And I bet that in spite of a decreasing intellectual capacity, our I.Q. has increased mainly because we do significantly better in the memorization, i.e. trivial part of the I.Q. tests. In other words, we know a lot more than we did but few of us can actually do something with it.

We are stupider. Why? Because we are more numerous. The law of averages and all that. I don't see many examples of genius but I see stupidity everywhere I look and in great number too. Stupidity is allowed to reproduce. Natural selection has been taken out of our nature.

Genius and excellence is now a rarity so much so that we celebrate it. We don't even know how to create a genius and we attribute it to innate talent, i.e. a gift from the divine. Actually that's not entirely true, we know how to create excellence. Take the oldest kid in the class, give him opportunity, give nothing to the rest of the class. We create excellence by suppressing every other kid that is not currently able to perform better than the rest of the class. This means every younger kid or every malnourished kid of the same age. Bear in mind that at 10 years old, a kid that is 11 months older is significantly heavier, stronger, faster, smarter, more agile, more dexterous, etc, than any other younger kid who is also 10 years old. So is that innate ability or is it merely the fact that this kid is older than that kid? The point is that most of us don't know that this is how we differentiate between smart and smarter, i.e. we're not smart enough to figure out the difference between better and older.

If we're not smart enough to determine proper I.Q. because our tests are flawed then the argument of I.Q. increasing has little value, does it.