As long as Western (ie. White Christian) Civilization has to take the blame for everything it did wrong it might as well get credit for everything it did right.
1. By which crieria is it acceptable to judge groups of people? This is a question that has to be answered whether you want to promote a positive or negative view. Even something as seemingly innocuous as "celebrating heritage" implies a judgement of the accomplishments of a group.
2. Lack of opportunity and recognition: I would accept this as an excuse for an individual, but not a large group. Resource allocation is a task of the group. Still, it is possible to attribute to the wrong group. It wasn't the slave's race that failed to recognize him.
I find in most situations where I find myself, I only have r to try and judge one or a few persons. Judging a whole people seems to be a much harder, if even possible task.
In either case, wouldn't the acceptable judging criteria have to depend on the particular use case? Or might there be some universally good criteria?
There shouldn't be any criteria other than your own.
Human beings evolved to make sense of chaos through stories, judging others is a way to create a story for them, stereotypes are stories over groups of people. It's not wrong, it's how we're wired.
In the receiving end of a judgment, it's a fools errand to hope everyone thinks of you in the way you want them to, thinking that way is probably one of the hallmarks of narcissism.
On the giving end of judgments, I think there's an overwhelming sense of guilt for not judging everyone positively, in the hopes to be an unattainable goal of "goodness" that's part of our culture because of liberalism which itself grew out of Christianity.
As a culture, we've metastasized into these behaviors, nowadays everybody is worried of being perceived "positively" because of narcissism and perceiving others as "good" because of guilt of having the wrong feelings.
Steve King hasn't invented anything, so I'm not sure what he is proud about. I think the main value in the narrative "people X accomplished Y" is to counter a narrative of "people X accomplished nothing" -- whether explicit or implied.
Ignoring genetic dispositions and innate traits because they're socially 'inconvenient' is foolish.
Assume for a moment that all humans have the exact same innate, instinctive traits and tendencies. Same degree of curiosity, ingenuity, cleverness. We'll all the same.
Then look at Bonobos and Chimpanzees. These two primate groups look so similar they're often confused. Bonobos and Chimps differ by only 0.4% genetically. They reside in the same part of the world, in Africa.
Yet their behavior is quite different. Bonobos tend to be less violent than Chimps, and intimate relations play a much larger social role in Bonobo groups.
You can't ignore stuff like that. "Bonobos are sluts! At least chimps have some modesty about these things!"
Or "Bonobos are more intelligent than chimps! They settle things more peacefully and are not as readily violent!"
Can you say stuff like that in mixed company? Sure. Go to any social gathering and bring it up.
But try switching "Chimp, Bonobo" for "Caucasians, Blacks" when discussing professional sports accomplishments and you might be asked to leave the party.
There are innate differences and feeling 'sorry' and 'embarrassed' or 'guilty' or 'judgmental' for assessing the differences between groups with historically different innate strengths and weaknesses -- is a social norm, that's all.
"German Shepherd dogs are better than Golden Retrievers for police work." FINE.
"Perhaps for environmental/survival factors, some groups of humans developed more prominent problem-solving ability and curiosity and became more inventive." FINE so far! Until you identify the groups you mean by 'some groups' then you're being asked to leave the party.
Saying "It Makes No Sense to Judge Groups of People by Their Histories of Invention" reflects a modern social norm. But has zero effect on the facts.
Bonobos and Chimps have been studied. They're only 0.4% different, genetically. But their innate tendencies and behaviors are different.
There's nothing wrong with that! It's NATURE.
For now though, Social Norms are limiting dialog about differences in groups of humans.
"The fact that more men are in CS then women clearly shows there must be external biases at play. Guaranteed. There is no other possible explanation that we are willing to test or explore."
Once we admit that people have the same rights and humanity as others, regardless of intelligence or athleticism, we will lose our insecurity and begin to understand ourselves. Though I doubt that will happen soon.
Not sure what point you're making. I did read the article.
There's no getting around history. The reasons are very complex but the facts are this: in our current period, the distribution of creativity/problem solving/invention is lumped more into some groups than others. Perhaps environmental factors led to this -- perhaps genetic predisposition. It's hard to know.
Humans have been walking upright for around 2 million years. The fact that inventiveness has exploded in the tail end of those 2 million years provides no commentary as to the "group distribution of inventions" going forward.
Peter King, likewise, made no attempt to say that one group will ALWAYS be more represented in the realm of scientific/intellectual achievement, inventions, etc.
