It is a modern conceit that intellectual progress has made modern generations smarter than those that preceded them.
A hundred years ago, far fewer people got advanced educations but those that did were thoroughly well-versed in the liberal arts (as classically defined), meaning that they had been grounded in Latin, rhetoric, and similar subjects that trained them to be highly articulate in their forms of expression (as is easily seen from a glance at these hearing transcripts).
Those who went on to become lawyers, politicians, etc. were indeed elitists but the best among them were highly talented, very bright, and quite capable of making many of our modern politicians look pathetic by comparison in their forms of expression.
The 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is widely regarded as a classic high point in the venerable lineage of that work - whose aim, it is worth recalling, was to gather all the world's knowledge in an advanced and erudite state.
They may have used pen and paper back then, or sometimes typewriters - and their knowledge base was far smaller than what we have today - but we have nothing over them in terms of innate intellectual capacity.
The Internet used to be mostly filled with intellectuals and I thought people here were much smarter than the general population I encountered. Today the net is a cesspool.
That's an awfully broad statement, don't you think? The Internet used to be an area with a higher-than-normal density of intellectuals, and now you can only say that about some parts of the Internet. But please don't lump it all together as if there was some sort of equivalence between (say) Hacker News and 4chan and Christian Youth Forums and YouTube and the Energy from Thorium forum.
If the net is a cesspool, then so is the entire world.
>were thoroughly well-versed in the liberal arts (as classically defined), meaning that they had been grounded in Latin, rhetoric, and similar subjects that trained them to be highly articulate in their forms of expression (as is easily seen from a glance at these hearing transcripts).
Is that your definition of "smart"? It sure isn't mine.
>Those who went on to become lawyers, politicians, etc. were indeed elitists but the best among them were highly talented, very bright, and quite capable of making many of our modern politicians look pathetic by comparison in their forms of expression.
The ones you've heard of, sure - they are the ones worth remembering. But if you don't think there were just as many moronic politicians back then you're just being naive. Anyway, politicians are a self-selecting group - and a terrible group from which to sample if you want to get an idea of an era's general intelligence.
The classically trained people of that era displayed a high level of intelligence in many fields, including science, literature, law, politics, etc. I will grant that the article does not give evidence of this apart from what the transcripts reflect in a particular area - I just know it from wide reading of materials from that era.
People who can express themselves well in complex fields such as law (as reflected in these transcripts) are usually pretty smart as well. It is a general indicator, though obviously not the only one.
I am certainly not claiming that earlier eras did not have their share of moronic politicians - I was once a history major and read about them all the time! They are all-pervasive in every era.
I just don't think people today are innately smarter simply because our knowledge base has expanded.
>I just don't think people today are innately smarter simply because our knowledge base has expanded.
I don't think that either - I think there are other reasons for it. The Flynn Effect certainly doesn't seem like it could be caused by an expanded knowledge base.
My intuition is that it has something to do with the increasing complexity of entertainment. The way kids played 30 years ago might have been better for creativity (and was surely healthier), but I imagine the way kids play these days makes for a stronger intellect.
A hundred years ago, far fewer people got advanced educations but those that did were thoroughly well-versed in the liberal arts (as classically defined), meaning that they had been grounded in Latin, rhetoric, and similar subjects that trained them to be highly articulate in their forms of expression (as is easily seen from a glance at these hearing transcripts).
Those who went on to become lawyers, politicians, etc. were indeed elitists but the best among them were highly talented, very bright, and quite capable of making many of our modern politicians look pathetic by comparison in their forms of expression.
The 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is widely regarded as a classic high point in the venerable lineage of that work - whose aim, it is worth recalling, was to gather all the world's knowledge in an advanced and erudite state.
They may have used pen and paper back then, or sometimes typewriters - and their knowledge base was far smaller than what we have today - but we have nothing over them in terms of innate intellectual capacity.