Our IQs have never been higher – but it hasn’t made us smart(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Our IQs have never been higher – but it hasn’t made us smart
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160929-our-iqs-have-never-been-higher-but-it-hasnt-made-us-smart
109 comments
> why should I read?
Because reading is not just a utilitarian activity. Reading widely—things that may not be immediately useful, things that may be against your belief, things that may just turn out to be completely wrong—is an important step towards forming a critical appreciation of anything you may encounter.
Personally, I've long come to realize that much of my attitude towards everything from work to politics has been shaped by reading materials that often covered wholly unrelated topics. More importantly (and much to my chagrin), it seems that many crucial lessons came from works that I outright hated and was forced to drudge through against my will.
I don't mean to discount your conclusion: Almost always, almost everybody doesn't know what they're talking about. But almost always, almost everybody is a little right, and bits and pieces you pick up from the most unusual places will inform your solution to a problem many years down the road, or at least remind you that every story has more than one side.
Because reading is not just a utilitarian activity. Reading widely—things that may not be immediately useful, things that may be against your belief, things that may just turn out to be completely wrong—is an important step towards forming a critical appreciation of anything you may encounter.
Personally, I've long come to realize that much of my attitude towards everything from work to politics has been shaped by reading materials that often covered wholly unrelated topics. More importantly (and much to my chagrin), it seems that many crucial lessons came from works that I outright hated and was forced to drudge through against my will.
I don't mean to discount your conclusion: Almost always, almost everybody doesn't know what they're talking about. But almost always, almost everybody is a little right, and bits and pieces you pick up from the most unusual places will inform your solution to a problem many years down the road, or at least remind you that every story has more than one side.
To reinforce:
You'll usually not be led too far astray if you read works (fiction, poetry, philosophy, non-technical nonfiction) that are widely agreed to belong to some kind of Canon. Odds are if you think one of those books is crap, you're just not ready for it.
(There are definitely truly great books that don't often make those lists, though.)
Reading (non-technical writing) well is a skill (just like reading technical works is) and it may take time to develop it. Pretty much no-one starts off their reading career getting more than a fraction out of most books they read than they might when they've had some more practice—practice, not just thoughtless experience.
If you want a utilitarian reason to read: reading improves one's writing.
One widely-agreed-upon effect of reading good writing is expanding one's sense of empathy. A good book will often give it a workout. Books can also reduce feelings of isolation and loneliness by exposing us to others' intimate thoughts about life, some of which will match up with things the reader may have thought were unique to them—and here's proof that those thoughts and feelings aren't just not unique, they're probably not even rare!
Books can be a mirror to one's self. A gut-punch just when we need it. Inspiration when we're down. Something human to hold on to when nothing else is there.
But they don't give you all this for free.
You'll usually not be led too far astray if you read works (fiction, poetry, philosophy, non-technical nonfiction) that are widely agreed to belong to some kind of Canon. Odds are if you think one of those books is crap, you're just not ready for it.
(There are definitely truly great books that don't often make those lists, though.)
Reading (non-technical writing) well is a skill (just like reading technical works is) and it may take time to develop it. Pretty much no-one starts off their reading career getting more than a fraction out of most books they read than they might when they've had some more practice—practice, not just thoughtless experience.
If you want a utilitarian reason to read: reading improves one's writing.
One widely-agreed-upon effect of reading good writing is expanding one's sense of empathy. A good book will often give it a workout. Books can also reduce feelings of isolation and loneliness by exposing us to others' intimate thoughts about life, some of which will match up with things the reader may have thought were unique to them—and here's proof that those thoughts and feelings aren't just not unique, they're probably not even rare!
Books can be a mirror to one's self. A gut-punch just when we need it. Inspiration when we're down. Something human to hold on to when nothing else is there.
But they don't give you all this for free.
> Books can also reduce feelings of isolation and loneliness by exposing us to others' intimate thoughts about life, some of which will match up with things the reader may have thought were unique to them—and here's proof that those thoughts and feelings aren't just not unique, they're probably not even rare!
I had this happen reading this book: http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Waterways
The main character described the experience of watching all his friends vanish as they started dating, feeling abandoned, wondering if something was wrong with him. It felt like a sick joke everyone was playing on me. I mentioned experiencing the same on Twitter (referencing the book), and the floodgates opened.
Apparently that's a very normal experience for gay people.
I had this happen reading this book: http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Waterways
The main character described the experience of watching all his friends vanish as they started dating, feeling abandoned, wondering if something was wrong with him. It felt like a sick joke everyone was playing on me. I mentioned experiencing the same on Twitter (referencing the book), and the floodgates opened.
Apparently that's a very normal experience for gay people.
> Apparently that's a very normal experience for gay people.
Not to invalidate this but I was under the impression that this is normal for a large majority of people in general, not just gay people.
Not to invalidate this but I was under the impression that this is normal for a large majority of people in general, not just gay people.
A non-gay person probably interprets their isolation differently. It'd be "why can't I get laid like all my friends?," not "why don't I want to get laid like all my friends? Am I broken?" I had lots of offers, but I didn't want it from the people offering.
But that's my limited perspective as someone who's not hetero or bi. I could be wrong. I spent my first 29 years thinking everyone was making up the whole concept of attraction before I figured out what all those feelings I had for guys were.
But that's my limited perspective as someone who's not hetero or bi. I could be wrong. I spent my first 29 years thinking everyone was making up the whole concept of attraction before I figured out what all those feelings I had for guys were.
I readily admit it is probably different in the details but as said I was under the impression that the feeling of isolation and friends moving on etc was pretty normal across the board.
A person who rode a roller coaster and a person who survived a hungry lion experienced fear, but the details are what make the story. Being gay in the rural south is like facing a hungry lion.
From what I've read and heard, heterosexuality is like riding a roller coaster with a good safety record, and bisexuality is like riding the same roller coaster, but the other passengers are lions.
From what I've read and heard, heterosexuality is like riding a roller coaster with a good safety record, and bisexuality is like riding the same roller coaster, but the other passengers are lions.
>Personally, I've long come to realize [...]
I specifically quoted that part because I think it actually shows what rayiner is talking about and it seems like you missed his point.
What's happening is that you sense a benefit from reading and because it feels true, it seems perfectly logical to project that benefit out to everyone else who is not you. But it's a post-hoc explanation instead of scientific research.
