Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intelligence in the Internet Age

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the he-wants-us-to-think-for-ourselves dept.

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?'

66 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. Average intelligence is a constant by Lord+Grey · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.
    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
    1. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by absolutspl · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Civilization advances by extending the number of operations which we can perform without thinking about them." - Alfred North Whitehead good ole' google.com

    2. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by RealAlaskan · · Score: 4, Informative
      A quick search didn't turn up anything concrete, but I was probably looking in the wrong places.

      Does that tell us something about your intelligence in the internet age?

      Seriously (didn't want to be mean, but couldn't help myself), were you maybe thinking of Alfred Whitehead, who said:

      Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them.
      --
      See what I've been reading.
    3. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by jejones · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

    4. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by mbrother · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The above post, and others, proves the point that we're "smarter" using computers. But ascribing a quote to someone isn't hard...

      What's going to be harder in the future, and can be hard right now, is knowing how to verify and sift through the information you find on the internet. A "smart" person will be the one who can do this, and a "dumb" one is the one who gets their information from a bogus website full of crap.

      That would have been a better and more interesting direction for the article to go.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    5. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by phaggood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >what is the core?

      And how do we let the curriculum gatekeepers know that the 'core' has moved? A cabinet-level 'Core Identification Officer' like the french have for grammar? If we did identify today's core, how much of that core would we have to toss out once 2020's bigbrain.google.com takes questions like 'how many dissertations on cold fusion in the last thirty years failed to take into account doping irregularities of the palladium annode?'

      (Answers google; "3. Shall I place them onto your iPod Quarko?")

    7. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by RealAlaskan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What's going to be harder in the future, and can be hard right now, is knowing how to verify and sift through the information you find on the internet.

      That little insight is what made Google what it is. Anyone who figures a good way to really automate that is going to get far richer than they did.

      Intelligence is so ill-defined that I feel a little foolish talking about it, but it's more or less correlated to lots of good things, like success in school, ability to write page ranking algorithms, and so on, so we do all keep talking about it, whatever it is.

      I do think that over-reliance on technology can keep folks from using their brains, and thus keep them from developing their intelligence. Even someone who is reasonably shrewd about finding factual facts won't gain much by it if he can't analyse those facts.

      --
      See what I've been reading.
    8. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Funny
      Well, if you don't have to work very hard to perform tasks A, B, and C (because of calculators, the internet, spell check and various other thought-saving technologies) you can focus really, really hard on D (whether it is inventing a new computer algorithm, cold fusion, frictionless sandpaper, or new things to sue people over). Good old fashioned division of labor.

      At least, that's the theory.

    9. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep but you know I read a motorcycle mag from the UK called bike. They give MPG for the fuel economy but give the tank size in liters.
      And when I look at at the VW uk site they give the fuel economy in MPG but I think it is in imperial gallons. They also include the liters per 100 km value.
      It would seem that the US isn't the only country to have some horrible mixed base systems.
      And then you have the wost mixed base system of all, time. I mean 60 seconds to the minute, 60 minutes to the hour, 24 hours to the day, seven days to the week, 4 to 4.3 ish weeks to the month. 12 months to the year!
      I mean how many stinking bases can you put in one system. The problem is there are no easy fixes for it. That is just they way things work.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      John
    11. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    12. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by jaseparlo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is though that the idiots usually manage to reproduce before they knock themselves off, so hoping Darwin will save you won't get you anywhere.

      This is the geeks misunderstanding of natural selection - intellectuals love evolution because they think their superior brains will win in the end. This works in the work world to some extent, but on a species scale it's different.

      The reality as far as evolution goes (and remember that evolution works on a macro scale, not in your lifetime or the foreseeable future) is that stupid people are at a distinct advantage. While intellectuals tend to have two or one children, the stupid masses are going at it like rabbits. Intelligent are at a selective disadvantage, because we don't pass our genes on as often as the trailer trash chicks that drop out of school by the time they are pregnant at 14 and have 8 kids by their 30th birthday.

