Humanities desk
< May 2	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 3

Are we getting dumber?

Hi all. I have been thinking about the cultural phenomenon that, in general, couples that are more educated and/or economically advantaged and/or more intelligent tend to have less children than those that are not. Is this proven science or hogwash? What studies have been done? What is the current accepted viewpoint? Has this existed throughout history? Do genes really have a huge effect on cognitive traits, or is it more like hitting the lottery? And lastly, what are the potential impacts to humanity in the far future? Are we destined for an Idiocracy? Justin15w (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this nydailynews article, which states "According to a study conducted by London School of Economics researcher Satoshi Kanazawa, a woman's maternal urge decreases 25% for every 15 additional IQ points." Does this occur in men as well? Justin15w (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence still seems somewhat important to staying alive, especially in dangerous situations, like war or living in a ghetto. In either case, "street smarts" can keep you alive. I can't think of many situations where being able to solve a partial differential equation would save your life, though. ("The tank I'm stuck in has water coming in at the rate given by this equation ... so how long before I drown ?"). 03:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

How does one gauge intelligence? By the words people speak or write? That is a tricky matter. Some people seem to think that "children" is an uncountable noun, but I wouldn't suggest that means they're idiots. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Flynn effect. On average, we are getting smarter as time progresses. --Bowlhover (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the proposed explanations of this effect is "the trend towards smaller families", presumably because children get more parental attention in that environment. I found Smaller Families May Lead to Smarter Children, Small Family, Smart Family? and if you have time for a hefty read, Family Size and Achievement Alansplodge (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cracked agrees. Of course, studies prove anything and everything. Like Jack implies (or I infer), if we can't measure it, we can't compare it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Flynn effect (increasing intelligence) also notes the possible end of this progression due to either the negative correlation between fertility and intelligence noted by the OP, or to youth culture having "stagnated" becoming oriented more towards computer games than towards reading and holding conversations. A study (Meisenberg) predicts the average IQ of the young world population is declining by 1.34 points per decade. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly in this era it doesn't seem like people are getting dumber! In the past 40 years we've gone from lots of people spending their lives turning a few screws on an assembly line to legions of skilled technical people who can design and troubleshoot complex systems. It is true, alas, from wages ample to support two in middle class luxury to those capable of supporting one in rented squalor, with far more difficulty in finding that. But I'd think this only reflects that society's parasites and exploiters have increased in intelligence even more than the others. Has anyone managed to quantify this sort of occupational intelligence? Wnt (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here:

"In a two-part paper published in the journal Trends in Genetics, Stanford University researcher Gerald Crabtree suggests that evolution is, in fact, making us dumber — and that human intelligence may have actually peaked before our hunter-gatherer predecessors left Africa."

"“A hunter-gatherer who did not correctly conceive a solution to providing food or shelter probably died, along with his or her progeny, whereas a modern Wall Street executive that made a similar conceptual mistake would receive a substantial bonus and be a more attractive mate,” Crabtree wrote in the paper. He also noted that the average Athenian from 1000 B.C. would rank among the smartest and most emotionally stable in today’s society."

Count Iblis (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love Steve Jones' comments in that article! Also, I think it's possible that there could be no contradiction - that people today might be more intelligent but worse at survival. After all, nerds aren't really the ones you think of winning at Lord of the Flies or Survivor. But mostly, I strongly suspect that our so-called pure Darwinian (which isn't really) way of looking at this, in which we ignore the role of epigenetics/acquired inheritance, could lead us astray. I suspect that the short-term educational and nutritional history of the past few generations has more impact on how the body bets how much nutrition to allocate to the brain than a hundred thousand years of evolution. Wnt (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

READ

hello,

i just want to know if your information is actually REAL!

anyone can change information on this and someone will use it on a report or an exam.

please make sure that your information is correct.

chow for now,

Billy Bob Bob Billy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.163.69.105 (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone vandalizes a Wikipedia article, the misinformation is usually quickly fixed. However, you would be wise to follow up by clicking on the links in our articles to find other sources to confirm anything you read in Wikipedia. StuRat (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody copying a report or exam without bothering to learn the subject deserves to fail. See test for more information (some true). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi princes and all that