It's the same as someone noting that Einstein played violin so therefore, we promote the idea of learning musical instruments to help with creative thinking. Play piano to help unlock the mysteries of universe or write that next novel!
Or an ex-soldier that was forced to make his bed every morning is advising that everyone should make their bed because "the feeling of accomplishing something small snowballs into productivity for the rest of the day". Well, that sounds plausible but it's also post-hoc reasoning instead of something scientifically proven.
A lot of writing about history, diets, self-improvement, hiring, etc is like those examples above. Take an idea that feels true to me and therefore, it must also apply to everyone else. Some computer people do the same thing... we find that our knowledge of loops and IF/THEN statements is helpful to us outside of programming domains so we think everyone should learn to code. However, if we apply scientific rigor to that advice, we must be willing concede that forcing a child to write loops in elementary school may have zero measurable changes to the adult fireman or ballet dancer. (I'm not saying we shouldn't try it but let's not be seduced by post-hoc reasoning.)
I specifically quoted that part because I think it actually shows what rayiner is talking about and it seems like you missed his point.
What's happening is that you sense a benefit from reading and because it feels true, it seems perfectly logical to project that benefit out to everyone else who is not you. But it's a post-hoc explanation instead of scientific research.
It's the same as someone noting that Einstein played violin so therefore, we promote the idea of learning musical instruments to help with creative thinking. Play piano to help unlock the mysteries of universe or write that next novel!
Or an ex-soldier that was forced to make his bed every morning is advising that everyone should make their bed because "the feeling of accomplishing something small snowballs into productivity for the rest of the day". Well, that sounds plausible but it's also post-hoc reasoning instead of something scientifically proven.
A lot of writing about history, diets, self-improvement, hiring, etc is like those examples above. Take an idea that feels true to me and therefore, it must also apply to everyone else. Some computer people do the same thing... we find that our knowledge of loops and IF/THEN statements is helpful to us outside of programming domains so we think everyone should learn to code. However, if we apply scientific rigor to that advice, we must be willing concede that forcing a child to write loops in elementary school may have zero measurable changes to the adult fireman or ballet dancer. (I'm not saying we shouldn't try it but let's not be seduced by post-hoc reasoning.)
People had long predicted that in a world full of competing ideas, many will just take the easy way out and declare that the truth is simply unknowable, and no one knows what they are talking about. Your comment is a perfect example of that.
Yes, the world is still a mystery in many ways and no one has cracked the code. But the ideas put forward by kooks like Trump, anti-vaxxers and creationists are still idiotic and vastly inferior to the general mainstream ideas advocated by serious scientists and researchers. Just because there's a possibility of being wrong, isn't a reason to succumb to defeatism or paralysis-by-analysis.
There is a wealth of knowledge out there that can help you better understand the world and live your life. Yes, finding and vetting this knowledge is hard work, but it sure beats watching The Jersey Shore.
Yes, the world is still a mystery in many ways and no one has cracked the code. But the ideas put forward by kooks like Trump, anti-vaxxers and creationists are still idiotic and vastly inferior to the general mainstream ideas advocated by serious scientists and researchers. Just because there's a possibility of being wrong, isn't a reason to succumb to defeatism or paralysis-by-analysis.
There is a wealth of knowledge out there that can help you better understand the world and live your life. Yes, finding and vetting this knowledge is hard work, but it sure beats watching The Jersey Shore.
I think you should read for the exact reason given in your last sentence: we are utilitarian and unromantic. Our lack of romanticism is a direct consequence of our lack of reading. Instead of spending our time reading great works of literature, we spend all our time reading data and analysis. I know that I spend enormous amounts of my day reading journal articles, blog entries, news reports, etc. I am very "informed" and entertained, but it seems to reduce my overall experience of the world. I don't feel as deeply about things, I don't daydream, I barely even dream at night. I agree with you that reading a book just for information is somewhat ridiculous. In this time period, I can find several articles by several authors that excerpt the information I need, provide bullet point analysis, and bring me up to speed much faster than a multi-chapter book would. However, I can't consume something like Wendell Berry or Jane Austen that way because for their work, the form connects directly with the content. So for that reason, I would say that you should read, but only read because it frees you from your utilitarianism. Otherwise, save yourself the trouble. Read books to feel human.
The author also talks about reading literature.
I feel that I'm cynical about facts like you are, but quality fiction is an amazing view into the world of the past or of different people. The thing about fiction is that it's not trying to convince you of something, its not true or false, its a story with some historical and cultural backdrops.
Read some Camus, Hess or Hemingway. Read literature that wasn't originally written in english like Season of Migration to the North, The yellow sofa, I am a Cat or something by Naguib Mahfouz.
Reading physical books is a great way to maintain your focus, you think differently when you are digging into a real book. It encourages you to think deeply and avoids the surface thinking that we are so used to with all our modern technology.
I'm totally with you on the absurdity of 'facts' these days, but good literature is something else all together.
I feel that I'm cynical about facts like you are, but quality fiction is an amazing view into the world of the past or of different people. The thing about fiction is that it's not trying to convince you of something, its not true or false, its a story with some historical and cultural backdrops.
Read some Camus, Hess or Hemingway. Read literature that wasn't originally written in english like Season of Migration to the North, The yellow sofa, I am a Cat or something by Naguib Mahfouz.
Reading physical books is a great way to maintain your focus, you think differently when you are digging into a real book. It encourages you to think deeply and avoids the surface thinking that we are so used to with all our modern technology.
I'm totally with you on the absurdity of 'facts' these days, but good literature is something else all together.
You are right that most theories are pretty wrong. It goes beyond soft sciences though; even physics has mostly been off on a crazy tangent for the last 40 years or so.
That being said, reading is still invaluable, you just have to be thoughtful about what (and how) you read. Don't pick up a book without something you want to learn that has real value ahead of time. If the book isn't leading you towards your goal, stop reading it and find another book.
Additionally, look for books that enlarge your picture of the world. Occasionally, pick up a book written by someone with a very different viewpoint from yourself and try to take the author's perspective. Find books that draw connections between disparate ideas.
That being said, reading is still invaluable, you just have to be thoughtful about what (and how) you read. Don't pick up a book without something you want to learn that has real value ahead of time. If the book isn't leading you towards your goal, stop reading it and find another book.
