naitche

I wouldn't either.  I was trying to say that a person could think a lot of things 'paranormal' if they haven't earned the back ground to figure it out. I  don't think we are anywhere near finished figuring things out.

Sure. I don't believe in ghosts or Goblins. I repeat, I have never experienced visual or auditory phenomena  that could not be explained by the science we know.

A friend once organized a week end in a house touted as the most Haunted in Australia. For Halloween. The only thing remotely interesting I witnessed was the fear of the patrons, of me. I asked my friend was it my imagination, or was the proprietor aiming all his dialog at me, and staring. Several people who were also there for the weekend over heard and confirmed. I still don't know what that was about, but all I had to do the whole weekend was clear my throat and I would get the most wide eyed stare and just about a step back. I agree people are easily gulled, especially once their minds are already made up. So I try to assume nothing. Either way.

Others reinforced  what I was experiencing.  If all those people saw was a photo, or caught only as brief a moment as that, It could have any number of easier explanations. It would indicate nothing, except a wide eyed stare with no context that could have been photo-shopped.  I don't see how that discounts what did happen. 

I don't call that paranormal either. Just some thing I have no logical explanation for. It happens.

If others choose to call such things paranormal, then I guess you could say thats how people understand  unexplained things and I will use that word for their understanding. But I don't believe in magic, or that things happen with out cause, even if we don't understand what that is.

If a person goes fishing and picks up a pack of dogs, one by one on their walk who spend the day with said person only to peel off in the same manner on the way home, some these days might think that creepy strange. Maybe paranormal. They would just be missing information unlearned.

Pretty much how I see it.

As for the things I have experienced, they fall under the shit happens that we are not sure why. Until we know other wise, I will assume there is an explanation but the science hasn't caught up enough yet to provide one.

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Auditory pareidolia. Being pretty deaf, I experience it several times a day, it's just my brain trying to deal with a poor signal in my case.

As stated, the first thing I try is to find sensible explanations. I have had similar experiences as those mentioned here of auditory or visual phenomena.

I have always been able to find those explanations. I have not claimed to see or hear things. I don't.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

  the energy requirement is prohibitive. Some form of ESP, why not?

 

I am pretty sure that energy plays a part and is some how available, possibly for all forms of its manifestation.

If you can believe it, the Russian experiments on remote viewing made much of Theta waves.

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

 

I don't blame people for their skepticism. I am still a big skeptic hearing others stories, because I've seen so many who choose to allow themselves to be mislead. They want to believe., Or have one unexplainable incident (to them) and start looking for meaning in every coincidence or fluke.

By the same token, who am I to tell some one else they are mislead or did not experience what they believe they have.

I think the charlatans are far more more likely to gain advantage from their deceptions than any genuine cases, who it seems don't talk about it.

My experience is there is no practical advantage. To make use of any 'ability' its got to be an ability. I don't understand what is happening so have no control over what does. Those experiencing it 2nd hand generally are 1st creeped out, then normalize it with what ever explanation they find. Very easy when what you are experiencing is not shared. 

That does not favor an evolutionary advantage, nor does our natural skepticism. If a woman told you she often predicted peoples deaths, or could smell disease, or things fly off shelves in her presence I don't see many people here who would be likely to see her as a good mating prospect-quite the opposite.

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

When I was a kid dogs would follow me when I went fishing. I would set out with my fishing pole and walk a few miles to the river, along the way I would always pick up an entourage of dogs from houses along the way. They would sit with me while I fished, wrestle with each other and chase rabbits. When I went home the dogs would cut out of the "pack" as I passed the houses where they lived. My grand father was the same way, dogs just seemed to like him and me as well. I have no idea why, some of the dogs were big others were small, mostly hounds but a few others as well. 

I spent much of my adult life raising basset hounds as pets, weird dogs for sure. Many people think they are dumb... not true they just don't care to please like many dogs do. They are very self centered and distant unless they want something. I had some bassets that were almost too lazy to live, others that were active and aggressive. All of them adhered to the pack mentality, individually they were shy and barked incessantly at anything strange. In a group they became almost of one mind and few other dogs would want to approach them, a ring of barking bassets circling around you is an impressive and frightening thing.  When I walked them they would always walk around me and stay between me and any other animal or person who approached. their behavior in a group and individually was like night and day. 

As individuals they were easily frightened, mostly with a couple of notable exceptions, but as a pack they were a force to be reckoned with.    

