change with time, so it's easy to place generations into categories when cultural values change. These days, values have changed thanks to the internet. Nowadays little kids are listening to faggots like Miley Cyrus and Drake, and reading those stupid tumblr blogs and twitter tweets that reinforce the same attitudes. Look at what we see in the media, movies, and how products are marketed these days. Males are encouraged to act like women (excessive emotionality, whining, vulnerability, etc. - signs of feminine behavior), and women are encouraged to like like men (independence, strength, invulnerability, - signs of masculine behavior). I don't think the older generations are blaming the younger generations, I think they're really just disgusted with the behavior of the younger generations. Men act liking women, and women acting like men. It's disgusting, and if we look at the root causes for these behaviors, we can see that they all point back to kids listening, reading, and watching stupid shit that encourages this stupid behavior (I'm too lazy to define "stupid shit" and "stupid behavior" at the moment because I think you get what I mean), and I believe that this phenomenon has grown over the last 20+ years and it's getting even worse. Quick example: metrosexual men.
I may be completely wrong, but I'm interested in your response. I don't personally attach myself to these debates and arguments at all because these types of debates all center around one issue: society. I could care less about society because what society does doesn't affect my personal life. When the crowd goes wild and almost everyone runs in the same direction like a herd (society), I take a step back and evaluate why people are doing the things they do. So, discussions like these for me make for a good mental exercise. I'm always interested in feedback to my views on how the world really works.
I may be completely wrong, but I'm interested in your response. I don't personally attach myself to these debates and arguments at all because these types of debates all center around one issue: society. I could care less about society because what society does doesn't affect my personal life. When the crowd goes wild and almost everyone runs in the same direction like a herd (society), I take a step back and evaluate why people are doing the things they do. So, discussions like these for me make for a good mental exercise. I'm always interested in feedback to my views on how the world really works.
I don't doubt that's part of the reason for this happening, but again, we only have these national/global debates on this "the new generation sucks" when times are tough. It happened during the early 90's with Gen X, it happened in the early-mid 80's with my parent's generation, it happened during the late 60's with the previous generation, and it happened after WWI with the so called lost generation. They all took place during times of great financial or societal strife.
But more to your point, the same thing was said about my parents when Elvis was popular and shaking his hips on Johnny Carson and when the Beatles rose to popularity in the US. Before them, it was when Jazz rose to popularity, and before that i'm sure it was something else. According to older generations, at whatever point in history, the younger generation has become less moral and less hardworking and that's the reason for the decline of society. I have never heard a collective age group say that things are better today than they were when "I" was growing up, except for maybe depression era children. My grandparents thought things were a hell of a lot better throughout much of their lives than it was when they were children. That goes back to human nature though, we always feel that we do things better than the person standing next to us.
The point is that older generations always look at what younger generations are doing and say we did it better, we did it more morally, etc. Younger generations do the same thing to older people though. When societal values change, people who grew up and lived with the previous norms become uncomfortable. When things go wrong on a large scale, usually financially but it could be other things as well, they look for the reason why and for someone to blame. Usually the people they blame is the younger generation because they live their lives differently than older generations did. The problem with that line of thinking is that society doesn't exist in a bubble of homeostasis, if it did, nothing would ever advance. In that scenario, all of the retirement savings people lost wouldn't have ever grown to be more valuable than the actual dollar amount they saved. Because if society worked in that bubble, populations would stay level, resources would stay the same, demand would stay the same, and nothing would ever change.
But if those societal norms had never changed, we would still be living in caves and gathering our food. Societal norms changing is the catalyst to technological advancements, medical advancements, research into new fields, and just about any other form of progress you can image. People want progress, but they want it on their own terms.
Again, I'll avoid the political part of this discussion. It goes back to societal changes and how people define their personal morals. Ultimately, the only thing it leads to is a screaming match, which I try to avoid getting into because it never ends anywhere productive. Live and let live I say (most of the time anyway).
I generally agree with you about lumping people into randomly dated groups, but at the same time, you sort of have to when having this discussion. People born within certain time frames have many societal and cultural events and morals in common. So when talking about matters such as these, it makes sense to group them based on age. Age groups have experienced many of the same things with the same circumstances surrounding those events.
When you mention how societal changes bring us technological advances that improve the standard of living, I couldn't agree with you more.
However, I think the whole generation war has everything to do with societal norms in regards to social behavior, not technology. Older people use the technology that most of the younger generation is obsessed with such as iPhones so they're cool with the technological changes, but older people, in my opinion, are disgusted with the social changes iin the behavior younger generation.
