4 ms·

For one thing I never said same, I said similar. I think that the evidence strongly supports the notion that the differences between large populations is genera

by ktizo 14y ago

For one thing I never said same, I said similar. I think that the evidence strongly supports the notion that the differences between large populations is generally miniscule when compared to the differences within those populations and that if you compare individuals across populations you can find people who are far more similar to each other than they are to the average of their respective populations. As for my specific claim that the behaviour of attacking as a mob without good information is a common human trait rather than being something peculiar to Chinese culture, I am not saying that it is a universal human trait as there certainly seem to be individuals who do not tend to do this, but I know of no large culture in which this does not happen. [edit] Also, your example of women and men being inherently different is not as good a one as you may suspect. Hermaphrodites exist and somewhat confuse any attempt at a clear delineation.

boboblong 14y ago
"I think that the evidence strongly supports the notion that the differences between large populations is generally miniscule when compared to the differences within those populations and that if you compare individuals across populations you can find people who are far more similar to each other than they are to the average of their respective populations." This is called Lewontin's Fallacy. Take height, for example. You can find a man and a woman who are both 5'2", while the average height for women is somewhere around 5'7" and for men somewhere around 5'10". Indeed, the "difference between large populations"--in this case, three inches' difference in average height between men and women--pales in comparison to the "difference within those populations": the height of a healthy adult male can be anywhere from 5' to 7'. In other words, there can be great variation within either or both of two large populations, and yet statistically significant inherent differences can exist between the averages of those populations.

by ktizo 14y ago

boboblong 14y ago

"I think that the evidence strongly supports the notion that the differences between large populations is generally miniscule when compared to the differences within those populations and that if you compare individuals across populations you can find people who are far more similar to each other than they are to the average of their respective populations." This is called Lewontin's Fallacy. Take height, for example. You can find a man and a woman who are both 5'2", while the average height for women is somewhere around 5'7" and for men somewhere around 5'10". Indeed, the "difference between large populations"--in this case, three inches' difference in average height between men and women--pales in comparison to the "difference within those populations": the height of a healthy adult male can be anywhere from 5' to 7'. In other words, there can be great variation within either or both of two large populations, and yet statistically significant inherent differences can exist between the averages of those populations.