Such a unique relationship experienced this way. They can be such cruisy companions even in large groups, centered 'round a figure of trust and respect. Take that sound center out though, and the pack is volatile as a mob. Very similar social structures as a true companion species in many ways.

We forget our manners and communication skills with each other, with lessened exposure. 

As an aside, service dog seems to mean military other places, so maybe I should have described the dogs in my previous post as  ....Not therapy dogs, but with  some of the same capabilities to serve more generally useful roles as well.

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's more or less my take. Something happens, but we don't know what caused it or how to interpret it. Some people claim to know all about the supernatural, the paranormal, the unexplained - but they're unconvincing, their motives suspect.

With  easy profit from the gullible as their earnings.

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 

Others claim absolute certainty regarding the scientific psychological causes.  I have a problem with that, because I'm quite sure there is still a great deal that nobody knows about how brains and minds work; so, to me this certainty is as suspect as the other: though it may not have sinister motives, scientific presumption has had some pretty bad outcomes.

Yes. And some times these explanations just don't work, as you mentioned earlier with physical phenomena experienced by multiple people.

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So, mostly, people just don't talk about it. I suppose that's okay; nothing much will be changed by these isolated subjective experiences. How well the people who experience them fare depends - or seems to depend - on how much confidence they have in their own judgment.   

I think it must lead to delusion with sad consequences for any of us,  loosing  confidence to assess and judge our own reality..

On 2/19/2022 at 7:00 PM, Peterkin said:

 

do you formulate a rational explanation?

First thing I try.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:00 PM, Peterkin said:

Do you ignore it?

More often impossible, but some times I must.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:00 PM, Peterkin said:

Do you look up research on such occurrences?

I used to, little available of any use. Only served to show me nobody knew and if they did, we all would. I did look into joining Paranormal research, but after speaking with the guy running it, I ran another way. E

How  the same thing is experienced between people varies so much I think visual or auditory effects could be our own additions to process information, A  self defense mechanism to accept that something happened.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:00 PM, Peterkin said:

Do you talk to somebody about it?

Not usually. Some times. Few I would feel comfortable talking with about such things and fewer I feel who can with out going all weird on me and 'Spiritual" I don't mean to sound derogatory, but I think most  follow that path implicitly, seems too much like faith.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:00 PM, Peterkin said:

Do you accept it as paranormal?  

No, except as a loose classification of as yet unexplained phenomena.

Some thing enables them.

Yes owners are a big part of the problem, but don't underestimate the stupidity of some encountering dogs, and the effects of unfamiliarity with them.

Dogs in the past were often much more a part of society that even non- owners were likely to encounter free roaming daily so that an understanding of behavior on both the dogs part and their communities was just another part of social proficiency.

Thats changed enormously  in most Western communities, to varying degrees. Dogs are generally less familiar with people and situations out side their family circle and territory, and I would say a majority of people are no longer able to 'read' a dog and its state of mind effectively to avoid putting themselves into a bad situation.

Its  easier for temperamental unsoundness to be masked from those making breeding selections, and in Pedigree dogs at least, the 'standard' is more often the over riding selection criteria before any other trait can even be considered as it is.

I've seen some pretty dangerous and dumb behavior from people, and I believe its mostly a case of being unfamiliar with the species. As owner/breeder of personal protection and service dogs though, I do understand how easy it is to put all the responsibility on owners  when I hear repeatedly the old BS about not letting any one else pat or interact with the dog or it won't do its job when extensive socialization is what allows it to do the job most effectively and safely.

A personal protection dog is useless if it has to spend most of its life confined in the back yard or a pen and is beyond reach when needed.

20 minutes ago, Michael McMahon said:

 

An advantage of catching them is that you get to momentarily admire them before throwing them away. As you can see my usual tactic is to get a bottle or cavity of some kind and then scrape some thin cardboard or paper under it to close it off. I might touch the plastic directly beneath them in order to slowly reduce my fear of them. I didn't touch that little one directly because I'm actually in Turkey right now where some of them can leap!

 

Yes, thats my preferred method. Or simply place the jar on one side, the lid on the other, and bring the two together for spiders on the web. There was a large(orb?) spider whos web tangled in my hair this morning before I noticed. I carefully removed it out into the lemon tree popular with its species. He missed the branch and fell to the chickens.

