The irony of 'common sense' - Why don't people generally think very much these days?
The_Dharma_Farmer
Explorer
Hi guys, just putting together an article and I would love your input and thoughts, especially given the title, lol!
Someone said to me that we are entering the Age of Stupidity... Genetically we ARE getting more stupid with each passing generation as genes for intelligence mutate through lack of use. The gene pool is getting shallower, and more crowded... These are widely accepted facts (so the geneticists tell me), and it seems to me that modern 21st century life, outside the context of the Dharma and certain elite circles, people are either not thinking for themselves as much, if at all, and a lot of societies perpetuate this through the reductionist emphasis on materialism, celebrity culture and general laziness.
I think the path we share promotes critical analysis of worlds both inner and outer, whilst urging us to discern fact from value judgement and to move forward in positive kindness. I have a basic draft of a short article I am writing on the matter, I thought there are a few familiar names and.. er.. bizarre profile pics who might well have something worthwhile to say. @lobster I'm thinking of you baby ;-) hehe!
thedharma-farmer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-irony-of-common-sense-why-dont.html
I hope my words do not offend, it is neither my intention nor my style. Far too British ;-) Above is the link to my first draft.
Thanks again everyone for your love and support, don't know where I would be without this place. You all got me through my sister's death recently with your kindness and considered advice, and I am eternally grateful.
Much Metta from the bottom of my heart - Namo Buddhay!!
D.F xx
Comments
Trust you will cite a bit of chapter and verse if you want to put a little intelligent meat on the stupid bone.
I am not sure that this is about whether folks think very much these days, its about how widely they think. You can think a lot along selective lines which doesn't provide much variety in options to choose from or you can cast your mental net far and wide to cover a far greater selection of possibilities. I think common sense is just the digestion of a wider range of options.
I also think that common sense is a more rural mentality that fosters the self reliance necessary to sort out your own problems with what you have on hand where as our more common modern urban landscape defers to specialization and all the limitation that accompanies such thinking.
It reminds me of a long political debate about how many thousands of dollars it would cost to re sod a lawn outside one of our political building that had been worn down by a now ended extended protest. Everyone was lamenting the estimates of 20 to 30 thousand until one savvy councilman said "what about just using a bag of grass seed instead?".
Oooooh... @How you are a good man, thank you! Yes, when I was younger people would say "you are so deep". "No, I am very shallow, but I am broad-sighted!" I would laugh! This seems to be on the same lines as your point, perhaps?
I love that story my Brother, thanks for sharing!
When I speak to my non-Buddhist friends, it seems to strike me that people just seem to react, their minds have gotten out of the habit of pausing, assessing and creating. Thank the sweet merciful Lord Buddha for neural-plasticity :-)
@genkaku certainly, it was in the newspapers in the UK today, but it was a US university... Give me a few minutes... Good point well made... maybe I am regressing faster than I realise ;-)
Here you go @genkaku - Although I can't find the article from the Metro today which cited the most recent study, here is the same argument and a very similar article. It makes perfect sense, although I wish to stress that this is over 10,000's of years... we should be ok ;-)
livescience.com/24713-humans-losing-intelligence.html
Interesting stuff... May you be happy, healthy and in harmony with that which is alive in your heart x
ah... It was Stamford University :-) I hate it when I can't recall, and I retract fully the "widely accepted facts" - as reading a few critical counter reports, it seems that opinion is very much divided. serves me right for only going off one source... Now who looks stupid?
raises hand sheepishly
haha! ;-)
Genes don't mutate through lack of use?
Is that really a widely accepted "fact"?
@jeffrey I don't think the study said that (as I said, I am a bass player, not a geneticist, lol) but proposed that natural selection, that which used to only preserve the most intelligent, now no longer does such a 'thorough' job these days. I can certainly understand the principle... Interestingly, has anyone else seen or heard of the film Idiocracy? The premise is that as trailer parks and council houses fill up across the planet, over many 100's of years the average IQ could drop and "intelligent" couples wait later to have children, and have smaller families.
