Why our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents' | James Flynn

Translator: David J. Kreps Finnemann Reviewer: Anders Finn Jørgensen

We are going to take a quick voyage

Vi tager en hurtig rejse

over the cognitive history of the 20th century,

gennem det 20. århundredes kognitive historie,

because during that century,

fordi i det århundrede,

our minds have altered dramatically.

har vores sind ændret sig voldsomt.

As you all know, the cars that people drove in 1900

Som I alle ved, har de biler som folk kørte i i 1900

have altered because the roads are better

ændret sig fordi vejene er bedre

and because of technology.

og på grund af teknologi.

And our minds have altered, too.

Vores sind har også ændret sig.

We've gone from people who confronted a concrete world

Vi er gået fra at være mennesker der stod overfor en konkret verden

and analyzed that world primarily in terms

og analyserede primært den verden med hensyn til

of how much it would benefit them

hvor meget den ville gavne dem

to people who confront a very complex world,

til at være mennesker der står overfor en meget kompleks verden,

and it's a world where we've had to develop

og det er en verden hvor vi har skullet udvikle

new mental habits, new habits of mind.

nye mentale vaner, nye vaner i sindet.

And these include things like

Og dette inkluderer ting som

clothing that concrete world with classification,

at påklæde den konkrete verden med klassificering,

introducing abstractions that we try to make

introducere abstraktioner som vi prøver at gøre

logically consistent,

logisk konsistente.

and also taking the hypothetical seriously,

og også tage det hypotetiske alvorligt,

that is, wondering about what might have been

det vil sige, at undre sig over hvad der kunne have været

rather than what is.

i stedet for hvad der er.

Now, this dramatic change was drawn to my attention

Denne dramatiske forandring blev jeg først opmærksom på

through massive I.Q. gains over time,

gennem massiv fremgang i IQ over tid,

and these have been truly massive.

og disse har i sandhed været massive.

That is, we don't just get a few more questions right

Det vil sige, vi svarer ikke rigtig på et par flere spørgsmål

on I.Q. tests.

på IQ testen.

We get far more questions right on I.Q. tests

Vi svarer rigtigt på langt flere spørgsmål i IQ testen

than each succeeding generation

end hver tidligere generationer

back to the time that they were invented.

tilbage til den tid de blev opfundet.

Indeed, if you score the people a century ago

Bestemt, hvis man tester menneskerne fra et århundrede siden

against modern norms,

mod moderne normer,

they would have an average I.Q. of 70.

ville de have en gennemsnitlig IQ på 70.

If you score us against their norms,

Hvis man tester os imod deres normer,

we would have an average I.Q. of 130.

ville vi have en gennemsnitlig IQ på 130.

Now this has raised all sorts of questions.

Dette rejste en masse forskellige spørgsmål.

Were our immediate ancestors

Var vores nærmeste forfædre

on the verge of mental retardation?

på randen af mental retardering?

Because 70 is normally the score for mental retardation.

Fordi 70 er normalvis scoren for mental retardering.

Or are we on the verge of all being gifted?

Eller er vi på kanten af at være genier?

Because 130 is the cutting line for giftedness.

Fordi 130 er på kanten af genialitet.

Now I'm going to try and argue for a third alternative

Nu vil jeg prøve at argumentere for et tredje alternativ

that's much more illuminating than either of those,

der er meget mere oplysende end de andre,

and to put this into perspective,

og for at sætte dette i perspektiv,

let's imagine that a Martian came down to Earth

lad os så forestille os at en marsboer kom ned på Jorden

and found a ruined civilization.

og fandt en falden civilisation.

And this Martian was an archaeologist,

Og denne marsboer var arkæolog,

and they found scores, target scores,

og de fandt test resultater, mål resultater,

that people had used for shooting.

som mennesker havde brugt til at skyde på.

And first they looked at 1865,

Og først så de på 1865,

and they found that in a minute,

og de så at på et minut,

people had only put one bullet in the bullseye.

havde mennesker kun skudt én kugle i pletskud.

And then they found, in 1898,

Og så så de i 1898,

that they'd put about five bullets in the bullseye in a minute.

havde de ramt cirka fem pletskud på et minut.

And then about 1918 they put a hundred bullets in the bullseye.

Og så omkring 1918 havde de ramt 100 pletskud.

And initially, that archaeologist would be baffled.