      *They* are the evolutionary giants, not us. We live side by side now, but when society breaks down in a few hundred years or whatever, the billions of big dumb kids will finish us off very quickly.

      Of course, it's even less of an issue for most /.ers, because sitting at home by yourself with your 20 gig porn collection isn't gonna pass your genes on to anything but your keyboard...

      --
      All available data suggest that regardless of any of this, the sun will still come up tomorrow.
    13. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The question is, what is that core?

      It's a really interesting question at that. I was in a book store a while ago and asked a young clerk there where I could find books written by Plato. She looked questioningly at me and said "is that a poet or something?"

      I was a little shocked by this but when I told the story to my mother, who was a teacher, she pointed out that the amount of knowledge that we have available to teach just keeps getting greater and greater and who is to say that the things we once thought of as indispensible really are?

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    14. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The new generation isn't smarter, it's just less stupid. The upper 50% of IQ hasn't changed (that is, if you took the average IQ score of the upper 50% of IQ in 1950 compared to the average IQ of the upper 50% of IQ in 2005, the averages would be the same.) The Flynn affect is on the lower 50%--those whose cognitive growth may have been affected by poor nutrition.

      You'll also find that there isn't much of a Flynn affect in rich countries (those where malnutrition isn't a problem), and that in the richest countries average IQ has tended downward in the last 20-25 years.

    15. Re:Average intelligence is a constant by kesuki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      your elitism towards superior intellect is over-rated. as dumb as 'sheeple' seem it's not that they don't have the capacity to think and learn it's simply that they've turned it off in software mode.

      yeah, the human brains of your typical genius and your average sheeple aren't actually all that different. in fact with the exception of those who've used alchohol and drugs to damage there brains they're usualy identical. so what is the difference? it's the software. The intelectually superior have through trials and tribulations sought to learn vastly more than the typical person cares to. frankly, the primary problem then is not who's reprodicing (as you would suggest) but rather the quality of upbringing and education of the children that is making a difference.

      It is true some people have genetic flaws that ihibit normal brain function and require single minded focus on specific problems, but frankly if those proeple are not reproducing like jackrabbits in heat then the human geneome is doing just fine.

      oh and BTW when civilization breaks down, those billions will be eating each others corpses, and those who have the ability to hide themselves the best, sneak about the best, and make sure the people they eat aren't contaminated the best will be the ones who run the world. a pretty high standard, when the end of civilization comes the truly stupid will be the first to die.

      remeber without oil and coal and phosphate based fertilizers and genetically alterted plants, and refrigeration and electric cooking etc etc this planet will have a damn hard time supporting 60 million people, much less the 6 billion who are supported by it now.

      --
      https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  2. Huh? by Kid+Zero · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or are we lazily reliant on computers, and, well, dumber than we used to be?'

    You're asking this here? Can't wait to see the answers. :)

  3. Hmm by ZakuSage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lazy != Dumb

    1. Re:Hmm by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 2, Interesting


      I agree, infact Lazy people, being lazy try to find ways to cut corners, and find smarter ways to get things done so they don't have to work as hard as others.

    2. Re:Hmm by moviepig.com · · Score: 2, Insightful
      'Lazy' isn't the same as 'Dumb'

      In a way, it is. Using your neocortex more leaves you more "intelligent" than using it less.

      But, with intelligence tests measuring many of the skills that technology increasingly performs for us, it's unavoidable that we'll eventually start to look pretty dumb. The fact is, though, that we (non-lazy folks) have, in all likelihood, merely migrated to a different skill-set.

      --
      Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
    3. Re:Hmm by arevos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a way, it is. Using your neocortex more leaves you more "intelligent" than using it less.

      Assuming that by 'lazy', one means a tendency to avoid work, then being lazy requires one to use their mind more, not less.