For the love of all that's pure, please NO ONE bother to suggest that I am proposing some kind of Dharmic eugenics program, hahaha! ;-)
I'm more interested in why so few people these days seem concerned with either thinking clearly, logically and developing their minds..? I feel it's almost certainly down to conditioning and the 'westernisation'/increased commercialisation of modern societies.. I am not talking about the marketing executive who writes genius adverts to promote craving more so he has more money, I mean why are people so reluctant to try and life the veil of ignorance...? Maybe their are not. It why I value th opinions from people who aren't living in the UK, in a large wealthy city (comparative to many places, that is)...
@vinlyn - yes, natural selection and Neo-Darwinism are widely accepted facts ;-)
Intellect sometimes only makes you doubt. Peace and love.
No, that's not what I asked. I asked if there's agreement among geneticists that humans are getting more stupid.
If its true that people don't stop and think as much now days, IMO a likely culprit is that we are constantly plugged in. There is always a screen to look at or something to listen to or read. Most people don't spend much time in their own minds anymore so even when they do there probably isn't a whole lot of productive reflection or original thought going on.
I believe we have already established that there is a divergence of opinion. Please read the article as I have amended my statement, and it's not what this topic is about @Vinlyn.
and by the article, I do not mean mine. I know you haven't read that. I am referring to the link I found which provides the report made from Stamford University which claims natural selection is not functioning in the same way as it used to, and it is affecting the genetic makup of humans. It's not what this thread is about. End of conversation, surely?
@person cool point, yes... Yes, I agree on every point... we are distracted from distraction by distraction, as TS Elliot famously said. In light of this, its easy to see why solitary retreats can for many people form such an important part of their practice :-)
I've always thought that "common sense" was very Buddhist if thought about from the right angle, common meaning "we have this among us" rather than "base, ordinary, nothing special".
Thank you for thinking of me.
I like your writing style. It weaves through and about . . . like life.
To counter the rise of the ignorant youtube/iphone zombie generation, the smart have squared their efforts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Squared
Some of us write well, some have higher EQ, IQ, irony tolerance and some of us are losing our marbles or never had any . . .
. . . however slowly but surely we are twittering together, face booking our deepest being or not . . . educating ourself through social media or not, or partly . . . We and technology are slowly coming together.
http://www.cybathlon.ethz.ch/
With gps implants, access to knowledge a thought away, we are entering a smart new world. A human world, of instant knowing, transparency, accessibility.
It is not the Daliks who will E X T E R M I N A T E but our smartest Stephen Hawkings, who will welcome the assimilation with the friendly Borg (not yet available)
AI is coming. The stoopid will be augmented. Resistance is futile.
I have found that most people who see in others a lack of common sense are actually only seeing people who think differently. If you and I see things differently or do things differently, it MUST be because you are the one who lacks the "common sense" that I clearly possess.
I don't agree at all that natural selection favors the intelligent. Natural selection favors survival to reproductive age. I have noticed no particular high intelligence in cockroaches, but the fossil record indicates that they have enjoyed an exceptionally long successful existence.
I'm sorry that I read your statement: "Genetically we ARE getting more stupid with each passing generation as genes for intelligence mutate through lack of use. The gene pool is getting shallower, and more crowded... These are widely accepted facts..."
@lamaramadingdong - oooh! I like, very much, thank you.
@steve_B - A good point well made re:wrong views. Thanks for that. I think on reflection that I could have chosen my words more carefully, but all the same natural selection (from what I am reading) appears to work on the basis of weeding out the slowest, weakest, most vulnerable of any herd, rather than cause the fastest to get faster, for example. I can see a line of thinking which would include brain function in that list of factors, but intelligence, the more I read, is an incredibly multifaceted phenomena.
The more I read up on this the more intrigued I am by it all, although I am beginning to wish I hadn't included the line about natural selection as the article took me over 14 hours to write and people appear to be focusing on 2 lines out of many others. I would much rather people discuss whether they think that todays modern society is rendering us more (or less) able to think for ourselves and engage the rational mind.