Og i første omgang, ville den arkæolog være forbløffet.

They would say, look, these tests were designed

De ville sige, se engang, disse test blev opfundet

to find out how much people were steady of hand,

til at finde ud af hvor rolige hænder mennesker havde,

how keen their eyesight was,

hvor godt syn de havde,

whether they had control of their weapon.

om de havde kontrol over deres våben.

How could these performances have escalated

Hvordan kunne disse præstationer have eskaleret

to this enormous degree?

i så voldsom grad?

Well we now know, of course, the answer.

Jamen vi kender nu, selvfølgelig, svaret,

If that Martian looked at battlefields,

Hvis den marsboer havde set på slagmarken,

they would find that people had only muskets

ville de se at mennesker kun havde musketer

at the time of the Civil War

under borgerkrigen

and that they had repeating rifles

og de havde repeterende rifler

at the time of the Spanish-American War,

under den spansk-amerikanske krig,

and then they had machine guns

og så havde de maskingeværer

by the time of World War I.

i tiden under Første Verdenskrig.

And, in other words, it was the equipment

Og, med andre ord, det var udstyret

that was in the hands of the average soldier

der var i hænderne på den gennemsnitlige soldat

that was responsible, not greater keenness of eye

der var årsagen, ikke bedre syn

or steadiness of hand.

eller roligere hænder.

Now what we have to imagine is the mental artillery

Det vi skal forestille os er at det mentale skyts

that we have picked up over those hundred years,

som vi nu har indsamlet i løbet af de sidste hundrede år,

and I think again that another thinker will help us here,

og jeg tror igen at en anden tænker vil hjælpe os med det,

and that's Luria.

og det er Luria.

Luria looked at people

Luria så på mennesker

just before they entered the scientific age,

lige inden de gik ind i den videnskabelige alder,

and he found that these people

og han oplevede at disse mennesker

were resistant to classifying the concrete world.

var imod at klassificere den konkrete verden.

They wanted to break it up

De ville dele den op

into little bits that they could use.

i små dele som de kunne bruge.

He found that they were resistant

Han oplevede at de var imod at

to deducing the hypothetical,

udlede det hypotetiske,

to speculating about what might be,

at spekulere over det der kunne ske,

and he found finally that they didn't deal well

og han oplevede til slut at de ikke håndterede

with abstractions or using logic on those abstractions.

abstraktioner godt eller at bruge logik på disse abstraktioner.

Now let me give you a sample of some of his interviews.

Lad mig nu give er et eksempel på nogle af disse interviews.

He talked to the head man of a person

Han talte til en persons overhoved

in rural Russia.

i det landlige Rusland.

They'd only had, as people had in 1900,

De havde kun, som mennesker havde i 1900,

about four years of schooling.

cirka fire års skolegang.

And he asked that particular person,

Og han spurgte den bestemte person,

what do crows and fish have in common?

hvad har krager og fisk til fælles?

And the fellow said, "Absolutely nothing.

Og fyren sagde, "Intet overhovedet.

You know, I can eat a fish. I can't eat a crow.

Du ved, jeg kan spise en fisk. Jeg kan ikke spise en krage.

A crow can peck at a fish.

En krage kan hakke på en fisk.

A fish can't do anything to a crow."

En fisk kan ikke gøre noget ved en krage."

And Luria said, "But aren't they both animals?"

Og Luria sagde, "Men er de ikke begge dyr?"

And he said, "Of course not.

Og han sagde, "Selvfølgelig ikke.

One's a fish.

Den ene er en fisk.

The other is a bird."

Den anden er en fugl."

And he was interested, effectively,

Og han blev interesseret, fra det tidspunkt,

in what he could do with those concrete objects.

i hvad han kunne gøre med disse konkrete objekter.

And then Luria went to another person,

Og så gik Luria til en anden person,

and he said to them,

og han sagde til dem,

"There are no camels in Germany.

"Der er ikke nogen kameler i Tyskland.

Hamburg is a city in Germany.

Hamborg er en by i Tyskland.

Are there camels in Hamburg?"

Er der kameler i Hamborg?"

And the fellow said,

Og fyren sagde,

"Well, if it's large enough, there ought to be camels there."

"Jamen, hvis den er stor nok, bør der være kameler."

And Luria said, "But what do my words imply?"

Og Luria sagde, "Men hvad indebærer mine ord?"