Additionally, look for books that enlarge your picture of the world. Occasionally, pick up a book written by someone with a very different viewpoint from yourself and try to take the author's perspective. Find books that draw connections between disparate ideas.
The problem is that since you use stuff you read from one source to help you evaluate stuff you read from another source, the more and the more disparate the sources the better. If you don't do that, than what you believe just tends to be what you want to believe, and what you want to believe tends to be the things that allow you to do what you want to do, and things that validate your past decisions (to fight guilt and regret.)
Millennials are growing up in an environment completely filled with a lot of paid for bullshit information, and can only find culture that isn't venal dishonest marketing controlled by Baby Boomers in the cracks between commercials. I get why they hate information. I'm from Gen X - I've had to walk for a half-hour to get to a payphone to call someone who may or may not be home (depending on if someone I ran into the day before told them that I would call, for which they remained home and near the phone.) Space was limitless back then. Millenials know they've been robbed, and that makes me happy with them and hopeful.
Millennials are growing up in an environment completely filled with a lot of paid for bullshit information, and can only find culture that isn't venal dishonest marketing controlled by Baby Boomers in the cracks between commercials. I get why they hate information. I'm from Gen X - I've had to walk for a half-hour to get to a payphone to call someone who may or may not be home (depending on if someone I ran into the day before told them that I would call, for which they remained home and near the phone.) Space was limitless back then. Millenials know they've been robbed, and that makes me happy with them and hopeful.
I think the question should be "what should I read?".
Sure most of what's written is bs. But I really like books as a medium , reading inspires a reflexive form of cognition. Even if you read the same content,online you're more likely to just alt-tab away and forget about it while reading will kinda force you to understand things slower, to digest information in a different way. I think good romances are like transformers, there's more than meets the eye.
Sure most of what's written is bs. But I really like books as a medium , reading inspires a reflexive form of cognition. Even if you read the same content,online you're more likely to just alt-tab away and forget about it while reading will kinda force you to understand things slower, to digest information in a different way. I think good romances are like transformers, there's more than meets the eye.
I think that writing books about why people don't read books quite possibly is a bit of a self-congratulatory exercise.
It's a bit like holding seminars on why people don't exercise at a gym, or about how bad it is that people don't learn to code at a developer convention, right?
“I have a second book out this year that says to young people ‘for god’s sake, you are educated, why don’t you read!’”
It's a bit like holding seminars on why people don't exercise at a gym, or about how bad it is that people don't learn to code at a developer convention, right?
“I have a second book out this year that says to young people ‘for god’s sake, you are educated, why don’t you read!’”
Knowing what you're talking about is not a binary proposition. People's internal models of reality have varying correspondences with actual reality; the fact that all of them are inaccurate does not preclude the idea that some are more accurate than others (and almost certainly in different areas).
> why should I read?
I find this an odd idea given that you're a lawyer. And an appellate lawyer at that. You have to have read to understand how to frame your cases, how to argue effectively by being knowledgeable about other relevant cases and law. Did you learn these things by osmosis?
I find this an odd idea given that you're a lawyer. And an appellate lawyer at that. You have to have read to understand how to frame your cases, how to argue effectively by being knowledgeable about other relevant cases and law. Did you learn these things by osmosis?
Imagine writing an article about how the Linux thread scheduler works. You have to "read" to do it, but you're reading source code, not big ideas in books. Practicing lawyers read a lot, but almost all of it is reading the "source code" of the law (cases, statutes, legislative records). And you'd never write a legal brief the way you'd write a history book--connecting a few facts with big sweeping ideas.
> as the web makes information more available, we realize nobody knows what they're talking about.
When I realized this, I stopped feeling guilty about pretending to be knowledgeable about topics I truly know nothing about. Outside the realm of the hard sciences, where objective data are sovereign, the experts are pretty much just better bullshitters than everyone else.
In a world where "might makes right" is still the deepest foundation stone of civilization, convincing the mighty to agree with you makes you right. While being technically correct is still the best kind of correct, being believable gets you paid more.
What really chaps my backside now is reading my kids' textbooks.
When I realized this, I stopped feeling guilty about pretending to be knowledgeable about topics I truly know nothing about. Outside the realm of the hard sciences, where objective data are sovereign, the experts are pretty much just better bullshitters than everyone else.
In a world where "might makes right" is still the deepest foundation stone of civilization, convincing the mighty to agree with you makes you right. While being technically correct is still the best kind of correct, being believable gets you paid more.
What really chaps my backside now is reading my kids' textbooks.
The thing is, if you stop for a moment, spend a considerable amount of time of studying hard sciences, and apply that worldview to almost any "hard science" .. most of the hard sciences haven't been or are not that hard. Still, step by step (and misstep) and luck we have progressed forward.
The "objective data" isn't some inherent peculiarity of hard sciences. It's a feature of long tradition of aspirations towards intellectual honesty, distilled in the usage of mathematical methodology.
You can get a good data softer sciences, but this demands lots of work and paying attention to proper statistical methodology.
It gets more difficult less you can apply mathematics, but there's nothing in particular that makes bullshitting acceptable. Even in non-mathematical fields such as history and archeology, there's still possibility of hard evidence; it just requires lot of humility what you reasonably can infer from it, and sometimes you have to accept that there's not enough data for making conclusions.
The possibility of knowledge requires that everybody does their best to pay the necessary respect to the gods of science that enable its existence. Science is a social project that can't function unless participants believe in it and demand intellectual rigour of each other, work to reduce bullshitting. Giving up and joining the bullshitters does not make you more knowledgeable; it just amounts to treason.
The "objective data" isn't some inherent peculiarity of hard sciences. It's a feature of long tradition of aspirations towards intellectual honesty, distilled in the usage of mathematical methodology.
You can get a good data softer sciences, but this demands lots of work and paying attention to proper statistical methodology.
It gets more difficult less you can apply mathematics, but there's nothing in particular that makes bullshitting acceptable. Even in non-mathematical fields such as history and archeology, there's still possibility of hard evidence; it just requires lot of humility what you reasonably can infer from it, and sometimes you have to accept that there's not enough data for making conclusions.
The possibility of knowledge requires that everybody does their best to pay the necessary respect to the gods of science that enable its existence. Science is a social project that can't function unless participants believe in it and demand intellectual rigour of each other, work to reduce bullshitting. Giving up and joining the bullshitters does not make you more knowledgeable; it just amounts to treason.