Just a few points to think about guys:
I for one would argue, for example, that if humans are getting smarter, why the obesity crisis? Why is the Greatest Country on Earth also the fattest? Is IQ linked to waist size? Clearly not, but someone who knew nothing about it (like myself, for example) could make that assertion and claim to be able to substantiate it.
If we were getting smarter, and better adapted to our world, why the economic global downturn caused by widespread overspending and living beyond our means, both as nationas and as individuals. NEVER before have we lived so far beyond our means, and was so much owed by so many. These arent the actions of clear and logical thinkers. We are facing economic and ecological dangers the likes of which the world has never seen before, and lets be honest here, although we are more aware of it now, we don't appear to be becoming less reliant on delusional views to the extent needed to turn it all around. Perhaps it's too late. Ask me again in 50 years.
If we were becoming more intelligent, then why the concerns that as a species we are destroying the planet, at an unprecedented rate? If we were getting smarter or more intelligent then we would see the relationship between diet and health more clearly. We would pay LESS attention to advertisers. We would all be recycling like mad, converting to electric cars and reducing our global reliance on fossil fuels like carzy. Are we? No. Fact. THIS is what I mean by common sense - the capacity to see how our actions fit into a wider framework of cause-effect, on a global scale. Perhaps we are becoming more intelligent, but we are certainly not using it more effectively than ever before!
Let us remind ourselves that the article is questioning whether technological, societal and behavioural changes are rendering us more or less capable of 'seeing' pratitya samutpada - this is what I mean by 'common sense', the rational, logical capacity to make the link between actions and consequences. Clearly, IQ itself is increasing over the last 100 years but the evidence does also suggest that our innate genetic capacity to develop the part of the brain which governs rational though is being slowly diminished.
If people want to read further, please speak to either Dr Flynn (after whom the Flynn effect is named) and Stamford University. Considering I am not a geneticist, and that this is all kinda off topic, if people don't mind, I'm personally gonna bow out of the genetics debate.
I have retracted and amended statements, held up my hands, apologised for not reading more widely and also amended my original article to reflect our discussion here. I shall remember this lesson and thank you all so much for your feedback.
Incidentally, as Buddhists, that what we are interested in - the higher evolution of the species, on a psychological and spiritual level. Good thing too, because as a species we don't appear to be getting fitter, stronger or faster per se, just heavier and slower, on average. And no-one, surely can deny this?
THIS is what I was seeking to address. I wish you all a lovely day, and a peaceful weekend.
Looking at trends from within a specific cultural context, it's easy to draw such conclusions. Segments of the global population are infused with certain consumption habits and, as a result, laden with junk (As you put it, heavier and slower). This is certainly not species wide, but it is grossly inefficient in some respects, costly in terms of human and animal health and for the ecosystem.
The problem is more one of socialization. We're a captive audience with diffuse responsibility. The 'common sense' is voyeuristic and distant. I would argue that engagement at this level lends itself to increased apathy and general parroting that is not conducive to much other than vague and abstract thinking.
My deeeeeeeply scientific research leads me to the conclusion that the older I get, the stupider everyone else becomes.
And if you believe that, I'll tell you another one.
I think the OP may be confusing being intelligent and acting wisely.
Asking a loaded question doesn't help either. Zero results does not mean people don't think anymore. The original blog question was like asking why are oranges sour?
Does the presentation give any consideration to social intelligence? The basic idea is that 'we' are egocentric, ethnocentric and anthropocentically biased and by de-biasing we will see less dominance behaviour, become more in tune with 'others' and thereby do less harm in general.
Reflecting on my earlier post about being constantly plugged in and having read your subsequent long post a few things come to mind.
Just throwing out some unsubstantiated thoughts here, but it might be that being plugged in fosters a different type of intellect one that is able to sort through information and piece it together in a coherent way.
I also wonder if common sense has more to do with knowledge and insight about day to day events as opposed to book learning, like a grounded farmer vs an absent minded professor.
I don't think being smarter necessarily equates with making sound, healthy decisions. Smart people can be ruled by emotions and habits just as much as anyone else IMO.