      A truly lazy person will work out how to achieve the same results with less effort. Necessity being the mother of invention, most innovations come about from people trying to reduce the work they have to do.

    4. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Ambition, is a poor excuse for people without enough sense to be lazy."

      Yes, that is a real quote. I may not remember who said it first but I have enough sense to be lazy and not bother looking it up.

  4. We? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Or are we lazily reliant on computers, and, well, dumber than we used to be?'

    When you say "we" do you mean just Slashdot editors, or the rest of us too? Arrrrr.

  5. Intelligence by mysqlrocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is technology making us smarter? Or are we lazily reliant on computers, and, well, dumber than we used to be?

    I don't think it makes us smarter or dumber. What we are smart about changes. We can use technology to do things we could never do before. But there are things we could do in the past that we can't do anymore.
    --
    Bradley Holt
  6. wut by DrEldarion · · Score: 5, Funny

    i think that you're conclusion bout da net makin ppl dum is rong. their not dum their just typin in da web way. u just dont get it.

  7. As a General Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you think an article dealing with..." technology versus intelligence of the general population. From the article: 'Is technology making us smarter?" is anything other than sensationalist technobable, then you are dumb.

  8. sounds like "Feed", by M.T. Anderson by saarbruck · · Score: 3, Interesting
    for an interesting fictional look at the result of always having the digital world instantly available, check out "Feed" by M.T. Anderson (ISBN: 0763622591)


    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0763 622591/qid=1127163377/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2061 972-8686328?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

    --
    I am the very model of a modern major general!
  9. Good question! by fireboy1919 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hold on, let me check my new brain for the answer.

    Nope. It looks like that's all background noise.

    Clearly we is just as smarter as we used to was, and can did our stuff just as much as we used to could.

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  10. Both by phasm42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Smart people will use technology to augment their intelligence. Dumb people will use it to become lazier. And in between there will be mixes of augmentation and lazy reliance. I don't think there's a single answer to this question. I think this has always been true, but technology amplifies this gap.

    --
    "No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
  11. IQ scores go up every generation by davidwr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, they would go up if they didn't keep raising the bar to get a given score.

    Did you score 100 on your IQ test in 1980? Well guess what, by today's standards that's below average.

    Barely crack the top 2% 25 years ago? Sorry to disappoint, but you're not a genius anymore.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:IQ scores go up every generation by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Did you score 100 on your IQ test in 1980? Well guess what, by today's standards that's below average. "

      Not so. If you were to score 100 on 1980's IQ test today, then fine -- because the average score today on that specific test would be over 100.

      By definition, an IQ of 100 on a normalized, current test is the statistical average.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  12. right- by conJunk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:right- by conJunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lots of high schools have really bad teachers who basically teach their algebra classes as if they were a "learn to punch things into a calculator but not understand what happens" class. Students don't really have an option as to who their teacher is and even then, some school systems make this type of thing go on uniformly. When people try to go up in higher level college math, they're fucked.

      i don't know... i've had bad teachers, and i've had good teachers. I think if a student is really interested in a subject, he or she will find a way to learn it.

      algebra is a funny example, becuase the number of people who would put in the effort to learn algebra despite a bad teacher is a small group of people. that's us, the geeks. we like algebra, we think it's pretty. we're a minority.

      i think that with the kinds of people we (geeky slashdot people) like to hang out with, and with the kinds of jobs we get, it's easy to get a skewed perspective of how people really think and what they are in to. it's like in college. i went to a small liberal arts college, and i would meet kids all the time who would say stuff like "how do these conservatives get elected? *i* don't know anyone who would vote for them"... well... there's a big america out there that i just don't like to be in touch with...

      the same is true for technology... when we invented calculators, people who would never have leared math in the first place could now do it... that didn't stop anybody who would have learned it anyway from still learning how it's done

    2. Re:right- by robertjw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was only about 25 years ago that calculators became even remotely commonplace, and I'm glad of that.

