Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Which generation is the least intellegent?

  1. 18-24

    7 vote(s)
  2. 25-31

    0 vote(s)
  3. 32-38

    0 vote(s)
  4. 39-45

    0 vote(s)
  5. 46-52

    2 vote(s)
  6. 53-59

    4 vote(s)
  7. 60-66

    0 vote(s)
  8. 67-73

    3 vote(s)
  1. Oct 8, 2008 #1
    I've been reading a few articles lately, such as THIS ONE, about how my generation is the dumbest. When I first heard about this, I thought it was a bunch of crap. I thought to myself, I'm pretty smart, write?

    But then taking a moment to sit back and observe my peers, I realized that we are definitely the dumbest. However, I have been told that my powers of observation are sub-par by many, see thread: "What to girls/women look for in men?". I think my generation is royally screwed and we have no chance. But I am interested to see what your opinions are.

    I now direct you to the poll which is the main purpose of this thread. I have divided a range of ages into several segments which I am identifying as "generations". Identify which age group you believe has the LEAST amount of intelligence and/or intellect. Remember, the status-quo is that the age group 18-24 is the stupidest......
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 8, 2008 #2
    Oh, that is too funny. :rofl:
  4. Oct 8, 2008 #3
    I want one more option "Impossible to Evaluate" ...

    In addition, define dumbest and intellegent. Someone talked about the same article few months ago and I think it was proved that none generation is dumb.

    Oh and also I think you have very weak " powers of observation " lol - jks.
  5. Oct 8, 2008 #4

    Well, I guess that depends on the definition of intelligent. Howard Gardner believes that there may be as many as 9 different qualities of intelligence: Naturalist Intelligence, Musical Intelligence, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence, Existential Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence, Linguistic Intelligence, Intra-personal Intelligence, and Spatial Intelligence.

    I have found people my own age at least to be quite socially gifted. I remember that from pretty much Kindergarten through 5th grade, it was always stressed that we should celebrate our differences, and "melt" in the great melting pot of American society--sort of the last gasp of the Civil Rights generation, I think, trying to raise us up to be better than the generation before us.

    Anyway, there is surely prejudice in every generation; but I think that we are the most tolerant, even while possibly the most cynical.

    I think my group excels at the Interpersonal quality.
  6. Oct 8, 2008 #5
    I always get so pissed when people say BOOKS = SMART

    I'm sorry, have you actually read any books lately? They don't have any sort of screening for being intelligent. I could just as easily read porn novels as the Divine Comedy and somehow that will educate me as much?
  7. Oct 8, 2008 #6
    This is why I hate old people as a rule. They say stupid crap without realizing that when their legs are old and tired after a long day's work I'll be the one who gets to decide whether to give up my seat on the bus or just take a nap.

    And it's people like me (i.e. young) who will be trying to cure their cancer, buy their groceries for them, and watch where we're going so we don't trample them.
  8. Oct 8, 2008 #7
    Well screw you too, I don't even fit into the graph. lol
  9. Oct 8, 2008 #8
    As for a definition of intellegence, I think this one should work;

    "the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience "

    ha, sorry binzing, I didn't think anyone above 73 would bother taking the time to learn how to use a computer. And I figure people below 18 aren't mature enough to really judge their intelligence.
  10. Oct 8, 2008 #9
    Looking at your link:
    How is this different from any other generation? I see TV shows like "Leave it to Beaver" making the same judgments against THAT generation.

    What's so special about books? Now instead of reading a book on generator functions, I can read a couple of web pages. What's the difference, other than the web page can include interactive examples, be updated the minute an error is spotted, and is generally free from the perspective of the reader?

    And we also do without "thou" and "thee"! Language changes. Further, online writing is many times in the form of - amazingly - instant messaging where both parties are likely knowledgeable about the lingo used. Therefore, no information is lost between the parties communicating so who cares?