There has to be a reason for the older generation despises the younger generation. I don't think the reason "because it's always been like that for centuries" is satisfying. I think it's simply because people aren't brought up to learn proper social behaviors (and that's why you see all these clowns dressing ridiculously to gain validation and approval from others. it's also why you see guys act pointlessly aggressive, breed like sexual retards, and get overemotional over women. there's nothing wrong with the guys, they simply weren't taught how to improve their behavior).
For example, you have pop songs that hundreds of millions of the younger generation listen to, and they listen to their messages and take them to heart. The artists of these pop songs like Justin Bieber and Train and Drake generally have good intentions, but then again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If you could change the messages that the media, internet, and politics spread, then you can change the entire belief system of a nation. Change in a belief system leads to a change in behavior. Change in behavior is visible in appearance, and if the older generation sees the younger generation acting in a different manner (let's say... a more responsible manner), then the older generation would think the younger generation is the best generation ever.
Of course, that's not going to happen, because the media, internet, and politics are all controlled by business. And of course, business is not interested in solving issues at the root. Because if everyone knew the answers to all their problems, businesses would suffer. But if business keeps peddling bullshit, business profits rise.
I went off on a few tangents here, but my main message is this: businesses are in control. Profits don't care about whether or not society is doing well financially, emotionally, spiritually, or physically. I believe this will change in the future, where businesses will actually contribute to the wellness of the individual AND society. But from what I know about science, psychology, and the legal system, this massive change would take hundreds of years before it becomes fully implemented.
For the most part i agree. The issue that older generations have is due to societal behavior. Where we disagree, or maybe we're just talking past each other, is on what's causing it or maybe why it's happening.
Younger generations imitate the people in pop culture. We don't disagree here.
Older people find this behavior to be offensive. We don't disagree here.
In fact, I don't know that we disagree at all, I think maybe we're just using words that are moving past each other. But I'm also looking back at history and past human, or generational if you will, behavior.
When I brought up the Elvis stuff my intent was to say that those people (my parents generation) were doing the same thing that kids were doing today. They were adopting new social norms by imitating the pop culture icons of their time. Their parents and other older generations were against that. For instance, because of the older social norms, the Carson Show would only broadcast Elvis from the waist up early in his career because of "sexual" hip thrusting. The same was true with Jim Morrison and The Doors when they first went on television. They were instructed to change their lyrics because network admins and the government regulators (from the older generations) were opposed to their lyrics, even though the lyrics they were opposed to were not any of the "7 words you can't say on TV."
There are a thousand and one variables for why this happens, but in general here's my thinking.
When people are young, the vast majority of them are more open minded to doing things differently. They are more open to creating new ways of doing things and looking at the world in a manner different than those older than them.
As we get older, most people are less likely to behave in this manner. We become more conservative in our actions and generally how we behave. In general, as people age they become more risk averse in most aspects of their life. In doing so, they believe that the societal norms they have grown to accept and love during their life is not only the "right" way to do things, but often they believe they are the only way to do things.
I don't think that's likely to change because it's something ingrained in human nature. Could it? Sure, just about anything can happen, but I don't see it as a likely scenario.
I agree that for the most part businesses, and more to the point — marketing firms, are in control of much of popular culture and therefore the direction of societal norms. But to illustrate my point about how we react to change, I'll use an example I discussed with a friend of mine. It's only anecdotal, but it illustrates what I'm getting at. At the same time it shows this isn't necessarily about age groups. But where societal norms and behavior are concerned, these types of things generally fall along generational lines. On to the example.
So my friend, Eric, went to school for Engineering management or something like that. He's a wiz with Lean Manufacturing Design (there's a technical name for this but it escapes me at present).
Anyway, he was 23 years old and fresh out of college. He was hired into a company that manufactures bathroom items (bath tubs, shower stalls, sink basins, fixtures, etc). he was hired in on a 6-month contractor status. His first project was to reduce waste and improve unit production time. If he was successful, he would be offered a full-time position.
He went in, looked at how everything was laid out in the factory, how the work was being done and then put together a plan that would not only cut waste and time, but also make life easier on the workers.
When he first implemented the changes, he faced a great deal of pushback from the workers, many who were substantially older than he was. They couldn't understand why they had to change things. They were pissed and bitched about it relentlessly. Eventually they got used to the new setup and new way of doing things. Ultimately, the company produces less waste, has more output, and the workers days were a bit easier and got a bit shorter. Now everyone is happy with the situation. If they were to change again, I'd expect the same type of pushback. That worked out, but if it hadn't it would have been a case of, "ha, told this wouldn't work and we should have kept doing it the old way."