And he said, "Well, maybe it's a small village,

Og han sagde, "Jamen, måske er det en lille by,

and there's no room for camels."

og der er ikke plads til kameler."

In other words, he was unwilling to treat this

Med andre ord, var han uvillig til at behandle dette

as anything but a concrete problem,

som andet end et konkret problem,

and he was used to camels being in villages,

og han var vant til at der var kameler i landsbyer,

and he was quite unable to use the hypothetical,

og han var helt ude af stand til at bruge det hypotetiske,

to ask himself what if there were no camels in Germany.

til at spørge sig selv, hvad nu hvis der ikke er nogen kameler i Tyskland.

A third interview was conducted

Et tredje interview blev gennemført

with someone about the North Pole.

med nogen om Nordpolen.

And Luria said, "At the North Pole, there is always snow.

Og Luria sagde, "På Nordpolen, er der altid sne.

Wherever there is always snow, the bears are white.

Hvor der altid er sne, er bjørnene hvide.

What color are the bears at the North Pole?"

Hvilken farve har bjørnene på Nordpolen?"

And the response was, "Such a thing

Og svaret var, "Sådan noget

is to be settled by testimony.

skal afgøres ved vidneudsagn.

If a wise person came from the North Pole

Hvis en vis person kom fra Nordpolen

and told me the bears were white,

og fortalte mig at bjørnene er hvide,

I might believe him,

ville jeg nok tro på ham,

but every bear that I have seen is a brown bear."

men alle de bjørne jeg har set er brune."

Now you see again, this person has rejected

Nu ser man igen, at denne person har afvist

going beyond the concrete world

at gå uden for den konkrete verden

and analyzing it through everyday experience,

og analysere den gennem hverdagsoplevelser,

and it was important to that person

og det var vigtigt for den person

what color bears were --

hvilken farve bjørnene havde --

that is, they had to hunt bears.

det vil sige, de skulle jage bjørnene.

They weren't willing to engage in this.

De var ikke villige til at gå ind på dette.

One of them said to Luria,

En af dem sagde til Luria,

"How can we solve things that aren't real problems?

"Hvordan kan vi løse ting der ikke er ægte problemer?

None of these problems are real.

Ingen af disse problemer er ægte.

How can we address them?"

Hvordan kan vi gøre noget ved dem?"

Now, these three categories --

Men, disse tre kategorier --

classification,

klassificering,

using logic on abstractions,

ved at bruge logik på abstraktioner,

taking the hypothetical seriously --

at tage de hypotetiske alvorligt --

how much difference do they make in the real world

hvor stor forskel gør de i den virkelige verden

beyond the testing room?

uden for testlokalet?

And let me give you a few illustrations.

Og lad mig give jer et par eksempler.

First, almost all of us today get a high school diploma.

For det første, næsten alle os her i dag har gået på gymnasiet.

That is, we've gone from four to eight years of education

Det vil sige, vi er gået fra mellem fire og otte års uddannelse

to 12 years of formal education,

til 12 års formel uddannelse,

and 52 percent of Americans

og 52 procent af amerikanere

have actually experienced some type of tertiary education.

har faktisk oplevet en eller anden form for højere uddannelse.

Now, not only do we have much more education,

Ikke nok med at vi har meget mere uddannelse,

and much of that education is scientific,

og meget mere af den uddannelse er videnskabelig,

and you can't do science without classifying the world.

og man kan ikke lave videnskab uden at klassificere verden.

You can't do science without proposing hypotheses.

Men kan ikke lave videnskab uden at foreslå hypoteser.

You can't do science without making it logically consistent.

Man kan ikke lave videnskab uden at gøre det logisk konsistent.

And even down in grade school, things have changed.

Og selv i folkeskolen, har tingene ændret sig.

In 1910, they looked at the examinations

I 1910, så de på eksaminerne

that the state of Ohio gave to 14-year-olds,

som staten Ohio gav deres 14-årige,

and they found that they were all

handlede de alle om

for socially valued concrete information.

socialt værdsat konkret information.

They were things like,

Det var ting som,

what are the capitals of the 44 or 45 states

hvad er hovedstaderne i de 44 eller 45 stater

that existed at that time?

der fandtes dengang?

When they looked at the exams

Når de så på eksaminerne

that the state of Ohio gave in 1990,

som staten Ohio gav dem i 1990,

they were all about abstractions.

handlede de alle om abstraktioner.

