Is popular culture making us smarter?

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a fan of Big Brother... I am proud to say I don't know who Princess Nikki is! However, Steven Johnson suggests that even at the bottom of the pile (i.e. Reality TV), we (i.e. people who watch it) are forced to used our emotional intelligence to figure out, follow and "play along with" the complex array of social relationships that are being played out in such programmes. He is convincing! Still can't bring myself to watch BB, though... ~PEPS~ You canâ€™t finish a man till heâ€™s finished his Texan Bar

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Mon, 2006-09-25 13:38

#4

This kind of idea really irks me. I think there is a fundamental problem with his argument, in that he is confusing technological literacy with 'intelligence'. Intelligence is something one is born with and can apply in any number of ways; 'education', whether formal or not, may broaden the perspective with which one functions in a complex society, but there is no way in hell that he could convince me that someone who can play XBox and use the Internet is by default more 'intelligent' than, say, some refugees I met from Africa, who have NO education, are barely literate, and yet negotiate their way through some very extreme survival situations (including negotiating their status as refugees to get them out of their war-torn countries). No way. His argument, if it's what you say it is, stinks of cultural 'ethnocentrism': much of the world doesn't have access to this stuff; does this make them *less* intelligent, if us having access makes us *more* intellegent? I know he probably doesn't touch on cultures other than our own, but it's not a far stretch to that, and his overlooking the rest of the world does weaken his point somewhat, IMO. He also misses the point that cultures adapt to resources much as resources are adapted to a culture; it doesn't necessarily mean we're more *intelligent* for knowing how to surf the Web; it's a cultural adaptation and of course, some will adapt more readily than others; young people, already having the technology in their society, will have a greater facility for using it than will older folk. That doesn't mean younger people are more intelligent than older ones, however!

Mon, 2006-09-25 13:39

#5

And dear Miss Nikki is a prime example of how this culture is NOT more intelligent, whether we can use computers or not.

Mon, 2006-09-25 13:46

#6

I don't believe it's possible to increase intelligence. There may have been an increase in total knowledge, but I doubt many people benefit from it's totality, simply because each generation selects the knowledge that best fits their requirements, and which allows them to live in their own time. Intelligemce is present at birth to a greater or lesser degree, but more importantly is utilised to wildly differing extents. Some people never really use their inate intelligence whilst others stretch it to the maximum. I guess social strata, home life, ambition and several other factors have an influence on just how an individual will go to extend themselves.

Mon, 2006-09-25 13:50

#7

Is there an echo in here?

Mon, 2006-09-25 14:15

#8

Interesting question. I'm not so sure whether you can increase intelligence or not. I've always found that my mind behaves a lot like a muscle in that using makes it feel stronger and neglecting it makes it feel weaker. Certainly chess players train for big matches much like athletes do. Maybe that's more a question of practice. I'm not sure. I expect there is more than one type of intelligence.

Mon, 2006-09-25 14:38

#9

Ahh, well now weâ€™re getting onto the question of â€œWhat is intelligence?â€ â€“ which, if one has studied Psychology to any degree, one will know is a very ambiguous and complex question. In the book, SJ is now talking about IQ â€“ its historical ethnocentricity, the (apparent) differences between different cultures, etc. I think intelligence is one of the least understood aspects of â€œbeing human.â€ There are so many variables & potential types of intelligenceâ€¦ creative talent, so-called â€œemotionalâ€ intelligence, spatial reasoning (which is very much related to videogame-playing), etc, etcâ€¦ and so many factors which can affect how one scores on intelligence â€œtestsâ€ (SJ mentions a study, for example, whereby kids who play lots of Tetris do well on Raven Matrix IQ tests â€“ because they are so used to spending hours and hours mentally rotating geometric shapesâ€¦!). I find SJâ€™s theories interesting, and I donâ€™t yet know what his overall conclusion is, but I definitely think there are aspects of culture and intelligence which he is oversimplifying. Itâ€™s an entertaining read, however, and it does make one question presumptions about modern (Western) society. ~PEPS~ You canâ€™t finish a man till heâ€™s finished his Texan Bar

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Mon, 2006-09-25 14:46

#10

yan

Intelligence is nowt without a strong creative brain. Ideas are power! S'why the west is on a loser by supressing right brain thinking. Whatever we think we are we're still using our intelligence for the same thing as every bleedin' living thing does - communication and colonisation. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Mon, 2006-09-25 15:24

#11

No echo arsey, you posted whilst I was composing, that's all.

Mon, 2006-09-25 15:36

#12

That's 'MIZZ Arsey', with a capital 'A'.

Mon, 2006-09-25 16:13

#13

You get what I decide to give, OK?

Mon, 2006-09-25 16:15

#14

Said one prisoner to the other. ~PEPS~ You canâ€™t finish a man till heâ€™s finished his Texan Bar

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Mon, 2006-09-25 16:47

#15

Jack Cade

I can't believe intelligence is simply something you're born with, whatever your definition. If I hadn't been brought up in a society that encouraged learning, was utterly convinced of the merits of across-the-board education and been told, repeatedly, that thinking for oneself is what's important, I don't think I'd be as intelligent a person as I am now, however intelligent that is. And I struggle to see the alternative argument that's being proposed. Are you saying that in an alternate reality where we're some kind of brainwashed, semi-communist state and none of us have been educated properly, we'd all be just as intelligent? We'd have exactly the same problem-solving abilities and inate competency in dealing with any sitaution - just less knowledge? This doesn't wash with me at all. Sorry. It seems to me that a person becomes more intelligent the more they exercise their intelligence - be that in the problem-solving area or any other. Learning involves far more than simply building a portable library of information in your head. "I think there is a fundamental problem with his argument, in that he is confusing technological literacy with 'intelligence'." But if I understand the original post correctly, this has nothing to do with 'technological literacy' and everything to do with problem-solving routines. Your stereotypical African refugees learn their own ways of solving their own problems, usually through experience or imitation, but there's no doubt in my mind that, were they better educated, they would devise a much wider variety of ways of solving the same problem. You seem to be centered too much on your inference that this book is saying younger, richer people are going to be cleverer while poorer people, or people who aren't involved with junk culture as much, are going to somehow turn out dumb. I don't think that's what this is about at all. It seems it's more about reversing the snobbish assumption that lower cultural pursuits have no value whatsoever. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Mon, 2006-09-25 18:21

#16

And I would disagree with you that you become smarter the more education you have. You are either intelligent, and therefore capable of absorbing increasing amounts of information/problemsolving ideas, etc., or you're not. There are so-called 'well educated' people with more degrees than I, who couldn't pour piss from a boot. I think we need to agree on what intelligence is. Is intelligence being defined here as being able to solve complex problems? And how do you define 'complex'? Surely your stereotypical African refugees (and surely you're joking) have to solve *very* complex problems, and do so, often, with a good measure of success, without the necessity of having book-learning or being able to compose a rondelle? I don't mean to use blanket terms (e.g. all African refugees are intelligent, or not, or whatever, because we are talking about individual intelligence as much as cultural intelligence), and certainly many of their problem-solving skills are acquired through hands-on experience. But. Does having an education necessarily mean that, were you to be stranded in the Sahara, you would have any idea how to get yourself rescued alive? No, I'm not so sure. History is full of well-educated, 'intelligent' idiots who have gotten themselves into all kinds of pickles, and their 'intelligence' served them not at all. And the way I read the post, the author 'puts forward the theory that computer games, modern popular TV, the Internet, etc, are improving our intelligence.' Pepsoid's point was slightly different, and I agree with Peps that a more complex existence isn't always beneficial. My sticking point is the assertion that intelligence can be improved. It can't. KNOWLEDGE can be improved, and with that, yes, some measure of problem-solving, but if you have a low IQ it doesn't matter how much 'education' you get; you'll still have trouble solving problems in whatever context we're discussing. I have yet to hear of an individual 'growing smarter' than they already were innately. I was a smart kid. I'm not smarter now than I was then, but by gum I have a lot more knowledge and experience. If you can find me some examples I will happily change my tune and beg your pardon! Perhaps it's just a question of semantics, like many of these discussions are...

Mon, 2006-09-25 19:33

#17

Radio Denver

AG, for once I think I am in agreement with you. There is quite a body of evidence that suggests that getting an education has very little effect on intelligence. Geeze...and I've tried so hard to be contrary. Have you read Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray's "The Bell Curve"...1994 I think. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org

Mon, 2006-09-25 19:54

#18

As with all nature or nurture questions, it's almost certainly a mixture of the two. There is no doubt that generations are getting smarter (in some ways), they preiodically have to re-adjust the scoring on IQ tests because of this. If it's not modern life then what? we're sure as hell not breeding it in, in fact the reverse is closer to the truth. I am reminded of a very intelligent biologist I used to know. The last time I saw her she had recently become a mother and was complaining she felt like she was getting stupider because all she had done for months was look after the baby and watch tellytubbies. I'm fairly certain that, to a limited extent, you can loose and gain brain power.