That story mirrors a situation I had while I was working in research. We were having issues with blood collections clotting. We needed to cut down on that. The easiest way to do so was by priming the syringes with a thin coating of heparin (either sodium or lithium, I don't remember which at this point) when the study protocol allowed for it. Anyway, I was in charge of implementing the change. Even though it really had no impact on how people did their job, they were upset. They took the change as a personal criticism and it took a lot of convincing to get everyone on board. What finally got everyone on board was when the the % of clotted samples was drastically reduced and we all got a raise because it saved the company from losing a huge contract.
My point to all of that is that people get stuck in their ways, whether that be something in their job or the way they behave. When they see things changing, they take it as a personal attack because why would things change unless you thought they were doing something the wrong way. Ultimately, it's not about right and wrong as much as it is about "different."
As to the behavior aspect and it being "disgusting", I think part of that has to do with what I was just saying, and part of it has to do with generational "morals" if you can call it that. Like I said, my grandparent's were extolling the virtues of their generation's behavior to my parents while condemning the behaviors of my parent's generation because of the way they acted, the type of music they listened to, etc. Now, my parent's generation is doing the same thing to my generation. And i don't have kids, but I see many of my friends who do doing this same thing with their kids already. I do it too. Trust me, cartoons were way better when I was a kid. I don't even think you can call what they have on TV cartoons anymore. I think I'm pretty levelheaded about all of this, and even I can't escape it.
These aren't the only generations that have went through this cycle. Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises" is about this exact phenomenon and he wrote that in 1925.
I just personally feel that this is probably a forever issue, but not so much a problem as it is an issue.
Younger generations imitate the people in pop culture. We don't disagree here.
Older people find this behavior to be offensive. We don't disagree here.
In fact, I don't know that we disagree at all, I think maybe we're just using words that are moving past each other. But I'm also looking back at history and past human, or generational if you will, behavior.
When I brought up the Elvis stuff my intent was to say that those people (my parents generation) were doing the same thing that kids were doing today. They were adopting new social norms by imitating the pop culture icons of their time. Their parents and other older generations were against that. For instance, because of the older social norms, the Carson Show would only broadcast Elvis from the waist up early in his career because of "sexual" hip thrusting. The same was true with Jim Morrison and The Doors when they first went on television. They were instructed to change their lyrics because network admins and the government regulators (from the older generations) were opposed to their lyrics, even though the lyrics they were opposed to were not any of the "7 words you can't say on TV."
There are a thousand and one variables for why this happens, but in general here's my thinking.
When people are young, the vast majority of them are more open minded to doing things differently. They are more open to creating new ways of doing things and looking at the world in a manner different than those older than them.
As we get older, most people are less likely to behave in this manner. We become more conservative in our actions and generally how we behave. In general, as people age they become more risk averse in most aspects of their life. In doing so, they believe that the societal norms they have grown to accept and love during their life is not only the "right" way to do things, but often they believe they are the only way to do things.
I don't think that's likely to change because it's something ingrained in human nature. Could it? Sure, just about anything can happen, but I don't see it as a likely scenario.
I agree that for the most part businesses, and more to the point — marketing firms, are in control of much of popular culture and therefore the direction of societal norms. But to illustrate my point about how we react to change, I'll use an example I discussed with a friend of mine. It's only anecdotal, but it illustrates what I'm getting at. At the same time it shows this isn't necessarily about age groups. But where societal norms and behavior are concerned, these types of things generally fall along generational lines. On to the example.
So my friend, Eric, went to school for Engineering management or something like that. He's a wiz with Lean Manufacturing Design (there's a technical name for this but it escapes me at present).
Anyway, he was 23 years old and fresh out of college. He was hired into a company that manufactures bathroom items (bath tubs, shower stalls, sink basins, fixtures, etc). he was hired in on a 6-month contractor status. His first project was to reduce waste and improve unit production time. If he was successful, he would be offered a full-time position.
He went in, looked at how everything was laid out in the factory, how the work was being done and then put together a plan that would not only cut waste and time, but also make life easier on the workers.
When he first implemented the changes, he faced a great deal of pushback from the workers, many who were substantially older than he was. They couldn't understand why they had to change things. They were pissed and bitched about it relentlessly. Eventually they got used to the new setup and new way of doing things. Ultimately, the company produces less waste, has more output, and the workers days were a bit easier and got a bit shorter. Now everyone is happy with the situation. If they were to change again, I'd expect the same type of pushback. That worked out, but if it hadn't it would have been a case of, "ha, told this wouldn't work and we should have kept doing it the old way."
