|
|
Post by Ripley on Jun 1, 2023 15:35:50 GMT
You are born with your intelligence, you don't acquire it. Education (and other environments) can show you how to use that intelligence, but you do not gain more. I'd ask what the opening poster meant by "stupider" and how they went about measuring it. I would agree with that. There can be no answer until the problem is defined. I have read that British scientists may leave rather than lose EU research funding, but I'm not sure that is what the OP is referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 1, 2023 15:36:38 GMT
It started to become stupid from the mid sixties due to changes in the education system brought in by the Wilson government and continued by the Tories, yes, Thatcher became education minister under Heath but instead of halting it, her excuse was that too many schools were in the process of changing to comprehensives; it wasn't helped by the American scene of the hippy flower power that spread across the Atlantic seemingly adopted by Britain rather more that the rest of Europe. Even as it happened I forecast it would be the worst ten years for a very long time. Here's two reasons why comprehensive education was the right way to go, and that's despite all the anti-comprehensive biased nonsense posted since. Moves to develop a comprehensive system in England and Wales began during the 1960s after educational research demonstrated that secondary-modern school pupils designated as ‘non- academic’ were often highly successful in public examinations such as the General Certificate of Education (Floud, Halsey and Martin, 1956; Crowther,
1959; Jackson and Marsden, 1962). In addition, the 1960s were characterized by a growing concern with issues of inequality Theorists began to argue (Halsey, Floud and Anderson, 1961; Swift, 1967) that the continued separation of social classes in education engendered by the tripartite secondary system (see EDUCATION ACTS) produced continual inequalities in education provision. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jun 1, 2023 15:43:00 GMT
Here are some factors from the alleged NWO plan from'69 another aspect is TV of course not all tv yet reality shows are certainly a factor.
RESTRUCTURING EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF INDOCTRINATION
Another area of discussion was Education. In connection with education and remembering what he said about religion, was in addition to changing the Bible he said that the classics in Literature would be changed. I seem to recall Mark Twain's writings was given as one example. But he said that the casual reader reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any change. Somebody would have to go through word by word to even recognise that any change was made in these classics, the changes would be so subtle. But the changes would be such as to promote the acceptability of the new system.
MORE TIME IN SCHOOLS, BUT THEY WOULDN'T LEARN ANYTHING
As regards education, he indicated that kids would spend more time in schools, but in many schools they wouldn't learn anything. They'll learn some things, but not as much as formerly. Better schools in better areas with better people, their kids will learn more. In the better schools Iearning would be accelerated. This is another time where he said, "We think we can push evolution." By pushing kids to learn more he seemed to be suggesting that their brains would evolve, that their offspring would evolve; sort of pushing evolution where kids would learn and be more intelligent at a younger age. As if this pushing would alter their physiology. Overall, schooling would be prolonged. This meant prolonged through the school year. I'm not sure what he said about a long school day, I do remember he said that school was planned to go all summer, that the summer school vacation would become a thing of the past. Not only for schools, but for other reasons. People would begin to think of vacation times year round, not just in the summer. For most people it would take longer to complete their education. To get what originally had been in a bachelor's program would now require advanced degrees and more schooling. So that a lot of school time would be just wasted time. Good schools would become more competitive. I inferred when he said that, that he was including all schools - elementary up through college - but I don't recall if he actually said that. Students would have to decide at a younger age what they would want to study and get onto their track early. It would be harder to change to another field of study once you get started. Studies would be concentrated in much greater depth, but narrowed. You wouldn't have access to material in other fields, outside your own area of study, without approval. This seem to be more where he talked about limited access to other fields. I seem to recall this as being more at the college level perhaps. People would be very specialised in their own area of expertise. But they won't be able to get a broad education and won't be able to understand what is going on overall.
