Are we (Americans) getting stupid?

[eluminator]

Our government started taking over our schools in the late 1940s. That's when the slime in Albany tried and eventually succeeded taking over the school I attended.

Governments find it much easier to govern when those they govern are ignorant, irresponsible and dependant.

One stupid thing I hear is that the schools aren't working. The schools are no longer our schools, they are government schools, and they are working quite well, unfortunately.

Then there are the government retrograde gene pool programs. WIC, ADC, and Welfare are breeding countless millions of the least capable among us.

 

[KevinL]

I'm surprised that this is just coming to light now. Why did it take so long for someone to figure it out? No, we're not getting stupid, but we sure are getting lazy. Yeah, we're definitely creating generations of test-takers, it's a by-product of the materialistic orientation of the 80's and fast-path thinking.

Where are the critical thinking skills? Probably the same place as American jobs, ... overseas.

Don't worry, overseas here we have plenty of twits too. Serious. I deal with people whom, after supposedly two years of training, cannot actually figure out WHICH port they are supposed to plug WHAT connector in - even though all of them are uniquely keyed so you can't plug the wrong ones in. To add insult to injury, there wasn't even the correct type of port on the equipment they were trying to plug into. Jokes about "wrong hole" come to mind but would not be appropriate to retell here.

 

[twentysixtwo]

Eluminator - there is no program called "welfare" - WIC and ADC is probably what most people call welfare. Social security disability might be another one that gets lumped in.

As far as propogation of the weakest, it is one unfortunate side effect. The vast majority of people who receive "welfare" are only on it for a short while.

I don't like the idea of having some people freeloading on the system, but as someone whose family has benefited at least 3 times from various government handouts, I think a safety net is very necessary.

My siblings and I all did vey well for ourselves and pay taxes on six figure incomes so I think the government's investment on us has been paid back several times over.

The problem I have with the current system is that "no child left behind" is really a very left leaning pinko plan. By forcing the schools to focus on the bottom of the curve,they ignore the top. Frankly, there are always going to be stupid people out there and to some extent we have to accept it and move on. The beauty of a (more) capitalist society is that you allow those who can, to do as much as they can, rather than trying to get everyone to do the same.

Are americans becoming more stupid? In traditional terms, yes. In modern terms? Hard to measure but I think so. Is it something to be worried about? Absolutely.


Just my $0.02....

 

[twentysixtwo]

Lightlust - Darwin's theory is often described as "survival of the fittest" but this is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Really, it's "Natural Selection" The difference is that stupid unhealthy people who reproduce themselves frequently will outpace healty smart people who don't have kids. Unfortunately, if you look at the educated professionals in the US, they are waiting until their late 30's to have 1 or 2 kids, as opposed to the uneducated dropouts who have 4-5 kids starting at 18. Their productivity is higher and cycle time lower so they will dominate in a few generations.

The resulting takeover was described in "The Marching Morons," a short story from the 50's.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_commentprint100300a.html

One very strong qualification to this discussion is to point out that education and genetic predisposition to intelligence are very different things.

 

[NewBie]

Back a few years ago (at least 13 years), they had to adjust ACT scores, bumping the test result numbers upwards.

I've actually tested four year college graduates on the basic ASVAB test used for screening high school graduates to join the military, and had them fail the test.

 

[zespectre]

I look at it like this.
Intelligence and education are not the same thing. I know some very well educated people who couldn't logically problem solve to save their lives (literally in one case, sad story) .

Intelligence and education have to be paired with at least some sort of motivation. (the best tool, left in the shed, is just some metal bits).

Then someone comes up with idiocy like "no child left behind" which completely ignores that historical fact that something like 8% of the population cause 80% of the advances. Some people should be scientists some engineers, some teachers, some mechanics, others street sweepers. Society needs all of these jobs filled (and anyone who looks down on garbagemen as unimportant should live for a week someplace where service was halted).

I'm all for trying to give kids an equal chance at education because you never know where you are going to find that 8%. But if you give someone a few chances and they don't fly (due to laziness, lack of intellect, or whatever) then for goodness sake stop wasting obcene amounts of extra resources and funnel the "extra" back over to those kids who did "take off and soar".

And say someone really shouldn't be "college bound" and chooses a vocational path instead... great, let's spend the time and effort to help them go as far as they want in the field they choose rather than forcing them into a college mold where we are setting them up for failure.

And finally, the most annoying lession I've had to learn is that a good percentage of people really aren't interested in advancing themselves in any fashion past comfortable living. The really don't care about literature or science and they really don't want to know about anything outside the 50 mile radius of their town. I can't personally fathom living that way but every machine needs it's cogs to run and as the machine gets larger and larger you are going to get a greater number of "cogs" (though the actual percentage probably remains about the same...see bell curve).

 

[zespectre]

I deal with people whom, after supposedly two years of training, cannot actually figure out WHICH port they are supposed to plug WHAT connector in - even though all of them are uniquely keyed so you can't plug the wrong ones in.

I just had a round of trouble with someone on that same issue. Not only are the connectors keyed (only fit one place and only one orientation), but they are also COLOR CODED!

So the user calls me in a last minute panic because they didn't try a test setup of the gear and now they can't figure out how to hook up the equipment and I spend a good 10 minutes tell them the stuff is keyed and color-coded (taking the time to explaine what that means) and do they say "thanks"? Nope, they respond with a very snippy looking-down-their-nose-at-the-tech "well I'm not technical, I shouldn't have to deal with this stuff"!

My reply... Well are you COLOR BLIND TOO!

Got a mild slap on the wrist from my boss for that but it was worth it when we listened to the recording later and everyone heard what a jerk the user was being.

 

[BentHeadTX]

One of the problems is excessive "specialization" or making one's focus so narrow to do one process that the other 99% of life is hard to comprehend. For some reason, the ability to cook, fix your own car, computer, house and constantly learn new things is looked down upon. Need to lose weight? Get an "expert". Need to improve your workout "Get a professional trainer". Computer have problems? " Get help from your local computer geek" Let the local school dictate how your kids are raised, the government will "save" you if any natural or man-made disaster happens and you can have everything you need now! Hell, if there are any problems in your life--get a lawyer and sue!

Don't forget to make millions of laws to dictate how people live, make everything illegal that is not "safe" and make everything a regulated hassle. Welcome to the land of the free!

 

[jtr1962]

I think the problem is more that we're getting lazier, and as a result that's leading to us getting more stupid because we don't take the effort to learn. I place a good deal of the blame on the media with their 30 second bites and sitcoms where every problem is solved by the end of the show. Real life isn't like that. Often things require detailed study to understand them rather than a 30-second overview. Problems often take hours or days or even years to solve. Of course, this is counter to society's expectations of instant gratification, so therefore if we can't get instant results doing something we don't bother doing it at all. That includes learning anything beyond the basics needed to just barely get by. Making this all the worse are the silly "feel good" educators who praise kids all the time instead of giving them the constructive criticism they need. Rounding out the set of problems are a series of distractions which prevent people from focusing on learning such as TV, radio, the Internet, etc. Not only do kids grow up stupid, but thanks to the system they think they're smart!

Another huge problem is the societal tendency to cater to the lowest common denominator instead of trying to lift them up. The results of this policy are both disturbing and destructive. For starters you have people who no longer accept responsibility for their actions because society makes excuses for their behavoir deficiencies. Next you have a plethora of idiotic laws designed to protect idiots from themselves but which infringe upon the rights of those who are responsible. These so-called preventative laws can have a person fined or jailed for doing no harm to someone, but rather for doing something which might lead to harm but which usually doesn't. Examples of these types of inane laws include prohibitions against cycling on the sidewalk or jaywalking. Still other laws exist which prevent idiots from harming themselves, again at the expense of everyone else. Drug laws are good example of this. After that you have laws which prevent people from utilizing their abilities to the fullest because the lowest common denominator can't keep up with them. Traffic laws, in particular artifically low speed limits, are a perfect example of this. Instead of either trying to bring the lowest common denominator up, or just making qualifications for certain things harder so they can't do those things if they can't keep up, we insist on dumbing down the level of everything. As a result, we have millions of people who can't operate to their potential in many situations. We also have still others who may have more abilities than we give them credit for, but who will never know unless the bar is raised. Worst of all, we have lots of people who think they can do something well because society refuses to tell them otherwise, but who are instead incompetent, or worse, dangerous. Again, driving comes to mind. I have never seen so many incompetent, stupid, discourteous, dangerous drivers who actually believe they're good. The end result of all this is that our society functions slower and less efficiently than it could. It is also in danger of being outclassed by those societies which force individuals live up to their potential.

 

[HarryN]

I think it is really easy to see why people are missing out on some basics. How do you expect kids to learn, in a society where:
a) fire crackers are illegal
b) drinking alcohol when less than 21 is illegal
c) No one can change their own oil
d) The odds of finding a technology, automotive, or manufacturing job in North America declines every year.

My theory is that nearly every signifiant contributor to CPF has experience with at least 3 of the 4 items listed above, and it was critical in their childhood / career formation.

You do not learn what it takes to make it in school, you learn it at home. Schools are just a place to allow more experiences than your parents can provide.

If you want kids to learn, they have to believe that there is a reason, and that reason, quite frankly, is to make money.

 

[lightlust]

Lightlust - Darwin's theory is often described as "survival of the fittest" but this is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Really, it's "Natural Selection" The difference is that stupid unhealthy people who reproduce themselves frequently will outpace healty smart people who don't have kids. Unfortunately, if you look at the educated professionals in the US, they are waiting until their late 30's to have 1 or 2 kids, as opposed to the uneducated dropouts who have 4-5 kids starting at 18. Their productivity is higher and cycle time lower so they will dominate in a few generations.

The resulting takeover was described in "The Marching Morons," a short story from the 50's.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_commentprint100300a.html

One very strong qualification to this discussion is to point out that education and genetic predisposition to intelligence are very different things.

WHEN I AM WRONG

I am willing to concede when I am incorrect. I also will concede, chagrined, that the use of a vernacular term is often technically inaccurate, however clear in meaning or semantically equivalent to its referent.

NATURAL SELECTION = SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

To put to rest the issue of "Natural Selection" versus "Survival Of The Fittest" as descriptive phrases in reference to Charles Darwin's writings in The Origin Of Species, I quote Darwin himself:

"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."
​

Charles Robert Darwin (February 12, 1809 – April 19, 1882)
The Origin Of Species, 5th Edition (published 10 February 1869)
​

Darwin goes on to refer to "Survival Of The Fittest" several times in the text, mostly using the phrase "Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest". Granted, the phrase was not employed in The Origin Of Species until its 5th edition, as Mr. Herbert Spencer's phrase did not come into common use immediately. We, on the other hand, all have had almost 147 years since to update our home libraries.

It is also clear from Darwin's own words that "Survival Of The Fittest" was not only semantically equivalent, but even "more accurate" than "Natural Selection" in the context of his own treatise.

ON CORRECTING THE MISTAKES OF OTHERS

Normally, I would not care one whit about the minor matter of an attempt to correct an apparent trivial misstep. I view the habit of publicly correcting and reproaching others for minor gaffes as a peccadillo endemic to certain personality types, most prevalent in schoolteachers, engineers, computer programmers, intelligence analysts, college professors, and those smarty pants cab drivers who never miss a MENSA meeting.

This small vice of a habit includes correcting (in others):

• spelling mistakes
• malapropisms
• written solecisms, incorrect syntax
• bad posture
• a lack of decorum in cheap bars
• using the wrong fork at dinner

WHAT TO DO WITH CORRECTORS

I have always felt that this harmless quirk of behavior is to be tolerated with a smile and a laugh, accompanied with a sheepish admission of the alleged offense couched in a deferential joke. After all, the above mentioned professions are often among society's most valued members, including that cab driver. (Ever try to get a cab when you really need one and couldn't? When you don't need one, they seem to be almost running you over!)

SO, WHY SOMETHING DIFFERENT TODAY?

Your post, twentysixtwo, commenting on mine, included a link to the Wikipedia article on "Survival Of The Fittest", using it as a reference to bolster your statement that my use of the phrase to describe Darwin's most popular theory was incorrect.

I believe you did not read the entire Wikipedia article you referenced, because everything I quote on the matter is in the article itself today.

Darwin himself refers to his treatise as "Survival Of The Fittest", and properly credits the inventor of the phrase!

Using a reference that you did not read (and proves you wrong while attempting to say someone else is incorrect) constitutes very poor form.

Also, in the post immediately preceding your erroneous one, you also tell eluminator that there is no such thing as a program called welfare. That's hard to believe at face value, given that on the State of New Jersey's website (reference point for eluminator) Google finds more than 31,000 references to the word "welfare". Welfare itself is without question (in this context) a general term encompassing scores of programs in scores of states and countries designed to support those who otherwise would be in poverty or without services considered to be essential to a minimum quality of life.

I think everyone knows what eluminator was talking about, in very common words, without needing to refer to a special program name or acronym. Consider yourself twice corrected, then. Being too eager to be a smarty pants may lead an injury in pride.

BACK AT THE RANCH

As a sop to you, twentysixtwo, and towards the continued spirit of this thread, let us move along to more pertinent matters: I did like your reference to a fiction story called "The Marching Morons". Illustrative, perhaps.

Has anyone read a short fiction story called Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut? It is a fabulous little tale about a future where everyone is forced to adhere to the lowest common denominator. I won't spoil it by revealing its plot; simply Google for it and you might even find a copy online somewhere.

 

[jtr1962]

Has anyone read a short fiction story called Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut?

They made a movie by the same name also. It's original intent was probably a satire on society but I saw it as very prophetic. Sadly, this is the general direction we're heading towards-a long slow slide towards mediocrity.

I view the habit of publicly correcting and reproaching others for minor gaffes as a peccadillo endemic to certain personality types, most prevalent in schoolteachers, engineers, computer programmers, intelligence analysts, college professors, and those smarty pants cab drivers who never miss a MENSA meeting.

As an engineer I can't say I make a habit of publicing correcting minor points so long as the general thrust of a statement is technically correct. I do however jump in when people use bad science, or say things which are just plain wrong.

 

[pedalinbob]

Interesting discussion.

Low expectations breed low performance.

Our children need to be continually challenged, not coddled.
I have very little faith in our education system. Too much PC and excuses, and not enough discipline and hard work.

There is absolutely no excuse for the low performance of our kids.

Bob

 

[twentysixtwo]

I admit it - I'm an engineer....Perhaps the error is mine, perhaps it's the modern association of "fittest" Most people today associate it with physical fitness, strength, and being healthy, when the connotation in natural selection is really in being fit for survival and propogation.

 

[greenLED]

Our children need to be continually challenged, not coddled. ... Too much PC and excuses, and not enough discipline and hard work.

I completely agree!

...and just this morning, I read a news piece about someone sueing Apple because the iPod may harm their ears. Don't we have common sense anymore?? That's as stupid as blaming McDonald's for your overweight problems... it's not the food... it's YOUR habits!!! You'd get fat as an ox if you ate granny's food the way you eat McD's...


oh, and on the issue of fitness: we use "fitness" in the biological sense to refer to the chances of an individual to reproduce and pass on its genes (ie. individuals that are more "fit" will have a greater chance of reproducing)

 

[bexteck]

...and just this morning, I read a news piece about someone sueing Apple because the iPod may harm their ears. Don't we have common sense anymore?? That's as stupid as blaming McDonald's for your overweight problems... it's not the food... it's YOUR habits!!! You'd get fat as an ox if you ate granny's food the way you eat McD's...

I'm guessing that many of the people who have sued large companies over things like those are really just looking to make a quick buck. I think the first few lawsuits did end up paying out, which just drove people to try and find more things to sue over.

The most recent one that I heard of was a woman who claimed to find a severed finger in her Wendy's chili and wanted the company to pay damages. It was later discovered that she obtained the finger from someone who had lost it in an industrial accident and placed it in the chili herself. The athorities also discovered that she had attempted on other occasions to defraud other companies in similar ways. I was happy to see in the paper reciently that she was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

So some of the things we are looking at as stupidity may actually be people who are trying to cut corners and cheat their way through life. Not to say that there are not a lot of stupid people out there either. In college I am continually amazed by the people who make the deans list, yet lack the common sense to perform basic tasks similar to those mentioned in the first post of this thread.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[TBY]

As a former social worker, I must say I find this thread...interesting.


On a side note, the couple that pulled the finger fiasco did so in my old hometown of San Jose, CA. I think I have eaten at that Wendy's a couple of times while in highschool, years and years ago.

 

[Brighteyez]

I believe the appropriate term may be "complacency"

The Wendy's that is referenced is on Monterey Highway. I've been by there a few times and can attest that their chili is finger-licking good (oops, sorry ...)

As a former social worker, I must say I find this thread...interesting.


On a side note, the couple that pulled the finger fiasco did so in my old hometown of San Jose, CA. I think I have eaten at that Wendy's a couple of times while in highschool, years and years ago.

 

[BackBlast]

... stupid unhealthy people who reproduce themselves frequently will outpace healty smart people who don't have kids.

If someone finds a way to support themselves and a large family, I would never call them "stupid". Though there is a point to be made about the large level of reproduction currently occuring outside the family envelope, usually at very young ages (and uneducated certainly comes to mind), the consequences of which no social science we currently have can even project. The key here is not the school systems or education level, it's the home they are raised in. This point cannot be stressed hard enough, every child-rearing through adulthood study I have ever read indicates the home in which the child grows up matters substantially more than how the school system might be run. And the general trend in today's society is, the home is falling apart. I'm not just refering to 2 parent homes, I'm refering to good two parent homes.

Unfortunately, if you look at the educated professionals in the US, they are waiting until their late 30's to have 1 or 2 kids, as opposed to the uneducated dropouts who have 4-5 kids starting at 18. Their productivity is higher and cycle time lower so they will dominate in a few generations.

I disagree with your overt generalizations. Anyone who chooses not to reproduce will natrually select themselves out of the gene pool. This is good, not bad. Regardless of the seemingly desireable characteristics they may appear to possess. The biggest contribution any individual can make to society will be through their children as 2-3+ people can do more in life than can 1. After a few generations the numbers grow quite rapidly and any impact you may have had in your generation will not be as large as the cumulative effects you had on your own posterity and their impact in the world. It's not grand in the eyes of others, you usually don't find it in history books, the unsung heros of the world are really the mothers and fathers (but most especially the mothers) who raise noble children.

So, if we are, in fact, in a state of decline. Which I believe is only truely clear in hindsight. It is because of the deterioration of the family, the schools would be more of a symptom or contributing factor rather than a cause.

 

[gadget_lover]

I'd like to chime in here on two points....

Natural selection takes place constantl, but its effects are felt over extended periods. We have had a society for the last 100 years that heal the infirm and support people who are unable or unwilling to support themselves. A thousand years ago these people would have left the gene pool. Now they are becoming a significant part of the population. We already seem to be breeding for lower intelligence. In the next few hundred years we may lose the ability to continue that support. At that time society will crash and the really inept will perish and the strong and the smart will become dominant again.

I could, of course be 100% wrong.

On the subject of schools: When I was a student all the 3rd graders in the school learned the same thing because the teachers used the same lesson plan. This provided building blocks that were used in the 4th grade, and so it progressed from year to year. If you did not learn the material you repeated the grade until you either flunked out or learned it.

Contrast that with current teaching meathods. Each teacher makes their own lesson plan. Each class covers different material in slightly (or greatly) different ways. Children don't get held back bacause it hurst their self esteem. It's quite possible to fidn yourself promoted to the next grade without having the building blocks you need to be a success. The kids finally end up in college where a huge percentage need remedial math or english classes to catch up to the minimum (not optimal) level required to attend the college.

I guess there's a third thing....
The person who said there is no welfare should check into local programs like "general assistance". That's cash for living expenses. Then there are section 8 housing, SSI assistsnce, WIC, MediCal, medicare, food stamps and on and on. All of these equate to welfare. None of these have an "exit plan" to wean you off the public dole. We won't even mention un-employment payments since there is at least a pretense that you are paying into a fund from which you are paid.

I, personally, know several people who have made a career of living off welfare. A monthly income of $1,700 and free or discounted food and subsidized (or free) housing.... Better deal than I have some years. A relative rents a house to a Section 8 family. Section 8 pays $2,100 a month to rent this woman and her 5 kids a house. The woman pays $26.

There is welfare. It's just called different things.



Daniel