    Seems like a baseless claim to me. I have never seen such a thing happen, at any rate.

    What does Grand Theft Auto have to do with one's reading levels? I'd say a bigger problem is when teachers spend an entire class time lecturing on why one should address them as "Miss" instead of "Misses" instead of teaching the students how to read.
    Another baseless claim. One just as easily skims through a book looking for information to quickly "pass along" as one does on the internet. Further, one can just as easily store the information learned on the internet as one would with a book.

    I'll give partial credit to this. Children should be pushed more. However, I don't see what this has to do with late-night instant messaging. I never had a bed-time, and I did fine.

    I seriously don't understand why people get so upset anytime something changes. For god's sake do you see anyone speaking middle English anymore? Do you see mail being delivered by pony? Do you go out and shoot your dinner every night?

    Just because something is different doesn't mean it's bad.
  11. Oct 8, 2008 #10
    It's a moving target. When I was a teenager, middle aged people were the dumbest generation. Especially my father. But now that I am middle aged, teenagers have taken over that role. Especially my daughter.
  12. Oct 8, 2008 #11
    I think that's the main problem. Majority relies on their parents for their first 18 years of life and they hardly ever get any expierence. They never really interact with the real world or make any critical decisions. So, anyone who is 18-20s looks like dumb with respect to older people. This is not the case for all people (orphans/poor .. etc).

    IMO, parents should regulate their children activities and teach them about ethics and discipline till they reach 18 (Looks Optimal to me). They must learn these things before they start their world.

    P.S. Nothing is wrong here.
  13. Oct 8, 2008 #12
    Wow, add insult to injury. I'm 16 btw.
  14. Oct 8, 2008 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Although in some ways it seems that every generation faces its own set of challenges, keep in mind that many of the people who have helped to bring us the information age, bioengineering, nanotechnology, and privately funded space travel, were once called "the lost generation".

  15. Oct 8, 2008 #14
    That definition isn't very good. Say you take someone who learns fast but is smart, and another who needs to drill ideas into his head before he can understand them but is willing to work hard at it, aka tortoise and the hare.

    Clearly the person that sticks with it for a long time will end up with more knowledge, but since it took him longer to get he's stupid?
  16. Oct 8, 2008 #15
    WarPhalange, the definition makes no reference the speed at which a person learns. It merely states a persons ABILITY to learn, not how quickly. For example I have the ability to understand the concept of adaptive reasoning and how it differs from classical conditioning while lets say my friend Sarah, who is very political, does not. By my definition, that would make me more intelligent than Sarah.
  17. Oct 8, 2008 #16
    Are you calling intellengence book smart or street smart?
  18. Oct 8, 2008 #17
    I see, so it's kind of how much you know and how much you understand.

    So say your friend Sarah ended up being the greatest philosopher in history, while never understanding the concept of adaptive reasoning and how it differs from classical conditioning. Are you still smarter than her?

    Let me cut to the chase with this because I'm feeling impatient today: You are saying "I am smarter than Sarah because I am smarter than her."

    If someone doesn't have the ability to learn something and you do, then sure, you're smarter than that person. Unless that person has the ability to learn something that you just can't seem to grasp. Then what?

    Also, I'm not trying to give some wishy washy "Everybody's special!" defense here. There clearly exist idiots in the world. I'm just saying it's a case of pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
  19. Oct 8, 2008 #18
    A tie breaker I guess. Thats what they do on Jeopardy right? But personally I don't see how being a philosopher in history gives you any smart points. I consider mathematicians to be the only true philosophers. But maybe thats just because I am an idiot.
  20. Oct 8, 2008 #19
    Looks like you have some more philosophising to do. ;)
  21. Oct 8, 2008 #20
    Agree "but you should always be suspicious about what pure math person tell you about the real world anyway".
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Which generation is the least intellegent?
  1. Which or That? (Replies: 22)

  2. Intellegent turn ons? (Replies: 15)