What do you think?
Rate this book
S rozumem v koncích: Proč se stáváme méně inteligentními a co to znamená pro budoucnost
Stáváme se méně inteligentními. Kniha S rozumem v koncích nám sděluje tento šokující, ale fascinující poznatek. Autoři nám představují vršící se hromadu důkazů, že lidé jsou dnes podstatně méně inteligentní, než tomu bylo před sto lety. O výzkumu dokazujícím toto kontroverzní tvrzení donedávna věděli pouze akademici, ovšem autoři této knihy jsou toho názoru, že toto poznání nemůže zůstat dál uzamčeno ve slonovinových věžích vědy. S rozumem v koncích je prvním populárně vědeckým dílem šířícím povědomí o tomto pro budoucnost stěžejním tématu. Autoři knihy dokazují, že inteligence – která je výrazně dědičná – narůstala až do příchodu průmyslové revoluce, protože lidé žili pod tlakem darwinistického výběru, což znamená, že své geny odevzdávali především inteligentnější členové společnosti. Od počátku 19. století však inteligence ve vyspělém světě začala upadat, protože inteligentnější lidé měli průměrně stále méně dětí. Tato kniha se zabývá tím, jak k tomuto obratu došlo a jaké bude mít následky. Lze zvrátit úpadek naší inteligence? Nebo budeme svědky rozvratu civilizace a nástupu nové doby temna?
248 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2018
45 people are currently reading
767 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
November 24, 2022
9/10.
Dutton strikes again! His prose conveys much information in few words, and I always learn a lot from the behavioral genetics studies he cites. I have already read the argument of the current book in its essentials in the book "Modernity and Cultural Decline: A Biobehavioral Perspective", but "At Our Wits' End" is a good reminder of the intelligence aspect of the decline of civilization. The argument is as follows:
Under hunter-gatherer, pastoralist, and agricultural societies, there is a steep natural selection going on. The lower class has trouble reproducing as much as the upper class because of its poor living conditions, its lack of proper nutrition and medicine, and the severity of the environment. On the other hand, those in the upper class tend to have lots of children, as the men get harems of women around them with their social status, which allows them to have lots of offspring. This means that genetic intelligence will rise over time, given that IQ and social status correlate at .7. Furthermore, most pre-industrial societies require fitness tests for their youth in order for them to pass into manhood, such as remaining still when being circumcised or performing some physical feat. Those who fail are shunned. This selects for physical health (genetic). Furthermore, in many societies a man must get meat or enough herding animals to propose marriage to a woman; these, of course, require proper intelligence, planning, and time preference abilities (genetic selection for mental traits).
Essentially, the upper class is reproducing around 2x more than the lower class in pre-industrial times. Combined with group selection — which creates geniuses due to their ability to create innovations to help their group vis-a-vis other groups — societies rise in their intelligence. Furthermore, the stressor of the naturally selected environment (described above, where ~50% of people die in childhood) increases religiosity, thereby unifying the group with a shared purpose. Religiosity also correlates with ethnocentrism, creating a strong and devoted society which computer simulations have shown leads to geographical dominance (as opposed to altruistic societies which help both insiders and outsiders).
The selecting pressure for intelligence then creates a larger percentage of geniuses in the society, thereby increasing its wealth through macro-innovations. The society grows and become skilled in the arts, sciences, and technology. These technological innovations create a more relaxed selection environment, decreasing stress on the society. With the decrease in stress, we see a concomitant decrease in religiosity in the upper class, who begin to feel self-directed instead of God-directed. They become more individualistic and have less children through the practice of contraception, believing that their children need lots of materialistic goods, or simply getting mutations which cause them to lack the usual desire for children. Also, atheism correlates with lower fertility.
While the upper class is reducing its fertility, the lower class is not. They do not have the impulse control, due to their lower intelligence, to use contraception properly in the way that the upper class does. Therefore, the lower class begins to reproduce more than the upper class. Due to the lack of stress in the now materially-developed civilization, the empathy of the upper class begins to raise, which causes "social altruism", i.e. welfare to increase in the society. Out comes bread and circuses galore. This social altruism increases the material stability of the lower class, causing them to have more children. This decreases the intelligence of the society further.
As this is going on, the religiosity and therefore the ethnocentrism of the upper class — the rulers of the society — is decreasing. This causes the rulers to lose the protective and loving spirit they have for their own culture. A lack of ethnocentrism is also brought about by mutations coming from a lack of selection pressure, causing the people of the society to deviate from the evolutionary norm of loving their own people. All of this leads to a social apathy about one's country and one's people, where the elites turn anti-nation (root: nati = connected by birth) and begin to not care about or even justify their people's decline. Values turn to the immediately tangible material wealth instead of a more unifying religiousness.
Intelligence is now declining and the civilization is having trouble justifying itself. Its lack of religious and cultural unity, due to lack of stress and mutations, leads to heterogeneity and wanderlust in art. Its old technological feats are re-iterated as much as they can, as a lower intelligence population tries to sustain itself. Eventually, under centrifugal stress and intellectual incapacity, the civilization falls apart. New outsiders, stronger in spirit and cultural-religious unity, invade and take over. The old civilization's leaders are so materialistic that they do not care, and the civilization collapses. Its old scientific achievements may be lost in time or regress. The new, childlike population simply cannot comprehend the grandiosity of its forefathers' achievements. They are too complex.
Alas, 'tis where we are today! Our forefathers of old look down on our society with spite. Our IQ is decreasing at 1 point per decade. We are using complex words ever less. Our innovation rates peaked at 1870. The decline in the life-sustaining spirit of the West has been happening since then. Materialism has taken over our leaders, selling our people off for mere numbers. Our women have little interest in having children for their oh so promising careers ahead. Nihilism has sunk deep into our youth, whose mutational load is shown with its flamboyant hair colors, strange sexuality, and hatred of its own people. People are getting stupider: they are reading less and imitating lower levels of speech. The Spenglerian Omen has come to pass and we are in its shadow.
Dutton strikes again! His prose conveys much information in few words, and I always learn a lot from the behavioral genetics studies he cites. I have already read the argument of the current book in its essentials in the book "Modernity and Cultural Decline: A Biobehavioral Perspective", but "At Our Wits' End" is a good reminder of the intelligence aspect of the decline of civilization. The argument is as follows:
Under hunter-gatherer, pastoralist, and agricultural societies, there is a steep natural selection going on. The lower class has trouble reproducing as much as the upper class because of its poor living conditions, its lack of proper nutrition and medicine, and the severity of the environment. On the other hand, those in the upper class tend to have lots of children, as the men get harems of women around them with their social status, which allows them to have lots of offspring. This means that genetic intelligence will rise over time, given that IQ and social status correlate at .7. Furthermore, most pre-industrial societies require fitness tests for their youth in order for them to pass into manhood, such as remaining still when being circumcised or performing some physical feat. Those who fail are shunned. This selects for physical health (genetic). Furthermore, in many societies a man must get meat or enough herding animals to propose marriage to a woman; these, of course, require proper intelligence, planning, and time preference abilities (genetic selection for mental traits).
Essentially, the upper class is reproducing around 2x more than the lower class in pre-industrial times. Combined with group selection — which creates geniuses due to their ability to create innovations to help their group vis-a-vis other groups — societies rise in their intelligence. Furthermore, the stressor of the naturally selected environment (described above, where ~50% of people die in childhood) increases religiosity, thereby unifying the group with a shared purpose. Religiosity also correlates with ethnocentrism, creating a strong and devoted society which computer simulations have shown leads to geographical dominance (as opposed to altruistic societies which help both insiders and outsiders).
The selecting pressure for intelligence then creates a larger percentage of geniuses in the society, thereby increasing its wealth through macro-innovations. The society grows and become skilled in the arts, sciences, and technology. These technological innovations create a more relaxed selection environment, decreasing stress on the society. With the decrease in stress, we see a concomitant decrease in religiosity in the upper class, who begin to feel self-directed instead of God-directed. They become more individualistic and have less children through the practice of contraception, believing that their children need lots of materialistic goods, or simply getting mutations which cause them to lack the usual desire for children. Also, atheism correlates with lower fertility.
While the upper class is reducing its fertility, the lower class is not. They do not have the impulse control, due to their lower intelligence, to use contraception properly in the way that the upper class does. Therefore, the lower class begins to reproduce more than the upper class. Due to the lack of stress in the now materially-developed civilization, the empathy of the upper class begins to raise, which causes "social altruism", i.e. welfare to increase in the society. Out comes bread and circuses galore. This social altruism increases the material stability of the lower class, causing them to have more children. This decreases the intelligence of the society further.
As this is going on, the religiosity and therefore the ethnocentrism of the upper class — the rulers of the society — is decreasing. This causes the rulers to lose the protective and loving spirit they have for their own culture. A lack of ethnocentrism is also brought about by mutations coming from a lack of selection pressure, causing the people of the society to deviate from the evolutionary norm of loving their own people. All of this leads to a social apathy about one's country and one's people, where the elites turn anti-nation (root: nati = connected by birth) and begin to not care about or even justify their people's decline. Values turn to the immediately tangible material wealth instead of a more unifying religiousness.
