Clarification of anthropological terminology

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Now, it is obvious that that the more two people's codes match, the closer they are racially. If you mean by 'racially close' that they share a common inheritance for more than a few generations, that isn't true. If by 'racially close' you mean 'similar genetically' then of course it's a tautology.

I meant neither.
I meant, the more matching codes, the closer racially, just as I wrote.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Now, I have a question, between two Japanese people who have different inteligence level, behaviour, length of legs...etc, and one Japanese person and one Ghanaian person who have similar inteligence level, behaviour, length of legs....etc, which pair is more likely to have more matching codes? The Ghanaian and the Japanese, though it depends on what you include under 'etc'. Essentially though the question as you pose it is unanswerable.

Ineteresting, you answer it first, then say that it is ''unanswerable''?

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Omshanti Now, in my opinion what the eyes can see from observing the physical characteristics, is a very good indication of the amount of matching codes between people. So whether people agree with me or not, I think that there is nothing wrong with observing how people look in order to tell the race (as long as there is no twisted judgement involved). Why do you want to 'tell the race'? What you are doing here is continuing to�insist that 'racial' �differences are differences in what people look like, and therefore you can discern them by what they look like. That's tautologous.

I am saying that how people look are a very good indication of their race. Nothing more nothing less, Simple as that.

Originally posted by gcle2003 The important thing is first to determine the reason why you should want to consider differences between people, and then consider those genetic differences that relate to that purpose (which might, for instance, be to aid in medical diagnosis or prognosis). You appear to want to distinguish between people on the basis of what they look like, and therefore to emphasis the differences that are outwardly visible.

I don't have a desire, I simply have two eyes.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Finally, Originally posted by pinguin Take for instance the eye color. You can make a map of the eye color in the world and you will be surprised to notice that although some frequencies seem to be constrained across "racial boundaries", the "population of green eyed people" include individuals not only from Scandinavia but also India, Ethiopia and Jamaica, among others. If we leave India and Scandinavia out since they are obvious, lets see what kind of peoples contributed to the population of Ethiopia and Jamaica. Ethiopians are heavily mixed with West Asiatics of the Arabian peninsula. In Jamaica there were Arawaks, Europeans, West Africans, East Asians...etc. So out of all those peoples who contributed to the poplation of those two countries, who do you think are more likely to have brought the green eyes? Green eyes, like haemophilia, is frequently the result of new mutation.

There is a fundamental difference between them. Haemophilia occurs in all nations without exception, while there are so many nations in the world in whom green eyes never appear.

Originally posted by gcle2003 This I'm sensitive to because I have green eyes myself, and so do my sons and grandsons (though not my granddaughters) but no-one in the last two or three generations before me (and I have many uncles and aunts) had green eyes.

I am extrememly sensitive to all human characteristics regardless of myself having them or not.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti When observing populations, you should take in to account what kind of peoples were historically involved, and the difference between random characteristics and distinct characteristics. Why?

The answer to your question is already in my post.





People all have a tendency to see differences. Children often ask ''Mummy, why does that person look like that?''. To many people the issue of physical difference is loaded with one of the ugliest form of human group behaviour, racism. But we get no where by closing our eyes. differences will not go away. Open minded enquiry should help us to understand ''why that person looks like that'' and why differences in physical appearance can be such a sensitive issue.
Why is the question so fascinating? The answer to this is probably in human nature, that we have developed an amazing capacity for recognising and remembering a large number of different faces/physical characteriestics. Humans need this skill partly because our extended social groups are large. These social groups are larger, and the interactions between their members are far more complex, than those of even our nearest living relatives, the chimapanzees. Humans have to be able to recognise many people.
Along with the social advantages it provides, our human ability to recognise faces/physical characteristics enables us to classify what we see, and identify shared physical similarities within groups, and differences between one group and another. This often can and does feed in to the human inclusive and exclusive group behaviour, and is what can lead humans to discriminate against ''outsiders'' who look different. Fortunately insight into human tendency to 'group and exclude', and the terrible crimes against humanity that can result from racism and judgemental attitudes, have led humans to take statutory and voluntary steps to control and proscribe such behaviour. Unfortunately, these checks are not always successfull, and old lessons are ignored even by the victims or the witnesses of racism and judgemental attitudes.
An unfortunate by product of the fight against racism has been to render discussion of race taboo. Even the word ''race'' itself, tainted for ever by the Nazi era, is seen/outlawed by many people as unscientific, derogatory, meaningless, and giving the misleading impression that races are discrete entities when in fact variation, gradation, and admixture occur everywhere. This is all very worthy, but the fact remains (as children are quick to notice) that people from different regions can look dramatically different from one another. In the end proscription and regularly changing euphemisms do not help. As I wrote, we get nowhere by closing our eyes. Balance and open minded enquiry is what is needed.