By leaving them alone, I meant cause them no harm. Not always possible once they've strayed into enemy territory.

I was tempted to bring a beautiful Barking Gecko juvenile home to photograph yesterday, but decided the trip in my warm hands on a cold day, and a sudden release back into the cold might cause too much shock to such a tiny thing. I need to carry the means to photograph every time I step out. I've missed too many great opportunities.

Healthy respect, no fear of crawlies or snakes here though the I have been bitten by scorpions and centipedes, woke to a very large huntsman covering my eye that I removed in the dark and had numerous snakes in the house and gardens. My dog killed one in her kennel just last week.( RBB) 

The most common snakes here are all venomous. Plenty of Eastern Browns, Red Belly Blacks and Bandy Bandy and over the years there have been losses of horses to them.

In other animals, the reactions vary between individuals. Seems they have 'the instinct' or they don't ( to see a threat) Dogs that do, often pull their lips back while attacking as though the taste is also repulsive. This for both spiders and snakes, though I've had dogs that will stomp a spider instead.

Insects are generally tossed into the air with each nip in a continuous motion, snakes shaken violently.

Plenty of Funnel web spiders too. generally these are not toxic to canines and my terrier will jump on them if he finds them. Much appreciated when they are near where the kids play.

We prefer to let them be, but the warnings have been handy, especially in the dark/ using the bath room! 

On 10/20/2021 at 6:52 PM, Intoscience said:

 Purposes can be assigned and not necessarily intrinsic to existence.

What if the purpose is to express your existence,  as you believe Humanity should?

Humanely.

Humanity has a common language that directs us through values expressed. Thats biological. 

Objective value is to state.

Subjective to Direction.

If those 2 values are entangled, direction is to achievement and maintenance of state, before any other value can be recognized.

By mechanism of subtraction,  of environment.

Reduced to the desired state.

A better understanding of what is 'environment' might make this more clear, and the workings self evident.

Humanity is equal to education.

Education is not equal to Humanity.

Thats the problem we should be addressing.

On 12/26/2021 at 11:04 AM, MSC said:

 

Are you perchance a ghost? Because almost all of what you were saying, sounded like woo. It didn't really make much sense and was kind of hard to read because it sounds like you're trying to cultivate mystique and making fallacious appeals to science in an attempt to strengthen whatever it is you're trying to claim. 

Or you are missing the  dimension of a biological space in the way I use language.

We should know its there, to link the social sciences to biological law and physics.

On 12/26/2021 at 11:04 AM, MSC said:

 

Neurological, Genetic, Cultural and biological diversity are in no ways "subjective".

Yes they are. They subject to environment. The only value of an object/objective is in its being, or statehood.

The direction given to your object/objective is all subject to its existence or being. Its state is determined by that direction.

When you  measure that being/state by any other value, That value is subject to the state its applied to.

Philosophy says all value is subjective. Measurement is subjective. 

On 12/26/2021 at 11:04 AM, MSC said:

It sounds to me like you're trying to abstract away from simply saying "I don't see colour or differences in peoples." Which I think is just you lying to yourself about having subconscious biases, because admitting you have them, would make you seem, in your eye's at least, less good or intelligent. 

But I do see color and diversity, everywhere. I think you read things into what I say because it conflicts with your assumed reality- where value lies in objective states, rather than direction  subjectively provided.

On 12/26/2021 at 11:04 AM, MSC said:

You misunderstood completely when I said;

Assume everything or assume nothing on a case by case basis. Meaning, upon examination of the objective context, which includes the individuals involved subjective beliefs, as it will factor into what is happening, in a given situation deduce whether or not discrimination is going on, and the type and degree of it. It's simpler but probably more appropriate meaning; consider all sides, empathise with and understand how and why different people may view the same situation differently. Give yourself the fullest view of a situation as you can, research it, double/triple check, be rigorous and accept that you fallible humanity will never lead you to a perfect answer. Just a best guess. (Unless it's the hard sciences of course. 9 is the perfect answer to what is the square root of 81.)

I did not misunderstand. Objective context would be the content of the object- Subject value.

Applying both values at the same time time can only be subtractive of the value being measured.

The language is corrupted to that end.

On 12/9/2021 at 3:05 AM, MSC said:

 

 

I often like to say, assume everything or assume nothing. Case by case basis. Being blind to unjustified discrimination as a reality that happens, amounts to missing it when it does, just as being blind to justified discrimination as a reality amounts to missing it when it also happens. 