The source for this is posted under the Conspiracy thread and about the NWO. I think Blair and Welby are or were into this.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 1, 2023 15:59:02 GMT
Here are some factors from the alleged NWO plan from'69 another aspect is TV of course not all tv yet reality shows are certainly a factor. RESTRUCTURING EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF INDOCTRINATION Another area of discussion was Education. In connection with education and remembering what he said about religion, was in addition to changing the Bible he said that the classics in Literature would be changed. I seem to recall Mark Twain's writings was given as one example. But he said that the casual reader reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any change. Somebody would have to go through word by word to even recognise that any change was made in these classics, the changes would be so subtle. But the changes would be such as to promote the acceptability of the new system. MORE TIME IN SCHOOLS, BUT THEY WOULDN'T LEARN ANYTHING As regards education, he indicated that kids would spend more time in schools, but in many schools they wouldn't learn anything. They'll learn some things, but not as much as formerly. Better schools in better areas with better people, their kids will learn more. In the better schools Iearning would be accelerated. This is another time where he said, "We think we can push evolution." By pushing kids to learn more he seemed to be suggesting that their brains would evolve, that their offspring would evolve; sort of pushing evolution where kids would learn and be more intelligent at a younger age. As if this pushing would alter their physiology. Overall, schooling would be prolonged. This meant prolonged through the school year. I'm not sure what he said about a long school day, I do remember he said that school was planned to go all summer, that the summer school vacation would become a thing of the past. Not only for schools, but for other reasons. People would begin to think of vacation times year round, not just in the summer. For most people it would take longer to complete their education. To get what originally had been in a bachelor's program would now require advanced degrees and more schooling. So that a lot of school time would be just wasted time. Good schools would become more competitive. I inferred when he said that, that he was including all schools - elementary up through college - but I don't recall if he actually said that. Students would have to decide at a younger age what they would want to study and get onto their track early. It would be harder to change to another field of study once you get started. Studies would be concentrated in much greater depth, but narrowed. You wouldn't have access to material in other fields, outside your own area of study, without approval. This seem to be more where he talked about limited access to other fields. I seem to recall this as being more at the college level perhaps. People would be very specialised in their own area of expertise. But they won't be able to get a broad education and won't be able to understand what is going on overall. The source for this is posted under the Conspiracy thread and about the NWO. I think Blair and Welby are or were into this. It seems like a lot of imagined baloney to me, and going nowhere fast. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 1, 2023 16:24:39 GMT
It started to become stupid from the mid sixties due to changes in the education system brought in by the Wilson government and continued by the Tories, yes, Thatcher became education minister under Heath but instead of halting it, her excuse was that too many schools were in the process of changing to comprehensives; it wasn't helped by the American scene of the hippy flower power that spread across the Atlantic seemingly adopted by Britain rather more that the rest of Europe. Even as it happened I forecast it would be the worst ten years for a very long time. Here's two reasons why comprehensive education was the right way to go, and that's despite all the anti-comprehensive biased nonsense posted since. Moves to develop a comprehensive system in England and Wales began during the 1960s after educational research demonstrated that secondary-modern school pupils designated as ‘non- academic’ were often highly successful in public examinations such as the General Certificate of Education (Floud, Halsey and Martin, 1956; Crowther,
1959; Jackson and Marsden, 1962). In addition, the 1960s were characterized by a growing concern with issues of inequality Theorists began to argue (Halsey, Floud and Anderson, 1961; Swift, 1967) that the continued separation of social classes in education engendered by the tripartite secondary system (see EDUCATION ACTS) produced continual inequalities in education provision. Proof of the pudding says it wasn't the right way to go, I think you are mixing it up with something else because you went to Sec. Mod.......some people have to fail. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 1, 2023 16:52:02 GMT
It started to become stupid from the mid sixties due to changes in the education system brought in by the Wilson government and continued by the Tories, yes, Thatcher became education minister under Heath but instead of halting it, her excuse was that too many schools were in the process of changing to comprehensives; it wasn't helped by the American scene of the hippy flower power that spread across the Atlantic seemingly adopted by Britain rather more that the rest of Europe. Even as it happened I forecast it would be the worst ten years for a very long time. Here's two reasons why comprehensive education was the right way to go, and that's despite all the anti-comprehensive biased nonsense posted since. In addition, the 1960s were characterized by a growing concern with issues of inequality Theorists began to argue (Halsey, Floud and Anderson, 1961; Swift, 1967) that the continued separation of social classes in education engendered by the tripartite secondary system (see EDUCATION ACTS) produced continual inequalities in education provision. Moving to the Comprehensive system may have produced less inequality but it certainly did not improve education - dumbing every school down to the same level does of course reduce inequality, what it does not do is improve education outcomes. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 1, 2023 17:12:56 GMT
I really don't know myself. I can give you tons of possible reasons, but to know which are important and which have little effect is very hard to measure. I guess I could start by chucking in a few possibilities. Schools are the obvious one, but then there are parents as well. Even with schools, is it the schools or what they are told to teach. Perhaps it is woke agendas which displace the quality learning, or perhaps it is genetic with immigration from the third world, or perhaps a brain drain, or even to do with what we eat or breathe.