Intelligence is now declining and the civilization is having trouble justifying itself. Its lack of religious and cultural unity, due to lack of stress and mutations, leads to heterogeneity and wanderlust in art. Its old technological feats are re-iterated as much as they can, as a lower intelligence population tries to sustain itself. Eventually, under centrifugal stress and intellectual incapacity, the civilization falls apart. New outsiders, stronger in spirit and cultural-religious unity, invade and take over. The old civilization's leaders are so materialistic that they do not care, and the civilization collapses. Its old scientific achievements may be lost in time or regress. The new, childlike population simply cannot comprehend the grandiosity of its forefathers' achievements. They are too complex.
Alas, 'tis where we are today! Our forefathers of old look down on our society with spite. Our IQ is decreasing at 1 point per decade. We are using complex words ever less. Our innovation rates peaked at 1870. The decline in the life-sustaining spirit of the West has been happening since then. Materialism has taken over our leaders, selling our people off for mere numbers. Our women have little interest in having children for their oh so promising careers ahead. Nihilism has sunk deep into our youth, whose mutational load is shown with its flamboyant hair colors, strange sexuality, and hatred of its own people. People are getting stupider: they are reading less and imitating lower levels of speech. The Spenglerian Omen has come to pass and we are in its shadow.
March 12, 2024
Всички сте гледали филма Идиокрация (а ако не сте - срам за вас) и всички си спомняте култовото му начало (a ако не...). To, за съжаление, не е само художествена измислица. По-глупавите хора не само ви се струва, че имат повече деца - наистина е така.
В науките, изучаващи човешката интелигентност е добре известен Ефектът на Флин, а именно - дългосрочното и постоянно покачване на измерения коефициент на интелигентност в много части от света през 20ти век.
Интелигентността обаче се базира, както много други неща при хората, на две неща - наследственост и влияние на средата.
През 20ти век е безспорно благоприятното влияние на средата върху интелигентността практически на целия свят - повсеместният достъп до училища, намаляване на бедността и подобряване на храненето, намаляване на въоръжените кофликти и т.н. фактори допринасят децата да имат все по-голям достъп до образование, а глобализацията - до "западния" начин на мислене и виждане за света, който е отразен в самите тестове.
За съжаление обаче, по другата ос - наследствената, нещата вървят в точно обратната посока, при това от по-рано от 20ти век. Горе долу след индустриалната революция насам, населението на света избухва като брой благодарение на подобреното здравеопазване и намаляване на глада.
Детската смъртност постепенно спада от над 50% в края на 19ти век до по-малко от процент в края на 20ти. Милиарди деца, които са щели да умрат поради бедността на родителите си и съответно липса на медицински грижи и глад, получават шанс за живот.
Можем да спорим колкото си искаме каква е взаимовръзката между бедност и интелигентност, но статистическата им корелация е повече от очевидна във всички измервания и проучвания. Това, че бедните имат повече деца означава, че по-ниско интелигентните имат повече деца.
Като комбинираме това с добре известни исторически феномен, че колкото повече забогатява и се образова едно общество, толкова по-малко деца започва да ражда, нещата виждате накъде отиват.
Докато поради ефекта на Флин изглежда, че човечеството става по-интелигентно, всъщност може да се каже, че генетично то става по-глупаво, но по-добре образовано. Изследвания показват, че генетичните комбинации, свързани с висока интелигентност се срещат все по-рядко в човешките популации.
Но нещата не спират до тук. Когато говорим за наука и гениални открития, огромна е ролята на свръх-интелигентните хора, на гениите. И тъй като те се намират в далечния, много плосък край на камбановидната крива на интелигентността, не само повечето са мъже, ами и броят им е в геометрична, а не линейна зависимост от интелигентността на популацията. Същата е зависимостта на интелигентността и научните открития.
Това значи, не само, че един гений с IQ 150 е много по-ценен за науката (като говорим за най-значими научни открития) от сто просто доста умни човека с IQ 130 примерно, но и че ако общият капацитет за интелигентност намалява, броят на гениите спада много по-бързо от броя на просто умните хора.
До какво ще доведе това в бъдеще можете сами да си направите изводите, както и да прочетете тези, описани в At Our Wits' End.
Почти излишно е да казвам, че не само книгата, ами даже самата тема на човешката интелигентност в момента е политически "противоречива", така че имайте това предвид като четете както нея, така и мненията относно нея.
В науките, изучаващи човешката интелигентност е добре известен Ефектът на Флин, а именно - дългосрочното и постоянно покачване на измерения коефициент на интелигентност в много части от света през 20ти век.
Интелигентността обаче се базира, както много други неща при хората, на две неща - наследственост и влияние на средата.
През 20ти век е безспорно благоприятното влияние на средата върху интелигентността практически на целия свят - повсеместният достъп до училища, намаляване на бедността и подобряване на храненето, намаляване на въоръжените кофликти и т.н. фактори допринасят децата да имат все по-голям достъп до образование, а глобализацията - до "западния" начин на мислене и виждане за света, който е отразен в самите тестове.
За съжаление обаче, по другата ос - наследствената, нещата вървят в точно обратната посока, при това от по-рано от 20ти век. Горе долу след индустриалната революция насам, населението на света избухва като брой благодарение на подобреното здравеопазване и намаляване на глада.
Детската смъртност постепенно спада от над 50% в края на 19ти век до по-малко от процент в края на 20ти. Милиарди деца, които са щели да умрат поради бедността на родителите си и съответно липса на медицински грижи и глад, получават шанс за живот.
Можем да спорим колкото си искаме каква е взаимовръзката между бедност и интелигентност, но статистическата им корелация е повече от очевидна във всички измервания и проучвания. Това, че бедните имат повече деца означава, че по-ниско интелигентните имат повече деца.
Като комбинираме това с добре известни исторически феномен, че колкото повече забогатява и се образова едно общество, толкова по-малко деца започва да ражда, нещата виждате накъде отиват.
Докато поради ефекта на Флин изглежда, че човечеството става по-интелигентно, всъщност може да се каже, че генетично то става по-глупаво, но по-добре образовано. Изследвания показват, че генетичните комбинации, свързани с висока интелигентност се срещат все по-рядко в човешките популации.
Но нещата не спират до тук. Когато говорим за наука и гениални открития, огромна е ролята на свръх-интелигентните хора, на гениите. И тъй като те се намират в далечния, много плосък край на камбановидната крива на интелигентността, не само повечето са мъже, ами и броят им е в геометрична, а не линейна зависимост от интелигентността на популацията. Същата е зависимостта на интелигентността и научните открития.
Това значи, не само, че един гений с IQ 150 е много по-ценен за науката (като говорим за най-значими научни открития) от сто просто доста умни човека с IQ 130 примерно, но и че ако общият капацитет за интелигентност намалява, броят на гениите спада много по-бързо от броя на просто умните хора.
До какво ще доведе това в бъдеще можете сами да си направите изводите, както и да прочетете тези, описани в At Our Wits' End.
Почти излишно е да казвам, че не само книгата, ами даже самата тема на човешката интелигентност в момента е политически "противоречива", така че имайте това предвид като четете както нея, така и мненията относно нея.
April 21, 2020
Why You Can’t Fly on The Concorde
This book makes the case that it's because we've hit peak intelligence as a civilization, we're losing our wits and lack the smarts to accomplish anything really noteworthy.
I certainly observed this in the large circle of friends and acquaintances I had in my late teens and 20's. I had a very "diverse" group of friends. Some were very ambitious and sharp, they studied very hard to get a real education in university, they worked hard in challenging jobs to get their careers started or devoted themselves to entrepreneurship. Then there were my friends who were loveable losers that were just fun to party with; they would often be in a little legal trouble, they lived in kind of crappy neighborhoods, they would use illegal drugs recreationally, they wouldn't hold down serious jobs for long and they were always up to go out drinking on a Wednesday night! I'm 34 years old now and here's the consistent trend; the loveable losers would be casually dating someone and there would be an unintentional pregnancy, sometimes they would stay together with their baby's daddy or baby's momma, but more often than not there would be a lot of drama and they would end up a single parent. Of my ambitious friends, after about a decade and a half almost none are parents. In their mid 20's parenthood was the furthest thing from their domain of concerns, many even shunned dating as a waste of time. To them having children was like a manned mission to Mars, it was something that they wanted eventually, but it was a long way off and they really weren't planning for it. Occasionally, I get dinner or have a long Skype conversation with my old ambitious friends, they are all engrossed in very exciting careers or entrepreneurial projects but very few have children and few got married. They share their dating woes with me and shrug their shoulders in exasperation with how damn complicated dating is in the current year.
In my own life can really see how the less intelligent are genetically outcompeting the more intelligent.
This book makes the case that it's because we've hit peak intelligence as a civilization, we're losing our wits and lack the smarts to accomplish anything really noteworthy.