They were things like,

Det var ting som,

why is the largest city of a state rarely the capital?

hvorfor er den største by i en stat sjældent hovedstaden?

And you were supposed to think, well,

Så var meningen at man tænkte, jamen,

the state legislature was rural-controlled,

statens lovgivende forsamling var landligt kontrolleret,

and they hated the big city,

og de hadede storbyen,

so rather than putting the capital in a big city,

så i stedet for at lægge hovedstaden i en stor by,

they put it in a county seat.

lagde de den på landet.

They put it in Albany rather than New York.

De lagde den i Albany i stedet for New York.

They put it in Harrisburg rather than Philadelphia.

De lagde den i Harrisburg i stedet for Philadelphia.

And so forth.

Og så videre.

So the tenor of education has changed.

Så indholdet i uddannelsen har ændret sig.

We are educating people to take the hypothetical seriously,

Vi uddanner mennesker til at tage det hypotetiske alvorligt,

to use abstractions, and to link them logically.

til at bruge abstraktioner, og til at linke dem logisk sammen.

What about employment?

Hvad med beskæftigelse?

Well, in 1900, three percent of Americans

Jamen, i 1900, praktiserede tre procent af amerikanere

practiced professions that were cognitively demanding.

et erhverv der var kognitivt krævende.

Only three percent were lawyers or doctors or teachers.

Kun tre procent var advokater eller læger eller lærere.

Today, 35 percent of Americans

I dag, praktiserer 35 procent af amerikanere

practice cognitively demanding professions,

kognitivt krævende professioner,

not only to the professions proper like lawyer

ikke kun de abstrakte professioner som advokat

or doctor or scientist or lecturer,

eller læge eller forsker eller adjunkt,

but many, many sub-professions

men mange, mange, under-professioner

having to do with being a technician,

der har at gøre med at være tekniker,

a computer programmer.

en computerprogrammør.

A whole range of professions now make cognitive demands.

En hel række professioner er nu kognitivt krævende.

And we can only meet the terms of employment

Og vi kan kun imødegå beskæftigelses vilkårene

in the modern world by being cognitively

i den moderne verden ved at være lang mere fleksible

far more flexible.

kognitivt set.

And it's not just that we have many more people

Og det er ikke kun det at vi har mange flere mennesker

in cognitively demanding professions.

i kognitivt krævende professioner.

The professions have been upgraded.

Professionerne er blevet opgraderet.

Compare the doctor in 1900,

Sammenlign lægen i 1900,

who really had only a few tricks up his sleeve,

der i virkeligheden kun havde et par tricks oppe i ærmet,

with the modern general practitioner or specialist,

med den moderne praktiserende læge eller specialist,

with years of scientific training.

med års videnskabelig træning.

Compare the banker in 1900,

Sammenlign bankieren i 1900,

who really just needed a good accountant

der i virkeligheden bare havde brug for en god bogholder,

and to know who was trustworthy in the local community

og at vide hvem der var pålidelig i det lokale samfund

for paying back their mortgage.

til at betale deres lån tilbage.

Well, the merchant bankers who brought the world to their knees

Jamen, forretningsbankerne der bragte verden i knæ

may have been morally remiss,

har måske ingen moral,

but they were cognitively very agile.

men de var kognitivt set meget behændige.

They went far beyond that 1900 banker.

De var langt foran den bankier fra 1900.

They had to look at computer projections

De skulle se på computermodeller

for the housing market.

over boligmarkedet.

They had to get complicated CDO-squared

De skulle få complicerede CDO'er [gælds forpligtelser stillet til sikkerhed] godkendt

in order to bundle debt together

for at binde gæld sammen

and make debt look as if it were actually a profitable asset.

og få gæld til at se ud som om det faktisk var et indbringende aktiv.

They had to prepare a case to get rating agencies

De skulle forberede en case for at få kreditoplysningsbureauerne

to give it a AAA,

til at give det en AAA,

though in many cases, they had virtually bribed the rating agencies.

selvom det i mange cases, havde de faktisk bestukket kreditoplysningsbureauerne.

And they also, of course, had to get people

Og de skulle, selvfølgelig, også få folk

to accept these so-called assets

til at acceptere disse såkaldte aktiver

and pay money for them

og betale penge for dem

even though they were highly vulnerable.

selvom de var utrolig sårbare.

Or take a farmer today.

Eller se på en landmand i dag.