Mon, 2006-09-25 22:25

#19

Ah, but having babies doesn't make you stupider. It's a) hormones and b) listening to other mothers blather on about how brilliant their little Prunella is and how awful their childbirth was and what kind of nappy cream to use. Watching Teletubbies is preferable to that, any old day. Radio, what do you mean 'for once' you agree with me? I thought you always agreed with me. Sensible people do. Is it just because I'm disagreeing with Jack, I wonder...? *wink*

Tue, 2006-09-26 01:37

#20

Still being a wanker I see arseygurl ! NO sensible person would align themselves with you.

Tue, 2006-09-26 09:17

#21

Missi, It's clear you can't resist me, which is why you follow me around the forums making snide comments, much like an infatuated little boy chasing a girl around the playground, yanking on her pigtails. Flowers might make more of a good impression. Give us a kiss and play nice.

Tue, 2006-09-26 09:54

#22

yan

Intelligence injections aren't far off. I know I know, before you say it missi, yeah I need one hahaha. ok..that over with **oh my tummy is aching** I can't remember where I read it but it's true. They (the guys in white coats) reckon that within the next 20 odd years we'll be bale to have all kinds of brain injections that will give us extra 'powers'. Astral projection injections. Injections that keep us awake for a week without ill effect (now THAT is one that the capitalists are pumping funds into). Intelligence injections...ah! Lovely. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Tue, 2006-09-26 10:25

#23

JC: â€œIt seems itâ€™s more about reversing the snobbish assumption that lower cultural pursuits have no value whatsoever.â€ Absolutely, JC! Although Iâ€™d personally put â€œlowerâ€ in scare quotesâ€¦ Having now finished the book (and whether or not you agree with its assertions, it is definitely a fascinating and worthwhile read), this is exactly the point the author is making. Yes, there is ethnocentricism and all sorts of ambiguity over definitions of intelligence, but given the context of a technologised â€œWesternâ€ society and particular aspects of intelligence, the argument he puts forward is very convincing â€“ I do believe that mass culture (videogames, TV, the Internetâ€¦) is more complex than, say, 30 years ago, and this must be having some sort of effect on our brains. A problem arises, I think, with this term â€œIQâ€ or â€œIntelligence Quotientâ€ â€“ whose original intention, I believe, was to measure the innate, unchanging potential intelligence or intelligence capacity of humans. It was only after the conceptâ€™s initial inception that it was realised that the supposedly universal and unbiased IQ â€œtestsâ€ were anything but. So what IQ initially set out to do, it doesnâ€™t do; and it does, in fact, seem pretty close to impossible to measure pure, innate intelligence. Which causes all sorts of problems and confusion over not just what intelligence is, but what IQ is. Anywayâ€¦ Videogames! Luv â€˜em. Donâ€™t care. Iâ€™m 34 and I love to play with little men on a screen. Iâ€™ve said it and I donâ€™t deny it. Iâ€™m not saying Iâ€™m necessarily more intelligent for this, because I donâ€™t always play the most intelligent of games, but a point that SJ raises is that there has been a vast progression in the complexity of games in even as short a time as the last ten years. The degree of spatial reasoning and problem solving â€œkidsâ€ (of all ages) willingly subject themselves to these days is immense. One thing I definitely agree with SJ about is that there seems to be too many critics of modern videogames who havenâ€™t actually played them â€“ certainly havenâ€™t immersed themselves in them. They are enormously different to how they were a few years ago (weâ€™re not still zoning out in front of Pac-Man and Pong!), and whatever the hows and wherefores of the morality of such, they canâ€™t fail to improve certain skills. So there. What else? Oh yesâ€¦ AG: â€œâ€¦who couldnâ€™t pour piss from a boot.â€ â€¦ Luv it! â€¦ & â€¦ Maddan: â€œAs with all nature or nurture questions, itâ€™s almost certainly a mixture of the two.â€ â€¦ Couldnâ€™t agree more. Back to the original questionâ€¦ Are we missing out on the â€œsimplerâ€ things in life? ~PEPS~ You canâ€™t finish a man till heâ€™s finished his Texan Bar

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Tue, 2006-09-26 10:43

#24

Jack Cade

"As with all nature or nurture questions, it's almost certainly a mixture of the two." This is it. I wouldn't deny that some people are born brighter than others, but I can't accept that your education and lifestyle thereafter make no difference to anything but knowledge. I'm pretty sure, for example, that the more languages you learn, the easier it is for you to learn new languages. Any mental ability - be it the ability to learn faster, or solve problems - is surely a factor in intelligence. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Tue, 2006-09-26 11:05

#25

You are right that 'braincercise' does increase one's brainpower so there's definitely something to it, and my argument was flawed because I was mixing 'intelligence' with 'common sense', which are two very different things!