I certainly observed this in the large circle of friends and acquaintances I had in my late teens and 20's. I had a very "diverse" group of friends. Some were very ambitious and sharp, they studied very hard to get a real education in university, they worked hard in challenging jobs to get their careers started or devoted themselves to entrepreneurship. Then there were my friends who were loveable losers that were just fun to party with; they would often be in a little legal trouble, they lived in kind of crappy neighborhoods, they would use illegal drugs recreationally, they wouldn't hold down serious jobs for long and they were always up to go out drinking on a Wednesday night! I'm 34 years old now and here's the consistent trend; the loveable losers would be casually dating someone and there would be an unintentional pregnancy, sometimes they would stay together with their baby's daddy or baby's momma, but more often than not there would be a lot of drama and they would end up a single parent. Of my ambitious friends, after about a decade and a half almost none are parents. In their mid 20's parenthood was the furthest thing from their domain of concerns, many even shunned dating as a waste of time. To them having children was like a manned mission to Mars, it was something that they wanted eventually, but it was a long way off and they really weren't planning for it. Occasionally, I get dinner or have a long Skype conversation with my old ambitious friends, they are all engrossed in very exciting careers or entrepreneurial projects but very few have children and few got married. They share their dating woes with me and shrug their shoulders in exasperation with how damn complicated dating is in the current year.
In my own life can really see how the less intelligent are genetically outcompeting the more intelligent.
March 21, 2021
A very politically incorrect book and a real thought provoking one.
The authors argue that intelligence is declining. There is a negative selection pressure for intelligence as it is negatively correlated with fertility.
The illusion of ever increasing IQ test scores are a result of our enhanced abstract thinking capability, which is a product of environment. But the real core cognitive abilities are highly heritable and are in constant decline since the time of industrial revolution.
In chapter 9, the authors provide many hard evidences to support their premise and introduce the "woodley effect" or anti-flynn effect. It draws on all the evidences and provides a clear picture that over 10 IQ points have already been declined during the last century.
The book has numerous other crazy and ingenious ideas, like how contraception doesn't let civilization to grow, how low interest rate is a sign of high intelligence, how irrationality, religion and other kinds, brings about rationality, etc.!!
The authors argue that intelligence is declining. There is a negative selection pressure for intelligence as it is negatively correlated with fertility.
The illusion of ever increasing IQ test scores are a result of our enhanced abstract thinking capability, which is a product of environment. But the real core cognitive abilities are highly heritable and are in constant decline since the time of industrial revolution.
In chapter 9, the authors provide many hard evidences to support their premise and introduce the "woodley effect" or anti-flynn effect. It draws on all the evidences and provides a clear picture that over 10 IQ points have already been declined during the last century.
The book has numerous other crazy and ingenious ideas, like how contraception doesn't let civilization to grow, how low interest rate is a sign of high intelligence, how irrationality, religion and other kinds, brings about rationality, etc.!!
December 23, 2019
Intelligence is negatively correlated with desire for children and this fact combined with the welfare state, feminism, liberal immigration policy and longer higher education (all integral parts of late modernity) are resulting in a decrease in our intellectual potential. Idiotic but nonetheless purely rational actors are exploiting the system. Plenty of mandatory self-indignant snorts aimed at the numerous insidious Cultural Marxist deniers of intelligence and it's biological basis. Big emphasis on the genetic reductionism, sociological issues aren't taken as serious but the data's pigeonholed into historical cyclical social change theories. Explains the Flynn effect as similar gains in height i.e. not as a result of any heritable genetic mutations but just maximizing latent potentials as a result of better health care and stimulation outstripping actual declines in actual total genetic potential. Infers historic psychometric abilities as proof of the theory and puts forth examples such as liberalizing interest rates as proof of increasing average IQs regardless of sophisticated theological/logic cases against it. We're expected to believe historic geniuses were actually smarter than the smartest people alive today... it's not just that all the low hanging fruit is gone now. We can't do any new big impressive engineering projects today because people have literally become so much more stupid in less than 100 years we have to lower our expectations. Of course this is taken to the extreme projecting an apocalyptic doomsday breakdown of society and advocating some sort of survivalist response for those high IQ enough to see the writing on the wall. What's really happening isn't just a historical recapitulation, emerging post-industrial societies are something new, more feminine and as such more emotionally driven and also the environmental toxicity and such should be taken more serious.
January 3, 2023
لماذا أصبحنا أقل ذكاءً !؟
.
.
بين القرنين الرابع عشر ومنتصف القرن التاسع عشر ، وفي كل جيل ، كان لدى 50% من السكان الأغنى أطفالًا بقوا على قيد الحياة أكثر من 50% من السكان الأفقر. نظرًا لأن الوضع الاقتصادي والذكاء مرتبطان بشكل إيجابي ، فقد أدى ذلك إلى جعلنا أكثر ذكاءً مع كل جيل. استمر هذا الأمر حتى أصبح أكثر الناس ذكاءً - العباقرة والأذكياء - كثيرين جدًا وقادرين جدًا ، لدرجة أن ابتكاراتهم سمحت لنا في الواقع بالتحكم في بيئتنا إلى حد غير مسبوق. هنا حدثت الثورة الصناعية. أدى ذلك إلى المزيد والمزيد من الاختراعات ، مثل أن مستوى معيشتنا - قدرتنا على إطعام السكان - تجاوز النمو السكاني ، مما يعني أن مستويات معيشتنا الآن أعلى من تلك الخاصة بملوك العصور الوسطى!!
ومع ذلك ، أدت هذه العملية إلى جعلنا أقل ذكاءً . مع توفر قفزات هائلة في التكنولوجيا الطبية ، انتقلنا من حوالي ثلث الأطفال الذين فشلوا في بلوغ سن الرشد إلى ما يقرب من لا أحد يفشل في القيام بذلك. في عصور ما قبل العصر الحديث ، كان الأطفال الذين ماتوا صغارًا بشكل غير متناسب ، أطفالًا من ذوي المكانة الاجتماعية المنخفضة ، وبالتالي أقل ذكاءً ، كما رأينا ، فإن الذكاء متوارث بشدة. والسبب الرئيسي لذلك هو أن الأقل ذكاءً كانوا أفقر ويعيشون في ظروف أسوأ ولديهم تغذية أسوأ. توقف هذا النمط من الاختيار لصالح الذكاء العالي مع ابتكارات الثورة الصناعية في الطب والنظافة ، مثل الاستخدام الواسع للتلقيح ضد أمراض الطفولة القاتلة سابقًا مثل الحصبة ، بالإضافة إلى المبادرات الاجتماعية التي تهدف إلى التخفيف من آثار الفقر .
كما أدى معدل الوفيات المنخفض الناتج عن ذلك إلى عدم اضطرار الناس إلى إنجاب أعداد كبيرة من الأطفال لضمان بقاء بعضهم على قيد الحياة. وفقًا لذلك ، يمكن أن يكون لديهم أسر أصغر واستخدام الأموال المتبقية لتمويل مستوى معيشي أعلى. بحلول أواخر القرن التاسع عشر ، كان هذا يعني أن وجود عائلة كبيرة يميل إلى أن يكون حادثًا. سيحدث ذلك لأن الناس كانوا أقل قدرة على التفكير في المستقبل ، مما يعني أنهم سيمارسون الجنس باندفاع ولا يقلقون بشأن العواقب. كما سنرى ، فإن مثل هذا السلوك الاندفاعي هو دليل على الذكاء المنخفض ، مثل عدم القدرة على استخدام وسائل منع الحمل بنجاح. هذا يعني أن الأشخاص الأقل ذكاءً سرعان ما بدأوا في إنجاب عدد أكبر من الأطفال مقارنة بالأشخاص الأكثر ذكاءً.
مع دخول النساء إلى سوق العمل ، بدى أن النساء الأكثر ذكاءً يكرسن أنفسهن لمسيرتهن المهنية في العشرينات من العمر وحتى النصف الأول من الثلاثينيات من عمرهن. إذا كان لديهن أطفال على الإطلاق (غالبًا لا يرغبن في ذلك أو يجدن أنه قد فوات الأوان) ، فسيكون لديهن عدد قليل منهم فقط. على النقيض من ذلك ، فإن النساء الأقل ذكاءً ، والأقل تركيزًا على الحياة المهنية والأكثر اندفاعًا ، سيكون لديهن أعداد أكبر من الأطفال ، بدءًا من سن المراهقة ، وفي بعض الأحيان يصبحن جدات بحلول الوقت الذي تبدأ فيه معاصراتهن الأكثر ذكاءً بالتفكير في الأمومة. لهذه الأسباب ، كان متوقعًا منذ فترة طويلة أننا سنصبح أقل ذكاءً.
.
Edward Dutton
At Our Wit's End
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
.
.
بين القرنين الرابع عشر ومنتصف القرن التاسع عشر ، وفي كل جيل ، كان لدى 50% من السكان الأغنى أطفالًا بقوا على قيد الحياة أكثر من 50% من السكان الأفقر. نظرًا لأن الوضع الاقتصادي والذكاء مرتبطان بشكل إيجابي ، فقد أدى ذلك إلى جعلنا أكثر ذكاءً مع كل جيل. استمر هذا الأمر حتى أصبح أكثر الناس ذكاءً - العباقرة والأذكياء - كثيرين جدًا وقادرين جدًا ، لدرجة أن ابتكاراتهم سمحت لنا في الواقع بالتحكم في بيئتنا إلى حد غير مسبوق. هنا حدثت الثورة الصناعية. أدى ذلك إلى المزيد والمزيد من الاختراعات ، مثل أن مستوى معيشتنا - قدرتنا على إطعام السكان - تجاوز النمو السكاني ، مما يعني أن مستويات معيشتنا الآن أعلى من تلك الخاصة بملوك العصور الوسطى!!
