5 ms·

It Makes No Sense to Judge Groups of People by Their Histories of Invention

26 points by Petiver 10y ago

elgabogringo 10y ago
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.
elevensies 10y ago
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.
- thomasahle 10y ago
  When is it useful to have a good way of judging a people?
  - elevensies 10y ago
    There seems to be a great demand for it, people keep doing it. If you can join and leave voluntarily, then it's pretty important.
  - Klockan 10y ago
    When doing targeted ads for example.
    - thomasahle 10y ago
      Thank you for finding a real example. It's important to have context when discussing topics like this. 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.
  - CamonZ 10y ago
    Always, it's human beings way of making sense of the infinite complexity of other human beings.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - thomasahle 10y ago
      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?
      - CamonZ 10y ago
        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.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
CurtHagenlocher 10y ago
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.
youngButEager 10y ago
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.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Whites/blacks could also be men/women: "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.
jgalt212 10y ago
Slate finds it very hard to publish anything but negative pieces about white people. It's basically become Huffington Post for people who can read.
sixbrx 10y ago
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.
Nomentatus 10y ago
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.

26 points by Petiver 10y ago

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.

elevensies 10y ago

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.

thomasahle 10y ago
When is it useful to have a good way of judging a people?
- elevensies 10y ago
  There seems to be a great demand for it, people keep doing it. If you can join and leave voluntarily, then it's pretty important.
- Klockan 10y ago
  When doing targeted ads for example.
  - thomasahle 10y ago
    Thank you for finding a real example. It's important to have context when discussing topics like this. 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.
- CamonZ 10y ago
  Always, it's human beings way of making sense of the infinite complexity of other human beings.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - thomasahle 10y ago
    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?
    - CamonZ 10y ago
      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.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

CurtHagenlocher 10y ago

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.

youngButEager 10y ago

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.

paulddraper 10y ago
Whites/blacks could also be men/women: "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.

jgalt212 10y ago

Slate finds it very hard to publish anything but negative pieces about white people. It's basically become Huffington Post for people who can read.

sixbrx 10y ago

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.

Nomentatus 10y ago

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.