Tue, 2006-09-26 12:10

#26

Is there an "official" definition of "common sense"...? ~PEPS~ You canâ€™t finish a man till heâ€™s finished his Texan Bar

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Tue, 2006-09-26 13:07

#27

* .. Intelligence injections aren't far off. I know I know, before you say it missi, yeah I need one ... * Well that would be a waste of resources if ever there were one. Where would you have it, in your dumb arse? I suppose at least it would then be able to post it's own pics on the web. Sorry goon, the only injection that could possibly improve you is the kind they administer in San Quentin. Getting back to the intelligence discussion, it's been widely agreed that most humans use only 17% of their brain power. Far from increasing intelligence I suspect that what actually occurs is an increase in the percentage of brain power being utilised. ie. the 'intelligence' is already there, it's just being accessed in previously dormant areas.

Tue, 2006-09-26 13:38

#28

Apparently London taxi drivers have larger than average frontal lobes (or something)... ~PEPS~ You canâ€™t finish a man till heâ€™s finished his Texan Bar

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Tue, 2006-09-26 14:07

#29

"it's been widely agreed that most humans use only 17% of their brain power" Sadly, that's actually a myth. I'd agree though, that most people properly think about things far less than 17% of the time they could (or perhaps should). People jump to conclusions or stick to preconceptions or just blindly trust what they're told, if we had to think everything through we'd probably never get anything done. Regarding the inital question, the brain forms as we grow up and it stands to reason that it will form (so far as it is able) into a shape best suited for it's environment.

Tue, 2006-09-26 14:17

#30

Dan, it may be a myth, then on the other hand it may not, I wouldn't take your word for it. I know a few people who appear to be in cerebral hibernation, there's at least four on ABC! The shape of the brain is pretty much uniform across the whole human race and any 'development' would take thousands of years to manifest itself.

Tue, 2006-09-26 14:36

#31

yan

'The shape of the brain is pretty much uniform across the whole human race and any 'development' would take thousands of years to manifest itself.' 2 generations actually, missi. yeah..it's a myth alright. There's common joke amongst brain surgeons when faced with the fluffy crap from pyschics and mystics, "we only use 10% of our brains," they say. "ok then," reply the brain surgeons "let me remove 90% of your brain and let's see how you get on!" hahaha Gawd....and I thought it was only geography you were dumb at. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Tue, 2006-09-26 14:38

#32

(... * tee hee * ...) ~PEPS~ You canâ€™t finish a man till heâ€™s finished his Texan Bar

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Tue, 2006-09-26 15:33

#33

By shape i mean internal organisation, the process of learning is the formation/destruction/strengthening of links between neurons. At a microscopic level everyone's brain is different. Yet at a macroscopic level brains are fairly predictably put together, this bit does sight and smell, this bit does memory, this bit does dirty jokes etc. Which implies that the brain has limited ability to manouver as it forms. You don't have to take my word for it Missi, you can read it on the internet (so it must be true) http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

Tue, 2006-09-26 17:12

#34

As usual goon, you display all the intelligence of a moron. Nobody has to my knowledge, ever claimed that physical areas of the brain are either unused or dispensable, (though in your case it's obvious). The reference is to brain POWER used not bits of grey crap. And there's no way the brain can develop to any measurable degree over 2 generations, that's just more bullshit.

Tue, 2006-09-26 17:27

#35

I'm curious what people think they mean when they talk about brain power? It's not as if God messed with the bios at startup to underclock the brain by 90% because his design couldn't handle the heat dissipation without installing an expensive copper skull. At the time the myth formed (it's mentioned in Cold Comfort Farm 1930-ish, but occurs before that I believe) the only technique for investigating the brain was to chop bits off and see what happened. We now have EEG and MEG machines and the like and could say things such as 'the brain normally only shows 17% of it's peak activity" buit that doesn't really mean anything because it still showed peak activity when it needed to. So where does this figure come from? Who measured the maximum brain power and how?