      Isn't that a crazy thought? My parents still have an old TI calculator from the late 70s. They spent a relatively significant amount of money for a simple electronic calculator that would do basic math. Now calculators are everywhere, computers, cell phones, whatever. I'm all for kids learning how to do math by hand, but can you imagine a world without electronic calculators? I think that is probably THE most significant inventions of the 20th century and it's so often overlooked.

      --
      Find coupons in Greeley
    3. Re:right- by j-cloth · · Score: 3, Funny

      we like algebra, we think it's pretty
      I want that on a t-shirt. ThinkGeek? You Listening?

  13. Not an amazing revelation by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Basically, technology makes us more efficient, which is an assertion that few on slashdot are going to dispute. This means we can either do more with our time, or have more leisure time and look "lazier" to someone without proper context.

    During the dawn of agriculture, humans had to work their butts off every day tending to fields or getting ready for the winter or they would die. These days you can work a mere 8 hours a day in a cushy office job and have all of the food and shelter you need. Modern man looks a lot lazer--he only works half as much time wise--but due to technology he's actually contributing more to society than his primitive ancestor.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  14. It's a trick. by hungrygrue · · Score: 4, Funny
    Or are we lazily reliant on computers, and, well, dumber than we used to be?'
    Any honest answer to that question will be modded -1 flamebate.
  15. Yup, and he wouldn't survive today either! by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does that mean he's not as bright as an economist from the 1950s? Is he smarter? The answer is probably "no" on both counts. He traded one skill for another. Computer skills make him far more efficient and allow him to present more accurate--more intelligent--information. And without them, he'd have a tough time doing his job. But drop him into the Federal Reserve 40 years ago, and a lack of skill with the slide rule could put an equal crimp on his career.

    Or, on the other side of the ruler, put that same economist from 40 years ago w/his slide rule knowledge into today's world and watch him be as equally worthless.

    Computers, the Internet, and the information available to us nearly instantaneously has made us a completely different culture all together. There is no use comparing us to those in the past. It's just not the same... I remember when I was learning about cells and my father said to me, "When I learned about cells we knew of the cell wall and the nucleus. Look at what you have to know." Now students probably don't even have to know that - Google tells them everything they need to know. That doesn't make them dumb - that makes them have room to learn TONS more.

    I am honestly looking forward to the day when wireless Internet is combined with Internet mapping software (i.e. GMaps) and an online collaboration. Say goodbye to speed traps (your autorouting will know the locations of the traps and route you around it or warn you to slow down).

    The possibilities are endless and the creative factor is incredible!

    1. Re:Yup, and he wouldn't survive today either! by bigdavex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I remember when I was learning about cells and my father said to me, "When I learned about cells we knew of the cell wall and the nucleus. Look at what you have to know." Now students probably don't even have to know that - Google tells them everything they need to know.

      I can't see how that's conceptually different from saying that books made knowing things obsolete.
      --
      -Dave
  16. one way technology hasn't helped intelligence by H310iSe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aside from the obvious one, spelling, I think the word processor has encouraged at best a different kind of intelligence.

    It used to be you had to conceive your entire essay/story/etc., then have each paragraph, and each sentence, held in your head to some extent before you started writing. Think once / write once (edit once) and then type it out. Now you can start a paper/paragraph/sentence with nothing in your short term memory, just kind of roll it out and go back a million times to edit/redu/rethink/rework it until it's all coherent.

    Basically, for certain tasks, the more that's stored in the electronic memory the less is (needed to be) stored in your brain.

    --
    closed minded is as closed minded does
    1. Re:one way technology hasn't helped intelligence by decipher_saint · · Score: 2

      Am I the only one who used to write essays on scratch paper first and then collate what I was trying to say in a rough outline and then write my essay?

      Personally, I think the word processor encourages people to write essays in a colossal brain-dump 'cause maintaining multiple document files is bothersome (versus my unruly bundle of scribbled notes I can cram into a folder).