To be fair, we could raise the average IQ simply by deporting you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 1, 2023 17:17:29 GMT
You are born with your intelligence, you don't acquire it. Education (and other environments) can show you how to use that intelligence, but you do not gain more. I'd ask what the opening poster meant by "stupider" and how they went about measuring it. I would agree with that. There can be no answer until the problem is defined. I have read that British scientists may leave rather than lose EU research funding, but I'm not sure that is what the OP is referring to. I'll give you a real life example of intelligence if you like. This is a variant on how many people does it take to change a lightbulb, but something which really happened in 2023.
Problem: the light fails when you flick the switch. This happened in my kitchen and a friend's bathroom.
3 solutions: low intelligence, medium intelligence and high intelligence.
Solution one: low intelligence
Phone an odd job man to fix it for you. Result: takes ages to arrange an appointment and deal with the general bureaucracy, but after arranging for a bloke to come round (in London) the cost is £90 for the light and about the same for labour. He replaces the unit and charges a large markup on it.
Solution two: medium intelligence
Order the new light off Ebay for about £30 and screw it in yourself. Result £30 cost/ about an hour of messing about ordering and fitting it.
Solution three: high intelligence
rotate the cover to remove see a series of small pcbs with a few leds on driven by a constant current power supply. Measure 100v from the psu, realise it is open circuit, go around shorting out each bank until the light comes on.
Then remove the bad pcb and short the connections.
Result, light works in 5 minutes, now a 30w light is a 28w light and cost nothing to fix.
It would probably take longer to get as far as finding a telephone number to ring for method one.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 1, 2023 17:57:27 GMT
I would agree with that. There can be no answer until the problem is defined. I have read that British scientists may leave rather than lose EU research funding, but I'm not sure that is what the OP is referring to. I'll give you a real life example of intelligence if you like. This is a variant on how many people does it take to change a lightbulb, but something which really happened in 2023.
Problem: the light fails when you flick the switch. This happened in my kitchen and a friend's bathroom.
3 solutions: low intelligence, medium intelligence and high intelligence.
Solution one: low intelligence
Phone an odd job man to fix it for you. Result: takes ages to arrange an appointment and deal with the general bureaucracy, but after arranging for a bloke to come round (in London) the cost is £90 for the light and about the same for labour. He replaces the unit and charges a large markup on it.
Solution two: medium intelligence
Order the new light off Ebay for about £30 and screw it in yourself. Result £30 cost/ about an hour of messing about ordering and fitting it.
Solution three: high intelligence
rotate the cover to remove see a series of small pcbs with a few leds on driven by a constant current power supply. Measure 100v from the psu, realise it is open circuit, go around shorting out each bank until the light comes on.
Then remove the bad pcb and short the connections.
Result, light works in 5 minutes, now a 30w light is a 28w light and cost nothing to fix.
It would probably take longer to get as far as finding a telephone number to ring for method one.
That's knowledge, not intelligence. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jun 1, 2023 18:31:26 GMT
I would agree with that. There can be no answer until the problem is defined. I have read that British scientists may leave rather than lose EU research funding, but I'm not sure that is what the OP is referring to. I'll give you a real life example of intelligence if you like. This is a variant on how many people does it take to change a lightbulb, but something which really happened in 2023.
Problem: the light fails when you flick the switch. This happened in my kitchen and a friend's bathroom.
3 solutions: low intelligence, medium intelligence and high intelligence.
Solution one: low intelligence
Phone an odd job man to fix it for you. Result: takes ages to arrange an appointment and deal with the general bureaucracy, but after arranging for a bloke to come round (in London) the cost is £90 for the light and about the same for labour. He replaces the unit and charges a large markup on it.
Solution two: medium intelligence
Order the new light off Ebay for about £30 and screw it in yourself. Result £30 cost/ about an hour of messing about ordering and fitting it.
Solution three: high intelligence
rotate the cover to remove see a series of small pcbs with a few leds on driven by a constant current power supply. Measure 100v from the psu, realise it is open circuit, go around shorting out each bank until the light comes on.
Then remove the bad pcb and short the connections.
Result, light works in 5 minutes, now a 30w light is a 28w light and cost nothing to fix.
It would probably take longer to get as far as finding a telephone number to ring for method one.
Your example only covers one field of knowledge. Are you saying that Britain became stupid in this field in particular? Not everyone has the same skill set. If one doesn't have the knowledge to address the problem in your example, paying someone with the knowledge to address it is a costlier solution, but not a less effective one. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 1, 2023 18:44:25 GMT
My story at school is enough to make teacher's blood boil. I realised when I was very young that schools tech you very little of anything of any use. Why should I care as a 9 year old what Iron Age man did in his hut. This was the kind of irrelevant crap we were told to learn and I pretty much skived off the lot. A teacher would actually get a shock if I were to hand any homework in. Homes for me were for living in , not working! After being told by teachers that I stand to fail everything, I decided I aught to do 6m of work as I quite fancied going to university. I bought one book on revise physics, one on revise maths and started using the library for some background reading in another A level, and passed them all with good grades and got into a Russell Group university, and on a grant as well. I also passed another A level which I've never had a single lesson in a year early. I had some friends like myself as well and they too pissed the teachers off. i think that is quite an uncommon thing It was quite common in my area. In retrospect what held me back was access to knowledge. I would have done anything for the internet we have now, but in those days something you could like look up in minutes now would a lot of frustration until you finally got the answer. I think with some kids their father was smart enough to have his own library of books in the home. Public libraries were a pisstake and of no educational value, as were many school libraries. I felt I was constantly being pushed into the path of stupidity, learning stuff which was a waste of one's time.
It's weird because I was watching China's state TV the other day and they have this scheme where young kids who show an affinity to science are given access to research labs to have a go at an early age and mix with professional researchers. I'd have loved to have had that opportunity, but day after day we trudged though reading these stupid books about 18th century romances and other fluff. It was like watching paint dry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 2, 2023 7:09:57 GMT
The Baron reminds me of one of those Victorian doctors whose standard prescription for all his patients is to 'apply leeches' no matter what ails them. In his case though the cure is not leeches but becoming more like China. Clearly insane.
And has Britain become stupid? How on earth would you you even go about diagnosing such a condition?
The truth of the matter is that Britain has just as many smart people as it ever did but the difference is that they are not now attracted to the sort of career opportunities that the Baron believes they should be, opportunities that are said to abound in China.
So why is that? Why do intelligent British young people aspire to the 'professions' - medicine, law, finance and the like - while their Chinese counterparts, per the Baron, opt instead for careers as battery designers or chip manufacturers?
It's a valid question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 2, 2023 7:14:22 GMT
The Baron reminds me of one of those Victorian doctors whose standard prescription for all his patients is to 'apply leeches' no matter what ails them. In his case though the cure is not leeches but becoming more like China. Clearly insane. And has Britain become stupid? How on earth would you you even go about diagnosing such a condition? The truth of the matter is that Britain has just as many smart people as it ever did but the difference is that they are not now attracted to the sort of career opportunities that the Baron believes they should be, opportunities that are said to abound in China. So why is that? Why do intelligent British young people aspire to the 'professions' - medicine, law, finance and the like - while their Chinese counterparts, per the Baron, opt instead for careers as battery designers or chip manufacturers?
It's a valid question. The UK is primarily a service economy and China is manufacturing. Go back a hundred years and our brightest and best would have gone into science and engineering but we have moved on - emerging economies like China need manufacturing to grow because they dont have a large service sector. When they become as rich as developed economies then they move away from tin bashing and develop into a service economy. I'm not sure if you could (or would want to) stop it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2023 7:21:36 GMT
Left wing influence is to blame for our slow decline. Left wing governments, left wing civil servants, left wing trade unions, left wing police, left wing teachers, left wing idiots who glue themselves to roads. The result was inevitable. That is of course just nonsense when you consider that it is the wealthy elites who own and run everything in this country, we haven't had a left wing government since the 1970s, and the Tories have been in power for 68 of the last 100 years including the last 13. Britain becoming as stupid as it is - what can be called the stupidification of the people - is due to a many decades long process of millions of idiots increasingly subcontracting their thinking out to tabloid media owned by the wealthy elites. You need only work in retail to observe that half the people are as dumb as rocks. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 2, 2023 7:26:00 GMT
In my view it's also to do with the transformation of the UK from a producer economy to a consumer one. It's hard to be certain when that transition began but it could be as long as a century ago, or even longer. It began when not only individuals but even more importantly capital fell out of love with 'tin-bashing'.
Various wars have in the meantime placed a premium on traditional scientific and engineering skills giving a temporary boost to the production side of things. Otherwise things might now be even 'worse'.
|
|