That story mirrors a situation I had while I was working in research. We were having issues with blood collections clotting. We needed to cut down on that. The easiest way to do so was by priming the syringes with a thin coating of heparin (either sodium or lithium, I don't remember which at this point) when the study protocol allowed for it. Anyway, I was in charge of implementing the change. Even though it really had no impact on how people did their job, they were upset. They took the change as a personal criticism and it took a lot of convincing to get everyone on board. What finally got everyone on board was when the the % of clotted samples was drastically reduced and we all got a raise because it saved the company from losing a huge contract.
My point to all of that is that people get stuck in their ways, whether that be something in their job or the way they behave. When they see things changing, they take it as a personal attack because why would things change unless you thought they were doing something the wrong way. Ultimately, it's not about right and wrong as much as it is about "different."
As to the behavior aspect and it being "disgusting", I think part of that has to do with what I was just saying, and part of it has to do with generational "morals" if you can call it that. Like I said, my grandparent's were extolling the virtues of their generation's behavior to my parents while condemning the behaviors of my parent's generation because of the way they acted, the type of music they listened to, etc. Now, my parent's generation is doing the same thing to my generation. And i don't have kids, but I see many of my friends who do doing this same thing with their kids already. I do it too. Trust me, cartoons were way better when I was a kid. I don't even think you can call what they have on TV cartoons anymore. I think I'm pretty levelheaded about all of this, and even I can't escape it.
These aren't the only generations that have went through this cycle. Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises" is about this exact phenomenon and he wrote that in 1925.
I just personally feel that this is probably a forever issue, but not so much a problem as it is an issue.
I just wanted to address one point: people not being open to change. The reason those factory workers rejected Eric's plan was because their cognitive functions function in a vastly different way from how Eric's cognitive functions behave.
You're right, we don't disagree on any matters of this topic.
This, by the way, is not a "forever" issue. It can be fixed, but it won't be fixed any time soon in our lifetimes.
If you want to know why I think this way, look up the topic of Socionics. To summarize it, it's a Russian psychology theory that predicts how different people and psychological types (there are 16 different types, everyone has a type) interact. In an optimal work environment, compatible types would work together. In a crappy work environment, conflicting types would not get anything done.
Socionics is not recognized in the U.S., but there are plenty of English websites providing information on the subject. Socionics, btw, stands for "society" and how societies work based on the psychological types of its leaders, inhabitants, and situations. It's very mathematical, precise, and surprisingly accurate. I've studied it for the past 9 months, and I can conclude after applying it to my daily life that it is indeed a science.
Also, don't let the label of Socionics being a psychology study scare you off. The truth is, 95% of American psychology is bullshit. I could write a book on why this is, but I won't. After you study and research Socionics, you'll look at issues like depression, ADHD, anxiety, self-improvement, mood disorders, and general human behavior in a completely different light. Everything makes sense.
Why do I bring this up? It is my belief that if society started to pay more attention to the psyches of individual humans, and if we begin to structure families and the work place according to socionics, then there would be little conflict, nearly everyone would be self-fulfilled, and there would be NO more generations complaining about other generations because they'd be too busy fulfilling their lives and being happy.
Of course, reaching this optimal point of society could take centuries, if not millenia, and if you want to compare it to science since that's your field.... It's like trying to discover a limitless source of usable energy.... Or creating fusion energy. (i know very little about science, excuse my bad scientific language)
You're right, we don't disagree on any matters of this topic.
This, by the way, is not a "forever" issue. It can be fixed, but it won't be fixed any time soon in our lifetimes.
If you want to know why I think this way, look up the topic of Socionics. To summarize it, it's a Russian psychology theory that predicts how different people and psychological types (there are 16 different types, everyone has a type) interact. In an optimal work environment, compatible types would work together. In a crappy work environment, conflicting types would not get anything done.
Socionics is not recognized in the U.S., but there are plenty of English websites providing information on the subject. Socionics, btw, stands for "society" and how societies work based on the psychological types of its leaders, inhabitants, and situations. It's very mathematical, precise, and surprisingly accurate. I've studied it for the past 9 months, and I can conclude after applying it to my daily life that it is indeed a science.
Also, don't let the label of Socionics being a psychology study scare you off. The truth is, 95% of American psychology is bullshit. I could write a book on why this is, but I won't. After you study and research Socionics, you'll look at issues like depression, ADHD, anxiety, self-improvement, mood disorders, and general human behavior in a completely different light. Everything makes sense.
