I haven't read your entire post. I DO NOT think we should dismiss the study, unless it is falsified. This is where we differ on how we process information. Evidence is not a fact. It's evidence---a clue if you will----how we read that evidence can be subject to bias.
My apologies, dear NC (peace to you!) - I knew that. I should have been more clear. I was basing my statement on this statement from the article:
"A Stanford University professor presented evidence Monday 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."
So, for example, you state:
The cookie jar has been breached! A trail of crumbs leads to the a sleeping toddler. The Evidence would point to the toddler. But is that the fact, or our interpretation of the evidence?
In my scenario, the jar contained poisoned (but not to the point of fatality) cookies that, if eaten, would cause the consumer to foam at the mouth. Cookies are missing and little Johnny is foaming at the mouth. While we can initially assume that Johnny ate the cookies, the foamy mouth being evidence that he did, a look at the contents in his stomach... more evidence... can prove it. Thus, making it a fact that he did. Since the article didn't say "evidence... that... suggests"... I assumed it was at the point of the stomach contents having been verified. The abstract seems to suggest so.
Now, it might have been wrong for me to assume that... but I have to confess that I don't get how many assume evolution of humans to be a fact, when it has not be proven, but is still in the theory stage (although there are claims of 'substantial' evidence). I realize that to some, perhaps even you, this may be apples and oranges, but to me, the theory of the PROCESS seems to be the same... but with different outcomes: one IS a "fact" (some assert), while one is not My point here was to try and use those very same arguments, that where the evidence proves the assertion it is no longer theory, but fact, as many have exhorted me to do over the years.
This is how we look at the world. We don't look to confirm our bias, but we look to falsify findings.
But surely you understand that not all look at the world this way, to falsify findings. I mean, I often do but in this one instance I happened to agree, based on the evidence I see almost daily. Now, do I understand that my son doesn't need to know how to plow a field, heck, saddle a horse? Of course, I do. That's not what I meant, though. I meant, as the article seems to suggest, they we no longer use the thinking abilities one needs to say, make sure he doesn't get his brains kicked out while he's trying to saddle a horse. I think a good example of this is how, in this day and age, small children are still harmed in the home. Just the other day I watched a parentings show designed to help parents child-proof their homes. Because toddlers are still getting into the bleach under the sink! In 2012! The thing is, the parents who WATCH such shows probably already have the wherewithall to KNOW not to put bleach under the sink. It's the ones who would never even WATCH such a show... because it requires too much THINKING... who end up in the ER with their 2-year-old.
I dunno - perhaps some of you don't see... ummmm... many of the people I do on a regular basis. I wonder how many were also surprised to learn that only 1% of our country's population hold the wealth. Yes, it SEEMS like people are getting smarter, because of the progress we see in technology, etc. But again, are those folks truly representative of the greater population?
We don't take this study, and then look at areas where some young people may be weak, ignore the astonishing intelligence of other young people, and conclude---yep it's genetic.
I didn't, dear one, and apparently neither did the study (the study look at brain mutations). I did the opposite: I those areas where I know young people are excelling... with those where I know they are drowning. And believe me, when you work in housing... you see a LOT more areas of drowning. You see people at their most basic existence, and you are interconnected with almost all aspects of society: cultural, economic, political, educational, health, aging, food, clothing, transportation (both public and private), travel, civil, penal, federal, state, local... even global. You attend numerous summits and conventions that deal with housing the local, state, federal, and global populations... and ALL that affects and impacts that. You work with all demographics, in most neighborhood (sometimes even the very elite, due to funding donors, etc.), with various corporations, government entities, law enforcement, first responders, health care providers (of all genres), and more. Urban, rural... metropolis, suburban, estate (for incapacitated/widowed or otherwise unable to stay in such seniors), etc.
Before there is concern about health, wealth, work, etc., sometimes even before food... there is concern about housing (shelter). It is more of a concern than clothing. In my experience, it's housing, then food, then clothing... then everything else.
Because if you are saying this is some kind of evolution (evolution does not work backwards---it simply moves forward and does not turn back) then it would have to be genetic.
I'm not saying anything as to that. A study is saying that, due to our development of things to make our life less stressful, we no longer use parts of our brain which has resulted in a mutation that has slowly rendered us dumber. I am saying, "Yeah, I can see the results of that."
It is appropriate to question findings and to challenge them.
YES! And it was fine for those who questioned the findings... and challenged them. For some, though, this has to be about challenging ME. I thought, sigh, here we go...
It is inappropriate to accept them at face value. More information is needed before we lament that we don't read sun dials anymore. That's the scientific method, and that is what people on this thread have been using---not criticizing you---but criticizing what has been presented. It's critical thinking.
And I had NO problem with those types of responses. I even thanked those who made them. If I disagreed/didn't understand, I stated that and why. I didn't take issue with the person themselves for their POV.
Nobody here has claimed to be right or wrong, instead an entire conversation was opened and many were bringing ideas to the table. Which is how it works. Rather than be part of that process, you chose to go into victim mode.
Sigh. I didn't choose to, dear one. I simply responded to what I *thought* was being directed at me.
Nobody said anything mean to you, we just began pulling apart some findings, which is the right thing to do, and you took it personal.
Perhaps I misread a certain post and was unable to "see" correctly after that. I don't think so (because I did try to move one), but perhaps I did... and if so, did take it personally. I can agree with that.
Then you put in the comment that it seems people were more intelligent when they were more religious, and that it is science that is making us dumb.
Whoa... where did you... no, you misunderstood me. I believe I said that at least the CAUSE of the dumbing down wasn't being BLAMED on religion (as it often is... and which I wholeheartedly can agree with!). It was tongue-in-cheek...
I don't know why you want to do that. But it is clear that you don't want to have a discussion on something scientific, because we can't criticize the idea without somehow being malicious in your eyes.
First, I am not sure how you're stating "we", because you weren't even included in my perception. Second, if I had arbitrarily included you, that would have been wrong because you hadn't even joined the discussion yet. I don't understand...
That's a shame. It had promised to be a very cool discussion---but not with the drama.
Yes, that's what I thought: why all the drama? Why not just a discussion about the article, versus starting off with one's... mmmmm... unresolved issues with me?
I think that if just for ONCE some of [you] - and I know you're trying - could step outside of the box and see that discussion is not ALLOWED... but everything has to come from a position of opposition... because folks [think they] already know where I'm [gonna] come from... give the benefit of the doubt... there would be no drama. I will not lie, though: when I see certain posters on my threads, I now go, "Okay, here we go..." and get myself "ready." Maybe I did that here - I truly don't think so but if others think I did, well, I will concede that. Just so's the discussion can continue. If it can. At this point I've kinda lost interest. Because I know it's just gonna go back there, again. We'll see.
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
