I remember that even a hundred years ago, most people read more pulpy-styled books over the great literature. Refined, skilled writing has always been the domain of a small subset of society.
It only appears that language is dumbing down because those of lower cognitive ability have greater access to public discourse. The percentage of low- to high-IQ people is the same; low-IQ people now have social media.
"dysgenic selection is a thing for about 100 years, in some places closer to 150 years."
I agree to this extent; I believe dysgenic selection has been around for some time, probably forever. The vast majority of people have no positive effect on humanity. They are merely along for the ride. Those few who possess high intelligence, integrity, and other positive traits are responsible for advancing humankind.
Forever? How is is that we are smarter than worm-like creatures we descended from (~600 mya). In human history, it must be that dysgenic periods were alternating with eugenic (as in strong men create good times etc..)
Individual with +0.5 SD IQ probably not going to make a noticeable advance, but is still better than -0.5 SD IQ individual as he/she has higher chance than their progeny hits +3 SD IQ smart fraction and also makes less obstacles for smart fraction to work.
"How is is that we are smarter than worm-like creatures we descended from (~600 mya)."
Good question. This ties in with a question that has intrigued me for many years. Why have humans cognitively evolved immensely past what is necessary for survival?
"Individual with +0.5 SD IQ probably not going to make a noticeable advance, but is still better than -0.5 SD IQ individual as he/she has higher chance than their progeny hits +3 SD IQ smart fraction and also makes less obstacles for smart fraction to work."
I agree. What I mean is that dysgenics is not all-inclusive. It is possible that those of lesser cognitive ability would be somewhat isolated from those of higher cognitive ability. To some extent, it is that way now. In general, highly intelligent people do not procreate with people of low IQ. But without the use of genetic enhancement, we have probably reached the limit of human ascension.
"why? it depends on ideology in power. Current ideology makes way for dumb people."
Yes, dumb people are easier to control. I hope that some nation or group of people can research and develop human genetic enhancement to allow those who wish to produce offspring with positive traits to do so.
Why is there no comment on my question? 'Why have humans cognitively evolved immensely past what is necessary for survival?'
I am extremely skeptical about this "verbal complexity" approaches in general.
You want to say things crisply and simply to be easily understood.
Long convoluted sentence structure and obscure words might be slightly effective at signaling your intelligence, but it's bad for getting people to actually understand you.
I think LLMs will change everything if it hasn’t already started.
I already write obscure bureaucratic text for internal and external audiences. I’m quietly using an LLM to smoothen out my own language and that of colleagues.
LLMs prefer shorter words and shorter sentences. They reject different terms for the same concept. They can also usefully merge styles of multiple authors.
I think all of this will be measured as simplification of language.
Things that are read only by lawyers should be considered in a different category from what is read by a general audience. I don’t think it is an improvement if legal documents are too complex.
’Denise Evans and Mary L. Onorato summarise the modern reception of On Liberty, stating: "[c]ritics regard his essay On Liberty as a seminal work in the development of British liberalism. Enhanced by his powerful, lucid, and accessible prose style, Mill's writings on government, economics, and logic suggest a model for society that remains compelling and relevant."’
Simpler does not mean "dumber". It is rather the other way around. People who know what they want to say can afford to be simple and short. I despise the endless pseudo-intellectual babbling.
I got the highest grade in English at a decent high school but found Charles Dickens surprisingly challenging, yet he was writing for a frequently working class audience.
Executive Orders are legalistic documents. I bet laws, court decisions, etc are becoming more complex. Academic writing too. Great divergence with stuff that’s for mass consumption.
I remember that even a hundred years ago, most people read more pulpy-styled books over the great literature. Refined, skilled writing has always been the domain of a small subset of society.
It only appears that language is dumbing down because those of lower cognitive ability have greater access to public discourse. The percentage of low- to high-IQ people is the same; low-IQ people now have social media.
dysgenic selection is a thing for about 100 years, in some places closer to 150 years.
"dysgenic selection is a thing for about 100 years, in some places closer to 150 years."
I agree to this extent; I believe dysgenic selection has been around for some time, probably forever. The vast majority of people have no positive effect on humanity. They are merely along for the ride. Those few who possess high intelligence, integrity, and other positive traits are responsible for advancing humankind.
Forever? How is is that we are smarter than worm-like creatures we descended from (~600 mya). In human history, it must be that dysgenic periods were alternating with eugenic (as in strong men create good times etc..)
Individual with +0.5 SD IQ probably not going to make a noticeable advance, but is still better than -0.5 SD IQ individual as he/she has higher chance than their progeny hits +3 SD IQ smart fraction and also makes less obstacles for smart fraction to work.
"How is is that we are smarter than worm-like creatures we descended from (~600 mya)."
Good question. This ties in with a question that has intrigued me for many years. Why have humans cognitively evolved immensely past what is necessary for survival?
"Individual with +0.5 SD IQ probably not going to make a noticeable advance, but is still better than -0.5 SD IQ individual as he/she has higher chance than their progeny hits +3 SD IQ smart fraction and also makes less obstacles for smart fraction to work."
I agree. What I mean is that dysgenics is not all-inclusive. It is possible that those of lesser cognitive ability would be somewhat isolated from those of higher cognitive ability. To some extent, it is that way now. In general, highly intelligent people do not procreate with people of low IQ. But without the use of genetic enhancement, we have probably reached the limit of human ascension.
>we have probably reached the limit of human ascension.
why? it depends on ideology in power. Current ideology makes way for dumb people.
"why? it depends on ideology in power. Current ideology makes way for dumb people."
Yes, dumb people are easier to control. I hope that some nation or group of people can research and develop human genetic enhancement to allow those who wish to produce offspring with positive traits to do so.
Why is there no comment on my question? 'Why have humans cognitively evolved immensely past what is necessary for survival?'
I am extremely skeptical about this "verbal complexity" approaches in general.
You want to say things crisply and simply to be easily understood.
Long convoluted sentence structure and obscure words might be slightly effective at signaling your intelligence, but it's bad for getting people to actually understand you.
I think LLMs will change everything if it hasn’t already started.
I already write obscure bureaucratic text for internal and external audiences. I’m quietly using an LLM to smoothen out my own language and that of colleagues.
LLMs prefer shorter words and shorter sentences. They reject different terms for the same concept. They can also usefully merge styles of multiple authors.
I think all of this will be measured as simplification of language.
Things that are read only by lawyers should be considered in a different category from what is read by a general audience. I don’t think it is an improvement if legal documents are too complex.
Also I think JS Mill was a good writer.
JS Mill is basically unreadable. I don't know why you think he was good.
Here is someone quoted in wikipedia:
’Denise Evans and Mary L. Onorato summarise the modern reception of On Liberty, stating: "[c]ritics regard his essay On Liberty as a seminal work in the development of British liberalism. Enhanced by his powerful, lucid, and accessible prose style, Mill's writings on government, economics, and logic suggest a model for society that remains compelling and relevant."’
Simpler does not mean "dumber". It is rather the other way around. People who know what they want to say can afford to be simple and short. I despise the endless pseudo-intellectual babbling.
I got the highest grade in English at a decent high school but found Charles Dickens surprisingly challenging, yet he was writing for a frequently working class audience.
Executive Orders are legalistic documents. I bet laws, court decisions, etc are becoming more complex. Academic writing too. Great divergence with stuff that’s for mass consumption.