Tue, 2006-09-26 17:34

#36

Jack Cade

Hmm. According to your argument, Missi, everyone who you would say is dumb might actually be 'intelligent'. They're just not using/accessing this intelligence. I don't think that definition is very useful because it means we have no real way of assessing people for it. I can't describe someone as intelligent because it's not their intelligence I'm noticing? 'Intelligence' as a term is of much more use to us if it is related to how much brainpower a person is able to utilise, rather than how much they *might* be able to utilise if they were more - what? - thoughtful? Mentally exercised? ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Tue, 2006-09-26 19:09

#37

Well that sounds reasonable, Jon, but how intelligent one is generally assessed (albeit rather crudely), by their interaction with others, so whilst it's entirely possible that say, a non-communicator or someone displaying only minimal 'brain usage' is in reality intelligent, what they DO show or say is a better indicator. It's also possible that a reasonably intelligent person shows signs of stupidity in certain areas, hence my 'dumbarse' label attached to the likes of goon, slimey mykle and a few others.

Tue, 2006-09-26 19:45

#38

So how intelligent is it to label people "dumbarse" who you simply don't agree with? I think insult flinging is definitely not a sign of superior intelligence... ~PEPS~ You canâ€™t finish a man till heâ€™s finished his Texan Bar

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Tue, 2006-09-26 19:56

#39

The Honourable Pepsoid is noted to have hit the nail right on the head. He wins a shiny Merit Badge for his worthy statement.

Tue, 2006-09-26 20:58

#40

Ooh goody! Thank you, Miss Girl... :-) ~PEPS~ You canâ€™t finish a man till heâ€™s finished his Texan Bar

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Tue, 2006-09-26 21:27

#41

Juliet OC

we don't know what it is but we can recognise it, or think we can based on our current defintion of what someone who is intelligent looks like. my feeling is intelligence is not one thing but many different strengths and weaknesses that make up a profile, and which ever skills are particularly valued at a time will determine who we see as intelligent, but each of them can be completely different from on another dependent on their particular mix of strenghts and weaknesses. Not sure thats makes any sense at all, but nurture is a major shaper of the brain after birth, wild children who have been found at ages 12, 13 rarely learn how to talk or communicate normally suggesting this ability is learnt, so those with great interpersonal skills (emotional intelligence) weren't born with them, but they may have been born with a genetic disposition to respond to faces and voices therefore immersing them in interaction and fully developing their interpersonal skills. Juliet

Juliet

Tue, 2006-09-26 21:44

#42

yan

Missi's just a brickie who's heart is still a yearning decided to become a writer so did some distance learning Got some clever letters like he got at grammar school and now along with all his O's he's got N, a V and a Q There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Wed, 2006-09-27 03:25

#43

I don't label who don't agree with me as dumbarse. I DO however label those that show all the signs of being a dumbarse, a dumbarse. It's simple really. Goon is a dumbarse because he doesn't know how to be anything else, haemorrhoid is a dumbarse by choice and aserygurl is a dumbarse because there's at least one subject that she isn.t an expert in. The only thing haemorrhoid hits his nails with IS his head. Oh yes, and all three are among the most unpopular people to ever frequent this site.

Wed, 2006-09-27 09:25

#44

Okay, Missi...... ~PEPS~ You canâ€™t finish a man till heâ€™s finished his Texan Bar

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Wed, 2006-09-27 09:35

#45

'Oh yes, and all three are among the most unpopular people to ever frequent this site.' OMG, I'm devastated you say this!! Out of the 13,918 users on this site, we are the bottom three in the popularity contest, probably even below Rita and Jasper! As decided by Mississippi, loved and adored by EVERYONE! He, who judges who is fit and unfit to be 'liked', and on a site where only a handful of people *actually* know one another! Mississippi, the God of Faultproof Logic, the Grand Vizier of Popularity, the Most Supreme Poopah Whose Finger Lies Directly On The Pulse Of ABCTales-dot-com!! And I thought you LOVED me!! Oh, I'm so torn up about it. *howls with laughter*

Wed, 2006-09-27 09:38

#46

Dr Jekyll

Missi: are you saying that popularity is a sign of intelligence?

Wed, 2006-09-27 09:46

#47

That really is the stupidest thing I've heard you say, Missi, and there've been a few. What arrogance.

Wed, 2006-09-27 11:46

#48

yan

How pathetic. What a sad man. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Wed, 2006-09-27 14:14

#49

Birds of a feather.

Wed, 2006-09-27 14:17

#50

yan

talking with my mum today ir reminded me that my dad is 60 years old like you. He retired as an ici regional director when he was 40 and now enjoys his days travelling and holidaying. Put into contrast with some lonely old, bitter fart who props himself against his pc, drooling and spitting insults at everyone all day, day in, day out, I realise what a man youre definately NOT! ;) There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Wed, 2006-09-27 14:21

#51