Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wickerwoman

(5,662 posts)
23. It's about relative difficulty and percentage though.
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 02:35 PM
Jul 2012

Most high school graduates today take at least biology and chemistry or physics. Compare the difficulty of learning chemistry with the difficulty of learning farming- it's no comparison (speaking as someone who worked on a farm and studied chemistry).

And far more people in 1800 were illiterate, never mind learning advanced science and math. We just never hear from them.

According to the Flynn effect, IQs having been going up on average 3 points a decade:

"IQ tests are updated periodically. For example, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), originally developed in 1949, was updated in 1974, in 1991, and again in 2003. The revised versions are standardized to 100 using new standardization samples. In ordinary use IQ tests are scored with respect to those standardization samples. The only way to compare the difficulty of two versions of a test is to conduct a study in which the same subjects take both versions. Doing so confirms IQ gains over time. The average rate of increase seems to be about three IQ points per decade in the US on tests such as the WISC."

So someone from 1900 appearing today wouldn't just have a different skill set- they would have an effective IQ of 70. They could probably improve that somewhat with better nutrition and training, but they woud fundamentally still be quite different from us.

I was in a college prep track and took algebra as a twelve year old progressing up to calculus in my senior year. In 1800, they wouldn't have even gotten up to that in math. They spent years learning penmanship, which, while difficult and beautiful, is not the equivalant mental stimulation of learning to use a search engine or basic programming.

If you read Henry Mayhew's or Karl Engel's descriptions of what life was like in the Industrial Revolution it's extremely shocking. Six year olds worked in the mills ten or twelve hours a day. Some of our inner city schools make not be doing such a hot job with the basics, but I bet those kids would run circles around their socio-economic 1850s equivalents.

Go back and read some letters written by Civil War soldiers.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #1
Our literacy rate today is lower than when we were British colonies. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #6
No it's not... toddwv Jul 2012 #9
One thing that we have defiantly lost is Drale Jul 2012 #14
Uh.. whathehell Jul 2012 #26
You would think so wouldn't you? I did. We were wrong. Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #15
Back in the mid-1800's, something like 90% of the country was literate, though I think it is higher. Hestia Jul 2012 #19
I suspect that 90% or higher would be about right for white adult males toddwv Jul 2012 #25
Hahahahahaha, right. (nt) Posteritatis Jul 2012 #24
no shit...those people could write! madrchsod Jul 2012 #7
However, a lot of those Civil War soldiers could neither read nor write Art_from_Ark Jul 2012 #8
I bet functional illiteracy isn't far off that percentage today.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #12
So even with the compulsory educational system Art_from_Ark Jul 2012 #13
It's possible that those who were educated 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #10
They didn't have as much to learn then though. wickerwoman Jul 2012 #20
I think the amount that an educated person could learn was the same 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #22
It's about relative difficulty and percentage though. wickerwoman Jul 2012 #23
Maybe we just spend less time telling girls "Math is hard." DirkGently Jul 2012 #2
That's because Women cbrer Jul 2012 #3
. Liberal_in_LA Jul 2012 #4
Took 100 years to realize that women are more intelligent? n/t RebelOne Jul 2012 #5
Age 15-18 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #11
For the 500th time DFW Jul 2012 #16
It helps when ones brain function broadens beyond the best way to wash & iron. Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #17
LOL! whathehell Jul 2012 #27
Just goes to show the IQ tests were biased malthaussen Jul 2012 #18
Multi-tasking.... How I hate that nonsensical word du jour. MattBaggins Jul 2012 #21
Glad to hear we've started having a good influence on them jberryhill Jul 2012 #28
Oh yea, and I bet you believe in GLOBAL WARMING too! rustydog Jul 2012 #29
I think IQ scores are very subjective. Callmecrazy Jul 2012 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»For the first time in 100...»Reply #23