      --
      crazy dynamite monkey
  17. IMHO.... by lem0n263 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The truth is that we (humans as a whole) haven't grown progressively smarter or dumber, just we have learned how to get information when needed. just my 2 cents

    1. Re:IMHO.... by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful
      So, 100 years ago, people could have set off an atomic bomb, flown to space, and printed up some million+ transistor circuits, if they only knew the right people to talk to? The only difference between Einstein and Pythagoras is that Einstein talked to more people?

      No, it's because our knowledge builds on top of the last generation's knowledge, and along with writing those ideas down, humanity's knowledge base becomes exponentially larger.

    2. Re:IMHO.... by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it's because our knowledge builds on top of the last generation's knowledge, and along with writing those ideas down, humanity's knowledge base becomes exponentially larger.

      Fair enough, but it seems to me that there is a difference between knowledge and intelligence. Knowledge is stuff we know, whereas intelligence is an aptitude to be able to apply it. Sure, the human race as a collective can now build devices that fly to space or build atomic bombs, but I can't. Not smart enough. Even if you laid all that knowledge out in front of me I'm not sure I could make it happen.

  18. Look it up by nucal · · Score: 3, Informative
    Never memorize anything you can look up. Einstein, Albert

    which you can look up here

  19. Re:yes or no question? by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Define intelligence:

    If it's based on mostly memory specific tasks (like speling, for xampl), then I'd say the information age, with spell checkers and the like do make us 'dumber.'

    But if its based on reasoning ability, the information age has probably raised average intelligence. I may not be able to spell, but I can handle many different kinds of systems and adapt to new ones in ways that people 100 years ago probably couldn't. And the fact that I have to constantly learn new tech (how to upgrade this software, how to program my new VCR, etc.) plays into that.

  20. Double Edge Sword by karvind · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I can give one examples for each side:

    (a) Not long ago (10 yrs), I had to go to library to look up for technical papers. It used to be a pain to brush the dust in library to find your paper, xerox on the old photocopy machine. Often I would be coming out with thick stacks of bound journals. Thanks to good searching capabilities and online publications, I don't have to leave my desk and can access papers dating back to 1930s. Also with keyword search I can look at more papers in the same time. Just because someone forgot (may be intentionally) to reference some paper, I can still find it. Clearly I have saved lot of commute time. Also I can read the articles online and no need to print (save some trees).

    (b) Second story is of my becoming more and more dumb because of calculators/computers. I never used calculators till highschool and could estimate things (atleast order of magnitude) easily. Recently I have been crunching numbers so often that I lost that practice. Fortunately I still try to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations before I fire the simulation. Simulations can give you any result you want (if you are not aware/careful).

    I remember few years ago I did some simulations and showed it to my adviser. I was new and thought that tool can do anything. My adviser looked at the result and said: "Congratulations, you managed to do something phenomenal. You can quit your phd and can become a billionaire." In short, there are things which technology wouldn't teach. The fundamentals still need to be learnt before you can trust computers/technology.

    Is technology evil ? No.

  21. Not seeing the downside. by Godeke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Intelligence is *not* remembering phone numbers. Intelligence is the application of ideas to solve problems. Having a strong memory can be helpful in some tasks (and certainly an amount of working store is a minimum requirement) but memorizing long chains of random data is pointless. Seeing patterns in *seemingly* random data, perhaps that requires a larger working store, but it also seems like a great place to apply computation.

    I don't see the downside of the Internet, instant communication, computational power etc as far as intelligence goes. The example they give of a financial analysis: the modern analyst uses computers to build models and compute massive numbers of "what if" possibilities. The old analyst would be force to spend an immense amount of time and effort to compute one of these.

    Likewise, I have on tap an immense number of resources on administrative tips and such. I could keep it all in my head, but why when I can search for solutions, bookmark them and document the least amount to be able to do it all again in the future?

    --
    Sig under construction since 1998.
  22. Cause or Effect by Orne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  23. Way dumber. by BigZaphod · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh yes. Certainly dumber.