Why do I bring this up? It is my belief that if society started to pay more attention to the psyches of individual humans, and if we begin to structure families and the work place according to socionics, then there would be little conflict, nearly everyone would be self-fulfilled, and there would be NO more generations complaining about other generations because they'd be too busy fulfilling their lives and being happy.
Of course, reaching this optimal point of society could take centuries, if not millenia, and if you want to compare it to science since that's your field.... It's like trying to discover a limitless source of usable energy.... Or creating fusion energy. (i know very little about science, excuse my bad scientific language)
I think neil postman nailed it with his book "amusing ourselves to death".
Today we're so bombarded by bullshit. Back in the 80's he pointed out what he called information-action ratio of information we're exposed to daily.
Among other things...
But honestly in my workplace (game/app development) there are only awesome hardworking, intelligent, etc. people, and most are young.
Today we're so bombarded by bullshit. Back in the 80's he pointed out what he called information-action ratio of information we're exposed to daily.
Among other things...
But honestly in my workplace (game/app development) there are only awesome hardworking, intelligent, etc. people, and most are young.
I think it would help if people understand that the natural state for human beings is not civilization and certainly not peace, prosperity and enlightenment.
We are as a species, very destructive, violent and ignorant.
Most of the human population are not smart enough to maintain or create civilization. Put 100 sub 100 IQ people on a deserted island, what do you think they will be able to discover of technology and societal structure? Not much is my guess. It would end like Lord of the Flies.
We're succeeding in spite of our nature not because of it. Part of that is some people are much smarter, much more morally inclined than others. Problems arise once we begin to think 'equality' and lowest common denominator. When societies prosper for a brief period it is because at that time, the smart, good people have more power than the masses.
The problem is that the lowest common denominator is not good enough to sustain an advanced and enlightened society.
The more some people try to breakdown respect for autorities, respect for elites, respect for the family unit, the more we will turn into savage beasts.
We are as a species, very destructive, violent and ignorant.
Most of the human population are not smart enough to maintain or create civilization. Put 100 sub 100 IQ people on a deserted island, what do you think they will be able to discover of technology and societal structure? Not much is my guess. It would end like Lord of the Flies.
We're succeeding in spite of our nature not because of it. Part of that is some people are much smarter, much more morally inclined than others. Problems arise once we begin to think 'equality' and lowest common denominator. When societies prosper for a brief period it is because at that time, the smart, good people have more power than the masses.
The problem is that the lowest common denominator is not good enough to sustain an advanced and enlightened society.
The more some people try to breakdown respect for autorities, respect for elites, respect for the family unit, the more we will turn into savage beasts.
Ed Sullivan.. Carson was a few generations later.
IQ scores have consistently gone up over the years, so they adjust to keep the average at 100. Therefore scoring 110 or whatever during World War II is now the equivalent of being sub 100. The contradiction in relation to your example is that the older generation people, despite lower IQs, will individually have more knowledge about living off the land.
Overall I'm sure higher IQ people would be more useful in starting a society on a deserted island, but in many situations having some "dumb" farmers or World War II veterans around would be more useful than having Mark Zuckerburg or whoever.
Good call. I knew it was one of them, but was like no, ed was on carson's show. Thinking of Ed McMahon for some reason. Maybe I'm going to be the next publishers clearing house winner, lol.
IQ scores have gone up - for some people. For others it has gone down. Richard Attenborough himself recently said he thinks humans have topped in evolution, which makes sense, particularly in the west because modern medicine and welfare states in many cases actually favor the unfit to procreate. In the worst welfare states, having a bunch of children and being to unfit to provide for them, actually is a much better strategy than carefully planning and providing.
My point is, that I don't think we quite realize how thankful we should be for the elite people who discover incredible things like microchips and electricity as well as those philosopher who lay ground to liberalism, free thinking, logic etc. Without the 10% elite, I have no doubt that humans would still be living in grasshuts.
One point I'd like to add to this discussion:
As much opportunity as the younger people in our society have today, with the internet, educational tools, connections. All of this can also have a negative effect in the form of excessive stimulation.
With so much happening around us, it can be difficult to decipher between what is really useful to us as an individual and what isn't.
Everyone has so much opportunity at their finger tips, but sometimes limitless options aren't a positive thing.
As much opportunity as the younger people in our society have today, with the internet, educational tools, connections. All of this can also have a negative effect in the form of excessive stimulation.
With so much happening around us, it can be difficult to decipher between what is really useful to us as an individual and what isn't.
Everyone has so much opportunity at their finger tips, but sometimes limitless options aren't a positive thing.
Written like a typical Gen-Yer.
BTW him saying he did a scientific study was tongue in cheek.