Edited by omshanti - 14-Sep-2007 at 18:23

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Now, it is obvious that that the more two people's codes match, the closer they are racially. If you mean by 'racially close' that they share a common inheritance for more than a few generations, that isn't true. If by 'racially close' you mean 'similar genetically' then of course it's a tautology. I meant neither. I meant, the more matching codes, the closer racially, just as I wrote. That's the second of my alternatives. It's tautological.

No, it is not, Let me quote what I wrote,

Originally posted by omshanti There are so many factors which can be believed to have caused the diversity between groups within humans today, adaptation to enviroment, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic mutations, pure chance as to who with what physical characteristics migrated where, isolations causing the development or disappearance of certain characteristics, genetic bottle-necks, genetic drifts, extinction of certain peoples, success in survival of certain peoples, mixtures of peoples.......etc. We can consider those factors as some kind of ''codes'' ingrained in peoples' ancestral background which have caused them to be a certain way. Now, it is obvious that that the more two people's codes match, the closer they are racially.

Those factors are evolutionary events/actions in people's ancestral backgrounds that caused the diversity between groups witihn humans. When I defined 'codes', I was not meaning genetic characteristics, I was meaning the evolutionary events/actions in people's ancestral past. I think it is clear from what I wrote. Perhaps 'codes' was not the best choice of words as I can see that it has caused some confusion. I realised that when people see the word 'code' in this type of disscussion, it is automatically assumed to mean ''genetic-codes'' which is not what I meant.

Originally posted by gcle2003 However, later on you go on to emphasise those genetic markers that make a difference to how we look. There are many many more genes that don't affect the way we look, so if you're taking number of matching codes as a criterion, looking alike is not a particularly good criterion.

Same as above, I was not talking about ''genetic markers''. As I have already written, I am very much aware that the genetic science of today only shows the tip of the Iceberg, therefore I would not bring up ''genetic similariries'' most of which are still mysteries, to prove something.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Now, I have a question, between two Japanese people who have different inteligence level, behaviour, length of legs...etc, and one Japanese person and one Ghanaian person who have similar inteligence level, behaviour, length of legs....etc, which pair is more likely to have more matching codes? The Ghanaian and the Japanese, though it depends on what you include under 'etc'. Essentially though the question as you pose it is unanswerable. Ineteresting, you answer it first, then say that it is ''unanswerable''? I said 'As you pose it' it is unanswerable - i.e. when you put in '...etc'. If I ignore the '...etc' - or if I assume some list of characteristics for myself - then the question becomes answerable. I just went with 'intelligence level, behaviour, length of legs'.

From both what I wrote in the sentence and what I have been writing, it is quite clear that the '...etc' part suggests random characteristics as opposed to distinct characteristics.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Omshanti Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Omshanti Now, in my opinion what the eyes can see from observing the physical characteristics, is a very good indication of the amount of matching codes between people. So whether people agree with me or not, I think that there is nothing wrong with observing how people look in order to tell the race (as long as there is no twisted judgement involved). Why do you want to 'tell the race'? What you are doing here is continuing to�insist that 'racial' �differences are differences in what people look like, and therefore you can discern them by what they look like. That's tautologous. I am saying that how people look are a very good indication of their race. Nothing more nothing less, Simple as that. But you're not justifying that. You said racially close to you meant having many genetic similarities - the more matches the closer the race. You haven't come up with any reason for believing outward appearance is correlated with a majority of genetic differences.

I never said that ''racially close means having many genetic similarities''. As I have been saying, I wrote, the more matching 'codes', the closer racially, and again as I wrote before, I did not define 'codes' as genetic characteristics but as events in people's ancestral backgrounds.
As for the justification, it is obvious that people whose origins are from the same part of the world, are more likely to have more matching 'codes' (as in shared events in their ancestral past), compared to people whose origins are from opposite sides of the world. Now, how people look is a very good indication of where their origins are from. When we see a Ghanaian and a Japanese without knowing who is which, we can still tell which one is from Ghana and which one is from Japan. When we see a person, we can easily tell whether that person is European, African , East Asian.... etc. Also the fact that, the more related people are, the more they look alike, shows that how people look is indeed a very good indication.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Do you believe, incidentally, that men and women are different races? If not, why not? They don't only look entirely different, they also have very different genotypes.

No I don't, they are different sexes, as it is quite obvious. Their difference occurs solely due to the difference in sex which has absolutely nothing to do with ancestral background.