What are the world's richest people doing with their money? Could it be used to fund scientific and technological research? Would spending this sequestered currency cause inflation? --78.148.106.196 (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in the US much of it is spent to subvert the democratic process and ensure that laws are all changed to favor the rich. Some is also spent on charities that genuinely try to help people, although these can sometimes be ineffective or even backfire. Spending savings can cause inflation, but also can cause economic growth. StuRat (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really must ask for citations for the first 2 sentences, Stu. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need a citation to tell you the obvious, such as the sun will set this evening and another to tell you it will rise again tomorrow? That ants will sudden stop being ants and start to explore outer space... or that high status homo sapiens will suddenly stop preserving their status quo at the expense of whomever they believe to be their lesser brethren?--Aspro (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I, for one, would welcome our new insect overlords. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Agreed. As for a failed charity, look at Roundabout_PlayPump#Criticisms. Another charity (I saw a documentary on it) which backfired was the Earthquake relief in Haiti. There the charities provided food and water for free, which put the local businesses doing that out of business, making Haiti even more dependent on such aid in the future. Instead they should have worked to expand those local businesses, by provided no interest loans, etc., in order to make Haiti more self-sufficient. I believe they later tried a voucher system, where those in need of free food and water were given vouchers, gave them to local businesses for those items, and the charities then reimbursed the local businesses. That worked better, but required more manpower, as they needed to ensure that each person only got their own vouchers, so they couldn't just dump them out the back of the truck and say "come and get it" like they had done with bottled water. Perhaps making each voucher a cinder block might keep one person from grabbing a hundred. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for "it is spent to subvert the democratic process". And a slightly older one covering the same trend, I believe mentioned in the first. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian. And there was no need to smallify your post. It is, in fact, the most relevant post in this thread, so far. This isn't the "Everyone Knows (or Thinks They Know) That" Desk. It's the Reference Desk.

To Aspro: If Stu's first assertion and its outlandish content (particularly laws are all changed to favor the rich) was so "obvious", why did the OP ask the question in the first place? That's an insult to the OP, and you should apologise.

To StuRat: Corrupt and all as the US is, it cannot possibly be true that all laws are skewed towards the rich. That sounds like the view of a hyperbolic arch-cynic rather than a dispassionate reference desker whose purpose is to provide referenced information from reputable sources. Can you be more specific? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their goal is to change all laws to favor the rich. That does not mean they have succeeded, in all cases, yet. A commonly cited case is how regular cocaine possession (expensive, and therefore favored by the rich) gets only a slap on the wrist, while crack cocaine possession (cheap and thus favored by the poor) results in long prison terms. StuRat (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. They're trying to build a prison for you and me to live in. But what's a supervillain if his plots are never foiled? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we go again, Stu. Can you provide a citation for "Their goal is to change all laws to favor the rich", please? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are free-enterprisers. The earth is just another developing planet. Their third world. They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery. They have us. They control us! They are our masters! Wake up! They're all about you! All around you! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I think the process being alluded to is regulatory capture, and more generally rent-seeking etc. Certainly a lot of money is spent on it, though saying anyone spends most of their money on it needs some quantitative support if it's intended to be taken literally. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to my first answer, I said "much", not "most". StuRat (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an answer to the question in the first sentence, rather than the section title, which seems to racially target a particular subset of rich people. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When money is sitting in the bank, it's not just sitting in the bank ("sequestered"). It's being spent by the bank, on a variety of investments and sponsorships, which allows them to give you (or the Saudi prince) a slice as interest. That slice often "just sits" in the pool, helping the world run. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the banks need that money to hire lots of smart people to come up with high-risk, short-term investment mechanisms, knowing that if they go bad they can rely on a federal bail-out because they are too big to fail. StuRat (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, their portfolios are mainly blue chip. That's not to say they don't have a finger or two (or 21) stirring up the aforementioned prison system. But it's more often as boring (and helpful) as steel and hydro. Exactly why more don't even get to the "almost" failing stage. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there's even less distinction between savings and investments in the US, after this Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Seems like one of those things I'd have heard of by now. According to that article, John Dingell warned it would cause the subprime crisis and require a bailout, using the term "too big to fail", but it's not mentioned in either article. Whatever happened to reciprocity, on Wikipedia or elsewhere? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we're actually talking about the Saudi economy, when Faisal claimed the oil (and his country) back from the multinationals, he set up a system whereby the oil money never really stays still. His intention was to provide long term stability from the astronomical sums generated when crude finally found its own level on the market. In other words, the cash is spread globally, generating more cash, and moving frequently to generate security. This system was also famously employed by a son of one of Faisal's contractors, the bin Laden family. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And sticking with Saudi Arabia, they have a severe problem that their oil will run out some day, and at that point they will lack their main source of economic, political, and military power and probably collapse as a nation, unless they can come up with an alternative economy by then. They have very few natural resources, aside from petroleum, and their climate, religious restrictions, terrorism, and climate make large-scale tourism unlikely. Even solar power might not work there, due to sandstorms which could damage the panels. And, of course, most of the land is unsuitable to farming. So, it might go back to a desolate land populated only by a few nomads, like it was before they struck oil.

On the plus side, they do have the Hajj, and a nice infrastructure in place, so perhaps they can make a minimal living off those tourists. If they could convince all Muslims to make a yearly visit for the Hajj, and perhaps convince them to spread their visits out throughout the year, so they can handle the crowds, then they might even have a thriving economy. If I were them, I'd start an advertising campaign, and maybe convince a few clerics to argue that any visit qualifies as a Hajj, regardless of the date. StuRat (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to get closer to the topic

Some good answers and comments above, but a lot of polemics. I don't see anything in the question about the political abuse of wealth, although the links by Ian Thompson and 70.36 are certainly interesting. The question seems to be more about the economic aspects of extreme wealth, that is, what are the knock-on effects of the spending behaviour of the super-rich, not about how they might be abusing their power. My own knowledge here is limited.

