This entire thread is an appeal to tradition. Bear in mind that in the 19th century literacy rates were around 50% for men and 33.3~% for women. Read Marx or Orwell for a description of what the working class regularly got up to in between their 14 hour shifts (note: not much). We’re incredibly lucky to have such an educated population and so much leisure time. Perhaps it’s regrettable that not everyone is pursuing pure research or artistic endeavours in their spare time, but not surprising in historical context. It suits the ruling class just fine that the majority of people aren’t congregating for political purposes though (or if they are, it’s on arbitrary lines most of the time).
Well from the outside the only thing that I can see is that you elected a black president. This gives me hope that America is not as stupid as Michael Moore paints it to be.
Well that is scientifically proven. I can beat my 12yo son at chess and he is blond, therefore all blondes are dumb at chess..
While it’s far more difficult to “see,” what makes someone intelligent is recognizing that they need to learn something about a topic before talking about it as if they know.
Another aspect of intelligence is the ability and willingness to realize that one does not know, and that one’s own beliefs and knowledge need to be challenged.
Of course, destupidization at this point is moot. Everyone knows that when the calendar of an extinct civilization ends, the end of the world is neigh! I for one will not be saddled with the non-believers and will be safe in my underground bunker! 
I find Michael Moore’s success proof of our stupidity.
I think over time people in general (the median) gets more intelligent and less ignorant. However, the well known paradox is that the more you learn, the more you’re aware of your and others’ ignorance - as stated already above. So as the median knows more, the median feels the weight of general ignorance more too so it seems as though people are getting stupider and more ignorant!
=D
I think you meant that the point is moo. Or the end is nigh. One of the two, just to keep consistency.
Deeaga, I find your commentary very insightful! Thanks for that.
As for my own two cents, it seems that much of the frustration being generated by the thread is directed at (pop)culture. No one has struck upon it yet, so let me be the first to direct attention towards the media.
The reason more people concerned themselves with the worldly events twenty years ago was because there was simply more focus (and less money generated, hence our current fix) on such things. I think this is generally understood to be true, but I could definitely pull up a credible citation or two to support the claim.
I’ve been frustrated with the media for quite some time: sound bites, talking heads, the focus on what and not the ever critical why or how, but I see no solution to reverse, or even curb, the progression towards minimalistic reporting other than to let the system crash and burn, then build anew.
I have no problem with it being a continent. Is there any reason other than tradition/consensus that Europe is a continent and India isn’t?
I’m assuming your question wasn’t rhetorical, but the answer is no, there isn’t. There can be as many continents as you wish. Our current system makes about as much sense as one that would carve out the world into 2, 20, or 200 different sections.
I wouldn’t go that far… a system where Canada and the US were not on the same continent would strike me as fairly absurd. But India has not been permanently attached to Asia. 250 million years ago, it was firmly wedged between Madagascar and Antarctica and didn’t contact Asia at all.
I wonder what % of Americans still think Pluto is a planet?
Man, this is just gold. The ridiculous grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization are awesome by themselves, but the arguments are the kinds of priceless nuggets of gold that you typically hear from know-it-all teenagers:
Idiocracy’s most cited joke, Oww My Balls, is not some future television phenomenon. It’s so old your great grandparents had already seen it (the slapstick that was common in vaudeville/The Three Stooges), but it also traces it’s lineage to Jackass (10 years ago), America’s Funniest Home Videos (20 years ago), and Candid Camera (65 years ago).
Dude, get a grip. 20 years ago a Presidential candidate answered the eternal question, “Boxers or briefs?”, and it became an honest-to-god news story. Ten years before that, the public was obsessed with “Who Shot J.R.?” Stupid topics have always fascinated some section of the population.
Not trying to sound mean or snobby, I just get tired of blank stares when I bring up an e.t.f. or the Bernoulli principle or George Orwell in conversation. Whither average i.q.?
[/QUOTE]
Here’s the thing. The stock market, physics, and an English author that most people are only subjected to in 11th grade are not the best conversation starters. And I’m sure someone could come up with three “scholarly” topics that would leave you slack-jawed.
Look at it this way. I’m a wiz with computers. Can take them apart, put them together, and get them running smoothly again when they slow down. My brother-in-law once didn’t realize his wireless router wasn’t plugged in for a week. But he’s forgotten more about cars than I will ever know. I just don’t have the aptitude for them. So which of us is “stupid?” If you said anything other than neither, I feel sorry for you.
The point being moo would go well with being saddled with non-believers. 
A lot of the discussion in this thread is reminding me of this poster.
According to this site, the Flynn Effect is positive for almost all countries (including the USA) for almost all methods of measurement.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Locations.aspx
That is to say, IQ is consistently increasing everywhere.
So where is this stupization that has to be avoided actually happening?