But bullshitters get paid more. As long as charisma moves more dollar bills than actual, tangible, measurable results, there is a significant financial incentive to massage pieces of the truth into a more attractive form.
If you want the BS to go away, you have to put an end to the entire world consistently rewarding it. Good luck accomplishing that with nothing more than reasoned, logical arguments.
If you want the BS to go away, you have to put an end to the entire world consistently rewarding it. Good luck accomplishing that with nothing more than reasoned, logical arguments.
Are millennials so desperate for whats-old-is-new content that they're now reaching back to the 19th century for nihilism?
This is because you are being closed minded. Guess what, most books are crap but there are great ones out there. Just like any other media you have to go out and look for them and the ones being fed to you are crap. They represent many thousands of years of collected intelligence and wisdom many written by the intellect that created the ideas underlying today's society. Check out Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin or Relativity by Albert Einstein.
There is value in understanding the history of a thing if the goal is to maintain. A lot of people get paid a lot of money to maintain a thing. At some point the thing becomes obsolete or less valuable and somebody gets paid to patch the thing.
I think we have seen so much more value created by people thinking perpendicular to the norm. Do you need to know the history of the taxi industry to create Uber? Do you need to know the history of the grocery industry to create Blue Apron? I would argue that knowledge of the history can bog you down and influence your approach to solving problems.
Do you need to know the history of monarchies to understand that the person who was born into power is not representing your needs? Knowing the history doesn't help you decide that being governed by somebody who you and your peers are able to elect would more effectively represent your needs.
I would argue that ideas aren't born out of a historical perspective, but that they're born out of current need and that the historical perspective only serves to tell you why you can't do something.
I think we have seen so much more value created by people thinking perpendicular to the norm. Do you need to know the history of the taxi industry to create Uber? Do you need to know the history of the grocery industry to create Blue Apron? I would argue that knowledge of the history can bog you down and influence your approach to solving problems.
Do you need to know the history of monarchies to understand that the person who was born into power is not representing your needs? Knowing the history doesn't help you decide that being governed by somebody who you and your peers are able to elect would more effectively represent your needs.
I would argue that ideas aren't born out of a historical perspective, but that they're born out of current need and that the historical perspective only serves to tell you why you can't do something.
A good book is a great form of escapism, and mostly cheaper and less self-destructive than getting drunk or high.
Sounds like you might appreciate reading Journey to the End of the Night by Louis-Ferdinand Céline.
To be honest I'm pretty sure that young people do, on average, read more than their forebears. They might not read much classic literature, but we are involved more text-based communication than at any other point in history by a very wide margin.
Read poetry: you will find wisdom, not science. Truth, not facts. Beauty, not data.
Go to museums.
Go to museums.
Read poetry: you will find wisdom, not science. Truth, not facts. Beauty, not data.
People writing nice-sounding words does not in fact necessarily constitutes wisdom.
People writing nice-sounding words does not in fact necessarily constitutes wisdom.
Poetry is a lot less about form than most people think.
It's actually the opposite if you think about it, poetry is to write freely.
If you can't analyze your wisdom then it's not worth discussing, facts and data are objective - I don't perceive the the things you mentioned as smart but pretentious.
> facts and data are objective
Sure -- it's just a pity neither you or me or anyone will ever come in contact with them. Everything we think/write/read is based on assumptions/axioms. You don't even have to "dig" to realize that, you just have to scratch the surface.
Sure -- it's just a pity neither you or me or anyone will ever come in contact with them. Everything we think/write/read is based on assumptions/axioms. You don't even have to "dig" to realize that, you just have to scratch the surface.
Analyzing means breaking into parts. Not everything can be broken into parts.
You hit the nail on the head with that last sentence.
> we realize nobody knows what they're talking about.
And here is precisely why you should read, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Sure, nobody's omniscient, nobody can have perfect knowledge of even one subject. But not everyone is equal - there are some people who know more than others. Typically, those who know more are those who read more, and it's not just by reading better material (here's where paying for content is really a good idea), but by reading all sorts of stuff, including the bad and just plain wrong, and being able to recognize it for what it is.
And yes, I know the inevitable comeback will be "but how do I know the bad from the good?" and the answer is again reading, but also being humble and taking advice from those more knowledgeable than you, and reading what they recommend. Hell, one of the best recommendations I ever had was to read Rippetoe's "Starting Strength" and that came from HN. I've also found that if I get a lot out of a book, the best thing to do is follow up on it's sources. Bibliographies are highly under rated.
And then there's the other standard reply that gets trotted out: "I don't have enough time". Really? How much time do you spend watching TV (including streaming)? How much time do you spend playing video games? How much time do you spend reading "free" content that's only written to sell your eyeballs instead of reading something you paid for, written by a knowledgeable author?
Not all content is created equal.
And here is precisely why you should read, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Sure, nobody's omniscient, nobody can have perfect knowledge of even one subject. But not everyone is equal - there are some people who know more than others. Typically, those who know more are those who read more, and it's not just by reading better material (here's where paying for content is really a good idea), but by reading all sorts of stuff, including the bad and just plain wrong, and being able to recognize it for what it is.
And yes, I know the inevitable comeback will be "but how do I know the bad from the good?" and the answer is again reading, but also being humble and taking advice from those more knowledgeable than you, and reading what they recommend. Hell, one of the best recommendations I ever had was to read Rippetoe's "Starting Strength" and that came from HN. I've also found that if I get a lot out of a book, the best thing to do is follow up on it's sources. Bibliographies are highly under rated.
And then there's the other standard reply that gets trotted out: "I don't have enough time". Really? How much time do you spend watching TV (including streaming)? How much time do you spend playing video games? How much time do you spend reading "free" content that's only written to sell your eyeballs instead of reading something you paid for, written by a knowledgeable author?
Not all content is created equal.
> because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Please make your points without stooping to personal attack. Your comment would be much better without the first sentence, which is just a slap.
Please make your points without stooping to personal attack. Your comment would be much better without the first sentence, which is just a slap.
> Not all content is created equal.
Sometimes I wish HN had a highlight function like Medium.
Sometimes I wish HN had a highlight function like Medium.
