You may draw whatever conclusions you wish from the research but you imply that your conclusions are the ones the lecturer was making and I see him making the point that our whole culture is intellectually gifted compared to just a few generations ago. Why the primates that post here in P and N are filled with knuckle draggers can't be explained by a lack of education because many conservative imbeciles that post here have advanced degrees. I reaffirm that the explanation is that these troglodytes are simply moral degenerates who are motivated not to see how shameful their condition is because they were shamed as children and will not open themselves to remembering their pain, the only way that pain can be mended. Sick people do not like to know they are sick. What you want to do is find a rationalization for your own contempt for them. You are in denial of the fact that conservatives were fucked as children and nothing can be done about it. They were hurt and you want to hurt them more because people who hurt want others to hurt. That makes you just like them. You have to carry all that pain and live with it if you don't want to add to the worlds Karma. Sorry. Man up is all you can do.
I don't think you've fully understood the points that flynn rather convincingly argues. First, the flynn effect is just an average across the population, not a floor for abstract reasoning ability, so being born into modern times is no guarantee of high IQ. It's certainly possible to get by in school to a surprising level by largely memorizing and regurgitating without full awareness going on upstairs.
Second, there's always some risk in the social sciences and certainly psychology to attribute cause as "this
instead of that", implying mutual exclusion of causes which isn't necessarily the case, when contributory causation is all a matter of degree. It doesn't seem to me that deficiency in abstract reasoning precludes moral deficiency, especially when flynn precisely makes a concrete case that the former leads to the latter (with the religious example, etc).
Third, the question of "moral degeneracy" is an not entirely straightforward proposition, because linguistically speaking it's really a concatenation of two distinguishable phenomena. One is the personal ethical choices we make, eg whether to ban arabs because a few of them are real shifty, and the other is social interpretation of those actions. To persons who cannot reason about numbers or empathize abstractly, it may well be from their perspective that they're rightly protecting the tribe (ie their own) by ostracizing people of given appearance who can be enemies. This in direct contrast to post-enlightenment values which has the opposite take on matters of bigotry.
It's certainly my experience and I'm guessing yours that many of these people really do have some trouble grasping the finer points of enlightenment reasoning. Like they've been told and therefore aware that bigotry is bad, same as this or that illegal thing is bad, but can't figure out why (to varying degrees) due to insufficient cognitive tools. Therefore in a dispute between innate loyalty vs. abstract ideal, it's perfectly understandable they go with their gut instead of what's taught by leftard teachers. In sum, very much degenerate by the standard of modern social mores, but not by archaic ones befitting their intellectual prospects.
You must have a really low IQ buddy. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Madison just to name a few were some of the most astute brilliant visionaries since the Renaissance.
Get off my lawn and don't tread on me!
Case in point, someone who lacks said tools to grasp the basis for that "brilliant vision".
Facebook
Twitter