    Of course I have no actual evidence for this. But that's cuz I'm dumber now than I was yesterday when I'm sure I had the proof bookmarked someplace. It keeps getting worse, too. By this time next week I'll probably forget how to form sentences and have to google each word in order to build up my thoughts. That'll probably suck. Of course since I'll be dumber I won't notice anyway.

    --
    Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
  24. Also, as someone else noted by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lazy doesn't mean dumb. Smart people often apply their intelligence to try and automate something so they don't have to do it. Our UNIX admin here at work reworked our new account system. Previously students had to come to the computer room, show their ID, get added, go long in to telnet, run a shitty script that often didn't work, have someone manually create the Windows side of the account,. Now they go to a webpage, enter their university ID, it checks their affiliation, makes and synchs all the accounts, and does so in about 5 seconds.

    Now his motivation for this was laziness, basically. He was sick of dealing with a massive rush of students the first week and having to have the whole computing staff bust their ass on meanial shit. So he found an intelligent solution to the problem. This year, the first day was hardly any different from any other.

    Lazy, perhaps, not dumb.

    1. Re:Also, as someone else noted by Psiren · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reminds me of the old saying, "If you want the job done quickly, find the laziest man."

      I've done a similar thing with registering MAC addresses for our students. Like you've observed, a little laziness and some clever thinking can make everyones life easier.

    2. Re:Also, as someone else noted by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That reminds me of two of the great virtues of a programmer. Laziness, and hubris. If your unix admin was missing either one of these he never would have created the current system you now enjoy.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Also, as someone else noted by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  25. Good Quote by mandrake649 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something." -- Robert Heinlein

  26. For the lazy... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Funny

    the google query is:
    "are we more stupider than we used to was?"

  27. Intelligence versus knowledge and skill by tod_miller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And 'uneducated' farmer 200 years ago was perhaps one of the more educated general folk, knowing much about the land. He used technology of his time.

    Today modern farmers know more or less? They certainly know different things. The article is redundant because it doesnt define intelligence.

    Certainly people are more free thinking today, and have been educated in how to learn things (I would hope, judging by teh intarwebnet masses this isn't so). So peoples intelligence (natural free thinking, ability to push their minds) is up, so is knowledge, such as random facts from wikipedia.

    Why? 200 years ago there were only 112 music, documentary cultural and shopping channels available on cable, not there are more. You get it.

    Information is flowing like quick silver (most of it is like shit, like engaydget blogs), we are at a time where for the FIRST TIME in history free, mass communication is available to all (potentially) unrestricted and secure, globalized and revolutionary.

    First thing that happens? it all starts getting locked back down again... anyway... people don't truly appreciate the internet until their own mum buys something from china, without realising.

    No, I don't mean made in china, I mean a chinese company, selling internationally.

    Each day I speak to almost 30 nationalities, and I try and get something from each of them. Who did that 200 years ago?

    The fact that there is a hetrogenous level of education now is great, and I see that when this moves globally, and EVERY child on earth gets a good, competative education, we will realise we are no longer breeding hatred into generations but understanding.

    Or some crap.

    To confirm you're not a script,
    please type the word in this image: kidnaps

    random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  28. Ah, the 'more leisure time' myth by BeanThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Khoi-San bushmen live in a near desert and yet compared to modern Western societies, once you've factored out all the activities required for survival, they literally have more leisure time than we do. It is a myth (propagated by who?) that "primitive" societies have to "work their butts off just to survive". We are the ones working our butts off, just to survive and "keep up with the Joneses".

    OK, granted, more primitive societies do not produce the kind of 'excess wealth' and R&D environments that allow us to create and afford things like hospital care, roads, modern medicine and cool gadgets. But nonetheless this still seems like a counter-intuitive result, and it should very well make you wonder why, for all our technology, we are working as hard or harder than ever before, and why our stress levels are higher than agrarian or hunter/gatherer societies.

