5 Answers

  1. It does not numb the mind, but provokes the formation of clip thinking. And people with clip thinking are no more stupid than people with normal thinking — they just think more superficially, because they spend less time and attention thinking.

  2. The volume of the brain has not increased or decreased over the millennia, the speed of reaction to environmental influences in each individual differs depending on the mental makeup and upbringing and training.

    Readers may have noticed that there are people who can remember a huge amount of information in their minds, but do not have the analytical ability.

    Others do not remember well, but they analyze with the available data and easily draw conclusions.

    There are still those who do not remember well and do not have the ability to think logically in stressful situations.

    Finally, the fourth group consists of individuals with excellent memory and excellent analytical abilities to operate with the entire array of information.

    At the beginning of the Aquarian age, people were overwhelmed by a huge flow of information through the Internet and media channels, but at the same time it was a lifeline that allowed individuals with poor memory to rise in the cognitive hierarchy and take certain positions in the discussion of various issues.

    As a rule, such respondents always have links to various publications and conclusions from encyclopedic dictionaries.

    For respondents with poor analytical ability and poor memory, the presence of socially significant reactions to an event causes a storm of emotions in line with general opinions and statements are necessarily given in the form of statements such as: “vo, tin, wow, wow and the like.”

    It is more difficult for those who are constantly immersed in a stamped information environment and try to “float” to the surface, processing huge layers of information to find the right reaction.

    Only pure analysts win, looking for small details of events bit by bit, trying to analyze them in a certain key, allowing you to compare contradictory mechanisms and determine the direction of movement with drawing the overall picture.

    1. The question is interesting because you need to re-introduce the conventional term. First, what does the word “smarter” mean?
    2. It will be very difficult for us to compare, because there is no methodology for comparing (how we will evaluate the mind) and the data accumulated on it (data for the 20th century, for example, and the 21st century).

    To answer this question, we need to agree on terms, build a methodology (which will not be questioned for several centuries), and accumulate data.

    In the meantime, we don't know.

  3. We will start from Menninger's statement that any theory is speculative and selective. So, why should we assume that ALL our ancestors were smart? For certain reasons, they might have been MORE PRACTICAL. For example, it can be assumed that a German during the Thirty Years ' War could provide first aid, hide in the forest, and navigate the terrain much better than his distant descendant. Only his descendant is smarter: he sees and understands the world more widely than his ancestor. And this time it will be much more difficult to drag him to war for the sake of other people's interests. And who can draw a person better, faster, and BETTER-Renaissance and 19th-century artists, or modern daubers who are obsessed with performances and installations? About social networks: this is a tool. You don't throw all the knives out of the kitchen – for some it's a murder weapon, for some it's an opportunity to cut bread, fruits and vegetables. Are social networks to blame if a person has access to the Internet, and instead of learning foreign languages or improving himself, he hangs out and sticks in social networks-ABSOLUTELY without any benefit for himself? On the other hand, modern opportunities for (self -)our educational background and accumulated scientific experience set us apart from our ancestors. Only everything is relative: again, the ancient Greeks, Copernicus, and even those inquisitors who condemned Bruno and Galileo knew about the Sun, around which the Earth revolves. And we know. Both we and our distant ancestors are familiar with firearms and photography. And what – the ancient Greek Agora and the ancient Roman Forum did not stupefy people? Citizens gathered and scratched their tongues for days on end.

    So, people, human psychology does not change. Conditions and opportunities change, but not the person himself. Moreover, progress does not contribute to the improvement of a person in any way, on the contrary. Examples don't go far: Carthage, Ancient Rome, Byzantium, the Aztec and Inca Empires… For its time, these were advanced civilizations. Only with the growth of progress did their human sacrifice, violence, anger, and limitations increase. So everything new is a well-forgotten old. Each time has its own Newtons (today they have already learned how to edit the human genome, Newton never dreamed of such a thing) and its own Gerostrats, and its own stupid and incompetent people.

  4. No, modern people are even more stupid than their parents. This can be seen in the myths and delusional thoughts that go around on social networks. Humans are generally not the smartest species on earth. Any other kind of animal has to use its mind to reinvent a lot of new things for itself. We use the fruits of the mistakes of previous generations because we can not only speak, but also write. Wars are the engine of progress – when war comes, the people will get smarter…

Leave a Reply