A bunch of Infantry stranded in time

[silliman89]

People back then were just not as smart as we are now. The next generation is going to make us look just as stupid. So it goes on. Every generation makes huge leaps in learning and speeds up the pace of life.

I think you're confusing sophistication with intelligence, or smarts, especially when you talk about how slow and boring old movies etc were.

Look at a specific example from our own lifetimes (assuming you're my age or so). When Star Wars first came out, 1978 IIRC, it was ground breaking, brilliant, original. Watch it now. It's old, slow, and been done to death. The same is even more true about the old Star Trek TV series. They're still fun maybe, but not the same as they were.

But we aren't smarter than we were back then. In fact, it's generally accepted that people are never as smart as when they're young. What we are is more experienced. We are better able to process things based on what we've experienced before, because we've experienced more. We're more sophisticated.

We would react to truely new things just as slowly as people from 50, or 500, or 5,000 years ago.

 

[scubie02]

yes, I strongly disagree with the idea that people are smarter now than in past--if anything it is quite the opposite. The media may portray it or conventional wisdom likes to make out like all kids are computer geniuses or something, but in my experience this is far from the truth. The average student is still a below average computer user, and has no idea whatsoever how it works. People today are used to having something "work" and if it does not, they call someone to "fix it"--they generally have no idea how it works. Hell, you'd be amazed how many people today still can't properly use a VCR for Pete's sake. As far as the quality of the average student, it is not even close to comparable. Ask any teacher who's been in the field for long enough to compare students from say 20 years ago or so even to today. When I first moved back "home" and started teaching at my old high school, the teacher who taught AP English still taught here, and still did some of the same assignments (the classics are still the classics after all). One day she was in the library with a group of students doing one of the same assignments we used to do and was getting ready to go over the directions. Looking over her shoulder, I saw that the sheet she had said "read ______ (can't recall which book it was) and do a 2000 word paper...", but 2000 was crossed off and next to it was written 1500, which was crossed off and in its place written 1200, which was crossed off and subbed with 800, which was crossed off and ended up as 500...when she finished and the kids were started I questioned the change, and she said that kids today could no way handle the same workload or difficulty of assignments as those back when I was in school. Nearly all classes that were electives when I was in school have been cancelled, because almost none of the students would dream of taking an EXTRA class. If we desired to drop a class, we were asked what class we were going to take in its place. Today's kids take another study hall. Trust me, the work ethic and intelligence and even maturity one might argue of the average student has declined dramatically, not increased. Hell, I'd put the average 70 year old up against the average high school senior on Jeopardy anyday...

 

[mack]

Per, Hank B's post - I think that the most amazing thing about this thread - is the apparent belief of many individuals that past generations were somehow not as smart or competent or talented as current or recent generations.

I find that attitude or belief to be extremely uninformed and arrogant. We - those of us living today - stand on the shoulders - of those past generations - nothing we have today would be possible without the intelligence, bravery, dedication, and sacrifice of those past generations.

I guess the uninformed belief in present day individuals as being smarter that past generations must come from the ability of individuals today to be more productive than their predecessors. Ie...a present day worker can produce more goods or product than his counterpart of past generations. Of course that modern workers productivity is dependent upon centuries of technological progress, vast databases of institutional knowledge, and a vast infrastructure.

The intelligence and capabilities of individuals have however changed little. Take a soldier of ancient Egypt, or Rome, or of the middle ages and let them spend a few months to a year catching up on technological advances and they would be as good as any modern soldier, perhaps better. Take a modern soldier and put him in ancient Egypt, Rome, the middle ages and give him a few months or a year to learn the realities and technology of the time and he would probably be quite inferior to the contemporary soldier of that time. Why, because modern technology is designed to allow average individuals to become quickly proficient whilst ancient technology often took more skill and training before one could become proficient with it.

Take a western pioneer and drop him in the modern world and with a modicum of training he could work for a living and get along quite well. Take a modern worker from the west and put him in the place of the pioneer and he would likely be dead in short order, because he would not have the skills necessary to survive and could not in all probability learn them quiclky enough.

In ancient warrior vs modern warrior as an example - the skill and training necessary to master the bow, sword, spear, sheild, and horse - the skills necessary to make and maintain the tools of ones trade, (sword, bow, arrows, spear, sheild, and horse, ect...) were more difficult to become basically competant with, than modern small arms.

Today we are more dependent on our technology and each other for our survivial than our ancestors.

 

[TF_FH]

People today are used to having something "work" and if it does not, they call someone to "fix it"--they generally have no idea how it works.

I once thought that us younger kids (I'm just 22) were the computer geniuses and able to program the VCR just fine. Once I left home though and started working, I realized just how dumb my generation is. There are a few exceptions, but most people (of my generation) just dont care how things work. They just figure "Well someone else can do it, why should I try?"

 

[scubie02]

I once thought that us younger kids (I'm just 22) were the computer geniuses and able to program the VCR just fine. Once I left home though and started working, I realized just how dumb my generation is. There are a few exceptions, but most people (of my generation) just dont care how things work. They just figure "Well someone else can do it, why should I try?"

yep. Which I like to think of as "job security"...

 

[scubie02]

I think people also confuse formal education with intelligence. More people nowadays get the piece of paper, but I don't think that means they are more intelligent. One thing you realize if you pay much attention in college is that almost any idiot can get the piece of paper if he puts the time in and takes or sucks up to the right professor, etc.