It could be because I'm just part of an aging demographic/ or living where an empire is on the decline/ or noting how many folks have the attention span of a gnat but common sense today seems to be something of note rather than something common.
Some good points raised: Just to clarify, when I say 'intelligent', I'm referring to the capacity to make logical decision based in whatever small degree of insight we may have into the true nature of reality, pratitya samutpada and karma-vipaka. My grandparents and their friends of the war generation (2nd WW) seemed to be really grounded so yes @person, thats exactly what I mean. I'm not referring to academia, and one's ability to follow the path of the Dharma is in no way exclusive, as we all know.
Anyone who has read my article on the matter we see that it raises and attempts to discuss two questions:
1) Why does contemporary popular culture promote such ostensibly vacuous stars (think Jersey Shore-type shows, Big Brother etc) and overtly sexualised pop stars which seems to in turn sexualise young music fans, creating future suffering for artist and CD purchaser.
2) Why, when average IQ's appear to be rising, do we as a culture in the West (and I can only speak from my experiences living in Europe and the US) appear to be creating so much clearly avoidable future suffering?
I'm genuinely grateful for this opportunity to clarify my thoughts, it means a lot to me. I know it's a difficult issue, but my questions are valid I think. As I said, I fear that we are in danger of creating so much unnecessary future suffering for ourselves.
HERE is the big question then, boys and girls... Whether we are practicing the Dharma or whether we are a 45 year old city marketing executive on $250,000 a year... Whether we are a 23 year old who lives beyond their means to stay well kept in booze, drugs, hair extensions etc, or a muddle-headed academic (love the image by the way)... Or an overweight person wondering why they cant climb stairs any more, or a smoker surprised to be suffering from emphysema...
Why the discrepancy between our intellectual, rational understanding of the world (three lakshanas, conditioned co-production, karma-vipaka etc) and our actions? Why the delusion? Surely if we are getting smarter, as a species, we should be able to take more responsibility.... Right..?
I suppose the answer could simply be that like @how, I can see changes that others cant. Or perhaps it is I that is changing, and simply becoming more aware as to exactly how asleep we have all been for so long? Perhaps its just the cliche of every generation looking down their noses at the preceding one... My grandparents couldn't fathom my father's hippy generation, and his generation couldn't understand mine ( the 80's "yuppies' and 'Gen X', I believe we were known as, hands up folks who counts themselves amongst them, lol)... Now people my age can't why popular culture today rewards perceived banality and mediocrity... As the Path of self Transcendence is grounded in our perceptions... I wish to compare mine to others to help hold a foil to my own false views.
I am NOT an Enlightened being. I am not even a particularly smart person. I am deeply flawed, 'an ignorant stupid wretch' as Santideva would say, or words to that effect. I have learning difficulties, numeracy and spelling issues and a history of alcohol and drug abuse. But I have always wanted to live with my eyes wide open, clearing away my own self-made unskillful cataracts, so I can better respond to the cries of the world, and be of better service to others. I just want to be a better person, and do less harm in the world... I am not here to judge, but it can seem sometimes, as I said, that people in general are less willing to think for themselves and act wisely... Professionally though, I have a lot of experience dealing with the global population, all ages, races, backgrouds etc in matters of awareness and acting wisely (good point @vinlyn). Speak to people from every continent daily and over that last 10 years I (think) I am spotting changes in people... Not gullible per se, but less aware, less attention, more greedy and grasping... I fear the consumerist/materialist culture is based upon exacerbating greed, hatred and ignorance... I wonder if anyone else things this way, that is all...
Sorry for my long post, but you ask me to be clear. I just wish I could be more concise... hence my asking your opinions...