Say you have a trillion dollars (a one with 12 zeros after it), and you put it in the bank. Then the bank loans it out again, as others have pointed out above. Then you decide to withdraw it and put it into investment projects. You will have to do this slowly, or there will be a run on the bank, but say you do it over 20 years. Then there is less money in the bank for loans, so the interest rate for all loans will be expected to rise. At the same time, the money you spend on science means the government doesn't have to spend on science, so this government money has been freed up. They spend it on other things, so effectively your trillion dollars is spent on those other things. This is not conjecture, but a real effect of donations from the World Bank and IMF, as discussed by Joseph Stiglitz in Globalization and Its Discontents. Your donations to science may also affect the efficiency of spending on science, because you are not skilled in accountable decision making, but that is much of a muchness, and depends on you (and on who decides what counts as "efficient"). As for inflation, I don't know, but it depends on whether you really increase the money supply.

Although you didn't mention this, if you spent the money on food for the poor, then the same thing happens to interest rates on loans from the bank. More money spent on food means higher demand for food, pushing food prices up (I don't know whether this would lead to higher inflation overall). Then more land will be made available for food (because it is more profitable), which could mean more salination, land degradation, or whatever. The general supply-and-demand aspect of bank loans is discussed by Steven Landsburg in The Armchair Economist, although I don't think it says the exact point I am making here. IBE (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be based on the assumption that the government has a target value for how much science and how much charity there should be in society as a whole, and adjusts its spending to match. But these targets change spontaneously and in response to political forces even in the absence of external money sources. Despite the occasional instance in which a party in power might have a goal of n% for science, I think that overall, or over time, the goal may be something else, e.g. to provide employment for the bureaucrats who oversee the program, to placate constituents that their priorities are reflected in the government budget, etc. Wnt (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No such assumption. This is a real effect, described in the book I gave as a reference. IBE (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connections between Isis (Auset) and Ishtar?

Isis and Ishtar were both worshiped by speakers of different Afroasiatic languages, usually as the wives of dying-and-rising gods associated with fertile waters (either rivers or rain) killed by some chaos-figure. I found this early 20th century collection of late 19th century papers, but I'm kind of amazed that I'm not seeing any academic discussion either suggesting or rebutting potential suggestions that the two were related.

I tried Google books, but my search was cluttered with new-age-y crap that also suggest ridiculous stuff like Inanna and Inari being the exact same figure; or else scholarly works merely discussing later snycretism instead of a common origin. However, I'm not talking about a simple interpretatio graeca, but sources discussing whether (or not) they might (or mightn't) share a common origin just as Dyaus Pita and Dis Pater derive from the from Proto-Indo-European *Dyēus ph₂ter. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Ishtar's origins, except that she and Astarte spring from a common Semitic source. As for Isis, I don't think any Egyptologist in the past half-century has suggested Isis came from outside Egypt. Egyptologists don't speculate about deities' origins as much as they used to, because it's so often a fruitless exercise. Past generations of scholars did it more often, and they did raise the possibility that a god was imported from elsewhere in prehistoric times. I've gotten a glimpse of that attitude in The Origins of Osiris and His Cult by J. Gwyn Griffiths (1980), which looks at just about every hypothesis for Osiris' origins that any Egyptologist put forth in the century or so before the book was published. On pages 90–91, it briefly discusses the conjecture by Théodule Devéria and Samuel A. B. Mercer that Osiris had some connection with Ashur (god). But the book doesn't mention any claim that Isis originated in Mesopotamia, even though that section discusses Isis' origins too. The best guess for her beginnings seems to be that she was a personification of the king's throne, or of his mother.

Nor do I know that anybody has tried to reconstruct Proto-Afroasiatic religion the way they have for Proto-Indo-European. The Afroasiatic languages diverged longer ago than IE (see Afroasiatic languages#Date of Afroasiatic), and I believe they're the oldest language family that most linguists accept. Nobody can even figure out how the major branches relate to each other, so reconstructing a religion may seem hopeless. As regards Egypt, most of the deities that undoubtedly date to Predynastic times (Horus, Set, Min) seem to be thoroughly native. The one place I have seen scholars link a deity to a broader cultural background is the cattle goddesses (e.g., Hathor and Bat (goddess), who may go back to the pastoral culture that was present all across northeastern Africa before the Sahara went dry and pushed the pastoralists toward the Nile.

Isis took on traits of Hathor eventually, but only much later. Her first appearances are in the Old Kingdom, when she is already the mourning wife of Osiris and the mother of Horus. Even her throne connection, if that is how she started, is barely discernible aside from the glyph on her head. A. Parrot (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson -- I strongly doubt that there are any linguistic-etymological connections, since Ishtar goes back to the early Semitic stem consonant sequence ʕ-θ-t-r (where [ʕ] is a voiced pharyngeal consonant), and the Egyptian form of Isis doesn't resemble that. In early Egyptian history, Hathor seems to have been more important than Isis anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]