All of us (well most of us) recognize that a uniform distribution of intellect/curiosity/problem solving skills is best for humans, and since humans share everything with each other, eventually we'll get there.
Well, except that Bonobos and Chimpanzees are different species (most recent common ancestor about 2million years ago[1]) whereas Humans are still a single species (most distant common ancestor less than 200,000 years ago[2])
Social differences in (and within) groups of humans are of clearly massive, but 'genetic dispositions' and 'innate traits' not so much. The difference between nature and nurture is difficult to discern, when nurture is so obviously an overwhelming influence.
Your comment about police dogs is interesting, because police dogs undergo intensive training and many breeds are used[3]
200,000 years is for female unbroken lines. The "mixing time" of human DNA is expected to be much shorter, with the most recent common ancestor being as little as 2000-4000 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
Consider me in the group "likes Stoke's theorem" or some such.
Seriously, it only enriches the soil for such judgments to grow, when by default, the crucial and elemetary word "group" is taken to mean "racial group". That's starting out with a big wrong, IMO.
Human beings herd cognitively very, very well (by which I mean very tightly.) Human culture couldn't have survived and grown amongst relatively small groups in prehistory if it weren't so.
Only unusual, and not in every respect nice circumstances and cultural practices shake that herding up enough to allow consistent innovation. (See Kerr, How to Write a Bad Play re the history of playwriting; which shows how rare periods when great plays were written are in human history a bit of an illustration.) Otherwise the other crabs in the bucket make sure norms are maintained, and novelty is supressed by the immune system that is human culture.
Normal, well organized, stable societies that are highly integrated and provide calm peaceful lives to their citizens under clear, concise, consistent and sensible rules systems... don't innovate. Because cognitive herding is the norm of humans. Innovation at anything other than a glacial pace is what's bizarre; not consistency.
Dynamically unstable societies on the other hand, have the chance to develop much better weapons systems and tactics and take over the world, from societies which worked much, much better at providing happy and smooth lives for their citizens. Which is what happened to get us here. Free speech disrupts. Free movement disrupts. Choice of belief systems disrupts. Choice of lifestyle disrupts. Etc. Disrupts physical health. Disrupts mental health. Disrupts marriages and friendships. But to get to a steam engine and then an aircraft carrier with steam catapults, also requires, as a necessary condition, the unconscious acceptance of disruption as part of life.
Therefore, it makes sense to judge (ethically, morally, etc) societies that DO produce innovations - they have wildly higher divorce rates, substance abuse, chronic illnesses, stress, PTSD, mental illness and on and on. Terrific weapons though. And toys. Gotta love the toys.
To live right AFTER a golden age of human progress is wonderful. To live DURING such an age, pretty much totally sux, if you read any history.
23 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 68.4 ms ] thread2. Lack of opportunity and recognition: I would accept this as an excuse for an individual, but not a large group. Resource allocation is a task of the group. Still, it is possible to attribute to the wrong group. It wasn't the slave's race that failed to recognize him.
If you can join and leave voluntarily, then it's pretty important.
For example I think most people would reach the conclusion of the article without much argument, if this were the use case they had in mind.
In either case, wouldn't the acceptable judging criteria have to depend on the particular use case? Or might there be some universally good criteria?
Human beings evolved to make sense of chaos through stories, judging others is a way to create a story for them, stereotypes are stories over groups of people. It's not wrong, it's how we're wired.
In the receiving end of a judgment, it's a fools errand to hope everyone thinks of you in the way you want them to, thinking that way is probably one of the hallmarks of narcissism.
On the giving end of judgments, I think there's an overwhelming sense of guilt for not judging everyone positively, in the hopes to be an unattainable goal of "goodness" that's part of our culture because of liberalism which itself grew out of Christianity.
As a culture, we've metastasized into these behaviors, nowadays everybody is worried of being perceived "positively" because of narcissism and perceiving others as "good" because of guilt of having the wrong feelings.
Assume for a moment that all humans have the exact same innate, instinctive traits and tendencies. Same degree of curiosity, ingenuity, cleverness. We'll all the same.
Then look at Bonobos and Chimpanzees. These two primate groups look so similar they're often confused. Bonobos and Chimps differ by only 0.4% genetically. They reside in the same part of the world, in Africa.
Yet their behavior is quite different. Bonobos tend to be less violent than Chimps, and intimate relations play a much larger social role in Bonobo groups.