ومع ذلك ، أدت هذه العملية إلى جعلنا أقل ذكاءً . مع توفر قفزات هائلة في التكنولوجيا الطبية ، انتقلنا من حوالي ثلث الأطفال الذين فشلوا في بلوغ سن الرشد إلى ما يقرب من لا أحد يفشل في القيام بذلك. في عصور ما قبل العصر الحديث ، كان الأطفال الذين ماتوا صغارًا بشكل غير متناسب ، أطفالًا من ذوي المكانة الاجتماعية المنخفضة ، وبالتالي أقل ذكاءً ، كما رأينا ، فإن الذكاء متوارث بشدة. والسبب الرئيسي لذلك هو أن الأقل ذكاءً كانوا أفقر ويعيشون في ظروف أسوأ ولديهم تغذية أسوأ. توقف هذا النمط من الاختيار لصالح الذكاء العالي مع ابتكارات الثورة الصناعية في الطب والنظافة ، مثل الاستخدام الواسع للتلقيح ضد أمراض الطفولة القاتلة سابقًا مثل الحصبة ، بالإضافة إلى المبادرات الاجتماعية التي تهدف إلى التخفيف من آثار الفقر .
كما أدى معدل الوفيات المنخفض الناتج عن ذلك إلى عدم اضطرار الناس إلى إنجاب أعداد كبيرة من الأطفال لضمان بقاء بعضهم على قيد الحياة. وفقًا لذلك ، يمكن أن يكون لديهم أسر أصغر واستخدام الأموال المتبقية لتمويل مستوى معيشي أعلى. بحلول أواخر القرن التاسع عشر ، كان هذا يعني أن وجود عائلة كبيرة يميل إلى أن يكون حادثًا. سيحدث ذلك لأن الناس كانوا أقل قدرة على التفكير في المستقبل ، مما يعني أنهم سيمارسون الجنس باندفاع ولا يقلقون بشأن العواقب. كما سنرى ، فإن مثل هذا السلوك الاندفاعي هو دليل على الذكاء المنخفض ، مثل عدم القدرة على استخدام وسائل منع الحمل بنجاح. هذا يعني أن الأشخاص الأقل ذكاءً سرعان ما بدأوا في إنجاب عدد أكبر من الأطفال مقارنة بالأشخاص الأكثر ذكاءً.
مع دخول النساء إلى سوق العمل ، بدى أن النساء الأكثر ذكاءً يكرسن أنفسهن لمسيرتهن المهنية في العشرينات من العمر وحتى النصف الأول من الثلاثينيات من عمرهن. إذا كان لديهن أطفال على الإطلاق (غالبًا لا يرغبن في ذلك أو يجدن أنه قد فوات الأوان) ، فسيكون لديهن عدد قليل منهم فقط. على النقيض من ذلك ، فإن النساء الأقل ذكاءً ، والأقل تركيزًا على الحياة المهنية والأكثر اندفاعًا ، سيكون لديهن أعداد أكبر من الأطفال ، بدءًا من سن المراهقة ، وفي بعض الأحيان يصبحن جدات بحلول الوقت الذي تبدأ فيه معاصراتهن الأكثر ذكاءً بالتفكير في الأمومة. لهذه الأسباب ، كان متوقعًا منذ فترة طويلة أننا سنصبح أقل ذكاءً.
.
Edward Dutton
At Our Wit's End
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
October 22, 2021
Dutton and Woodley's thesis is that the world of humans is becoming dumber because people with higher intellect, i.e. "g", are having fewer children, while immigrants and folks with lower "g" are having more children. And what will be the end result of this trend? According to the authors, "The
end of civilization". With a little research on the web I learned that both of the authors have some connections to racist, white national groups which makes their arguments very suspicious to me.
end of civilization". With a little research on the web I learned that both of the authors have some connections to racist, white national groups which makes their arguments very suspicious to me.
July 30, 2020
In popular parlance only one phrase describes this book and it is one hell of a massive "black pill" .
It's written in logical and well thought out way, making it difficult to find any arguments to debunk the authors in their hypothesis.
Hunker down, look out for your family, and make sure your progeny are prepared for what's coming.
It's written in logical and well thought out way, making it difficult to find any arguments to debunk the authors in their hypothesis.
Hunker down, look out for your family, and make sure your progeny are prepared for what's coming.
January 11, 2024
Dutton is a true scientist and a powerful writer! Loyal to truth and resistant to dogma. Great book on intelligence and disgenics.
January 19, 2026
A simple, powerful explanation for our decline: we are becoming less intelligent.
Woodley of Menie and Dutton present a simple explanation for the phenomena we observe happening in the world around us. Mankind is becoming stupider.
Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is the best. Many observers blame what's going on, or look for salvation from the political realm. That's not going to work if the voters are getting dumber. Some blame social trends, such as cultural Marxism and the division of society along the lines of race, gender and sexual identity. Many lines of argument in the contemporary dialogue don't make sense. A simple explanation is that more people than ever consider themselves intellectual, but though they may outnumber previous generations of intellectuals, they are far less intelligent.
The authors introduce their book with the observation that we are not smart enough to continue doing things we used to do. The Concorde stopped flying. It has been a half-century since we went to the moon. Such huge projects required vast teams of smart people, and could be jeopardized by a weak individual anywhere down the line. Fewer smart people, more dumb ones, and things fall apart.
The authors provide a short, cogent chapter on intelligence: how it is measured, and what it means in practical terms. The major take-home point is that IQ tests are re-standardized every generation or so. Thus, an IQ of 100 identifies a person who is average within his age cohort. He is not necessarily as smart as a person who had a measured IQ of 100 in his grandfather's generation.
IQ is an artificial construct, two numbers, an average and a standard deviation interpreted by a widespread sampling of a population. The observations are interpreted via the Gaussian distribution – the bell curve. Thus, by definition, two thirds of the population has intelligence falling between 85 and 115. By definition, 95% have intelligence falling between 70 and 130.
This means that a person with an IQ of 115 is smarter than five out of six people within his generation and country. A person with an IQ of 130 is one in forty.
In a society with an average IQ of 100, those with an IQ over 130 will typically be professionals such as lawyers, doctors and professors. Those with an IQ of over 115 will typically be engineers, programmers, and teachers. Those with an IQ of 100 will more typically be policemen, firemen, and clerks. Those with lower IQs will be truck drivers, stevedores, warehousemen and security guards. These estimates cannot be projected across societies and eras: all individuals within nations have to fill these positions despite the fact that they draw from the populations with very
different average intelligences.
Woodley of Menie and Dutton's thesis is that the genetically substantive component of human intelligence, namely general intelligence, of that core aspect of intelligence which all tests of cognitive ability collectively and commonly measure, rose rather dramatically up until the Industrial Revolution and has been falling since. They pursue several avenues to make their case. The first case they make is that general intelligence within a population can and does
change quickly. Evolution is not the glacially slow process that most imagine.
Since IQ tests date back only to the first decade of the twentieth century, the authors have to use proxies to estimate general intelligence levels in earlier eras. They use:
• Levels of literacy – fairly easy to establish.
• Sophistication of word usage and printed material. Search on "WORDSUM Check" to see what it is – and check your own IQ.
• The correlation between estate size and number of heirs. Richer people are smarter. Up until the Industrial Revolution, they left more children.
• Constant decrease in phenomena associated with low levels intelligence: crime and capital punishment.
• Polygenic scores for IQ and educational attainment – with modern genomes being ‘richer’ in the relevant genetic variants when compared to populations from the Bronze and Iron Ages, 3-5 thousand years ago.
There are several longitudinal (that is, spanning significant periods of time) measures that suggest that general intelligence has been declining. The national longitudinal survey of youth (NLSY) and the PISA tests of educational attainment provide fairly stable intergenerational comparisons. The SAT and ACT tests, proxies for general intelligence, have been re-centered downward several times over the years to accommodate declining student ability.
Simple reaction time also correlates with general intelligence. Although the correlation at the level of individual people is low, at the level of populations it is a reliable indicator. Reaction speed is potentially measurement-invariant – meaning that what it measures (central nervous system efficiency) doesn’t ‘drift’ when different cohorts are compared with one another. We can therefore have faith in measurements taken a century ago. These show that our simple reaction time speed have slowed, suggesting a decrease in general intelligence possibly approaching one
standard deviation, or 15 IQ points in a century. Performance on working memory measures show a similar propensity towards decline over the past 80 years.
Many intelligence researchers noticed during the latter third of the twentieth century that measured intelligence seemed to rise. This became known as the Flynn effect, for the researcher who dedicated the most effort to studying it. Woodley of Menie and Dutton offer a very comprehensive explanation of this perplexing observation. It boils down to the fact that as society has become more technological, test takers have become more comfortable with the kinds of questions asked. It is an artifact of the testing process, most especially Raven's progressive matrices, not an indication of a gain in intelligence.