Love and Metta to all x
P.s to clarify, I am NOT saying that 45 year old marketing executives earning $250,000 and sincere practitioners of the Dharma are mutually exclusive, before and pedants try and find another nit to pick.. Honestly... Does anyone else sometimes feel that a few people here on these forums are more interested in scoring points and asserting their egos than helping each other? as @lobster would say "hahaha - digital samsara... so it goes.. open your eyes silly boy... ignorance does not vanish just because we use a Buddhist forum... All is Dukkha! Lalala..." floats away, does a happy little dance and earns another 2million awesome badges! Hehe! I mean it lobster, your posts and your attitude always makes me feel lighter inside.. I value our friendship, you too @how and @jeffrey too, you guys have been so kind to me, a veritable 'nube'... I have 'beginners keyboard' ;-) xx
True. Sharks and crocodiles predate the dinosaurs - even their forms are more or less still the same, meaning they didn't really have to try too hard adapting to their environment. So despite their apparent success (insofar as survival is concerned) there is no discernible improvement in intelligence.
I never placed too much stock in common sense. I think it would improve the world greatly if common sense became less common.
By way of example: It was less than 100 years ago that it was common sense that my people were not human. Everyone knew that men were more capable than women. It was only common sense that homosexuality was a disease. etc.,etc.
@yagr
This might just be my perception but.......
I usually think that common sense refers to a wider view that contrasts to a narrower specialized view. People and societies, now and in the past, that have narrow views do not define what common sense is to me.
I usually see it in situations that are first made unnecessarily complex through a narrowness of thought which are then solved when a widening of thought unravels that un necessary complexity to reveal a simple solution.
@how - nods I don't disagree. After reading your post I realized that I wasn't completely certain of the definition of 'common sense' and so I looked it up. It wasn't much help. Too, there is always the possibility of a chasm between the dictionary definition of a word or phrase and colloquial usage which is the meaning behind the person's words who are using it...
Anyway, the dictionary definition for anyone interested, since I mentioned it, was: "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts." Which doesn't clear it up for me at all - how are we defining 'simple'?
My point is only that I understand how you are using the phrase and I don't disagree... however, and on the other hand, I have heard the phrase 'common sense' used to describe each of the beliefs present in the examples I used. Perhaps others are using it differently or incorrectly - but I do like yours better.
That may be the technical def of "common sense", but it is not the way it is usually used.
False. Those are some shoddy geneticists if they think that traits disappear without use, or enlarge with more use. That is Lemarckism. A healthy infant born today and a healthy infant born 6,000 years ago have approximately the same mental capacity. Traits are either more or less likely to pass on depending on their desirability to other mates (sexual selection) or their impact on the likelihood of survival and reproduction.
I found something that may be relevant here. The title is 'development and epigenetics'. One central point raised in the talk is of the importance of the first few years in the life of a human being. The idea that we become more stress reactive without proper interaction. The idea that specific genes can be turned on or off very early in life. We are informed that the development of empathy and compassion depends upon bonding, interaction and play.
FYI- Dr Flynn gets a brief mention just over 30 minutes in. Raised IQ scores also mentioned in relation to the ability to answer hypothetical questions and having a detached imagination (not the same thing as a communal imagination). Again the central theme of the talk is about development. The guest speaker outlines a theory of moral development, where strong care and support in early life leads to a more compassionate morality as opposed to a more stress reactive (primitive) condition. For certain member of our species this is kept in check by the 'paleo mammilian brain' which is a result of correct nurturing behaviours.
Thank you so much @ownerof1000oddsocks! I look forward to seeing this soon! Really kind of you :-)
Genes for intelligence mutate from lack of use? I'm sorry, but that may be the single dumbest statement I've read in a very long time. Genes are not muscles. Muscles atrophy from lack of use, genes do not. That statement shows a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts of biology...
HI @Mountains!!! Howya doing, buddy??
@Mountains - take it up with Stamford University my friend, it was their study, their funding, their published results. There is no need to be rude, and I can't comment because although I studied biology up to A-level, I am a police consultant, not a geneticist, unlike the employees and professors at Stamford.
Seriously man, that hurts, and my post was actually questioning why people fail to pay attention or act in a way which is constructive to their own happiness. If you have something constructive to say on the actual question please do so: do you feel that modern society and culture is affecting our capacity to reason and employ logic? Do you feel that popular culture discourages people to think for themselves? Or do we just react...
The word modern is a relative term. 1955 was modern for those living in that era, but for you it was a primitive time. So each era thinks its problems are unique and that 'modern' society is affecting us in this or that way.
