Intelligence in the Internet Age

ErikPeterson writes to tell us about an article on News.com that takes a look at technology versus intelligence of the general population. From the article: 'Is technology making us smarter? Or are we lazily reliant on computers, and, well, dumber than we used to be?'

Comments

Average intelligence is a constant

[Lord Grey]

So the article basically says that intelligence remains the same overall, but how the intelligence is applied changes wildly as time goes by. Also, that specific applications of intelligence (skill?) in one field does not necessarily translate to another. Both points make sense, but I don't think either one is really news to anyone here. The article actually relates (without saying so) to one of my favorite quotes:

"Civilization advances by increasing the number of things one can do simultaneously."

I wish I could remember who actually said that, and whether I'm remembering it accurately or not. A quick search didn't turn up anything concrete, but I was probably looking in the wrong places.

Re:Average intelligence is a constant

[jejones]

Alfred North Whitehead, Introduction to Mathematics.

An Asimov essay made a point apropos to TFA, and that points out at least one major gaping hole in the "here's an eighth-grade test from a 19th century elementary school; could you pass it?" meme. The Asimov essay dealt with a math book of 18th or 19th century vintage, and pointed out how much of it was spent on things that aren't studied today--because they're of minimal worth in today's world. The example Asimov gave was mixed-base arithmetic (adding shillings and pence and pounds)--the eighth-grade test was chock full of similarly antiquated and now-worthless units of measure.

That said--there is a core of information that people should learn well enough to not need to consult Google, lest one spend one's time looking things up rather than doing something worthwhile. The question is, what is that core?

Re:Average intelligence is a constant

[Henry V .009]

The Flynn Effect actually shows that intelligence has beening rising ~2 IQ points a decade since 1900. Some recent data suggests that this may have petered out beginning in the 1980s though.

It remains an open question as to the cause. It's far too fast to be genetic. A combination of better childhood nutrition and lower disease burden may explain most of it. There has been some suggestion that the Flynn Effect is mainly concentrated on the lower-half of the Bell Curve, but this is contested.

Re:Average intelligence is a constant

[plover]

Anyone who figures a good way to really automate that is going to get far richer than they did.

Except that reality is perversely the exact opposite of this. Witness the evolution of Google's PageRank or of any set of spam filters.

What happens is that you have people with bad "stuff" (spam, ignorant ideas, marketing hype vs. facts, or whatever.) And these flat-earth people are filtered out by effective spam filters, or left behind by legitimate search engines. So what do they do? They rig the game. Spammers start quoting Jane Austin in between pictures of Vl4GR4. Casino operators place spam-links in unrelated blogs. Homeopathic quackery is disguised as "medical" advice. And all these idiots have to do is figure out how to splatter spam all over until their Google PageRanks show them to be the world's leading authority on "all-natural cures for cancer" or whatever.

Google tries hard. They really don't want quack medicine to show up as the first hit for "cancer treatments," but they've provided the ultimate testing ground for the shysters. All the flat-earthers have to do is keep trying until they look legitimate.

Already it's become hard to convince my wife that the top hit on a search engine isn't necessarily the most honest or accurate place to get advice. Looking at Google's results, even I might get caught by a sham site at the top named mayo-clinic.com (the real site is mayoclinic.com) Fortunately, many of the stupid sites (alternative-medicine-and-health.com, for example) are self-announcing.

On the bright side, it's possible that intelligence is going to be subject to evolutionary pressures. If the people who fall for the flat-earther's scams run out and try to cure their cancer with laetrile (or whatever the 2000's equivalent is,) then Charles Darwin's theories suggest that they are going to be a self-limiting lot.

Re:Average intelligence is a constant

[rgmoore]

The question is, what is that core?

Each person has their own core of knowledge that's essential to them in their lives, but much of that isn't shared. As a trivial example, I need to know the layout of streets in my neighborhood but not in yours, while you need to know your neighborhood but not mine. If I ever want to visit you, I can use a map (though you'd need to provide your address first). An auto mechanic needs to memorize different things from a surgeon. To a considerable extent, we wind up learning those kinds of things without necessarily trying. I find that I'll wind up memorizing things incidentally when I've looked them up enough times.

The things that everyone needs to know are essentially how to get along in society- the three Rs, the basic structure of society, and how to coexist with others without fighting. Add in the ability to learn new things as you discover that you need to know them, and you've come to the end of what everyone needs to know.

right-

[conJunk]

Both points make sense, but I don't think either one is really news to anyone here

exactly... it seemed like it was written because some editor really needed a technology article, fast, and just pulled first thing he could find out of his butt... it didn't really offer anything at all, and when it did, it was all obvious

anyone who grew up in the last 30 years probably remembers wanting to use a calculator in school, and being told we couldn't because we had to learn how to do it first. that's basically still the case, isn't it? technology isn't going to make anyone dumber, unless we opt not to learn things any more.

but really, those people have always been around, and there have always been geeks who want to learn everything anyway. i don't think anything is going to change, except there will be more toys to play with.

Cause or Effect

[Orne]

I have long maintained that the mother of invention is not necessity, but in fact laziness.

Why do we have remote controls for our televisions and garage doors? We could very well get out of our chairs and cars, walk the 5 feet, and do it ourselves... but no, we have a machine to do it for us. I could drive down to the library and look up some information, but now I have the internet on a PC in my den to answer my inane questions.

I don't bother driving out sunday morning to buy a paper, or even getting one delivered. Too much work, when I already have the computer to serve it up. Or if I'm real lazy, I could get digital cable, where I just push the "Guide" on the remote control, and it tells me what's playing in the next X hours.

Are these really things we "need" (ala necessity) ? Perhaps, perhaps not. But they are all labor saving devices. I'd draw a conclusion here, but I think I'm just too lazy to finish.

Re:Also, as someone else noted

[TeknoHog]

Laziness is one thing that drives new inventions, but there's also the sheer joy of hacking. People like us enjoy solving problems.

If there's a job that would take the same time either by brute force, or by writing a program that does the actual work quickly, I'd choose the latter. I'd probably choose it even if it took slightly longer than the grunt route, because of the fun and the experience/education gained. There's also this weird sense of inherent wrongness/evil in doing grunt work, if a clever alternative is available.