Originally posted by gcle2003 The important thing is first to determine the reason why you should want to consider differences between people, and then consider those genetic differences that relate to that purpose (which might, for instance, be to aid in medical diagnosis or prognosis). You appear to want to distinguish between people on the basis of what they look like, and therefore to emphasis the differences that are outwardly visible. Originally posted by Omshanti I don't have a desire, I simply have two eyes. If you don't have a desire, why do you do it?

I already answered you. I simply have two eyes.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Finally, Originally posted by pinguin Take for instance the eye color. You can make a map of the eye color in the world and you will be surprised to notice that although some frequencies seem to be constrained across "racial boundaries", the "population of green eyed people" include individuals not only from Scandinavia but also India, Ethiopia and Jamaica, among others. If we leave India and Scandinavia out since they are obvious, lets see what kind of peoples contributed to the population of Ethiopia and Jamaica. Ethiopians are heavily mixed with West Asiatics of the Arabian peninsula. In Jamaica there were Arawaks, Europeans, West Africans, East Asians...etc. So out of all those peoples who contributed to the poplation of those two countries, who do you think are more likely to have brought the green eyes? Green eyes, like haemophilia, is frequently the result of new mutation. There is a fundamental difference between them. Haemophilia occurs in all nations without exception, while there are so many nations in the world in whom green eyes never appear. Where do you get that from?

From my own experience and observation.

Originally posted by gcle2003 This I'm sensitive to because I have green eyes myself, and so do my sons and grandsons (though not my granddaughters) but no-one in the last two or three generations before me (and I have many uncles and aunts) had green eyes. Originally posted by Omshanti I am extrememly sensitive to all human characteristics regardless of myself having them or not. Then you're a very odd person indeed.

If you think I am an odd person, so be it, be my guest. The oddness of it (according only to your perspective) does not change the fact even slightly, that I am extremely sensitive to all human characteristics regardless of myself having them or not.

Originally posted by gcle2003 The most basic indicator of consciousness, not just human, is the ability to distinguish between self and non-self. That requires sensitivity to one's own characteristics as compared to everyone else's.

Yes, as you wrote, it is only ''the most basic indicator of conciousnes'', only a starting point, the first stage of ego boundaries, from which many people can grow, develop, and expand (into cosmic/universal conciousness).

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti When observing populations, you should take in to account what kind of peoples were historically involved, and the difference between random characteristics and distinct characteristics. Why? The answer to your question is already in my post. People all have a tendency to see differences. Children often ask ''Mummy, why does that person look like that?''. To many people the issue of physical difference is loaded with one of the ugliest form of human group behaviour, racism. But we get no where by closing our eyes. differences will not go away. Open minded enquiry should help us to understand ''why that person looks like that'' and why differences in physical appearance can be such a sensitive issue. But not to you apparently, since you're not particularly sensitive to your own characteristics.

I wrote that 'I am extremaly sensitive to all human characteristics regardless of myself having them or not', which very obviously includes my own characteristics. Any way, in one context I used 'sensitive' as in quick to notice, capable of being stimulated or excited by,
capable of noticing minute differences. in the other context I used 'sensitive' as in emotionally. Two contexts, two different meanings.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Of course it's a pretty universal and sensitive issue. That's why it needs to be desensitised.

Not by ignoring it, but by facing it.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Omshanti Why is the question so fascinating? The answer to this is probably in human nature, that we have developed an amazing capacity for recognising and remembering a large number of different faces/physical characteriestics. Humans need this skill partly because our extended social groups are large. These social groups are larger, and the interactions between their members are far more complex, than those of even our nearest living relatives, the chimapanzees. Humans have to be able to recognise many people. Along with the social advantages it provides, Which means I take it the ability to treat differently�people who look different (rather than taking decisions based on factors that are actually relevant to the decision - like considering family history in developing prognoses for heart patients).

It only means as it was written, which is 'the ability to recognise and remember people'. It is basically the ability that enables you to identify one individual from another. No mention of ''treatments'' or groups of people in the context. In fact, I mentioned very clearly the relation of this ability with ''treatments of people'' later in my post. The fact that you can only take 'recognising and remembering' as ''treating differently people who look different'', actually makes me think that you simply can not free yourself from judgemental perspectives, which in turn actually explains your unreasonasble persistence, baseless assumptions, and superficial picking of anything I write.

Originally posted by gcle2003 There are very very few significant or necessary decisions that have to be based on exterior visible characteristics (liability to skin cancer, for instance, being one).