You can't ignore stuff like that. "Bonobos are sluts! At least chimps have some modesty about these things!"
Or "Bonobos are more intelligent than chimps! They settle things more peacefully and are not as readily violent!"
Can you say stuff like that in mixed company? Sure. Go to any social gathering and bring it up.
But try switching "Chimp, Bonobo" for "Caucasians, Blacks" when discussing professional sports accomplishments and you might be asked to leave the party.
There are innate differences and feeling 'sorry' and 'embarrassed' or 'guilty' or 'judgmental' for assessing the differences between groups with historically different innate strengths and weaknesses -- is a social norm, that's all.
"German Shepherd dogs are better than Golden Retrievers for police work." FINE.
"Perhaps for environmental/survival factors, some groups of humans developed more prominent problem-solving ability and curiosity and became more inventive." FINE so far! Until you identify the groups you mean by 'some groups' then you're being asked to leave the party.
Saying "It Makes No Sense to Judge Groups of People by Their Histories of Invention" reflects a modern social norm. But has zero effect on the facts.
Bonobos and Chimps have been studied. They're only 0.4% different, genetically. But their innate tendencies and behaviors are different.
There's nothing wrong with that! It's NATURE.
For now though, Social Norms are limiting dialog about differences in groups of humans.
"The fact that more men are in CS then women clearly shows there must be external biases at play. Guaranteed. There is no other possible explanation that we are willing to test or explore."
Once we admit that people have the same rights and humanity as others, regardless of intelligence or athleticism, we will lose our insecurity and begin to understand ourselves. Though I doubt that will happen soon.
Is it also nature that you apparently didn't read the article ?
There's no getting around history. The reasons are very complex but the facts are this: in our current period, the distribution of creativity/problem solving/invention is lumped more into some groups than others. Perhaps environmental factors led to this -- perhaps genetic predisposition. It's hard to know.
Humans have been walking upright for around 2 million years. The fact that inventiveness has exploded in the tail end of those 2 million years provides no commentary as to the "group distribution of inventions" going forward.
Peter King, likewise, made no attempt to say that one group will ALWAYS be more represented in the realm of scientific/intellectual achievement, inventions, etc.
All of us (well most of us) recognize that a uniform distribution of intellect/curiosity/problem solving skills is best for humans, and since humans share everything with each other, eventually we'll get there.
If it's not a reading problem, then it has to be a comprehension problem.
Social differences in (and within) groups of humans are of clearly massive, but 'genetic dispositions' and 'innate traits' not so much. The difference between nature and nurture is difficult to discern, when nurture is so obviously an overwhelming influence.
Your comment about police dogs is interesting, because police dogs undergo intensive training and many breeds are used[3]
[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature1...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_dog_breeds
It's basically become Huffington Post for people who can read.
Seriously, it only enriches the soil for such judgments to grow, when by default, the crucial and elemetary word "group" is taken to mean "racial group". That's starting out with a big wrong, IMO.
Only unusual, and not in every respect nice circumstances and cultural practices shake that herding up enough to allow consistent innovation. (See Kerr, How to Write a Bad Play re the history of playwriting; which shows how rare periods when great plays were written are in human history a bit of an illustration.) Otherwise the other crabs in the bucket make sure norms are maintained, and novelty is supressed by the immune system that is human culture.
Normal, well organized, stable societies that are highly integrated and provide calm peaceful lives to their citizens under clear, concise, consistent and sensible rules systems... don't innovate. Because cognitive herding is the norm of humans. Innovation at anything other than a glacial pace is what's bizarre; not consistency.
Dynamically unstable societies on the other hand, have the chance to develop much better weapons systems and tactics and take over the world, from societies which worked much, much better at providing happy and smooth lives for their citizens. Which is what happened to get us here. Free speech disrupts. Free movement disrupts. Choice of belief systems disrupts. Choice of lifestyle disrupts. Etc. Disrupts physical health. Disrupts mental health. Disrupts marriages and friendships. But to get to a steam engine and then an aircraft carrier with steam catapults, also requires, as a necessary condition, the unconscious acceptance of disruption as part of life.
Therefore, it makes sense to judge (ethically, morally, etc) societies that DO produce innovations - they have wildly higher divorce rates, substance abuse, chronic illnesses, stress, PTSD, mental illness and on and on. Terrific weapons though. And toys. Gotta love the toys.
To live right AFTER a golden age of human progress is wonderful. To live DURING such an age, pretty much totally sux, if you read any history.