• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has the average person become stupider in last 5000 years?

Do large civilizations cause brain size and intelligence to downsize on average?

  • This theory makes perfect sense

    Votes: 1 2.5%

  • This is a possibility

    Votes: 6 15.0%

  • I disagree with the theory

    Votes: 10 25.0%

  • People are actually getting smarter

    Votes: 12 30.0%

  • Brain size has nothing to do with intelligence

    Votes: 11 27.5%
  • Total voters
    40
MyOwnDrum

MyOwnDrum

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
1,374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Interesting article here on recent human evolution. Apparently brain size in humans has shrunk in the last 5000 years. A possible reason is given in the article I will link to:
"When it comes to recent evolutionary changes, we currently maybe have the least specific details with regard the brain, but we do know from archaeological data that pretty much everywhere we can measure — Europe, China, South Africa, Australia — that brains have shrunk about 150 cubic centimeters, off a mean of about 1,350. That's roughly 10 percent," Hawks said.

"As to why is it shrinking, perhaps in big societies, as opposed to hunter-gatherer lifestyles, we can rely on other people for more things, can specialize our behavior to a greater extent, and maybe not need our brains as much," he added.
Click to expand...
Humans Still Evolving as Our Brains Shrink - Evolution | Human | Theory | Man | Paleontology - FOXNews.com

In other words, the need to be intelligent isn't as much of a biological imperative as society becomes more complex. Stupid people are able to survive and reproduce. The phenomenon that we see today, with the less intelligent underclass reproducing itself at a higher rate, has been present for some time.

Please vote on your opinion of this theory.
 
Brain size does not indicate intelligence level. That's a pretty basic tennet of neuropsychology. Brain complexity and organization determines intelligence, and as far as I know that hasn't changed significantly since the earliest human ancestors.

I'm also not clear on the unintelligent underclass argument. Unless someone has a neurological disability that prevents their knowledge from growing, the limitation to intelligence tends to be access to learning experience. The "underclass" tends to have less access to education and diverse worldly experience than people with money, and that is because their life experience is linked almost exclusively to survival.

So what does that tell us? That yes, poor people have existed since the dawn of time and have been marginalized as being stupid.
 
It seems to me that the human being of the hunting gathering society would need to have more generalized intelligence and definitely more physical stamina than a human being in an agricultural society.
 
Just 100 years ago, the majority of Americans didn't even know how to read.
 
Toothpicvic said:
Just 100 years ago, the majority of Americans didn't even know how to read.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to innate intelligence, not whether someone lives in a society that is literate. Most human beings are capable of learning to read if they live in a society that provides them the opportunity.
 
OP:

Well - I agree with Orius - intelligence has nothing to do with *brain* size.
The brain does far more than just calculate the answer to problems and "brainy" things.

It's evident through monitored microevolution that often what is reduced, or is removed from genetics completely is done so because it's no longer needed - or used less and less.
It's just gradually phased out.

So if our brain-cells are being reduced in size, or certain areas are reduced, it is because they're used less and less - maybe our neuroprocesses are becoming more sufficient with less needed space and energy?
Maybe we're becoming breathitarians.

Toothpicvic said:
Just 100 years ago, the majority of Americans didn't even know how to read.
Click to expand...
That's an issue of being taught - not necessary intelligence.
There's book smarts - and street smarts. . . and some have more of one than the other, some have both.

In some studies it's been found that the brain cells of homosexual men are larger than the braincells of heterosexual men - does that mean that homosexual men are smarter than their heterosexual counterparts?
No, it does not. It means that there's a cause for the difference, but there's no apparent "IQ" effect.
 
Homosexual men are a successful and creative demographic group actually. I've read that they are high wage earners as a whole.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Homosexual men are a successful and creative demographic group actually. I've read that they are high wage earners as a whole.
Click to expand...

Yes, but is that intelligence?