Well, "smart" can mean above-average problem-solving abilities, and/or learning new cognitive skills at rate that's faster than the average population.
Another definition of "smart" is the accumulation of knowledge and facts.
The 2nd definition is what the BBC headline and James Flynn is talking about. He's concerned we're not "smarter" in the sense of not reading more books, and not knowing about history like The 30 Years War, etc. In contrast, when another writer like Joel Spolsky talks about "Smart and Gets Things Done"[1], he's emphasizing the 1st definition (aptitude).
So yes, IQ and knowledge are decoupled from each other and can increase at different rates. E.g. there are a lot of high-IQ physicists out there that can solve crazy equations but are not interested in reading a bunch of history books. In JF's framework, this makes those scientists "dumber".
[1]http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing...
Another definition of "smart" is the accumulation of knowledge and facts.
The 2nd definition is what the BBC headline and James Flynn is talking about. He's concerned we're not "smarter" in the sense of not reading more books, and not knowing about history like The 30 Years War, etc. In contrast, when another writer like Joel Spolsky talks about "Smart and Gets Things Done"[1], he's emphasizing the 1st definition (aptitude).
So yes, IQ and knowledge are decoupled from each other and can increase at different rates. E.g. there are a lot of high-IQ physicists out there that can solve crazy equations but are not interested in reading a bunch of history books. In JF's framework, this makes those scientists "dumber".
[1]http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing...
I agree. "Smart" and "Knowledgable" are often used interchangeably, when really they are sets that just so happen to overlap in some places.
Ironically, the more "smart" you are, the less broadly "knowledgable" you are. PHD's are very "smart" but have narrow "knowledge". Whereas a mountainman, or someone living on their own of the land might have to have "knowledge" about many small things to survive, but might not be the brightest tool in the shed.
Ironically, the more "smart" you are, the less broadly "knowledgable" you are. PHD's are very "smart" but have narrow "knowledge". Whereas a mountainman, or someone living on their own of the land might have to have "knowledge" about many small things to survive, but might not be the brightest tool in the shed.
> PHD's are very "smart" but have narrow "knowledge"
I'd be careful with both of those generalizations.
PhD's aren't necessarily smarter than anyone else. On average, PhD's -- especially at top institutions -- probably typically have above average IQs. But I'd wager a guess that the same is true for non-PhD's working for top employers (or starting successful companies).
Similarly, while it's true that PhD's have very deep knowledge about a very narrow topic, that doesn't preclude them from also having a lot of knowledge about many other topics. Especially since intellectual curiosity probably correlates better with PhD than raw intelligence.
I'd be careful with both of those generalizations.
PhD's aren't necessarily smarter than anyone else. On average, PhD's -- especially at top institutions -- probably typically have above average IQs. But I'd wager a guess that the same is true for non-PhD's working for top employers (or starting successful companies).
Similarly, while it's true that PhD's have very deep knowledge about a very narrow topic, that doesn't preclude them from also having a lot of knowledge about many other topics. Especially since intellectual curiosity probably correlates better with PhD than raw intelligence.
> I'd be careful with both of those generalizations.
True, I was generalizing. I was using a subject I felt most people could understand in order to relay my point.
>> "Smart" and "Knowledgable" are often used interchangeably, when really they are sets that just so happen to overlap in some places.
True, I was generalizing. I was using a subject I felt most people could understand in order to relay my point.
>> "Smart" and "Knowledgable" are often used interchangeably, when really they are sets that just so happen to overlap in some places.
History like philosophy has a rather inflated importance in peoples minds. Knowing say the names of Roman rulers is no more important than know the starting lineups for a 1980's sports team.
You're right, but history is not about knowing the names of the people. US Public Schools do us all a disservice by pretending that History is about memorizing names and dates. It's about remembering what they did and why.
Hadrian is interesting not because he's Hadrian and he was once a Roman emperor. Hadrian is interesting because he commanded to be built an enormous military fortification. The history of that fortification includes his motivations and that of his generals. There may even be a relationship to the economic circumstances of the time, and there were likely some interesting political ramifications. That's what's interesting. Hadrian could just as well have been named Buttface and there would still be something to study there.
Hadrian is interesting not because he's Hadrian and he was once a Roman emperor. Hadrian is interesting because he commanded to be built an enormous military fortification. The history of that fortification includes his motivations and that of his generals. There may even be a relationship to the economic circumstances of the time, and there were likely some interesting political ramifications. That's what's interesting. Hadrian could just as well have been named Buttface and there would still be something to study there.
Don't get me wrong, history is interesting, but so is chess. That does not make them important. Part of the trap is history is a great way for people with power to justify why they have power.
However, in a wider context the history of disease, the history of technology, and the history of systems of thought do more to shape our world than the history of people. Yet, sanitation for example is generally ignored relative to the story's of people.
However, in a wider context the history of disease, the history of technology, and the history of systems of thought do more to shape our world than the history of people. Yet, sanitation for example is generally ignored relative to the story's of people.
I'm a big fan of history, but - to extend the above analogy - reading various historians' speculation about Hadrian's motivations and those of his generals isn't particularly likely to give you any more knowledge applicable to every day life than reading speculation about the transfer strategies and tactical approaches of various modern football teams. You can use plenty of reasoning skills debating sport and deciding whether to believe press reports and fans' claims too!
Despite the old cliche, you're not particularly likely to be condemned to repeat mistakes made by Hadrian from not learning that aspect of ancient history, on account of not being a Roman emperor.
Despite the old cliche, you're not particularly likely to be condemned to repeat mistakes made by Hadrian from not learning that aspect of ancient history, on account of not being a Roman emperor.
Just like mathematics isn't just the rote drilling of arithmetic and algebra many associate it with, history isn't the rote memorization of facts and trivia.
A subject taught by ingrates is going to be a subject for ingrates.
Most teachers are ingrates.
I only learned to start to love mathematics and history after reading the works of non-ingrates and learning to play with the concepts.
We are conditioned to despise subjects which lend themselves to play and fancy of thought by teaching them so awfully. I'm actually mad at all the money spent on the teachers and schools who taught me. I could've learned more from a smart guy in 6 months than 12 years of public schooling.
But in defense, a lot of learning is remembering symbols (aka facts and shit) and recognizing them. But it's like learning "1, 2, 3, 4, 5...". You don't get the magic of operators and functions.