The subject of true genius fascinates the authors. Everyday definitions of genius would apply the label to anybody with an IQ above some cut off – usually 140, 160 or such. These authors' interest is in truly extraordinary individuals such as Sir Isaac Newton and Einstein. The book would be richer if their list were longer.
To Woodley of Menie and Dutton, genius is defined by temperament as well as intellect. Einstein and Newton had the ability to shut out the rest of the world as they focused on their theories. They were rather antisocial. Within my lifetime we have seen John von Neumann, as quirky as any above, Robert Trivers, and Richard Feynman. In earlier eras certainly Fibonacci, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, some of the Bernoulli family, Pascal, Euler, and Carl Friedrich Gauss would qualify. Peter Bernstein provides wonderful thumbnail biographies, savoring the quirks, in
"Against the Gods."
Woodley of Menie and Dutton's thesis is twofold. (1) The innovations made by true geniuses enrich the entire society, whether or not they grace the population with any of their own offspring, and (2) geniuses are becoming rarer – in part because of selection against general intelligence.
Without a doubt Laplace', Gauss' and Newton's mathematics enabled Faraday and Maxwell's work with electricity which has incalculably enriched our society. Atomic power, bequest of the last generation of true geniuses, has been of more questionable benefit. There were geniuses involved in the early days of the computer – von Neumann among them - and it took some level of genius to invent and continually improve the semiconductor. Overall however, one has to concede the authors' case that there are not as many geniuses today as in previous eras.
Why is general intelligence falling? The explanations are simple and obvious. Smart people are not having children, and the developed countries of Europe and North America are being diluted by large numbers of immigrants of lower ability.
We are not having children because (1) we have spent more than a century perfecting ways to avoid them, which (2) smart people are better at employing, (3) we no longer heed the call of religion to be fruitful and multiply, (4) we have normalized a panoply of sexual practices that do not lead to procreation and (5) smart people find many other pursuits more interesting than raising children, or even sex.
It is the dumber people, who remain religious, don't know how to avoid conception, and don't have anything better to do with their lives than have children. The trends of declining fertility among the more intelligent, and the wholesale importation of less intelligent people into developed countries, are becoming more pronounced. The authors offer several predictions of a decline on the
order of 5 to 10 points of IQ over the next century.
As I write this the Centers for Disease Control reported that the total fertility rate in America had dropped 18% for white people in large metropolitan areas over just the last eleven years, to a total just over one and a half children per woman. 40% of births are out of wedlock, corroborating Woodley of Menie and Dutton's thesis that they are not being born to the best and brightest.
Ninety years ago in "The Decline of the West" Oswald Spengler wrote that civilizations go through cycles. He traced Greece, Rome, China, Islam and now the West through their winter, spring, summer, and fall. Woodley of Menie and Dutton show the ways in which Spengler's predictions for the West are being borne out and conclude that we have cycled back to winter.
What to do? Religion would be attractive, but we cannot force ourselves to believe. Eugenics programs to breed more smart people would be attractive, but they would go against our principles of equality, free choice, and morality. We simply can't do it.
The authors wanly propose that we grin and bear it, accept the inevitable. A cheerful prescription of countermeasures to take might sell more books, but the conclusion they draw is absolutely in keeping with the book's argument and what we know of human nature.
I, the reviewer, have chosen a backwards, homogeneous (viz. traditional) East European country in which to raise a second family. We are doing it without television, video games, and cars. Raising children in a society that still values children and respects its own culture seems like the best way to beat the odds.
In closing I would like to introduce the "founder effect" meme. We appear headed for a population bottleneck as white people in general, and smart ones in particular, simply refuse to reproduce. Children of those who do will form a relatively small cohort. Fortune has favored those small cohorts in the past – survivors of the black plague and World War I, then the children of the depression. The smaller generation can be nimble, setting new directions for
social trends. With ominous clouds hanging over the economy, pensions, and demographics, it is evident that new directions will be required. It would seem to favor the scions of those in this bleak generation who would accept the challenge of passing on their genes and culture.
This is a five-star book, uniting as it does so many streams of thought into a coherent and compelling story.
Woodley of Menie and Dutton present a simple explanation for the phenomena we observe happening in the world around us. Mankind is becoming stupider.
Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is the best. Many observers blame what's going on, or look for salvation from the political realm. That's not going to work if the voters are getting dumber. Some blame social trends, such as cultural Marxism and the division of society along the lines of race, gender and sexual identity. Many lines of argument in the contemporary dialogue don't make sense. A simple explanation is that more people than ever consider themselves intellectual, but though they may outnumber previous generations of intellectuals, they are far less intelligent.
The authors introduce their book with the observation that we are not smart enough to continue doing things we used to do. The Concorde stopped flying. It has been a half-century since we went to the moon. Such huge projects required vast teams of smart people, and could be jeopardized by a weak individual anywhere down the line. Fewer smart people, more dumb ones, and things fall apart.
The authors provide a short, cogent chapter on intelligence: how it is measured, and what it means in practical terms. The major take-home point is that IQ tests are re-standardized every generation or so. Thus, an IQ of 100 identifies a person who is average within his age cohort. He is not necessarily as smart as a person who had a measured IQ of 100 in his grandfather's generation.
IQ is an artificial construct, two numbers, an average and a standard deviation interpreted by a widespread sampling of a population. The observations are interpreted via the Gaussian distribution – the bell curve. Thus, by definition, two thirds of the population has intelligence falling between 85 and 115. By definition, 95% have intelligence falling between 70 and 130.
This means that a person with an IQ of 115 is smarter than five out of six people within his generation and country. A person with an IQ of 130 is one in forty.
In a society with an average IQ of 100, those with an IQ over 130 will typically be professionals such as lawyers, doctors and professors. Those with an IQ of over 115 will typically be engineers, programmers, and teachers. Those with an IQ of 100 will more typically be policemen, firemen, and clerks. Those with lower IQs will be truck drivers, stevedores, warehousemen and security guards. These estimates cannot be projected across societies and eras: all individuals within nations have to fill these positions despite the fact that they draw from the populations with very
different average intelligences.
Woodley of Menie and Dutton's thesis is that the genetically substantive component of human intelligence, namely general intelligence, of that core aspect of intelligence which all tests of cognitive ability collectively and commonly measure, rose rather dramatically up until the Industrial Revolution and has been falling since. They pursue several avenues to make their case. The first case they make is that general intelligence within a population can and does
change quickly. Evolution is not the glacially slow process that most imagine.
Since IQ tests date back only to the first decade of the twentieth century, the authors have to use proxies to estimate general intelligence levels in earlier eras. They use:
• Levels of literacy – fairly easy to establish.
• Sophistication of word usage and printed material. Search on "WORDSUM Check" to see what it is – and check your own IQ.
• The correlation between estate size and number of heirs. Richer people are smarter. Up until the Industrial Revolution, they left more children.
• Constant decrease in phenomena associated with low levels intelligence: crime and capital punishment.
• Polygenic scores for IQ and educational attainment – with modern genomes being ‘richer’ in the relevant genetic variants when compared to populations from the Bronze and Iron Ages, 3-5 thousand years ago.
There are several longitudinal (that is, spanning significant periods of time) measures that suggest that general intelligence has been declining. The national longitudinal survey of youth (NLSY) and the PISA tests of educational attainment provide fairly stable intergenerational comparisons. The SAT and ACT tests, proxies for general intelligence, have been re-centered downward several times over the years to accommodate declining student ability.
Simple reaction time also correlates with general intelligence. Although the correlation at the level of individual people is low, at the level of populations it is a reliable indicator. Reaction speed is potentially measurement-invariant – meaning that what it measures (central nervous system efficiency) doesn’t ‘drift’ when different cohorts are compared with one another. We can therefore have faith in measurements taken a century ago. These show that our simple reaction time speed have slowed, suggesting a decrease in general intelligence possibly approaching one
standard deviation, or 15 IQ points in a century. Performance on working memory measures show a similar propensity towards decline over the past 80 years.
Many intelligence researchers noticed during the latter third of the twentieth century that measured intelligence seemed to rise. This became known as the Flynn effect, for the researcher who dedicated the most effort to studying it. Woodley of Menie and Dutton offer a very comprehensive explanation of this perplexing observation. It boils down to the fact that as society has become more technological, test takers have become more comfortable with the kinds of questions asked. It is an artifact of the testing process, most especially Raven's progressive matrices, not an indication of a gain in intelligence.
The subject of true genius fascinates the authors. Everyday definitions of genius would apply the label to anybody with an IQ above some cut off – usually 140, 160 or such. These authors' interest is in truly extraordinary individuals such as Sir Isaac Newton and Einstein. The book would be richer if their list were longer.
To Woodley of Menie and Dutton, genius is defined by temperament as well as intellect. Einstein and Newton had the ability to shut out the rest of the world as they focused on their theories. They were rather antisocial. Within my lifetime we have seen John von Neumann, as quirky as any above, Robert Trivers, and Richard Feynman. In earlier eras certainly Fibonacci, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, some of the Bernoulli family, Pascal, Euler, and Carl Friedrich Gauss would qualify. Peter Bernstein provides wonderful thumbnail biographies, savoring the quirks, in
"Against the Gods."