I take the farm manager of today as very different

Jeg ser på en gårdbestyrer i dag som en meget anderledes

from the farmer of 1900.

fra landmændene fra 1900.

So it hasn't just been the spread

Det er ikke kun spredningen

of cognitively demanding professions.

af kognitivt krævende professioner.

It's also been the upgrading of tasks

Det har også været opgraderingen af opgaver

like lawyer and doctor and what have you

som advokater og læger og så videre

that have made demands on our cognitive faculties.

der har gjort krav på vores kognitive evner.

But I've talked about education and employment.

Men jeg har talt om uddannelse og beskæftigelse.

Some of the habits of mind that we have developed

Nogle af sindets vaner som vi har udviklet

over the 20th century

i løbet af det 20. århundrede

have paid off in unexpected areas.

har givet pote i uventede områder.

I'm primarily a moral philosopher.

Jeg er primært en moralsk filosof.

I merely have a holiday in psychology,

Jeg har blot en ferie i psykologi,

and what interests me in general is moral debate.

og det der interesserer mig generelt er moralsk debat.

Now over the last century,

I løbet af det sidste århundrede,

in developed nations like America,

i udviklede nationer som Amerika,

moral debate has escalated

er den moralske debat eskaleret

because we take the hypothetical seriously,

fordi vi tager det hypotetiske alvorligt,

and we also take universals seriously

og vi tager også almenbegreb alvorligt

and look for logical connections.

og ser på logiske forbindelser.

When I came home in 1955 from university

Da jeg kom hjem i 1955 fra universitetet

at the time of Martin Luther King,

i tiden med Martin Luther King,

a lot of people came home at that time

kom mange mennesker hjem dengang

and started having arguments with their parents and grandparents.

og begyndte at have diskussioner med deres forældre og bedsteforældre.

My father was born in 1885,

Min far blev født i 1885,

and he was mildly racially biased.

og han var mildt racistisk forudindtaget.

As an Irishman, he hated the English so much

Som irer, hadede han englænderne så meget

he didn't have much emotion for anyone else.

at han ikke havde følelser for nogen andre.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

But he did have a sense that black people were inferior.

Men han havde en følelse af at sorte mennesker var mindreværdige.

And when we said to our parents and grandparents,

Og da vi sagde til vores forældre og bedsteforældre,

"How would you feel if tomorrow morning you woke up black?"

"Hvordan ville du have det hvis du vågnede i morgen og var sort?"

they said that is the dumbest thing you've ever said.

sagde de at det var det dummeste man nogensinde havde sagt.

Who have you ever known who woke up in the morning --

Hvem har du nogensinde kendt, der vågnede om morgenen --

(Laughter) --

(Latter) --

that turned black?

og var blevet sort?

In other words, they were fixed in the concrete

Med andre ord, de sad fast i de konkrete

mores and attitudes they had inherited.

traditioner og attituder de havde arvet.

They would not take the hypothetical seriously,

De ville ikke tage det hypotetiske alvorligt,

and without the hypothetical,

og uden det hypotetiske,

it's very difficult to get moral argument off the ground.

er det meget svært at åbne op for et moralt argument.

You have to say, imagine you were

Man skal sige, forestil dig at du var

in Iran, and imagine that your relatives

i Iran, og forestil dig at din familie

all suffered from collateral damage

alle led af følgeskader

even though they had done no wrong.

selvom de ikke havde gjort noget forkert.

How would you feel about that?

Hvordan ville du have det med det?

And if someone of the older generation says,

Og hvis en fra den ældre generation siger,

well, our government takes care of us,

jamen, vores regering sørger for os,

and it's up to their government to take care of them,

og det er op til deres regering at tage sig af dem,

they're just not willing to take the hypothetical seriously.

er de bare ikke villige til at tage det hypotetiske alvorligt.

Or take an Islamic father whose daughter has been raped,

Eller en islamisk far hvis datter er blevet voldtaget,

and he feels he's honor-bound to kill her.

og han føler at han er bundet af ære til at dræbe hende.

Well, he's treating his mores

Jamen, han behandler sine skikke

as if they were sticks and stones and rocks that he had inherited,

som om de var stokke og sten og klipper som han havde arvet,

and they're unmovable in any way by logic.

og de er på alle måder urokkelige af logik.

They're just inherited mores.

De er bare arvede skikke.