Most teachers are ingrates.
I only learned to start to love mathematics and history after reading the works of non-ingrates and learning to play with the concepts.
We are conditioned to despise subjects which lend themselves to play and fancy of thought by teaching them so awfully. I'm actually mad at all the money spent on the teachers and schools who taught me. I could've learned more from a smart guy in 6 months than 12 years of public schooling.
But in defense, a lot of learning is remembering symbols (aka facts and shit) and recognizing them. But it's like learning "1, 2, 3, 4, 5...". You don't get the magic of operators and functions.
At the core of this article, to my mind (and ignoring Flynn's typical baby-boomer lament that kids today don't know what I know), is the false dichotomy of "nature vs nurture." The article claims that IQ is 80% predicted by genes by adulthood. It's the same point stressed by Charles Murray in "The Bell Curve," which suggested that government social programs were a waste because African Americans lacked the genes for higher IQ and were therefore doomed to poverty [1].
But then, as the article notes, if IQ is so reliant on genes, then why the Flynn Effect? Why are IQs collectively rising year-over-year in our society [2]? If it is the result of our modern society, where technology perpetually challenges us to think abstractly every waking minute of our lives, then wouldn't the Flynn Effect eventually level off at some point in the future? If it really is 80% genes (and I'm still waiting for my 23andMe results to identify the specific SNPs responsible for my Mensa membership) then how far can that 20% environmental influence take us?
These are the most interesting questions to me. Our brains exhibit a high-degree of plasticity. Making students and teachers aware of neuroplasticity can have significant positive outcomes on their education [3][4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
[3] http://www.edutopia.org/blog/neuroscience-higher-ed-judy-wil...
[4] http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec0...
*edited for formatting.
But then, as the article notes, if IQ is so reliant on genes, then why the Flynn Effect? Why are IQs collectively rising year-over-year in our society [2]? If it is the result of our modern society, where technology perpetually challenges us to think abstractly every waking minute of our lives, then wouldn't the Flynn Effect eventually level off at some point in the future? If it really is 80% genes (and I'm still waiting for my 23andMe results to identify the specific SNPs responsible for my Mensa membership) then how far can that 20% environmental influence take us?
These are the most interesting questions to me. Our brains exhibit a high-degree of plasticity. Making students and teachers aware of neuroplasticity can have significant positive outcomes on their education [3][4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
[3] http://www.edutopia.org/blog/neuroscience-higher-ed-judy-wil...
[4] http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec0...
*edited for formatting.
Maybe IQ rises because people are learning to take IQ tests. I read in some HN posting: in the 40's folks registered ~70 on IQ tests (old tests found in drawers at some University). The questions were 'trick questions' and the test-takers weren't familiar, so answered pragmatically and were marked wrong.
Example: "There are no Rhinos in Germany. Munich is in Germany. How many Rhinos are in Munich? A) 0 B) 1 C) 3 D)other"
Folks would answer B. We imagine they are thinking "Well Munich is a big city, and probably has a zoo. There would be at least one Rhino in the zoo." Are they wrong? As an "IQ test question" they're wrong. But as a real-world issue, they're on the right track.
Today people have encountered trick questions by the time they take IQ tests, so they do better. That might be all there is to it.
Today people have encountered trick questions by the time they take IQ tests, so they do better. That might be all there is to it.
For questions like that, it's less that it's a trick question (unless you're familiar with the Munich Zoo), than that you are only supposed to take the constraints of the problem as presented. The situation is presented as a hypothetical, it's not a trick, it's an abstraction that (many) people have trouble with. Like getting students to understand that a figure in a geometric sketch isn't precise, it's just representative, look at the numbers included to actually understand it.
If it's abstract, why does it use a real place in the question? Answering the question correctly is in fact predicated on a sophisticated assumption of how this particular type of question is constructed: using metaphors of real life to construct abstract scenarios to test arithmetic or logical predicates. You need to know that it's abstract, and that the construction of the abstract scenario is by metaphor with reality.
> Maybe IQ rises because people are learning to take IQ tests.
That's a pretty interesting thought. You could actually apply that to a lot of "trainable" personal metrics.
That's a pretty interesting thought. You could actually apply that to a lot of "trainable" personal metrics.
Interestingly, the article supports that hypothesis.
> But then, as the article notes, if IQ is so reliant on genes, then why the Flynn Effect? Why are IQs collectively rising year-over-year in our society [2]?
Compare the increase in e.g. height, which for some reason people seem much happier to admit is mostly genetic.
Compare the increase in e.g. height, which for some reason people seem much happier to admit is mostly genetic.
The increase in height observed over the past two centuries is mostly genetic? Would you mind providing a citation for that? Everything I've read attributes the recent increase in average height to environmental factors, such as improved nutrition and quality of life in the societies in which it is observed [1]. As with the increase in IQ, genes simply can't change that quickly to account for the change in height.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/human-height/
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/human-height/
A quick search found http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human-... - saying that height is 60-80% genetic (i.e. close to the 80% being claimed for IQ). My claim is not that the improvement is necessarily genetic - just that the improvement in height is comparable to the improvement in IQ. So there's no contradiction.
In my country, unlike the US, it's legal to use psychological tests for hiring purposes.
Still, as I grew my company, I've realized how inaccurate they can be. Some of the best performing testers couldn't demonstrate a long-term perspective or broad set of knowledge/opinions.
Whereas they were terrific at solving puzzles, they couldn't accept or recognize a puzzle itself.
Still, as I grew my company, I've realized how inaccurate they can be. Some of the best performing testers couldn't demonstrate a long-term perspective or broad set of knowledge/opinions.
Whereas they were terrific at solving puzzles, they couldn't accept or recognize a puzzle itself.
"the major intellectual thing that disturbs me is that young people like you are reading less history"
For me history is just fiction that by sheer accident actually happened (well kinda, because there's a lot of post-factum narrative in history that might be false as any other story). It's interesting that it happened but not that interesting to give it some value that trumps other factors that make fiction interesting.
For me history is just fiction that by sheer accident actually happened (well kinda, because there's a lot of post-factum narrative in history that might be false as any other story). It's interesting that it happened but not that interesting to give it some value that trumps other factors that make fiction interesting.
>For me history is just fiction that by sheer accident actually happened (well kinda, because there's a lot of post-factum narrative in history that might be false as any other story).