Woodley of Menie and Dutton's thesis is twofold. (1) The innovations made by true geniuses enrich the entire society, whether or not they grace the population with any of their own offspring, and (2) geniuses are becoming rarer – in part because of selection against general intelligence.
Without a doubt Laplace', Gauss' and Newton's mathematics enabled Faraday and Maxwell's work with electricity which has incalculably enriched our society. Atomic power, bequest of the last generation of true geniuses, has been of more questionable benefit. There were geniuses involved in the early days of the computer – von Neumann among them - and it took some level of genius to invent and continually improve the semiconductor. Overall however, one has to concede the authors' case that there are not as many geniuses today as in previous eras.
Why is general intelligence falling? The explanations are simple and obvious. Smart people are not having children, and the developed countries of Europe and North America are being diluted by large numbers of immigrants of lower ability.
We are not having children because (1) we have spent more than a century perfecting ways to avoid them, which (2) smart people are better at employing, (3) we no longer heed the call of religion to be fruitful and multiply, (4) we have normalized a panoply of sexual practices that do not lead to procreation and (5) smart people find many other pursuits more interesting than raising children, or even sex.
It is the dumber people, who remain religious, don't know how to avoid conception, and don't have anything better to do with their lives than have children. The trends of declining fertility among the more intelligent, and the wholesale importation of less intelligent people into developed countries, are becoming more pronounced. The authors offer several predictions of a decline on the
order of 5 to 10 points of IQ over the next century.
As I write this the Centers for Disease Control reported that the total fertility rate in America had dropped 18% for white people in large metropolitan areas over just the last eleven years, to a total just over one and a half children per woman. 40% of births are out of wedlock, corroborating Woodley of Menie and Dutton's thesis that they are not being born to the best and brightest.
Ninety years ago in "The Decline of the West" Oswald Spengler wrote that civilizations go through cycles. He traced Greece, Rome, China, Islam and now the West through their winter, spring, summer, and fall. Woodley of Menie and Dutton show the ways in which Spengler's predictions for the West are being borne out and conclude that we have cycled back to winter.
What to do? Religion would be attractive, but we cannot force ourselves to believe. Eugenics programs to breed more smart people would be attractive, but they would go against our principles of equality, free choice, and morality. We simply can't do it.
The authors wanly propose that we grin and bear it, accept the inevitable. A cheerful prescription of countermeasures to take might sell more books, but the conclusion they draw is absolutely in keeping with the book's argument and what we know of human nature.
I, the reviewer, have chosen a backwards, homogeneous (viz. traditional) East European country in which to raise a second family. We are doing it without television, video games, and cars. Raising children in a society that still values children and respects its own culture seems like the best way to beat the odds.
In closing I would like to introduce the "founder effect" meme. We appear headed for a population bottleneck as white people in general, and smart ones in particular, simply refuse to reproduce. Children of those who do will form a relatively small cohort. Fortune has favored those small cohorts in the past – survivors of the black plague and World War I, then the children of the depression. The smaller generation can be nimble, setting new directions for
social trends. With ominous clouds hanging over the economy, pensions, and demographics, it is evident that new directions will be required. It would seem to favor the scions of those in this bleak generation who would accept the challenge of passing on their genes and culture.
This is a five-star book, uniting as it does so many streams of thought into a coherent and compelling story.
May 15, 2019
A fascinating book about the ever-controversial topic of intelligence and IQ. Even more polemic has been created about the authors' assertion that IQ is actually declining - despite the apparent Flynn-effect widely known to the lay public. As the authors demonstrate, the latter rather disguises what's actually happening - as the underlying "general intelligence " (or simply, "g") can be shown to actually go down.
There are multiple references to studies and meta-analyses corroborating the notion that we are in the midst of "civilisational winter", which is primarily caused by a pronounced decline in g. The authors argue that there are a myriad of indicators suggesting that general intelligence is going down - the principal one being demographic incentives conferred to the less intelligent and - conversely - disincentives for the more intellectually gifted.
There is certainly a sound case to be made in favour of the author's main thesis. However, they seem to hold an overly pessimistic, even apocalyptic view regarding the future. I cannot convince myself of the inevitability of the scenario of civilisational decline, because there are just too many confounding variables which could overturn the proposed prospect.
Nevertheless, very interesting book about a highly controversial topic.
There are multiple references to studies and meta-analyses corroborating the notion that we are in the midst of "civilisational winter", which is primarily caused by a pronounced decline in g. The authors argue that there are a myriad of indicators suggesting that general intelligence is going down - the principal one being demographic incentives conferred to the less intelligent and - conversely - disincentives for the more intellectually gifted.
There is certainly a sound case to be made in favour of the author's main thesis. However, they seem to hold an overly pessimistic, even apocalyptic view regarding the future. I cannot convince myself of the inevitability of the scenario of civilisational decline, because there are just too many confounding variables which could overturn the proposed prospect.
Nevertheless, very interesting book about a highly controversial topic.
September 25, 2020
In this fascinating example of secular intellectual contortionism, the authors attempt to divert attention from the fact that the decline in christian values is the direct cause of the decline of Western civilization. Instead they amuse themselves in tracing the chicken and egg relationship between the rise and fall of IQ and civilizations. They define intelligence as "the ability to solve complex problems and to solve them quickly" yet ironically when this "intelligence" becomes an evolutionary disadvantage leading to self-destruction they maintain the definition.
Religiousness is negatively correlated with intelligence but positively correlated with survival. Perhaps the IQ test really doesn't make sense. If you can figure out abstract, spacial or mathematical problems but you don't have the sense to reproduce and avoid extinction who needs intelligence?
This is a typical example of trying to navigate the right course for humanity without having the foggiest idea of our purpose or destination. As the book suggests, only religion can do this. They recommend faking religion "forcing themselves-through so-called 'self-deception'-to believe it" because then they can keep worshipping thier false god of human reason while reaping all the benefits or religiousness. Perhaps that was God's intention all along. The irony.
Religiousness is negatively correlated with intelligence but positively correlated with survival. Perhaps the IQ test really doesn't make sense. If you can figure out abstract, spacial or mathematical problems but you don't have the sense to reproduce and avoid extinction who needs intelligence?
This is a typical example of trying to navigate the right course for humanity without having the foggiest idea of our purpose or destination. As the book suggests, only religion can do this. They recommend faking religion "forcing themselves-through so-called 'self-deception'-to believe it" because then they can keep worshipping thier false god of human reason while reaping all the benefits or religiousness. Perhaps that was God's intention all along. The irony.
September 30, 2020
In this fascinating example of secular intellectual contortionism, the authors attempt to divert attention from the fact that the decline in christian values is the direct cause of the decline of Western civilization. Instead they amuse themselves in tracing the chicken and egg relationship between the rise and fall of IQ and civilizations. They define intelligence as "the ability to solve complex problems and to solve them quickly" yet ironically when this "intelligence" becomes an evolutionary disadvantage leading to self-destruction they maintain the definition.
Religiousness is negatively correlated with intelligence but positively correlated with survival. Perhaps the IQ test really doesn't make sense. If you can figure out abstract, spacial or mathematical problems but you don't have the sense to reproduce and avoid extinction who needs intelligence?
This is a typical example of trying to navigate the right course for humanity without having the foggiest idea of our purpose or destination. As the book suggests, only religion can do this. They recommend faking religion "forcing themselves-through so-called 'self-deception'-to believe it" because then they can keep worshipping thier false god of human reason while reaping all the benefits or religiousness. Perhaps that was God's intention all along. The irony.
Religiousness is negatively correlated with intelligence but positively correlated with survival. Perhaps the IQ test really doesn't make sense. If you can figure out abstract, spacial or mathematical problems but you don't have the sense to reproduce and avoid extinction who needs intelligence?
This is a typical example of trying to navigate the right course for humanity without having the foggiest idea of our purpose or destination. As the book suggests, only religion can do this. They recommend faking religion "forcing themselves-through so-called 'self-deception'-to believe it" because then they can keep worshipping thier false god of human reason while reaping all the benefits or religiousness. Perhaps that was God's intention all along. The irony.
July 25, 2021
An excellent read on the gradual cognitive decline in intelligence being experienced by humanity since the advent of the Industrial Revolution due to the advent of modernity with a touch of the author's signature dry witty British humour in parts to make up for the otherwise depressing subject matter.
August 10, 2021
Although I applaud any attempt to address the most taboo topic of our times (on which the establishment is hopelessly wrong), this book is tremendously flawed both in using flimsy data to make sweepingly grandiose conclusions and in making laughable predictions about the future.
April 26, 2023
Succinct and to the point. I'm surprised this book tackled everything from genetics to historicism.