    This is not a technology problem, it's a cultural problem - somehow we are willingly enslaved by the "modern work ethic" ('wave slaves'), driven perhaps by the ruling class, who implement systems that result in massively uneven distribution of wealth. It is possible to create enough "stuff" to allow us all to work fewer hours, but something else is wrong with the system that prevents this from actually ever happening. We've been conditioned to think eight hours a day is normal and is not much, but really, think about it, who came up with this "eight hours" concept anyway? Eight hours a day is nearly your whole life, as most of the little remaining time goes to sleep or "administrative" tasks like grooming, eating, buying groceries, etc. What do you have left, maybe an hour or two a day on average?

    1. Re:Ah, the 'more leisure time' myth by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's only half the story, however: I could achieve the same standard of living as a stone-age tribesman with very little work indeed. The simple fact is, technology improves our expectations as fast as it improves our efficiency, so it will always take more-or-less the same amount of work to achieve a standard of living that "the average person" in a given society would find acceptable. The technology available just determines what the work ethic in your culture will provide for you.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  29. I say it's getting better. by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Quantifying intelligence is a fool's errand, at best. And over time, by god. Every generation believes the young folk are lazy idiots, and that civilization's going down the tubes.

    And then you read example essay material from students today in universities and you think, "holy shit, they're right, these people are dumber than a sack of hammers".

    But as far as I'm concerned, the *sum* is much higher today than ever before. More people are literate than ever before, more people have some basic math skills than ever before. More people get some basic schooling ( even if they don't want it, or use it ) than ever before.

    Perhaps in the old days ( up until a couple centuries ago ) you might have had a situation where 95% of the population were illiterate in every way. No reading, no math, no geography. No knowledge except how to do their respective jobs. And the remaining 5% might have been, by our standards of thoroughness, quite well educated, with serious teachings in history, language, rhetoric, natural philosphy, etc.

    Today education is better distributed, even if it means that we have some fairly dumb people coming out of our universities. The fact is, more people are getting an education, or at least the *means* for an education. If they should fail at it, it's their own damn fault, not society.

    And the smart people today, by god, they're astonishing. Just pick up any book on some specialized field, say, physics, literature, GPU shader programming, biology, whatever. The work these people do blows my mind.

    As far as I'm concerned, it's all A-O-K. At least the responsibility for success (or failure) lies progressively in our own hands. I'd say that's a step in the right direction.

    --

    lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
  30. another hypothesis: language is evolving by slew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although I don't have any evidence (not that is required on /.), my hypothesis for the Flynn effect has always been that language is in fact improving the human ability to abstract information better than it has done in the past and will continue this improvement over time.

    The flimsy basis for this argument is that when babies are young and don't know any language, memory and intelligence seem very rudimentary, but as they learn language, they gain the ability to store, categorize, recall, and cross-link concepts and ideas to form intelligent behaviors. It stands to reason that it is quite possible that the more efficient the language, even if the symbolic processing capability is constant, the more apparently intelligent the resultant behaviors can be. Language (and the ability to process more complex information) is something that is constantly developing/evolving and can do so faster and independent of other forces like DNA evolution, possibly explaining how this effect has been going on in the past and also allowing for this effect to continue for the forseeable future.

    One of the leaps of faith that has to be made to adopt this philosophy is that intelligent behavior is something that is the result of language (or more generically, symbolic processing), not any "magic" phenomena of the brain that requires evolution and genetics to change. This includes not only the behavior of test taking, but the more "real-world" behavior of surviving in an increasingly complex world.

    As a cheap example, the invention of a language to express numbers has allowed humans to become more intelligent in mathematics than before that improvement has occured (e.g., "one" vs "many" vs a counting system). It allows us to organize our thought about math better and allows us to exhibit seemingly more intelligent behavior about math related things.