Nowadays I've just started assuming that real life is bad alternate-universe fanfiction. Someone, somewhere, in some other universe is enjoying a reasonable, functional universe that runs on clear rules instead of sheer perversity.
Nowadays I've just started assuming that real life is bad alternate-universe fanfiction. Someone, somewhere, in some other universe is enjoying a reasonable, functional universe that runs on clear rules instead of sheer perversity.
History is interesting in terms of understanding how past events helped to shape the present, and this is true whether you consider the present an accident or not.
I hate to say this, but IQ tests are BMI tests for the brain, and about as accurate. If a coffee, bad sleep, or a dose of Ritalin can change the result – at its very nature – it is not a scientific method of measurement (the ability to retest and get the same result).
We could say it's a good read of a spectrum of mental capacity, but to suggest that IQ is capable of anything more is whack science.
We could say it's a good read of a spectrum of mental capacity, but to suggest that IQ is capable of anything more is whack science.
BMI is a perfectly valid first-order approximation of appropriate weight ranges for the 95% of the population who are not body builders.
Perhaps BMI isn't very accurate for slightly short people. It says I should weigh 115-149 lbs. I currently weigh 190 and when I manage to get down to 170, I look very athletic. The last time I weighed 149, I looked like I was starving.
It seems similarly unreasonable for most of my friends and family.
It seems similarly unreasonable for most of my friends and family.
Your standards are based on living in a society of fat people. At 149 you'd still be sporting copious amounts of flab.
My standards are based on objective reality and a decent knowledge of physical fitness and nutrition.
When I weighed 160, I had slightly defined abs. Similar to what you would see on someone with 10-15% body fat.
The existence of a lot of overweight people in the US doesn't change what the words "overweight" and "athletic" mean.
When I weighed 160, I had slightly defined abs. Similar to what you would see on someone with 10-15% body fat.
The existence of a lot of overweight people in the US doesn't change what the words "overweight" and "athletic" mean.
First you looked "very athletic" at 170, now your abs were "slightly defined" at 160. Uh huh. If that means anything, that means you had a lot of visceral fat, or it's more stored in the legs.
And well, it's WAY past the edit window now. The next time you are at 160, I recommend using the tape measure to measure things like waist to chest circumference, and thigh circumference. Then ask if those measurements are bigger than what can be explained by the muscular performance you get. Another thing you can do is try jumping rope, running in place, or doing jumping jacks. When I do these activities, I get "jiggle." My moobs and stomach get jerked around, because there is some flab there. The effect lessens as you lose weight.
What is not objective is looking in the mirror in some lighting and thinking you look pretty good. That's a subjective measurement based on objective reality. Your body might distributed fat in a way that's relatively aesthetically pleasing -- mine does too, it hides it all in the thighs, and people think I'm way more in shape than I am -- and that's not the same thing as being healthy.
What is not objective is looking in the mirror in some lighting and thinking you look pretty good. That's a subjective measurement based on objective reality. Your body might distributed fat in a way that's relatively aesthetically pleasing -- mine does too, it hides it all in the thighs, and people think I'm way more in shape than I am -- and that's not the same thing as being healthy.
Which BMI are you using? The traditional BMI isn't great for very short people - but for the opposite reason you give.
Traditional BMI makes short people think they're thinner than they are.
Traditional BMI makes short people think they're thinner than they are.
My argument is that no one can claim BMI or IQ is a scientific form of measurement.
Both are absolutely scientific: they provide good test-retest reliability and correlate with other measures.
Maybe they are crude. Maybe there are better alternatives. That doesn't make them unscientific.
Maybe they are crude. Maybe there are better alternatives. That doesn't make them unscientific.
I really don't know how you got here. BMI has been raked over the coals (new and old methods) for being wildly inaccurate for anyone outside of a conditional range. IQ does not predict what to expect from a human being.
Those who double down on IQ as being infallible have something to lose if it's proven to be hack. And history is not on your side here.
Those who double down on IQ as being infallible have something to lose if it's proven to be hack. And history is not on your side here.
> BMI has been raked over the coals (new and old methods) for being wildly inaccurate for anyone outside of a conditional range.
No it hasn't.
BMI doesn't work for three groups of people: it makes very tall or very athletic people think they're fatter than they are, and it makes very short people think they're thinner than they are. But, as GP says, that's less than 5% of the population.
No it hasn't.
BMI doesn't work for three groups of people: it makes very tall or very athletic people think they're fatter than they are, and it makes very short people think they're thinner than they are. But, as GP says, that's less than 5% of the population.
Look at all the effort that's gone into improving hiring. And what're the only factors that people have ever found that actually correlate with job performance? Work sample and IQ.
History is very much on the side of IQ realism. Ten years ago people were denying that a general factor of intelligence existed at all, now it's down to nitpicking or argument from ignorance.
History is very much on the side of IQ realism. Ten years ago people were denying that a general factor of intelligence existed at all, now it's down to nitpicking or argument from ignorance.
It's perfectly scientific. It just doesn't mean what people think it means.
My wife grew up in Los Alamos. There was an experiment where some physicists took an IQ test every Saturday for a year. Their scores ranged from Moron to Genius, depending on the day. We presume some bell curve where their 'true IQ' was measured. But take a test once on one day - the result is highly variable.
Not to mention, there are groups like MENSA, of people who have a very high IQ, yet a lot of them are no more productive than the person of average intelligence. We are far away from having a good measure of intelligence.
My two cents: one of our employees is a member of Mensa and participates in a local branch organization. He always mentions how difficult is to reach consensus on basic organizational issues. No different that reaching consensus in a condominium.
Having said that, I think the measure of IQ and related variables such us working memory capacity is very interesting and gives a lot of information about how you can peroform in specific situations. The problem is when you try to infer the individual outcome in a complex environment with a few variables.
Having said that, I think the measure of IQ and related variables such us working memory capacity is very interesting and gives a lot of information about how you can peroform in specific situations. The problem is when you try to infer the individual outcome in a complex environment with a few variables.
But on average, the higher IQ group is more productive than the general population.
I agree with your first sentence but I don't think that argument really supports it. Performance-based testing is not inherently flawed. You just need multiple samples. Bad sleep and stimulants can screw up a lot of other measurements, too, like blood sugar and pressure.