Or as an example, compare say Abraham Lincoln and his intelligence level to your average politician today. A huge percentage of modern politicans actually have law degrees--as in, they went and got an actual undergrad degree, then went to three years of Law School...and look what we have to show for it? Anyone much repsect the intelligence of the average politician? Oh, sure, there are a couple that might have some actual intelligence, but there aren't excetly lots of sharp knives in that drawer.

Whereas somebdoy like Lincoln read a few books and then hung out a sign saying they were a lawyer, but if you read his writings, he certainly comes across as heads and shoulders above most of our modern boys. Also compare your average founding father and how many languages they spoke, how many books they had read, etc. I had a freshly graduated young pharmacist brag to me once a couple of years ago that he had only ever read two entire books in his life--the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Howard Stern's Private Parts...

 

[entropy]

Take a western pioneer and drop him in the modern world and with a modicum of training he could work for a living and get along quite well. Take a modern worker from the west and put him in the place of the pioneer and he would likely be dead in short order, because he would not have the skills necessary to survive and could not in all probability learn them quiclky enough.

Ah, not necessarily true, and the difference there is that we have all of history as reference. Some of us do know the ancient ways of fighting wars(by way of example); swordplay, archery, staff work, etc. These skills would be instantly usable. True, only a small amount of the population has this knowledge in their heads readily available, but it is more than the 0% of the past's population that have foreknowledge of today's technology.

I also suspect that a 'collective memory' similar to what has been demonstrated that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man had ,that enabled each generation to build on (somewhat) instead of completely repeat their entire ancestors' discoveries, would 'kick in', allowing travellers to the past to 'rediscover' basic things such as Archimedes Screw, the travois, and moss as bandaging. Read the FoxFire series of books and see how many things in there make you go, "Oh, yeah, that makes perfect sense", or " Somehow I knew that's what that was for..". No collective memory exsists in the future tense, well, beyond what is intended to be revealed at a given time. (Simultaneous discovery and the 'hundredth monkey' phenomenon.)

 

[History Nut]

Probabilities and Speculations

Let's see, a squad of modern Marines carrying a basic load for all organic weapons is suddenly popped back in time to land on Iwo Jima 4 days before the U.S. landing in WWII? No twelve men in the world would survive for long once contact with the Japanese troops had occured. There were THOUSANDS of Japanese troops on the island who had occupied every hiding place available on a barren, tiny island. There would be no place to hide. This all assumes the 'best case' where the Marines immediately realized their predicament which isn't likely. If they 'landed' at night, it might buy them some time but not much. To realize where they were, they would have to make contact with the 'locals' who would be very prepared for combat as the invasion was expected. The Marine squad would be assumed by the Japanese to be some scouting force for the impending landing and be wiped out quickly since there was nothing to divert the Japanese' attention. Their modern weapons might help them hold out a little longer but odds of 12 against hundreds are not good even if the bad guys only use rifles. The M203 rounds would probably behave like the mortar rounds in WWII did in that they buried in the soft sand before detonating causing reduced casualty affect. It wouldn't matter if it was Soldiers or Marines, the outcome would be the same. Overwhelming odds are just that.

Now a couple of 'nitpicks' provided for educational purposes only and not intended as personal criticism:

The BAR issued was the M1918A2. The Marines, according to some sources, modified theirs to fire full- and semi-auto rather than the stock two auto-fire rates that the Army used.

The standard machine guns were the M1919A4 air cooled and the M1917A1 water cooled. The water-cooled Brownings were in the Heavy Weapons Company at Battalion level.

The WWII Marines would not have had an 'I.D.' card marked "War Department" but one marked "Navy Department" if they had a card at all. Heinlein once stated: "No 'Department of Defense' ever won a war". Well, Robert, I guess our modern warriors have proved you wrong on one point at least.

I don't believe that there is any real difference in the genetic smarts of yesterdays'' versus todays' youth. The difference is in education and "common sense". The youth of yesterday might have less formal education but grade for grade it was better. The youth of today have much more time in school but seem to learn less. Individual exceptions abound but I am commenting on the proverbial "average". If dropped in the wilderness with the clothes on their backs, yesterdays' youth would have a fair chance of survival. In the same scenerio, the modern youth would have a great deal more 'difficulty'. I once heard an ER doc remark that we should rename "common sense" to "practical sense" as it is not very common anymore. It all comes down to Leadership. Todays' youth can do just as well as any other generation, if properly lead.

 

[MechAg94]

How many non-fiction books have the current generation kids read? How many words are in the average vocabulary of the current generation?

People are people though and always have been. It is pure arrogance to assume that, just because OTHER people can build great and wonderful things, that makes you somehow superior. We are all specialists these days and most of us spend a great deal LESS time working than people did 100 or 200 years ago. Remember also, it hasn't been that long since there was a fine line between prosperity and literally going hungry for the average individual.

100 years ago, I bet people asked the same questions looking at their rail roads and steam ships and repeating rifles.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

modern day soldiers time-transported to WWII

They would never get past the old challenge:
"Who won the last World Series?"

I remember a Playboy magazine short story in the 'sixties had a time
travel story where WWII troops ended up in the American Civil War era.
(Yea, I didn't just read the articles, I read Playboy fiction too.)

 

[KriegHund]

I think we are better educated. I doubt we are really any smarter.

"Do not measure a mans intelligince by what he knows, but rather by how he thinks"