The dumbing down of humanity: winners, losers & remedies

Is humanity is becoming less intelligent? Who may be driving that, what are the benefits for them and what does it mean for the rest of us? Waht can we do about that? To find out the answers to these questions read the rest of this article.

Idiocracy is a 2006 Science Fiction film directed by Mike Judge. The plot of the film centres on an average person that is mistakenly hibernated for 500 years. The protagonist wakes up to a dumb society. The average intelligence of humanity has declined to idiot level and people are flocking behind moronic advertising slogans. The once average person becomes the smartest person around. Is this so far-fetched? Last year, on the 10th anniversary of the film many observers in the US could not but compare the ruling political discourse to Idiocracy’s predictions.

Is humanity is becoming less intelligent? Although average performance in IQ tests has improved in the last 100 years (The Flynn Effect) this trend has ground to a halt in developing countries. Average homo sapiens brain volume is now lower than the brain volume of our ancestors that roamed the savannahs 20,000 years ago. Several test have shown (link) that smart phones, through social media and constant social engagement, lead to reduction in attention span and analytical capabilities. Facebook confirmation bias, the programming of the Facebook feed to show users opinions closely aligned to their own, narrows horizons. Extreme positive feedback loop in social media trends, like the #MeToo tag, contribute to polarising opinions and reduce the possibility of an informed debate. These trends impact society, especially the younger generations, by encouraging a less analytical, less diverse, less resilient, and less critical attitudes. Critical attitudes seem to be allowed only as part of a larger trend and there seems to be little space for personal dissenting opinions. People feel more and more comfortable mimicking their immediate social grouping than engaging in original thought,

A starting point to understanding the impact of these trends on younger generations that have grown up with smartphones and social media is to look at the difference between information and knowledge. YouTube is awash with videos explaining science in entertaining ways. Some of these presenters have become celebrities with followers numbering in the millions. You can see engaging videos about the structure of the atom, quantum physics and astronomy. If you ask the millions that follow these videos whether they know the subject they will answer in the affirmative. They have watched hours of short entertaining videos taking them through very complex sounding concepts. They will probably be able to describe what is Schroedinger’s Cat or what are atoms made off. It is truly wonderful that such information is available in an engaging way to anyone wishing to expand their horizons. The problem begins if you ask any of the followers of these videos to do something with the information rather than repeat it. Knowing something is not about reciting facts, but about applying the information. I can watch endless videos on architectural styles, but that does not imbue me with the skills to design a building. The packaging of information into infotainment-sized pieces may help to maintain the attention span of the viewers, but does not provide them with the skills required to solve problems. Information is not knowledge, it is facts about knowledge.

While in the past we may have had to keep facts in our head, today memory can be outsourced to our internet browser. You are not sure who someone is? Just go to Wikipedia. Why is that a problem? When people need to store information the old fashioned way, in their memory, they need to contextualise it. Non contextualised information is hard to remember. If you want to remember facts about the English monarchy, you will not just remember names of queens and kings but construct some sort of a chronology. You will probably remember some of the events associated with some of the more famous rulers, some of the battles, the social upheavals, and maybe some other notable figures that lived in the period. That chronology, your personal view of history, will create a context by which you will be able to gain perspective relating to information that is linked to that period. Whether a film, or an old church, you will have some background that will allow you to interpret what you see beyond its surface characteristics.

If you are part of the Wikipedia generation, you are not likely to focus on remembering facts. When you encounter something new you will open your phone, search for a short description online, and create and immediate context. This context is not integrated and can only serve to highlight the most basic relationships and characteristics. It is impossible to appreciate Van Gogh’s brush strokes, vs Monet or Pissarro from seeing online JPG images.

Why is this important? Who cares? We should all care, and deeply. If the cognitive reaction a person has is only driven by the surface characteristic it is nigh impossible to analytically think about any issue, whether morality, politics, or aesthetic, in any depth. A habit of only looking at the surface of any debate is formed and decisions become based on short term, low resolution morals, without the capacity to engage in the deeper implications of the decision. One can point at a few current debates that are following this pattern: the issue of appropriate sexual behaviour, the morality of tax havens, Brexit. In a slower moving world where people have the luxury of time to read about the background to the decisions they need to make, and reflect on the possible outcomes before voicing an opinion, having complex issues represents an opportunity for an open debate. In the current immediate feedback social ecology we live in there is not time and place for such deeper debate.

Who stands to lose from these trends? All of us do. In a world moving towards the perfect storm of massive immigration and starvation driven by global warming, the end of middle class work as we know it, and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) driven economy, and in a world savaged by a growing bifurcating wealth gap that is reminiscent of feudal times, all sense of dignity and hope seems to be in decline. It is no wonder that a recent survey shown that among younger generations there is a majority supporting a more socialist society (Research Link). Young people going through school and university are giving up on the hope that they have agency over their life The old social contract that hard work and some talent can lead to a satisfying stable existence is broken. The ideals of socialism seem more and more attractive which is one of the reasons behind the rise of the Corbynites. Western society is no longer perceived as being able to provide a safety net. In fact, the lack of hope in the ability to earn a living in the future is driving the calls for a universal living allowance, that any analysis can show is likely to further reduce the responsibility companies feel towards paying a living wage.

The increased reliance on electronics present a massive risk. Humanity is outsourcing part of its traditional intelligence and analysis capabilities to computerised devices. There are two obvious risks. The first is the advent of wetware: the ability to directly interface between computers and the brain. We are probably going to see working wetware devices in the next decade or two (or maybe sooner). That by itself may have some positive consequences. It is easy to see how a doctor that can immediately access all case histories and treatment plans when facing a specific set of symptoms can be more effective. The flip-side of that is that these devices, at least for the first few generations of their introduction, are likely to prove very expensive. The lucky ones, at the very narrow ledge on the top of the pyramid, will be able to enhance their memory, their processing capability and their senses, while the rest will have to rely on better smartphones. This will further increase the gap between the global mega wealthy class and the rest of humanity. Until such technology become ubiquitous those who posses it will be orders of magnitude more capable than the rest. A race of gods dwelling among the rest of humanity.

The second risk, that we are already living through, is the control of information. Most young people do not watch live TV, unless they are following some specific shows like Strictly, and that is also for a narrow segment of society. Information and entertainment is personalised. The information harvested from personal feeds is a mix of the posts our direct contacts disseminate, and the general items selected by the specific providers. Whether Facebook, or Apple or the Android news feed that appears on our phone, someone else is deciding what we should be reading and watching. The criteria used for these choices are not public, and given the scandal around the targeting of voters in the latest US election it is now public knowledge that behavioural systems impute individual personality types from social media activity and customise the adverts and news items to elicit a response. This individualised shaping of the content of the feed, together with confirmation bias, makes it more challenging to recover a more objective sense of reality.

The potential impact of these trends is that it is becoming harder to adopt a wider perspective view of the challenges society is facing as a whole. The increased targeting, for commercial and political purposes, of each individual narrows our perspective. In a recent interview, one of the designers of the Facebook feed, Justin Rosenstein (link), only serve to emphasise this point. The feed, according to Justin, was built to create addiction. Most of us have had the experience of either following a Facebook link, or a Google search only to emerge a while later realising that we have been so involved we lost track of time. This engineered flow experience is addictive, and combined with a “Like” addiction serves to occupy larger swathes of our free time.

Who are the winners? The obvious winners are the big tech corporations. The designed addictive behaviour and the resultant brand loyalty creates an addiction not just for information, but to new technology. We witness that a few times a year whenever a new iPhone or Samsung phone is released queues form outside the shops. This has little to do with the marginal functional differences between the older and newer models.

Governments that know how to use the technology are also winners in this process. The Russians seems to have an edge in how to deploy confirmation bias combined with behavioural research towards shaping policy and public opinion. The Chinese seem to have reached a stable state of controlled online information that serves the government to push its agenda, especially around technological supremacy (the Chinese are the world leaders in technologies like quantum computing and encryption), while at the same time clamping down on dissident opinions.

The third category of winners in this situation are the mega wealthy. The biggest risk to wealth is social unrest, especially on a global scale. The projected challenges (one only needs to read the annual Davos risk assessment to understand how serious these challenges are) in the coming decades have the potential to completely unravel the fabric of society.

The modern concept of money is intangible, and is completely based on the stability of the political system that created the currency. A breakdown in the social order can drive any currency to lose its value completely, like the hyperinflation in Weimar Germany. Since dropping the gold standard all currency is as good as the political strength and stability of its issuing country. This, by the way, is the real risk cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin pose to the traditional economies. Although untraceable cash transfer pose a threat as far as money laundering is concerned, it is the actual nature of the currency that is subversive. Value in cryptocurrencies is created through deploying computer processing power. Computer processing power is an objective measure that does not depend on any notion of sovereignty of stability. In a possible world where social upheavals may uproot stable political system, having a nation-independent universal currency may become the only true measure of value.

The global elite (which I do not suggest operate at the moment as unified political force, but I suspect will be more so in the near future) will use all the means in its power to control the population through the coming crises. They will do it using several means: Increasing the intelligence of the feed can channel behaviour in more manageable directions. Increasing the sophistication of entertainment and game devices to a level where they would serve a complete virtual and augmented reality experience. This development that are we are likely to see in the next decade will create a population that will be more motivated to be immersed in artificial game and social environments than in the real world around them. The provision of a universal living allowance will allow people to survive, and immerse themselves in such virtual universes, without disturbing the balance of power, as long as they have access to their basic needs, the web, and their machines.

I am not suggesting that this dystopian vision of the future is the only alternative, but I strongly believe that unless a groundswell change in the usage of electronic devices coupled with a much more educated understanding of the sources and veracity of information will take place, it is not an unlikely scenario.

What are the remedies? The two courses of action I mentioned in the previous paragraph can be followed. Both are based on increasing awareness of the impact of the constant usage of electronic devices, and the development of a critical methodology to understand the source of the news items that are presented to users, and the advisability of following the links they present.

The most outstanding feature of social media is the lack of physical communication. Virtual communication has different characteristics than actually engaging in one to one conversation. It is very challenging to develop empathy without being in the same room as the other person. Empathy has been identified as one of the most important characteristics that can lead to future job security and success. AI can do many things, but most people will want to feel empathy from a person and not from a computer program, as sophisticated as it may be. Teaching young children to play outside, and not engage in any screen related activities until a relatively late age is the best way to build imagination, and resilience. Silicon valley entrepreneurs send their children to low tech schools. Why would they do that if the creations they spread globally have a positive impact on child development?

I believe that these three characteristics, empathy, imagination and resilience hold the key to a more engaged life now and in the future. Out education, both as parents, and within the education system, should focus on strengthening these traits in our children.

Last, but not least, is the re-creation of local community life. In a growing connected world, traditional local relationships are suffering. Children no longer play with their neighbours in the street. In many place people do not know their neighbours. One of the strongest weapons in our arsenal to create resilience to change is to increase our networking. This is done both professionally, but also around our home. Creating stronger local communities that will help their members to recover a sense of connection belonging and dignity can provide an antidote to an increasingly alienated world.

It is our responsibility, before it is too late, to do our utmost to imbue children with these characteristics, control our virtual ecology, and build local communities. Doing that will maintain the human core we hold and allow us as a society to navigate through the challenging times ahead.