I agree that it's like blood sugar/pressure, but that's sort of my point. I think if you used blood pressure to judge some one's physical capabilities like you would use IQ to judge some one's mental capacity, you would run into unfair outcomes.
"some one with an IQ greater than 120 is definitely intelligent" == "some one with high blood pressure is definitely unable."
I'm fine with IQ so long as we're not using it as a scientific form of measurement...but we currently seem to.
"some one with an IQ greater than 120 is definitely intelligent" == "some one with high blood pressure is definitely unable."
I'm fine with IQ so long as we're not using it as a scientific form of measurement...but we currently seem to.
Having capacity doesn't imply the desire or motivation to make use of it. IQ is "capacity" but it doesn't mean that we inherently make better use of our "greater" intelligence.
[deleted]
So we got better in solving IQ tests?
Going to university has completely destroyed my capability to appreciate novels. After years of reading maths/programming/electrical engineering books and the like, when I pick up a novel and it says "Tim said this, and Julie replied that", etc., I am bored out of my mind. Why should I care what they say, get to the point. You could compress this 700 page thing into 10 pages and barely any of the content is lost (in other words, low information density). I wish I could sill appreciate novels, but in most cases I can't.
In my eyes, most novels are trash and there are only a few worth reading.
In my eyes, most novels are trash and there are only a few worth reading.
"In my eyes, most novels are trash and there are only a few worth reading."
That's actually the expected result, by the way. Sturgeon's Law, roughly "ninety percent of everything is crap", is one of those ha-ha-only-serious sorts of things. You can put math around it if you want; if the quality of a given type of media is normally distributed (probably with the bottom end cut off by it never getting published), the best of the best is generally much much better than the vast bulk of what is out there, and so if you measure by the standard of what the best puts out, almost everything is crap.
One of the things that keeps the world going around is that we all have different distributions, though; what is for me a +6sigma novel might be well below average to you.
I'd say to you that bloated page counts are definitely a common thing. It's what you get when you pay by the word. I'd also say that any story can be reduced to a couple of sentences, if you're being really cynical ("One day, Bob defeated the evil overlord and peace reigned throughout the land."). There are stories out there that are quite dense and everything has a point. But, yes, they are the exceptions. The trick is in finding them.
That's actually the expected result, by the way. Sturgeon's Law, roughly "ninety percent of everything is crap", is one of those ha-ha-only-serious sorts of things. You can put math around it if you want; if the quality of a given type of media is normally distributed (probably with the bottom end cut off by it never getting published), the best of the best is generally much much better than the vast bulk of what is out there, and so if you measure by the standard of what the best puts out, almost everything is crap.
One of the things that keeps the world going around is that we all have different distributions, though; what is for me a +6sigma novel might be well below average to you.
I'd say to you that bloated page counts are definitely a common thing. It's what you get when you pay by the word. I'd also say that any story can be reduced to a couple of sentences, if you're being really cynical ("One day, Bob defeated the evil overlord and peace reigned throughout the land."). There are stories out there that are quite dense and everything has a point. But, yes, they are the exceptions. The trick is in finding them.
> I'd also say that any story can be reduced to a couple of sentences, if you're being really cynical
Lord of the Rings LITE(tm): Some guys take a long vacation to throw a ring in a volcano.
See also: https://www.youtube.com/user/HISHEdotcom
Lord of the Rings LITE(tm): Some guys take a long vacation to throw a ring in a volcano.
See also: https://www.youtube.com/user/HISHEdotcom
>In my eyes, most novels are trash and there are only a few worth reading.
Relatively few, maybe, in the context of all the books, ever. But there are far more "good" books than most people can read in a lifetime.
Relatively few, maybe, in the context of all the books, ever. But there are far more "good" books than most people can read in a lifetime.
It sounds like you're reading terrible novels (and I agree, most of them are terrible). There's some great stuff out there, though - very high information density. ;) Are there any genres you like?
I like anything that is engaging. Sci-fi, fantasy, crime fiction. Doesn't really matter. I don't think the books are the problem. I am in the middle of a very, very good book ("Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman") and I can't even finish that because I can't get myself to just sit down and read.
“I was impressed for the ten thousandth time by the fact that literature illuminates life only for those to whom books are a necessity. Books are unconvertible assets, to be passed on only to those who possess them already.” -- Nick Jenkins
A lot of books are there for the journey and can't be summarized in a few sentences.
That may be true but like Kenji I also feel a lot of novels are a really, really long way to make simple (or sometimes no) points. I feel the same about a lot of TV serials, movies, etc. I care not for character, environment or plot development, and only consume long enough to embrace the marvel of their conception, which to me is the real art. Mostly I can't stand podcasts or radio, either, and rarely listen to music. In friendly casual conversation, people used to imply jovially that I was very strange or missing out on something, but over time (I am now 34) I believe that the peaceful mental mode of being engendered by these habits is a strong personal asset. Incidentally I write and read history (a lot), and don't agree with the article's suggestion that history and literature are somehow uniquely pedestal-worthy.
The quality of a person, as well as how well they can recognize what exists as it is, is determined by their degree of truthfulness.
Those who fetishize history are doomed to annoy everyone about it
IQs can't be higher. The tests are designed to be normally distributed with an average of 100.
This statement is true, but a bit misleading. Yes, IQ tests are constantly being adjusted so that the mean is always 100, but the average person today will score above 100 on an IQ test from a decade or more ago. This is what the article is referring to when it asserts "Our IQs have never been higher." It is a factual statement and the basis for the "Flynn Effect," which has tracked our steady increase in average IQ for many decades now [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Dylan16807(1)
As an older millennial that's gotten pretty cynical: why should I read? Most of what is written is just like this article: an attempt to mash some ideas together and explain an underlying phenomenon that the author doesn't really understand. I'm pretty bitter about how much time I wasted in school reading things that were bunk (wait, Columbus did what?) And as study after study gets debunked (until last week, I used to believe exercising willpower sapped physical energy--thanks HN), and "experts" can't agree on questions like what caused the financial collapse, I've become pretty convinced that most of the theories underlying public policy, diplomacy, and the course of history are pseudo-science if not outright fantasy.
Millennials, I think, are utilitarian and unromantic. Fancy ideas in books don't hold much appeal to us because as the web makes information more available, we realize nobody knows what they're talking about.