Today we would say something like,

I dag ville vi sige noget lignende,

well, imagine you were knocked unconscious and sodomized.

jamen, forestil dig at du blev slået bevidstløs og sodomiseret.

Would you deserve to be killed?

Ville du fortjene at blive slået ihjel?

And he would say, well that's not in the Koran.

Og han ville sige, jamen det er ikke i koranen.

That's not one of the principles I've got.

Det er ikke et af de principper jeg har.

Well you, today, universalize your principles.

Jamen, i dag, gør dine principper universelle.

You state them as abstractions and you use logic on them.

Du erklærer dem som værende abstraktioner og du bruger logik på dem.

If you have a principle such as,

Hvis du har et princip der hedder,

people shouldn't suffer unless they're guilty of something,

at folk ikke skal lide medmindre de er skyldige i noget,

then to exclude black people

for så at eksludere sorte mennesker

you've got to make exceptions, don't you?

skal du lave undtagelser, ikke sandt?

You have to say, well, blackness of skin,

Man skal sige, jamen, en sort hud,

you couldn't suffer just for that.

man skal ikke lide bare på grund af det.

It must be that blacks are somehow tainted.

Det må være at sorte på en eller anden måde er fordærvede.

And then we can bring empirical evidence to bear, can't we,

Og så kan vi frembringe empirisk bevis, ikke sandt,

and say, well how can you consider all blacks tainted

og sige, hvordan kan man se alle sorte som værende fordærvede

when St. Augustine was black and Thomas Sowell is black.

når St. Augustine var sort og Thomas Sowell er sort.

And you can get moral argument off the ground, then,

Og så kan man starte et moralsk argument,

because you're not treating moral principles as concrete entities.

fordi man behandler ikke moralske principper som konkrete helheder.

You're treating them as universals,

Man behandler dem som almenbegreb,

to be rendered consistent by logic.

der bliver præsenteret som værende logisk konsistente.

Now how did all of this arise out of I.Q. tests?

Hvordan er dette opstået gennem IQ tests?

That's what initially got me going on cognitive history.

Det er det der til at starte med fik mig i gang med kognitiv historie.

If you look at the I.Q. test,

Hvis man ser på IQ tests,

you find the gains have been greatest in certain areas.

ser man at gevinsterne har været størst i bestemte områder.

The similarities subtest of the Wechsler

Ligheds testen af Wechsler

is about classification,

handler om klassificering,

and we have made enormous gains

og vi har gjort en enorm fremgang

on that classification subtest.

i den klassificerings test.

There are other parts of the I.Q. test battery

Der er andre dele af IQ test batteriet

that are about using logic on abstractions.

der handler om at bruge logik på abstraktionerne.

Some of you may have taken Raven's Progressive Matrices,

Nogle af jer har måske taget Raven's Progressive Matrices,

and it's all about analogies.

og den handler om analogier.

And in 1900, people could do simple analogies.

Og i 1900, kunne folk udføre lignende analogier.

That is, if you said to them, cats are like wildcats.

Det vil sige, hvis man sagde til dem, katte ligner vildkatte.

What are dogs like?

Hvad ligner hunde?

They would say wolves.

Så ville de sige ulve.

But by 1960, people could attack Raven's

Men i 1960, kunne folk angribe Raven's

on a much more sophisticated level.

på et meget mere sofistikeret niveau.

If you said, we've got two squares followed by a triangle,

Hvis man sagde, vi har to firkanter efterfulgt af en trekant,

what follows two circles?

hvad følger efter to cirkler?

They could say a semicircle.

De kunne sige en halvcirkel.

Just as a triangle is half of a square,

Ligesom en trekant er halvdelen af en firkant,

a semicircle is half of a circle.

er en halvcirkel halvdelen af en cirkel.

By 2010, college graduates, if you said

I 2010, svarede gymnasiestuderende, hvis man sagde

two circles followed by a semicircle,

to cirkler efterfulgt af en halvcirkel,

two sixteens followed by what,

to sekstenedele efterfulgt af hvad,

they would say eight, because eight is half of 16.

ville de sige otte, fordi otte er halvdelen af 16.

That is, they had moved so far from the concrete world

Det vil sige, de havde flyttet sig så langt fra den konkrete verden

that they could even ignore

at de endda kunne ignorere

the appearance of the symbols that were involved in the question.

de symbolers udseende som var involveret i det spørgsmål.

