While your observations are interesting, it wouldn't be wise to base an opinion on anecdotal evidence, no matter how compelling, or gut feelings. I think they are useful, perhaps more useful than many rationalists think, but not directly, only as a kind of radar of where to look. So let's look.
Enlightenment Now is a book recently authored by Stephen Pinker. In it he makes the case that things are better than people think, including among other things how smart we are.
This chart is from an article on the book. Now I don't think this proves much, but it's an indication. There are lots of other indications we can find.
I'm sure @tarazkp might start disputing the measurements and so on but really the evidence is there, by any standard we are not getting stupider. As I said, smartness may not actually be serving us though, and that's perhaps the better area too look at.
I disagree with the fact that what I say is "just an anecdote". This is something I have seen in my own university and that colleagues have seen in their own universities too. Moreover, there is about 10% of unemployment in France (I however actually don't know how many of these unemployed people have a university degree).
Let me just finally also insist that I was not thinking about "literate people" but "people with a university degree (or similar)". Mmmh actually I didn't mention it but this is what I was thinking about :)
I didn't say it was "just an anecdote", I said it was "anecdotal evidence", which Wikipedia defines as
In formal studies researches are required to go to some lengths to remove any personal bias from the process, at least if they are researching scientifically. I'm sure your observations are relevant but the knowledge is not transferrable to me because I cannot trust it's validity. If there is 10% unemployment in France then that is a fact, unrelated entirely to your observations.
In my opinion if you cannot recognize your observations may be biased then you are not practicing a level of skepticism and humility necessary for genuine inquiry.
I agree there is no evidence backing up my claim. Just some gut feeling coming from discussions with many people and my own observations.
But please note that I had never the intention to sell this as a scientific claim or evidence of what so ever. I made it clear from the start.
Understood. I'm also just making clear that I can't accept it.
Sure, no problem.
I wouldn't dispute the measurement, I would dispute the relevance. Learning a skill and using it well are two different things. Give two individuals the same resources and they will use them differently. I could be wrong but I would suggest that if someone like Da vinci had a pool of resource as deep as the internet, he wouldn't be playing Farmville. Smart doesn't translate to intelligence.
Yes, food/hygiene (maybe too) are large factors in our capacity growth but it is also possible that we have reached a point that if we aren't careful, the environmental changes and substances we have created could push us backwards. If we look at the increase in opioid abuse and death in middle class america, it is a pretty good indicator that we aren't 'healthy' even though healthier than before in other areas. Depression is on the rise for a reason and it isn't because we are smarter.
The dumbing down I talk about isn't about brain capabilities, it is about cultural restriction (as you mentioned).
It's a pity you didn't say that then.
But points well taken. There are a lot of opportunities today, they should be used and we should support those things which relieve and cure illness, that promote health in all it's factors and, yes I'm going to say it ... freedom.
If I have to spell everything out, how are you ever expected to learn? :D
I hope you screamed it with half your face pointed blue :)