Same as above. The point is that humans are able to recognise people from how they look and they do, regardless of ''significant or necessary decisions'', which in itself is very important and necessary.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Omshanti our human ability to recognise faces/physical characteristics enables us to classify what we see, and identify shared physical similarities within groups, and differences between one group and another. This often can and does feed in to the human inclusive and exclusive group behaviour, and is what can lead humans to discriminate against ''outsiders'' who look different. Fortunately insight into human tendency to 'group and exclude', and the terrible crimes against humanity that can result from racism and judgemental attitudes, have led humans to take statutory and voluntary steps to control and proscribe such behaviour. Unfortunately, these checks are not always successfull, and old lessons are ignored even by the victims or the witnesses of racism and judgemental attitudes. An unfortunate by product of the fight against racism has been to render discussion of race taboo. Even the word ''race'' itself, tainted for ever by the Nazi era, is seen/outlawed by many people as unscientific, derogatory, meaningless, and giving the misleading impression that races are discrete entities when in fact variation, gradation, and admixture occur everywhere. This is all very worthy, but the fact remains (as children are quick to notice) that people from different regions can look dramatically different from one another. In the end proscription and regularly changing euphemisms do not help. As I wrote, we get nowhere by closing our eyes. Balance and open minded enquiry is what is needed. And ignoring physical classifications unless there is some valid reason for taking them into account, which is�rare for visible characteristics.

Do you actually read my posts? I have been explaining all along why I notice physical characteristics, why I take them into account, and why In my opinion balance and open enquiry is needed instead of willful ignorance.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Which brings me back to what I said: first determine WHY you need to discriminate and then decide what genetic criteria will meet that need.

I am not discriminating at all. I simply notice physical characteristics and take them into account without judgements and for reasons that do not involve discrimination.

Edited by omshanti - 16-Sep-2007 at 01:24

Originally posted by gcle2003 I cut most of the post since I agree that there was some confusion over 'codes' meaning genetic markers or 'ancestral events' which I take to mean something like common descent.

'Evolutionary events in people's ancestral backgrounds' is different from ''common descent''. First of all, the word ''common'' before ''descent'' requires the word 'shared' to be put before '- events' in order to make the meanings closer. Secondly one means events in ancestral past, the other means the ancestral past itself. So eventhough they are deeply related they are different things.    Can you just not take something as it was written, instead of ''taking to mean'' something else? I really see no point in communicating with you if everything I say is ''taken to mean'' something else.

Originally posted by gcle2003 However, you referred to intelligence and behaviour which aren't particularly connected to ancestral descent.

That was the whole point, which I pointed out many times. Please read my posts.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Obviously two Japanese are more likely to share ancestors than a Ghanaian and a Japanese. I can't see why that should be considered important though.

Exactly, the two Japanse are more likely to share more ancestors, therefore more likely to share more evolutionary events in their ancestral past. Now whether that is important or not is subjective, however whether it is important or not does not change the fact that it is a reality.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti I am not discriminating at all. I simply notice physical characteristics and take them into account without judgements and for reasons that do not involve discrimination. When you say 'take into account' - take into account for what purpose? In making what decisions? In affecting your behaviour to them? if it doesn't affect your behaviour, why bother? Why do you want to take into account what people's ancestors were? What important difference is there between a person of Japanese descent and one of�Ghanaian descent if they are both born and brought up as British citizens?

It is a sad world, when people automatically assume that, when someone is interested in differences in humans, that he/she will then manipulate those differences in order to discriminate.

Edited by omshanti - 17-Sep-2007 at 07:17

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Originally posted by gcle2003 I cut most of the post since I agree that there was some confusion over 'codes' meaning genetic markers or 'ancestral events' which I take to mean something like common descent. 'Evolutionary events in people's ancestral backgrounds' is different from ''common descent''. First of all, the word ''common'' before ''descent'' requires the word 'shared' to be put before '- events' in order to make the meanings closer. Secondly one means events in ancestral past, the other means the ancestral past itself. So eventhough they are deeply related they are different things.    Can you just not take something as it was written, instead of ''taking to mean'' something else? I really see no point in communicating with you if everything I say is ''taken to mean'' something else. If you don't make yourself clear, the other person has to make assumptions: all he can do is explain what those assumptions are. Frankly I now don't have the foggiest idea of what you mean by 'evolutionary events in people's ancestral backgrounds' if it does not mean genetic changes or common ancestors.Perhaps you could start by explaining what an 'evolutionary event' is, with examples.