What I assume,  becomes  part of my existence or being. My self reality is based on those assumptions. If they are not objectively 'true', or universal, I would be basing my existence on  belief. Not truth, or science.

If I  assume bigotry or racism, Or assume their lack, I will act on those as truths of my being.  I will be unable to effectively recognize evidence that contradicts my being. 

So I will assume neither if our Humanity is the  object of my study.

I can assume both the existence of unjustified discrimination, and its absence. But neither are objective truths of our shared Humanity until they are assumed inherently  into its direction. Its 'in-formation'. 

I will not knowingly assume bigotry or its promotion.  If Humanity is the Object of of my study, I can not then Subject that Humanity to an assumption of bigoty  that directs our form..

Thats not science, its belief. A refusal to recognize or accept what contradicts my subjective reality.

On 12/9/2021 at 3:05 AM, MSC said:

Your last line seems strange and I wonder if you can be convinced to shed more light on what you mean by it? Are you saying the inverse, absolute conformity is the epitome of equality? 

A virtue theorist could argue that if diversity is a collective virtue, it is the golden mean between absolute conformity and pure individuality. For the individual, this means individualisation for the purpose of bringing a broad range of skills, aptitudes and value to the collective. For the collective, this means conforming to a shared value of diversity, for the sake of our survival. 

Diversity is the antithesis of equality.

There is One. The Object of study. Humanity. 

 I objectively assume the equality of its parts to  'in-form' that One manifestation. 

Our equality is not in the subjective. Our diversity is subjective.

Objective and subjective are contradictory values.

An object is reduced to its definition. Of being- no other value but one.

A subjective carries the potential of any other.

Blur the line of definition between the 2 and you will objectively reduce the subject to a uniform state.

On 11/1/2021 at 3:17 PM, iNow said:

Correct. Convince me of it’s relevance to the actual discussion and first clearly define your terms then perhaps I’ll reconsider. 

Language  plays an vital role in biology and many other fields of science. I think its worth while ensuring we are speaking the same one. J.P has said that part of the problem polarizing society atm are that we are literally speaking different languages and this seems to be aptly demonstrated here. So yes, I think its very relevant, given the O.P.

Objective- Value is to 'state'. It places the value in the object itself, discarding any influence beyond the  measure of its being.  The value is confined. It is objective, of environment. Its the single, stand alone value of a  state- of being. The value is in its being,  or objective manifestation. Exclusive of environment or other value.

Subjective- Value is to direction, The value measured is environment, its influence on the subject. Inclusive of environment. Subject to....

On 11/1/2021 at 3:17 PM, iNow said:

Please clarify. In this discussion about trans individuals asking others to respect their gender identity, who are you saying is delusional?

Delusional people were the subject. Only delusional people.   Many of whom have have issues with understanding who they are, or validation of self .

On 11/1/2021 at 3:35 PM, Peterkin said:

I do not. The majority - indeed, the entirety - of the population is concerned in and with mental health, the availability, accessibility and quality of health care, the societal and legal response to mental illness and the people who suffer mental illness. Every citizen of every country might, at some time in their life, become ill, might need help, might have family members who are ill and need help. It's not merely a majority issue - it's a universal one. 

I find it interesting you do not see Trans Gender issues as universal or majority issues. You don't see that Trans gender issues might affect any citizen of any country who could have family members wishing to transition, and could use with support. Not a majority or universal issue, but some thing 'other'.

Both are environmental, to the human condition. 

Of mental health and transgender issues, I agree the 1st is more readily recognized and accepted as part of the Human condition. Transgenderism has a way to go yet. Its not familiar to most but getting there with more people willing and able to present as such.

On 11/1/2021 at 3:35 PM, Peterkin said:

That's true, though not applicable to the present topic, which was gender-denoting pronouns. (I know; it's a very tiny ball and hard to keep in focus.)

If you want to focus on that  tiny ball of fluff,  no, its not my focus nor that of the O.P.