I think creativity and intelligence are unrelated - though it is an interesting study. (I tried to find the article that I read about this in but can't quite land my hands on the exact one - it wasn't biased, it was in a science-journal of sorts....anyway)
 
The male homosexual brain differs in several ways, the main one being that the corpus collosum (the conduit which connects the two halves of the brain) is less massive. Homosexual men, on average, tend to be better at languages and verbal articulation, as well as spatial thinkers. There hasn't been enough study into potential evolutionary reasons for homosexuality, but I think gay men are meant to serve a special role in society that is hard to observe because of our modern social order. Maybe in tribal society it would be more clear.

Also, to the general aspect of the OP, food sources for humanity in the world have increased in the whole since the advent of agriculture, and, in the past 50 years, the Green Revolution. People are getting taller and our brains are receiving more nourishment. It'll be interesting to see how this affects our brain output. Not to mention the internet and access to a wide array of information and stimulus which we are processing in ever larger quantities!
 
This is my favorite part

"7,500 years ago in Europe enabled people there to take advantage of non-human milk, a highly nutritious food source one can sustainably procure instead of slaughtering animals."

mmmmmm I love drinking non-human milk from my slaughtered animals.
 
Creativity is definitely a sign of an evolved brain and the mark of humanity actually. Human beings are creative beings, animals aren't.
 
Arch Enemy said:
This is my favorite part

"7,500 years ago in Europe enabled people there to take advantage of non-human milk, a highly nutritious food source one can sustainably procure instead of slaughtering animals."

mmmmmm I love drinking non-human milk from my slaughtered animals.
Click to expand...


They were explaining why humans of European origin aren't lactose intolerant. It is a recent evolutionary adaptation in response to an environmental imperative.

The Mongolian people of Asia also have this adaptation.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
They were explaining why humans of European origin aren't lactose intolerant. It is a recent evolutionary adaptation in response to an environmental imperative.

The Mongolian people of Asia also have this adaptation.
Click to expand...

I'm a Steppes Nomad fanatic, so I understand what they meant.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I'm a Steppes Nomad fanatic, so I understand what they meant.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I loved The Story of the Weeping Camel Great movie, don't you think?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Creativity is definitely a sign of an evolved brain and the mark of humanity actually. Human beings are creative beings, animals aren't.
Click to expand...

I hear this a lot, but in my experience it's not true. Animals express creativity but it's either in simpler forms or in ways that we are not keenly observing. Anyone that's had a pet they were close to knows that they do the most interesting things but they do it in a way that humans wouldn't really do. This is why it gets overlooked and we assume they don't know anything.

Also, a lot of creative animal behavior evolved over time for survival purposes, but it's creative nonetheless. Humans get a lot of their innovation ideas from nature and observing creatures.
 
Orius said:
I hear this a lot, but in my experience it's not true. Animals express creativity but it's either in simpler forms or in ways that we are not keenly observing. Anyone that's had a pet they were close to knows that they do the most interesting things but they do it in a way that humans wouldn't really do. This is why it gets overlooked and we assume they don't know anything.

Also, a lot of creative animal behavior evolved over time for survival purposes, but it's creative nonetheless. Humans get a lot of their innovation ideas from nature and observing creatures.
Click to expand...

Animals are sentient beings, but their creativity is hardly in the category of that of humans.
 
OK....I have to ask.....is the Title of this thread meant to be satirical?
 
What I talking about is "Stupider"......

Normally I don't comment on people's grammar or spelling....but I wasn't sure if the title were meant to be ironic....rather than saying "Has the average person become more stupid in the last 500 years".....
 
disneydude said:
What I talking about is "Stupider"......

Normally I don't comment on people's grammar or spelling....but I wasn't sure if the title were meant to be ironic....rather than saying "Has the average person become more stupid in the last 500 years".....
Click to expand...
stupider - definition of stupider by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.
 
I don't know if I would say humans are becoming "stupider", but the average person doesn't seem to understand what living requires without the conveniences of grocery stores, clothing makers, weapons for defense and procuring high-quality protein sources. If push ever comes to shove, there's going to be many confounded starving people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom