Melvyn is being emotive and failing to present a balanced argument, which, in itself is dumbing down. IQ levels are both up and down compared to past results, depending on age groups. Improved nutrition and health is a likely cause for IQ levels to generally rise (Flynn Effect). But with brighter teenagers there has been an average decline of six points (that's a lot) compared to the same age group 28 years ago. Professor Flynn who is the leading researcher in this area attributes this to a decline in the intellectual content of contemporary culture. If "dumbing down" is referring to a British culture where we have schools that teach a narrow curriculum (to the test): massively overuses digital media so you can opt out of deep thinking completely and disengage with the world around you; inhabit a society where shopping is the national past time; and celebrity and talent shows are put on a pedestal, then I think I would have to say, yes, Britain is dumbing down. People don't say this just to be awkward and negative. It's there in plain sight. If you find it harder to have intelligent conversations with people today it's not that they are innately stupid, but rather there is a culture at work that discourages enquiry, interest and learning, even within the education sector. Melvyn (who I admire for his own contribution to public education) is failing to make a distinction between people being dumbed down and the dumbed down culture around them. Yes, there are great opportunities for learning, more than ever before, but set against this is a culture that creates passivity and dullness - and it's everywhere.
IQ levels are genetically conditioned and IQ tests are useless. They are all culturally biased so your educational and social background effects the score. also people can get better at doing them with practice
Expecting to be spoon fed your education is in itself "dumbing down." If you believe you weren't provided with a good enough education, there _is_ something you can do about it: take it upon yourself. There's never been so many free ways to educate yourself; going down to your local library would be one of those ways. The simple fact is there are just too many distractions in today's world, distractions that previous generations didn't have.
Forgive me, to beg to differ . . ., we've indeed been dumbed down, from Australia through France and Britain, to Canada and America. A cult that denies Platonic objects, of good and truth, in favor of a social constructivist idea of truth and goodness, is necessarily dumbed down, which will only lead us to ruin and absurdity, pain and enslavement, and a loss of civilization. In short, the cult we face is as rational as the public political culture of National Socialism, and the Soviet Union, if not Mao's and Pol Pot's Return to Year Zero. Were that possible. I'm afraid the barbarians are within the gate, and we are not saved. Yet.
really? it isn't? Sorry I saw a programme not long ago on schoolkids getting their A level results. Loads of the kids got straight A's . not only that but loads of them had done 5 or 6 A levels. One girl, clearly not particularly bright ( also not especially stupid) started jumping up and down with joy to discover she had got 6 straight A's at A level. She was asked what she was going to do now and replied that she was going to celebrate by binge drinking with her friends!! Now this was impossible when I was in the six form. People did on average 3 A levels. Some super clever swot might try and do 4 and there was a thing called a special paper ( don't know if they still have them) which was like an extra hard A level if you were very good at the subject. but as I say people mainly did 3 and if you got 3 A's your friends would call you a genius because that was *very* difficult. something like an A and 2 B's , for example, would have been considered very good. That kind of result would get you into most universities as would 3 B's ( all depended on the course and the university obviously) . People got those results and did that number of exams because it was difficult. No one, *no one* (except some raving genius) could have possibly done 6 A levels and certainly not got 6 A's in them. So of course , if you can do that now ( and you can) it's because those exams and that level have been *hugely* dumbed down.
@@WinstonNewYork I'm sorry are you dribbling at me?? if so you need to read my comment again. if you aren't then pray carry on with your ludicrous, pompous commentary (good sir)
@@Philrc No I wasn't. Forgive me, but I haven't read your comment. I was responding to Bragg. I borrowed your thread because I've been banned, and can only get a word out by relying on souls like you. . . . That said, can you not tell we are on the same page, if I'm not terribly mistaken?. . . . I would suggest you be a little bit thicker skinned if you are going to play this game. A good day to you.
I admire Lord Bragg greatly, but he's entirely wrong here - also atypically fails to make a cogent or plausible case, doubtless because he's committed ideologically to that opinion .
Oh My Lord. Has this guy been to the Tate Modern lately? It's the art equivalent of a Classics Chill Out CD. And libraries are community centres. People read trash.