On 11/1/2021 at 3:35 PM, Peterkin said:

 

Which values - other than pi, the speed of light and the boiling point of water - are objective? Where is the perch on which a deity must sit in order to get an objective view of human politics? Monarchist and republican values are in opposition. So are Christian and Ojibwa values. So are commercial and family values. When drafting the constitution, law-makers have to balance all the sets of values that make up the convictions of their people in such a way that no group is dispossessed. That's no easy task! From time to time, some aspect of the people's character comes to light that had previously been neglected and an amendment is drafted, proposed, debated and voted-on. So then, the laws of the land change a little bit, to make things better for some people - while everyone else keeps on truckin' like nothing happened. Predictably, a few object to the change and become oppositional. 

See above.

On 11/1/2021 at 3:35 PM, Peterkin said:

 

 I tried, but can't guess what that means.

So maybe we should look at the language.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Do whatever, but comments and personal gripes will bleed across the threads and references will be made to others. I see the logic in splitting, but feel it will fail in implementation. 

Also, it’s only one or two people who are tossing in red herrings. Maybe deal with the bad actors instead of the topic as a whole. 

I haven't been able to catch up with this and would like the chance to address questions put to me that I feel are very relevant to the O.P. and perhaps also to the polarization of the political environment in general.

SH*ts happening though and I'm so far unable to take the time needed.

On 10/31/2021 at 12:20 AM, iNow said:

Well… I’d agree with you, but then we’d BOTH be wrong.

While nobody has claimed ALL trans individuals are simply delusional, the claim that MANY individuals expressing themselves as a gender contrary to the one they were assigned at birth may simply be delusional has been repeated many times and over and over again. 

So, either you’re not paying very close attention to the conversation, or you’re intentionally attacking a strawman of what I’m saying. Neither of those possibilities inclines me to take your specious criticisms very seriously. 

You still have not answered my question. Are you applying subjective or objective values.

Because you seem to be stopped by the 1st identifier of Trans gender as objectively inclusive of any further identifiers, subjectively. 

On 10/31/2021 at 12:31 AM, Peterkin said:

What has anyone's mental health got to do with a law protecting minority rights?

Absolutely nothing, if you don't  recognize mental health  as a minority issue.

On 10/31/2021 at 4:23 AM, iNow said:

People who wish to break said law grasping at straws / seeking justifications and rationalizations for continuance of their discriminatory behavior 

So disagreement with your stance or said law could imply nothing else? 

On 10/31/2021 at 8:32 AM, iNow said:

No, though if they truly ARE delusional, I remain unsure why calling them that to their face is supposed to be a good thing to do. It’s not courteous, not helpful, and majority of the time not relevant. 

None have suggested we do. Only that we don't support delusion at the expense of the person where that choice is applicable.

On 10/31/2021 at 8:32 AM, iNow said:

 

Now apply that same thinking to folks who assert anyone assigned at birth as Gender A now identifying as Gender B is “delusional.”

 

Anyone assigned at birth is not the same as some or even many,. Some or many is subjective, of those who are, delusional. You do no favors on behalf of the trans community to ignore its subjectivity and entanglement with environment. Thats not recognition, thats increased definition and exclusion.

On 10/31/2021 at 1:49 PM, iNow said:

Uhm. It was directed at people who assert anyone assigned at birth as Gender A now identifying as Gender B is “delusional.” … exactly like I said the first time… in the bit you quoted.

Again,  thats not what has been done here. 'Any one who' is not the same as 'some or many who'

On 10/31/2021 at 1:49 PM, iNow said:

Speaking of honesty, how about you stop questioning mine, eh?

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Can you bring about understanding through rejection?  

I doubt it. Rejecting argument on the basis that it must imply racism or bigotry does little to foster understanding.

Subjective and objective values are oppositional . Application of both corrupts the language to opposition. 

Social justice is a worthy cause, but C.T has altered its language to an oppositional state, not an accepting one in a belief both subjective and objective values  apply simultaneously.

16 hours ago, iNow said:

 

In this thread, in writing, other members suggested that trans individuals may simply be delusional. So, yes. I think that's going on here and that's precisely what I was referencing. No amount of handwaving or disingenuous posting will change that. 

Ah, Yes. I see.  Trans individuals!   Yes, that has been suggested.  And there is no reason they may not be...  delusional, individually. Though none have suggested its  implicit to the condition.

You seem convinced there is only one answer to the question; Are Trans gender people delusional, so what value are you applying? 

Are you convinced from the Subjective perspective of a trans individual, 

Or the Objective perspective of the Condition?

6 hours ago, naitche said:

 

Qualification is Subject to science and decided by contribution, not qualification. Qualification is simply a support construct extended to participants towards its purpose. Better to support that construct than deny those who come to science with out it being miraculously intact.