And yet it feels overly reductionist. Things are usually two-way streets, so I suspect more of a dialogue between intelligence and some other larger dynamics at play, bearing down on civilization, and only partially mediated by intelligence. For example the cost of civilizational complexity itself, demonstrated in Tainter's Collapse of Complex Societies, having to do with ecological capacities, diminishing returns, accumulating costs, scaling issues, growing rigidity, etc. Intelligence may allievate these, but doesn't negate their independent effect. The authors show some awareness of this - by discussing the effects of a cooling climate or the Black Death - but never really brought it foreground. A bit blinkered, which is usually a red flag for caution.
I also ran into specific questions:
So the authors say that IQ comparisons with past populations aren't accurate, because the modern environment is so much better at producing a much higher phenotypic IQ. Fair enough. But if this invalidates comparisons in the temporal dimension.... it should also apply to the spatial. For if a developed environment increases phenotypic IQ, then subjects from non-developed environments suffer a phenotypic disadvantage, masquerading as a genetic difference. This could undermine international differences. And yet it was not controlled for, nor even once considered, begging the question.
Or the contention that the lowering of interest rates over the centuries is a sign of a lowering time preference, therefore of an increasing intelligence. And yet it is obvious that the world has gotten a lot less chaotic and unstable over that period - which the authors acknowledge. Do they not realize how interest rates are directly related to that? Interest is the premium paid for risk, which is higher in chaos and instability. An intelligent person would not undersell their capital in a chaotic environment. Granted, one could argue that the increasing stability is in itself related to IQ, but that's already a separate argument.
There were also some questionable methods, for example assessing the change in capacity for advanced vocabulary, based on the frequencies of just... four words.
I should maybe be more critical of the book, but I just really liked the rest of it that much. The only reason for this focus on flaws is because I'm new to the subject and its controversiality unavoidably entails biases and trapdoors, necessitating alertness.
And yet it feels overly reductionist. Things are usually two-way streets, so I suspect more of a dialogue between intelligence and some other larger dynamics at play, bearing down on civilization, and only partially mediated by intelligence. For example the cost of civilizational complexity itself, demonstrated in Tainter's Collapse of Complex Societies, having to do with ecological capacities, diminishing returns, accumulating costs, scaling issues, growing rigidity, etc. Intelligence may allievate these, but doesn't negate their independent effect. The authors show some awareness of this - by discussing the effects of a cooling climate or the Black Death - but never really brought it foreground. A bit blinkered, which is usually a red flag for caution.
I also ran into specific questions:
So the authors say that IQ comparisons with past populations aren't accurate, because the modern environment is so much better at producing a much higher phenotypic IQ. Fair enough. But if this invalidates comparisons in the temporal dimension.... it should also apply to the spatial. For if a developed environment increases phenotypic IQ, then subjects from non-developed environments suffer a phenotypic disadvantage, masquerading as a genetic difference. This could undermine international differences. And yet it was not controlled for, nor even once considered, begging the question.
Or the contention that the lowering of interest rates over the centuries is a sign of a lowering time preference, therefore of an increasing intelligence. And yet it is obvious that the world has gotten a lot less chaotic and unstable over that period - which the authors acknowledge. Do they not realize how interest rates are directly related to that? Interest is the premium paid for risk, which is higher in chaos and instability. An intelligent person would not undersell their capital in a chaotic environment. Granted, one could argue that the increasing stability is in itself related to IQ, but that's already a separate argument.
There were also some questionable methods, for example assessing the change in capacity for advanced vocabulary, based on the frequencies of just... four words.
I should maybe be more critical of the book, but I just really liked the rest of it that much. The only reason for this focus on flaws is because I'm new to the subject and its controversiality unavoidably entails biases and trapdoors, necessitating alertness.
December 22, 2022
The Roots of ‘Idiocracy’
I have now read more than half a dozen of Dutton’s books and find this one – despite the somewhat glib (albeit witty) title – to be one of his very best; a level and clear headed assessment of the historic and scientific data related to intelligence, and my hunch is perhaps this seriousness reflects some of Michael Woodley of Menie’s influence. The result is a very readable, thorough and convincing case that from about 4,000 to 200 years ago Europeans were steadily getting more intelligent, but that since then they have steadily become less so.
Recent data can include both IQ test scores (which measure the general factor of intelligence “g” fairly accurately), objective empirical measures (such as reaction times, color and pitch discernment, vocabulary use and spatial recognition), as well as lived experience (the craziness we can all see with our own eyes which passes for normal if not wise these days), but preindustrial measures have to rely on a fascinating mix of historical indicators (falling crime rates and concurrent lessening cruelty of punishments, increasing literacy, numeracy and upward mobility, “survival of the richest”, increasing democracy, and lessening corruption…). 200+ years ago things began to change (as the child mortality rates steadily plummeted from nearly 50% to 1%), and as intelligence has become less selected for we have become…less intelligent (on the order of about 1 IQ point per decade - which certainly adds up after a century or two).
The authors do a good job of clearly and succinctly showing all this, and it’s really not rocket science, it is, in fact, common sense. And yet… it certainly goes against the modern taboos of recognizing differences in IQ as valid (empirical and 75% genetically determined), not to mention the obvious blows to our inflated (and fragile) notions of self-esteem this can bring. Along the way they explain what intelligence is, what personality is, what genius is, why intelligence is now declining, how this has happened cyclically in the past (the rise and fall of civilizations) and what it means for our future (in a civilization well into its winter phase of disunification). All in all an important, serious, highly readable, engaging, and recommendable read!
I have now read more than half a dozen of Dutton’s books and find this one – despite the somewhat glib (albeit witty) title – to be one of his very best; a level and clear headed assessment of the historic and scientific data related to intelligence, and my hunch is perhaps this seriousness reflects some of Michael Woodley of Menie’s influence. The result is a very readable, thorough and convincing case that from about 4,000 to 200 years ago Europeans were steadily getting more intelligent, but that since then they have steadily become less so.
Recent data can include both IQ test scores (which measure the general factor of intelligence “g” fairly accurately), objective empirical measures (such as reaction times, color and pitch discernment, vocabulary use and spatial recognition), as well as lived experience (the craziness we can all see with our own eyes which passes for normal if not wise these days), but preindustrial measures have to rely on a fascinating mix of historical indicators (falling crime rates and concurrent lessening cruelty of punishments, increasing literacy, numeracy and upward mobility, “survival of the richest”, increasing democracy, and lessening corruption…). 200+ years ago things began to change (as the child mortality rates steadily plummeted from nearly 50% to 1%), and as intelligence has become less selected for we have become…less intelligent (on the order of about 1 IQ point per decade - which certainly adds up after a century or two).
The authors do a good job of clearly and succinctly showing all this, and it’s really not rocket science, it is, in fact, common sense. And yet… it certainly goes against the modern taboos of recognizing differences in IQ as valid (empirical and 75% genetically determined), not to mention the obvious blows to our inflated (and fragile) notions of self-esteem this can bring. Along the way they explain what intelligence is, what personality is, what genius is, why intelligence is now declining, how this has happened cyclically in the past (the rise and fall of civilizations) and what it means for our future (in a civilization well into its winter phase of disunification). All in all an important, serious, highly readable, engaging, and recommendable read!
January 12, 2021
Stávame sa ako ľudstvo menej inteligentnými? A ak áno, čo to pre nás znamená? Predpovedá film Idiokracia budúcnosť? A sú dejiny nakoniec predsa cyklické? Toto sú niektoré z otázok, ktorým sa venuje kniha At Our Wits' End: Why We're Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future (Na konci s našou múdrosťou: prečo sa stávame menej inteligentnými a čo to znamená pre budúcnosť) z roka 2018 od autorskej dvojice Edward Dutton a Michael Woodley of Menie.
Edward Dutton je anglický antropológ, ktorý donedávna pôsobil ako docent kultúrnej antropológie na univerzite vo fínskom Oulo. Michael Woodley je vyštudovaný ekológ a pôsobí na Slobodnej univerzite v Bruseli.
Obaja autori sa dlhodobo venujú výskumu inteligencie a v tejto oblasti publikovali desiatky výstupov v renomovaných recenzovaných časopisoch. Ich kniha zároveň vychádza s odporučením od popredného výskumníka inteligencie Jamesa Flynna.
Ústredná téza knihy stojí na troch tvrdeniach:
1. inteligencia je do veľkej miery dedičná, teda daná geneticky,
2. približne v polovici 19. storočia (následkom priemyselnej revolúcie) sa vo vyspelých krajinách zmenil dovtedajší trend, podľa ktorého mali inteligentnejší ľudia viac detí,
3. v dôsledku tohto vývoja sa obrátila dovtedajšia tendencia nárastu inteligencie a inteligencia obyvateľstva vo vyspelých krajinách začala klesať.
Z uvedeného je zrejmé, že autori sa zaoberajú problematikou dysgeniky, avšak so zameraním na inteligenciu. V slovenskom, respektíve českom jazykovom prostredí ide o dosiaľ pomerne zriedkavo, ale predsa, diskutovanú problematiku.
Zvyšok mojej recenzie tejto knihy si možno prečítať tu: https://ippr.sk/recenzie/222-dutton-w...
Edward Dutton je anglický antropológ, ktorý donedávna pôsobil ako docent kultúrnej antropológie na univerzite vo fínskom Oulo. Michael Woodley je vyštudovaný ekológ a pôsobí na Slobodnej univerzite v Bruseli.