    As a possibly future example, wouldn't it be great if we had a language to communicate musical queries better than "humming" to your friend to try to get them to remember the name of a tune? Seems to me that years from now when we look back we'll see how dumb we were that we had to use humming and grunts and groans to communicate and organize our thoughts about music. What morons we are ;^)

    An analogous ideas is how "compression" has allowed a constant amount of digital bandwidth convey an increasing amount of information/per-unit-time, as improved compression techniques have evolved. Sometimes the improvement in compression has been low-level (oversampled uart vs binary manchester coding vs 8/10 coding vs PRML) medium level (MNP5, LZW) or high level (mpeg/jpeg video/picture compression). Even with a fixed capacity, the improvement in language has brought great increases in throughput (although improving throughput isn't the same as improving intelligence, it's still something to ponder).

    This idea of evolution of language allowing improved representation of abstract ideas and resultant apparent increase in cognitive behavior has always intrigued me as I've pondered the difference between "chinese" ideographic style language vs "european" alphabetic style language. Is there any inherent advantage to either?

  31. Its all back assward... by 3seas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whats really happening is:

    The act of programming is inherently of incorporating the mindset of the programmers and then subjecting the users to it by forcing the users to have to think in the terms the programmer layed down in the users operation of the program.

    Microsoft intentionally applies this fact and is why most users don't have a clue about the shell (and those who have used microsofts shell find it discouraging).

    There are other places where the programming is not very intelligent but subject the users to its dumbness... Earthlink Webmail has been such a place, where not so long ago you had to individually select which mail you wanted to delete. But where 80% or better is spam and in the amount of at least 100 a day.

    After communicating to them like a child, they finally put in a "select all" allowing you to then deselect the few you wanted to keep (the effects of that must have been enormus on the reduction of spam in general held on Earthlinks servers -- maybe thats where they got the additional 90 megs of email stirage space they now give me without my asking)

    But the point is, when you have an industry that can only see as far forward as .... well, how to make the user upgrade... then you have to leave stuff out and promise some of it next release as you figure out what then to take away...

    Does this make users dumb?

    Probably doesn't help the intelligence level of the users to improve, but intentionally "makes users need ... MS"...

    Users aren't stupid, the software industry is and what choice does the users have but to be subjected to such bullshit?

    Things don't have to be this way, but are currently, just as the Catholic Church promoted the Roman Numeral system of math, even when they were presented with a simpler and more powerful system of the Hindu-Arabic Decimal system.

  32. Dumb questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are we also weaker, due to having cars and bicycles and levers and hydraulics and free delivery in 15 minutes or less?

    Well, probably. But good luck getting any number of people to give up their cars for the sake of exercise. So it's a moot point.

    (Never mind the fact that I rode in a car to run a marathon -- something which, living in a small town, I would not have otherwise been able to do.)

    Knowledge, like anything else, can be used in different ways. You can use it like the 300-pound guy who drives his SUV to McDonald's to get half a dozen Big Macs, or you can use it like the guy who rides his carbon fiber-frame bicycle up the Alps for fun.

    You can use the internet to be lazy, but it was also possible to be lazy a hundred years ago. But you can also use the internet to do great things not possible a hundred years ago.

    Come to think of it, you can rephrase the question with *any* word you don't like. Does the internet let you be ... racist? Well, sure. Is that its primary use? Uh, no.

  33. Intelligence is the difference.... by MrCreosote · · Score: 3, Insightful

    between knowing 1+1=2, and knowing why.

    --
    MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
  34. Progress by Advocadus+Diaboli · · Score: 2, Funny

    Progress (n.): The process through which the Internet has evolved from smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of smart terminals.

  35. A little off topic by rm999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article mentions On Intelligence, Jeff Hawkins' book about intelligence. I read it this summer, and think it is a great book with a lot of insightful comments that will seem almost obvious after you finish the book. On Intelligence presents his theory of how the brain becomes intelligent and how that information can be applied to computers. Anyone interested in AI should look into it (although it's not exactly a light read).