 

Apologies, should read any value is subject to science.

Thank you. Made my day better when I could do with a bit of that. 

On 10/23/2021 at 4:43 PM, iNow said:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but anyone still dismissing trans individuals as delusional is themselves… delusional. 

Is that what you think any one one here, or J.P has done?

Because many of us can't come to the same conclusion from the language used. 

I don't understand how that could be an objective assessment. You accept your bias when you accept that Trans gender people are objectively oppressed. The language is corrupted to that perspective.

Critical theory may be well intended, its effects are anything but if its O.K to blur the line between objectivity and subjectivity 'in reality.' 

Since this is now in speculations, maybe we can speculate with out the need for language perfection in an area where it perhaps hasn't been perfected.

If some one were trying to publish a paper as a respected scientist, these critiques might be valid. But I doubt very much this site would be their chosen medium.

For those that have chosen this medium, I think its own contribution to science would be better served  by trying to understand what the O.P is attempting to say, and  offer corrections or alternatives. Increase perspective rather than imply the one presented has no foundation.

Whether or not the idea has merit is objective, not subject to other qualifications. 

Familiarization is required for Recognition. Response comes from there. Rejection is not a response but an inability to recognize value to the subject (science).

That it has none has not been established.

Its assumption  removes the objectivity of science and reduces its value to other environments - Limiting participation.

Qualification is Subject to science and decided by contribution, not qualification.

Qualification is simply a support construct extended to participants towards its purpose. Better to support that construct than deny those who come to science with out it miraculously intact.

On 10/24/2021 at 5:23 AM, infamouse said:

If I might be so bold as to take a stab at one of the most controversial definitions in philosophy and science, I would define consciousness as a causal chain from perception, to instinct, to conceptualization. This causal chain is reflected in our evolution across time as a species, as well as our day-to-day actions.

I agree to the extent that if consciousness is the measurement of being, then the world we as a species have inherited is the manifestation of the values we have applied in the past tense and continue to apply daily.

On 10/24/2021 at 5:23 AM, infamouse said:

I hypothesize that resource distribution and utilization remains a major issue for our society primarily because of our failure to recognize the fundamental nature of conscious social constructs such as language and math. For 2,000 years, we have engaged in the same form of communication with little or no improvements to the fundamental code; the software, so to speak.

Or maybe we just haven't sufficiently developed the understanding of how those constructs tie in to and govern our own biology.

On 10/24/2021 at 5:23 AM, infamouse said:

I propose that the conceptual ability of a society to deal with unforeseen or highly complex circumstances is directly proportional to the information density of the intellectual mediums at hand. I predict that children educated in base 100 mathematics (particularly if they are encouraged to practise math without a calculator to the extent of their capabilities)  and an equivalent higher form of language, will demonstrate advanced IQ relative to peers in a control group. Is

I think those things are important and would like to see 'the intellectual mediums' available equally. To date, their availability has been unequal to Humanity and we could certainly improve on that.

The conceptual in-ability though, I see as more as miss- application of values and the instruction/direction taken from that.

One of the hardest things I found here was my impatience and the frustration that generates. It can make it seem to the un initiated that they are being piled on. Too many questions at once from too many directions and your resources are over loaded.  My back ground had partly prepared me for that. I sometimes  have to sit back and gather my resources though, before I try again.

Its worth what feels a trial by fire, even when people are being entirely fair and justly critical.  I can expect to face it again, many times. 

What I learn from it has been more than worth its while.

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

IQ is a measure of the ability to do IQ tests. The link to actual intelligence is far weaker. While academic abilities rise with the generations, it doesn't mean that the difference is genetic. It might be mostly environmental. However, just as average heights of humans have been rising, there may be a one-off rise in actual real intelligence levels, due to diet improvements, but like height, it's unlikely to be more than a one or two generation thing, if it's due to an improved diet. 

If you could compare a group of humans from 50,000 years ago to a modern day group, it's very unlikely that there would be a discernable difference in average intelligence, if they grew up in the same environment.

Agreed. I think it is mostly environmental, (The tools and language,tech. we have brought into the equation, raised from potential and direction) but the results in evolutionary terms have increased our available environment exponentially.

I think we just have to learn to read  the reality in front of us, through familiarization and all its relatives, and not assume the next One is just going to be just more of the same.