Now, I should say one thing that's very disheartening.

Jeg bør sige en ting der er meget nedslående.

We haven't made progress on all fronts.

Vi har ikke gjort fremskridt på alle fronter.

One of the ways in which we would like to deal

En af de måder vi gerne vil håndtere

with the sophistication of the modern world

videreudviklingen af den moderne verden på

is through politics,

er gennem politik,

and sadly you can have humane moral principles,

og desværre kan man have humane moralske principper,

you can classify, you can use logic on abstractions,

man kan klassificere, man kan bruge logik på abstraktioner,

and if you're ignorant of history and of other countries,

og hvis man er uvidende om historie og om andre lande,

you can't do politics.

kan man ikke lave politik.

We've noticed, in a trend among young Americans,

Vi har lagt mærke til en tendens blandt unge amerikanere,

that they read less history and less literature

at de læser mindre historie og mindre litteratur

and less material about foreign lands,

og mindre materiale om fremmede lande,

and they're essentially ahistorical.

og de er dybest set ahistoriske.

They live in the bubble of the present.

De lever i en boble der består af nutiden.

They don't know the Korean War from the war in Vietnam.

De kan ikke skelne mellem Koreakrigen og Vietnamkrigen.

They don't know who was an ally of America in World War II.

De ved ikke hvem der var Amerikas allierede i Anden Verdenskrig.

Think how different America would be

Tænk på hvor anderledes Amerika vil være

if every American knew that this is the fifth time

hvis alle amerikanere vidst at dette er den femte gang

Western armies have gone to Afghanistan to put its house in order,

vestlige hære er taget til Afghanistan for at få styr på det,

and if they had some idea of exactly what had happened

og hvis de havde nogen anelse om hvad der præcis var sket

on those four previous occasions.

i de fire forgående gange.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

And that is, they had barely left,

Og det er, de var kun lige væk,

and there wasn't a trace in the sand.

og der var ikke et spor i sandet efter dem.

Or imagine how different things would be

Eller forestil jer hvor anderledes tingene ville være

if most Americans knew that we had been lied

hvis de fleste amerikanere vidste at vi var blevet løjet

into four of our last six wars.

ind i fire af de sidste seks krige.

You know, the Spanish didn't sink the battleship Maine,

I ved, spanierne sank ikke skibet Maine,

the Lusitania was not an innocent vessel

Lusitania var ikke et uskyldigt fartøj,

but was loaded with munitions,

men det var spækket med ammunition,

the North Vietnamese did not attack the Seventh Fleet,

nordvietnameserne angreb ikke Seventh Fleet,

and, of course, Saddam Hussein hated al Qaeda

og, selvfølgelig, hadede Saddam Hussein al Qaeda

and had nothing to do with it,

og havde ikke noget med det at gøre,

and yet the administration convinced 45 percent of the people

og alligevel overbeviste administrationen 45 procent af folket

that they were brothers in arms,

om at de var soldaterkammerater,

when he would hang one from the nearest lamppost.

når han ville hænge en fra den nærmeste lygtepæl.

But I don't want to end on a pessimistic note.

Men jeg vil ikke slutte med en pessimistisk undertone.

The 20th century has shown enormous cognitive reserves

De 20. århundrede har vist enorme kognitive forråd

in ordinary people that we have now realized,

i almindelige mennesker som vi nu er blevet klar over,

and the aristocracy was convinced

og aristokratiet var overbeviste om

that the average person couldn't make it,

at den gennemsnitlige person ikke kunne klare det,

that they could never share their mindset

at de aldrig kunne dele deres tankegang

or their cognitive abilities.

eller deres kognitive evner.

Lord Curzon once said

Lord Curzon sagde engang

he saw people bathing in the North Sea,

da han så mennesker bade i Nordsøen,

and he said, "Why did no one tell me

og han sagde, "Hvorfor fortalte ingen mig

what white bodies the lower orders have?"

hvilke hvide kroppe almuen har?"

As if they were a reptile.

Som om de var reptiler.

Well, Dickens was right and he was wrong. [Correction: Rudyard Kipling]

Jamen, Dickens havde ret og han tog fejl. [Rettelse: Rudyard Kipling]

[Kipling] said, "The colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady

[Kipling] sagde, "Oberstens frue og Judy O'Grady

are sisters underneath the skin."

er søstre under huden."

(Applause)

(Bifald)