Obaja autori sa dlhodobo venujú výskumu inteligencie a v tejto oblasti publikovali desiatky výstupov v renomovaných recenzovaných časopisoch. Ich kniha zároveň vychádza s odporučením od popredného výskumníka inteligencie Jamesa Flynna.
Ústredná téza knihy stojí na troch tvrdeniach:
1. inteligencia je do veľkej miery dedičná, teda daná geneticky,
2. približne v polovici 19. storočia (následkom priemyselnej revolúcie) sa vo vyspelých krajinách zmenil dovtedajší trend, podľa ktorého mali inteligentnejší ľudia viac detí,
3. v dôsledku tohto vývoja sa obrátila dovtedajšia tendencia nárastu inteligencie a inteligencia obyvateľstva vo vyspelých krajinách začala klesať.
Z uvedeného je zrejmé, že autori sa zaoberajú problematikou dysgeniky, avšak so zameraním na inteligenciu. V slovenskom, respektíve českom jazykovom prostredí ide o dosiaľ pomerne zriedkavo, ale predsa, diskutovanú problematiku.
Zvyšok mojej recenzie tejto knihy si možno prečítať tu: https://ippr.sk/recenzie/222-dutton-w...
April 19, 2024
Eugenics reimagined
The authors postulate a well supported hypothesis that the benefits bestowed by the Industrial Revolution facilitated a turnaround in the trend of increasing the average real intelligence of the population of the Western world. They see the collapse of this modern society as inevitable and then tie it in with Spengler and the cyclical rise and fall of civilisations. They then speculate that some form of Eugenics might slow or reverse the process.
That general intelligence should be declining for the reasons they give is beyond dispute. Whether the studies referenced actually prove their hypothesis true for all of humanity is moot.
A lacunae is the paucity of studies of societies in Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa. Many of the elements relating to the decline of general intelligence are not yet present in all these societies. They may be in an ascending phase for all we know.
The collapse of Western Civilisation may not be such a great disaster after all. The present is not a particularly auspicious time to be alive for the vast majority of humans. Let us not save it, let us rather allow it to die. But, as the authors suggest, let us make sure that the accumulated real scientific knowledge remains.
The authors postulate a well supported hypothesis that the benefits bestowed by the Industrial Revolution facilitated a turnaround in the trend of increasing the average real intelligence of the population of the Western world. They see the collapse of this modern society as inevitable and then tie it in with Spengler and the cyclical rise and fall of civilisations. They then speculate that some form of Eugenics might slow or reverse the process.
That general intelligence should be declining for the reasons they give is beyond dispute. Whether the studies referenced actually prove their hypothesis true for all of humanity is moot.
A lacunae is the paucity of studies of societies in Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa. Many of the elements relating to the decline of general intelligence are not yet present in all these societies. They may be in an ascending phase for all we know.
The collapse of Western Civilisation may not be such a great disaster after all. The present is not a particularly auspicious time to be alive for the vast majority of humans. Let us not save it, let us rather allow it to die. But, as the authors suggest, let us make sure that the accumulated real scientific knowledge remains.
January 28, 2024
Really solid book with overwhelming evidence. Fast and easy to read and I even learned a few tidbits about genetics. Also funny to see the author seep in their own personal bit here and there (mentioning that Big Bang Theory ended up being like reruns of Friends).
My main issue with the book was that I was not at all convinced that smart people are less criminal. I've seen stats that wage theft outcompetes all other forms of theft put together and I'd argue that is a typical 'white collar crime'. Also things like corruption, insider trading, etc. Sure, smart people as a group are less impulsive, so they'd be less likely to do violence with no utility to them. But there's also Nobel Prize winning pedophiles. I think as a whole 'blue collar crime' is more disruptive/noticeable, but not more frequent.
As a housewife with a high IQ who does no inventing of cancer cures, nor maintenance of space craft, nor any other such lofty things, this book still makes me feel Vastly Superior and World Saving and whatnot. Which is very nice ;)
My main issue with the book was that I was not at all convinced that smart people are less criminal. I've seen stats that wage theft outcompetes all other forms of theft put together and I'd argue that is a typical 'white collar crime'. Also things like corruption, insider trading, etc. Sure, smart people as a group are less impulsive, so they'd be less likely to do violence with no utility to them. But there's also Nobel Prize winning pedophiles. I think as a whole 'blue collar crime' is more disruptive/noticeable, but not more frequent.
As a housewife with a high IQ who does no inventing of cancer cures, nor maintenance of space craft, nor any other such lofty things, this book still makes me feel Vastly Superior and World Saving and whatnot. Which is very nice ;)
October 19, 2023
Not what I was expecting. The theory is intriguing and quite possibly accurate as far as it goes, but other than saying that the Concorde doesn't fly anymore and attributing that to a general decline of intelligence, very few specific examples are provided. Instead, the discussion stays at a very high level, all theory, with no practical application to current events. The proxies used to estimate intelligence are simplistic and tenuous (wealthy, upper-class people are more intelligent than the poor and uneducated, duh), and the advocacy for eugenics is troubling. Geniuses apparently share some of the same traits that people of low intelligence exhibit, but the subject is glossed over without closer investigation. I'm not convinced, but I am interested enough to see if I can find other books on the subject.
April 6, 2020
A thought-provoking book that reads like somebody's PhD thesis: it starts off with a great introduction that explains the whole drive of the forthcoming text before going into plenty of detail as it attempts to support the main theory and the reasons for it. A lot of studies are quoted and a lot of history, sociology and science are examined, and at best it makes for enlightening reading. At other times it does seem to waffle on a little bit, particularly in the latter chapters which look at the decline of civilisations to no particularly engaging effect. AT OUR WITS' END also happens to be kind of book that supporters of eugenics would champion, complete with some controversial sections about immigration and the like, so it feels a little like an under-the-radar read.
February 16, 2021
At Our Wits End is a well written exploration of current trends in human intelligence. In short it is declining because the highly intelligent are having too few children. Up until the Industrial Revolution, intelligence was increasing due to harsh selection pressures against those with weaker powers of cognition. The authors argue their thesis well and prove it using a considerable body of empirical evidence.
A longer review can be found here.
https://miscellaneousmusingsmusings.s...
A longer review can be found here.
https://miscellaneousmusingsmusings.s...
July 16, 2024
Ta kniha postupně ztratila "šmrnc".
Prve jsem se seznámil s pojmem g-faktor (za což jsem rád), pak mě zaujalo pár nepopiratelných faktů s kterými nešlo než souhlasit, poté přišlo i nemálo důkazů, které se spíše podobali spekulacím, k závěru se dostavil spíše neúspěšný pokus o to, vše implementovat na vzestup a pád civilizací a na závěr autoři jako jediné řešení nabízí eugeniku (což je dle mého horší než nic).
Ale co o tom konec konců můžu vědět, když jsem dle autorů jen inteligenční ekvivalent námezdního dělníka konce 19.století.
Prve jsem se seznámil s pojmem g-faktor (za což jsem rád), pak mě zaujalo pár nepopiratelných faktů s kterými nešlo než souhlasit, poté přišlo i nemálo důkazů, které se spíše podobali spekulacím, k závěru se dostavil spíše neúspěšný pokus o to, vše implementovat na vzestup a pád civilizací a na závěr autoři jako jediné řešení nabízí eugeniku (což je dle mého horší než nic).
Ale co o tom konec konců můžu vědět, když jsem dle autorů jen inteligenční ekvivalent námezdního dělníka konce 19.století.
March 5, 2020
Anyone interested in the g-factor on intelligence and its steady decline nowadays, might have a look into this book.
But if you are a fan of Steven Pinkers "Enlightenment now" ... then just dont read this book!
Stay in your "Wohlfühlecke" and sing the Beatles song ... its getting better all the ti..iime.
...with Dutton and Woodly echoing ...Civilication in decli..iine.
Or open up your eyes now ...read the book and find all the evidence for decline of g.
But if you are a fan of Steven Pinkers "Enlightenment now" ... then just dont read this book!
Stay in your "Wohlfühlecke" and sing the Beatles song ... its getting better all the ti..iime.
...with Dutton and Woodly echoing ...Civilication in decli..iine.
Or open up your eyes now ...read the book and find all the evidence for decline of g.
April 27, 2019
Great read. No hope for humanity. Would definitely recommend to my progressive politically correct friends.....it will make their heads explode. Only a matter of time til the book is banned on Social Media, too much proof provided on the downside the western social programs.
May 14, 2021
A very insightful book that talks about the state of the west. I am giving this book 4 stars because the writing was repetitive and monotone at times. I would strongly recommend this book to anyone as it helps to make sense of the modern world.
June 12, 2024
It's not a bad piece, but I think they've exaggerated the extent to which intelligence has fallen, and will fall. I'm not sure if I even agree that intelligence peaked in the victorian times, rather it's more likely it peaked recently.
April 26, 2019
Succint, well argued and most importantly, very relevant subject matter
May 14, 2020
Well-written. A lot it is speculation, albeit it is convincing speculation. A bit repetitive w.r.t. the contraception hypothesis, however.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews