Other Humans Becoming Less Intelligent Than Autistics

Page 1 of 2 [ 27 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

JellyCat
Deinonychus

Joined: 1 Sep 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 338
Location: U.K.

20 Nov 2012, 2:48 am

Please tell me if this doesn't make sense .

I came up with this theory literally in less than 20 seconds, so if you see any problems with it, please tell me.

It's been in the news lately that humans are gradualy becoming less intelligent (evolution), because a high level of intelligence is no longer essential for survival.

I was thinking that because us autistics have to work harder than most to fit it, and it's easier to get food ect if you fit in, maybe our intelligence hasn't decreased as much as others?
I know that natural selection plays a role here, but do you think there's anything to my theory?

Chaos_Epoch
Snowy Owl

Joined: 3 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 165
Location: New Zealand, ow

20 Nov 2012, 3:32 am

gradually getting dumber?

take a look at facebook. stupid, stupid everywhere.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

20 Nov 2012, 3:38 am

People behaving poorly on Facebook isn't evidence of their intelligence level. Just about everyone does something that, if it were extrapolated to their entire life, would paint them as "stupid."

"Stupid" itself is practically a meaningless phrase. People want it to mean "less intelligent" but they usually really mean "behaves badly or disagrees with me." It strikes me as a very tribal concept.

Who_Am_I
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,632
Location: Australia

20 Nov 2012, 3:40 am

What news, exactly? What are their sources for the claims that humans are becoming less intelligent?

_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I ! !! !
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I

Chaos_Epoch
Snowy Owl

Joined: 3 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 165
Location: New Zealand, ow

20 Nov 2012, 3:45 am

Verdandi wrote:

please, people don't even bother to write properly anymore, hell, I know some people who have problems reading. and yes, they are on par with everyone else.

but that's not the problem, it's people's ability for cognitive thought.

madnak
Snowy Owl

Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 166
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

20 Nov 2012, 3:56 am

Flynn Effect doesn't seem to support this.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Nov 2012, 4:08 am

JellyCat wrote:

Please tell me if this doesn't make sense

.

I came up with this theory literally in less than 20 seconds, so if you see any problems with it, please tell me.[

You did not come up with a theory in less than 20 seconds. To qualify as a theory, there must be substantial evidence to support it. What you have is a speculation or maybe a conjecture, nothing more.

Go out and do the hard work. Devise experiments and find evidence and get others to do the same. Only in the long run, after substantial evidence has been accumulated that supports the conjecture, can it justifiably be termed a theory.

Quote:

It's been in the news lately that humans are gradualy becoming less intelligent (evolution), because a high level of intelligence is no longer essential for survival.

I was thinking that because us autistics have to work harder than most to fit it, and it's easier to get food ect if you fit in, maybe our intelligence hasn't decreased as much as others?
I know that natural selection plays a role here, but do you think there's anything to my theory?

It's nonsense.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Nov 2012, 4:10 am

Chaos_Epoch wrote:

please, people don't even bother to write properly anymore, hell, I know some people who have problems reading. and yes, they are on par with everyone else.

but that's not the problem, it's people's ability for cognitive thought.

Do you mean such as in not using capitalization?

Who_Am_I
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,632
Location: Australia

20 Nov 2012, 4:17 am

Chaos_Epoch wrote:

Verdandi wrote:

They don't even bother to use capital letters where it would be appropriate!
Quelle horreur!

Si_82
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 525
Location: Newcastle, UK

20 Nov 2012, 4:46 am

I think that autistics would need to be a genetically closed system (or, effectively, our own species) for deviation from NTs to occur in any real terms. As it is, as long as an NT can create an aspie and an aspie can create an NT we are subjected to the same overall evolutionary trends. Yes there is hereditary but it is not a certainty even with two aspies genes combining. I think the spectrum as a whole must have a lower IQ (if we chose to take that as our measure) given low-functioning seems to outnumber high-functioning (Apologies if I am being indelicate).

Also, to weigh in on the semantic argument, 'theory' has two meanings and clearly what is being suggested is the layperson theory rather than the fully peer-reviewed and researched scientific theory - give JellyCat a break.

Finally, despite it seeming like the interweb concentrates banal stupidity, even the Victorians were circulating photos of cats dressed in petty-coaats sitting at pianos so this brand silliness is not even remotely new.

_________________
AQ46, EQ9, FQ20, SQ50
RAADS-R: 181 (Language: 9, Social: 97, Sensory/Motor: 37, Interests: 36)
Aspie Quiz: AS129, NT80
Alexithymia: 137

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Nov 2012, 4:50 am

Si_82 wrote:

That is a very good point.

Quote:

Also, to weigh in on the semantic argument, 'theory' has two meanings and clearly what is being suggested is the layperson theory rather than the fully peer-reviewed and researched scientific theory - give JellyCat a break.

The layperson version is just plain wrong because they often try to equate their "theory" that is really nothing but a half baked speculation with a real scientific theory and do not comprehend just how vast the gulf is between the two.

equestriatola
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 154,230
Location: Wherever my mind wants it to be

20 Nov 2012, 4:52 am

If this true, then..........

_________________
Hey, all. I'm just Johnny. Go ahead and talk to me if ya wish.

Si_82
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 525
Location: Newcastle, UK

20 Nov 2012, 4:56 am

equestriatola wrote:

If this true, then..........

...Have you read The Time Machine? :p

_________________
AQ46, EQ9, FQ20, SQ50
RAADS-R: 181 (Language: 9, Social: 97, Sensory/Motor: 37, Interests: 36)
Aspie Quiz: AS129, NT80
Alexithymia: 137

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

20 Nov 2012, 5:16 am

Chaos_Epoch wrote:

One of my best friends sometimes types like she's sitting in the dark wearing boxing gloves. She also has a Ph.D. in philosophy and teaches university courses. How someone types is not an indicator of their intelligence. How someone reads is also not the case.

My perception is that most people have problems with their ability to think, for many reasons. For example, many people are more attracted to ideology than facts. If not ideology, then egotism. Or other traps that make it difficult for people to understand what are actual facts versus what they want the facts to be.

My preferred perspective is that intellect is not a sign of personal merit. It's how your brain works, not something you personally did or earned. Pointing out that someone is making a cognitive error is not a matter of condemnation, or even branding them as "stupid" because everyone has "stupid" moments.

equestriatola
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 154,230
Location: Wherever my mind wants it to be

20 Nov 2012, 5:19 am

Si_82 wrote:

equestriatola wrote:

If this true, then..........

...Have you read The Time Machine? :p

Not really; enlighten me, please.

_________________
Hey, all. I'm just Johnny. Go ahead and talk to me if ya wish.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

20 Nov 2012, 5:20 am

madnak wrote:

Flynn Effect doesn't seem to support this.

http://bmi205.stanford.edu/_media/crabtree-2.pdf

The paper does not directly address the Flynn effect, but I found this in an article online:

www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57548994/s ... telligent/

Quote:

Anywhere between 2,000 and 5,000 genes determine human intelligence, and these genes are particularly susceptible to harmful changes, or mutations, the researchers write. Based on knowledge of the rate of mutations, the team concludes that the average person harbors two intelligence-stunting genetic changes that evolved over the last 3,000 years.

The hypothesis is counterintuitive at first. After all, across the world the average IQ has increased dramatically over the last 100 years, a phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect. But most of that jump probably resulted from better prenatal care, better nutrition and reduced exposure to brain-stunting chemicals such as lead, Crabtree argues.

But just because humans have more mutations in their intelligence genes doesn't mean we are becoming less brainy as a species, said psychologist Thomas Hills of the University of Warwick, who was not involved in the study. Instead, removing the pressure for everyone to be a superb hunter or gatherer may have allowed us to evolve a more diverse population with different types of smarts, he said.

"You don't get Stephen Hawking 200,000 years ago. He just doesn't exist," Hills told LiveScience. "But now we have people of his intellectual capacity doing things and making insights that we would never have achieved in our environment of evolutionary adaptation."

Page 1 of 2 [ 27 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

Other Humans Becoming Less Intelligent Than Autistics Post Reply New Topic

Other Humans Becoming Less Intelligent Than Autistics