Thank you for your comment, dear Sab (peace to you!). I can see how increasing family dysfunction in the US would contribute to the phenomenon here. I tend to agree with the author of the study, though that "mutations in the human brain — brought on by advances in society that have made survival less stressful — are eroding our intellectual and emotional capabilities." One example is of that is telling time: we've gone from, say, the sundial (which required some knowledge as to the position of the sun)... to the analog face (which required some knowledge of math, to calculate the position of the "hands"... to digital, where simply reads the numbers, rather than calculate the time.
The article is crap, imo. It's a convoluted opinion to a problem with a simple solution. I don't like the idea of the brain biologically decreasing in intellectual capacity because that is contrary to human nature itself. We by nature transcend our environments. The brain not only learns and classifies environment it also seeks out to improve conditions of it. This would mean that the brain, as an evolutionary prototype, can only go in one direction and that would be one of progress.
This particular study is a perfect example of how humanity seeks to improve it's environment. We have identified a problem and that is that we are devolving, but that is only because we have a devolving class and the classic transcendent class. We also live in a democratic society where all people have an equal weight in the manner of voting for public servants. So, if the transcendent class becomes substantially smaller than the devolving class, in a democratic society, you will have a devolving government, which is what we just to happen to have. We shouldn't be looking at the brain as a single entity that is exactly the same in any given circumstance. Which society the brain happens to be in will greatly change exactly what that brain is. Sure it's got the same nuts and bolts, but that's like saying that all computers are the same because they all have operating systems and processors. While true, the personal computers of people vastly differ in brand and software preference. If we identify a decrease in total processing it could mean that people have too many vulnerabilities in their setups. Maybe they need a different type of technical education and that would fix the problem.
Like I said the problem is the class distictions that is created by the breakdown of the family. This is not a philosophical argument it's a genetic argument. Regardless of all that is thrown into our DNA family bonds are what keeps societies together. For example the Watchtower has to use a consistant and grueling mind control regimen to get their members to work against the DNA grain so to speak.
From a religious perspective we call this Love and it is the essence of God. Using pure science the brain is nothing but the sum of what evolution had in store for it. Using religious philosophy we see the brain as connected to a higher source of power. I think a safe compromise would be just to speak in genetic terms and call Family the strongest influence to humanity. Good evidence that the Love being explained through "genetics" actually transcends genetics is that the family bond is actually not exclusive to blood ties. A foster or step child can be as well regarded as their non blood sibling counter parts and even more well regarded. This is all neatly packaged in a science called Attachement Theory.
Attachment theory describes the dynamics of long-term relationships between humans. Its most important tenet is that an infant needs to develop a relationship with at least one primary caregiver for social and emotional development to occur normally. The attachment theory explains how much the parents relationship with the child influences development. John Bowlby developed this theory of attachment after working as a psychiatrist where he treated many emotionally disturbed children. This kind of work allowed Bowlby to realize the importance of the child’s relationship with their mother in terms of their social, emotional and cognitive development. He finally had proven his belief about the link between early infant separations with the mother and later maladjustment, and Bowlby was able to formulate his attachment theory. (McLeod, 2009)
Infants become attached to individuals who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with them, and who remain as consistent caregivers for some months during the period from about six months to two years of age. When an infant begins to crawl and walk they begin to use attachment figures (familiar people) as a secure base to explore from and return to. Caregivers' responses lead to the development of patterns of attachment; these, in turn, lead to internal working models which will guide the individual's perceptions, emotions, thoughts and expectations in later relationships. With a secure base the child is able to have a sense of belonging. The caregiver strongly influences how the child manages their feelings which is important because emotional regulation is related to how children learn to be independant learners and how well they get along with others. (Dolby, 2003) Separation anxiety or grief following the loss of an attachment figure is considered to be a normal and adaptive response for an attached infant. These behaviours may have evolved because they increase the probability of survival of the child.
Research by developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth in the 1960s and 70s reinforced the basic concepts, introduced the concept of the "secure base" and developed a theory of a number of attachment patterns in infants: secure attachment, avoidant attachment and anxious attachment. A fourth pattern, disorganized attachment, was identified later.
In the 1980s, the theory was extended to attachment in adults. Other interactions may be construed as including components of attachment behaviour; these include peer relationships at all ages, romantic and sexual attraction and responses to the care needs of infants or the sick and elderly.
In the early days of the theory, academic psychologists criticized Bowlby, and the psychoanalytic community ostracised him for his departure from psychoanalytical tenets; however, attachment theory has since become "the dominant approach to understanding early social development, and has given rise to a great surge of empirical research into the formation of children's close relationships". Later criticisms of attachment theory relate to temperament, the complexity of social relationships, and the limitations of discrete patterns for classifications. Attachment theory has been significantly modified as a result of empirical research, but the concepts have become generally accepted. Attachment theory has formed the basis of new therapies and informed existing ones, and its concepts have been used in the formulation of social and childcare policies to support the early attachment relationships of children.
It's the family dynamic that creates the want for attachment. I have some 3D images of my child in utero and I could tell that he was emotionally attached to the placenta. It's a hunch, not a scientific conclusion, but have you ever seen pictures of the little baby hand coming out of the mother's stomach in a C-section grabbing onto the surgeon's finger? Imo, that's because we're hard wired to emotionally attach to what ever we find first. In the delivering room with my son for the first time we were immediately developing that family attachment. What if I wasn't there for that? Then I would have lost out on the benefits of the bonds that created at those precious moments. If you take a look at the out of wedlock birth statistics they are staggering in the USA. This doesn't mean that the fathers are not there when their baby's are born, but think of it this way: a man who is willing to put himself in a position where an accident can occur and he creates life, he should be committed to the mother. The way we commit in our culture is to get engaged and then married. It's a simple way of maintaining order both legally and emotionally for the parties involved. If that's not present when the baby is born that could pose a problem. If the man is not properly "attached" to his mate upon the birth of a child he could run, and they do I have seen and heard about so many that do. So, they are there for that initial biological attachment, but then run which just snaps it off like a twig and creates long withstanding emotional trauma for the child. Then when the child grows up they have abandonment issues and will require therapy and possibly a medicative cycle in their life. This is ALL not condusive to a healthy environment for the brain when you take these scenarios and create a societal norm.
The point is this kind of societial trauma cannot sustain forever and eventually you are going to see ill effects. However it shouldn't be presented like some uncontrollable change in bioscience. It's something that can and is being worked with not only by us as a society largely behind the scenes, but by God himself defined as the Entity who has always been there from the beginning.
-Sab