I think we should start differentiating "common sense" from "good sense".
What's common is often ignorance.
@AldrisTorvalds - you would not believe how much I regret the use of the term common sense - everyone go so caught up in the semantics of what 'common' and 'sense' mean (which is understandable, from a certain perspective) that the thread wandered way off what I was hoping it would address. I should have used the term "clear, rational logic" but the verbal irony of 'common sense' is too delicious to resist ;-) yes, by modern, to rectify the term (as Confucius recommended) I mean the contemporary, current, most recent, chronologically now version of reality and society :-) ... What were we talking about again? Lol! Sorry, just woken up hehe. It's a good point you make. Many historians and archeologist have this bug-bear - I have heard people describe modern society as having started 400 years ago, as compared with feudalist society in here in Britain 1000 years ago :-)
My teacher was a Pratyekabuddha, so superficially could not be considered a teacher. He was not particularly smart in appearance or IQ. Not required.
Everything that we learn from has Buddha Nature. Some learn without labels. Some of us need the refuge. Be honest.
I like the symbols, reminders, Buddhist company.
. . . oh and don't say 'ouch it smarts' . . . say 'ouch, it is dukkha arising'. That is the smart thing if possible . . .
:wave:
Maybe, it is the Internet. Everything is getting rather convenient; so much so that we don't have to think. It is just like we can go to Heaven just by believing.
It's no joke....
Despite all this doomsday prophecy, technology will always be our savior.
No.
Technology will ultimately be our demise.
While it advances, it makes more and more people jobless, redundant and out of work.
Technology is like a knife, held by the blade, rather than by the handle.
What's your solution? Go back to stone age?
>
No.... But it should be illegal to replace a manual worker with a mechanised system if it can be shown that a human can do the job just as well, if not as fast (what's the hurry?)
Like what? If most jobs are being given over to technology, what would you suggest?
>
Not really; it will do his thinking for him, so while his dexterity will improve, his font of knowlege will stagnate and become redundant.
Alike the teacher told her pupils in a maths class - "Hey, kids, don't use your calculators, use your brains! You won't always have a calculator on you when you need one!"
Well, mobile phones put that little theory to an ironic end, didn't they?
>
The cases where an employee can 'improve himself' , is highly disproportionate to the cases where the very mechanisation implemented actually cuts jobs, makes people redundant and creates a surge and increase in unemployment.
And you will be part of the generation of people for whom work is unavailable - thanks to the technology you so vociferously defend and applaud.
One of the car companies (Toyota?) Is going away from robots back to humans. What I read said they suspected problems with their cars have been caused by not having humans involved in the process. Machines can assemble. They cannot discern if there is a mistake in design, and so on.
Technology has it's uses. It saves lives as well as costing jobs. Some jobs might disappear, but then new ones open up. There was just a show on we watched about nano technology having the ability to go through our body and clean up damaged cells before they turn cancerous. Who wouldn't be on top of that technology? An artificial pancreas will one day make my son's diabetes much more manageable and leave him less likely to go blind, have heart problems, or have limbs amputated. I'm all about that technology, too. It is a tool. We, as a society, determine the direction those tools take.
There was also a study the other day that came out about how the more people read online rather than using books (ereaders were not part of the study) it actually affects their problem solving skills and comprehension. As usual, life is about balance.
We deal with common sense in our family a lot. My oldest son as Asperger's/high functioning autism. He can understand math and science concepts that most adults can't begin to grasp. But he doesn't understand societal constructs that we mostly assume are common sense. Like, when you go to a job interview, you should look nice as a sign of respect for yourself and the position. Or why manners at the dinner table matter as long as what he's doing don't impact other people. Ie "Why can't I lick my plate at the dinner table?" If there is not a hard, fast, logical reason for it, he will not do it. Some things, to get along in society, are required if you want to be accepted by your peer group. Sometimes, that's unfortunate but it is what it is. Other things can be let go of, and I'm forever grateful for those lessons in letting go of social constructs that just do not matter.
But really, as others said, common sense really just comes down to societal acceptance, and not everything along those lines are important.