I did give examples, and I did explain myself as clear as possible, and I did quote and repeat what I wrote everytime it seemed to dissappear from your memory.Please READ my posts before reacting to them.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti I am not discriminating at all. I simply notice physical characteristics and take them into account without judgements and for reasons that do not involve discrimination. When you say 'take into account' - take into account for what purpose? In making what decisions? In affecting your behaviour to them? if it doesn't affect your behaviour, why bother? Why do you want to take into account what people's ancestors were? What important difference is there between a person of Japanese descent and one of�Ghanaian descent if they are both born and brought up as British citizens? Originally posted by Omshanti It is a sad world, when people automatically assume that, when someone is interested in differences in humans, that he/she will then manipulate those differences in order to discriminate. Why , in turn, do you assume that I assume that? I never even suggested it. All I did was ask you why you have any interest in who people's ancestors were (apart I guess from your own, which is something that interests most people).

You never even suggested it? All you did was ask ''why you have any interest''? let me quote it for you.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Which brings me back to what I said: first determine WHY you need to discriminate.

The fact that you write ''brings me back to what I said'', shows that you have been suggesting it even from before that.

Originally posted by gcle2003 I notice you didn't answer the question. It seems to me such a pointless thing to be interested in.

I did answer the question many times, Please read my posts.
It maybe pointless to you, but not to me. If we all shared exactly the same interests life would be dull indeed.

Edited by omshanti - 18-Sep-2007 at 18:17

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Originally posted by gcle2003 I cut most of the post since I agree that there was some confusion over 'codes' meaning genetic markers or 'ancestral events' which I take to mean something like common descent. 'Evolutionary events in people's ancestral backgrounds' is different from ''common descent''. First of all, the word ''common'' before ''descent'' requires the word 'shared' to be put before '- events' in order to make the meanings closer. Secondly one means events in ancestral past, the other means the ancestral past itself. So eventhough they are deeply related they are different things.    Can you just not take something as it was written, instead of ''taking to mean'' something else? I really see no point in communicating with you if everything I say is ''taken to mean'' something else. If you don't make yourself clear, the other person has to make assumptions: all he can do is explain what those assumptions are. Frankly I now don't have the foggiest idea of what you mean by 'evolutionary events in people's ancestral backgrounds' if it does not mean genetic changes or common ancestors.Perhaps you could start by explaining what an 'evolutionary event' is, with examples. I did give examples, and I did explain myself as clear as possible, and I did quote and repeat what I wrote everytime it seemed to dissappear from your memory.Please READ my posts before reacting to them. And please indicate to me in what post you gave examples. I can't find any.

Here you go for the third time.

Originally posted by omshanti    Let me quote what I wrote, Originally posted by omshanti There are so many factors which can be believed to have caused the diversity between groups within humans today, adaptation to enviroment, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic mutations, pure chance as to who with what physical characteristics migrated where, isolations causing the development or disappearance of certain characteristics, genetic bottle-necks, genetic drifts, extinction of certain peoples, success in survival of certain peoples, mixtures of peoples.......etc. We can consider those factors as some kind of ''codes'' ingrained in peoples' ancestral background which have caused them to be a certain way. Now, it is obvious that that the more two people's codes match, the closer they are racially. Those factors are evolutionary events/actions in people's ancestral backgrounds that caused the diversity between groups witihn humans. When I defined 'codes', I was not meaning genetic characteristics, I was meaning the evolutionary events/actions in people's ancestral past. I think it is clear from what I wrote.

Can you READ it now?

Originally posted by gcle2003 I genuinely don't know what you mean by 'evolutionary event'. To me it would mean the emergence of a new genetic trait. But you said it has nothing to do with genetic codes.

I never said that ''it has nothing to do with genetic codes/traits''. I only said that I did not MEAN genetic codes/traits. it is obvious that the two things are deeply related and have alot to do with each other, however they are different things. They are not equals, but one is the result of the other. Next time you write ''but you said -'' please quote it instead of saying that I said what I did not say.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by omshanti I am not discriminating at all. I simply notice physical characteristics and take them into account without judgements and for reasons that do not involve discrimination. When you say 'take into account' - take into account for what purpose? In making what decisions? In affecting your behaviour to them? if it doesn't affect your behaviour, why bother? Why do you want to take into account what people's ancestors were? What important difference is there between a person of Japanese descent and one of�Ghanaian descent if they are both born and brought up as British citizens? Originally posted by Omshanti It is a sad world, when people automatically assume that, when someone is interested in differences in humans, that he/she will then manipulate those differences in order to discriminate. Why , in turn, do you assume that I assume that? I never even suggested it. All I did was ask you why you have any interest in who people's ancestors were (apart I guess from your own, which is something that interests most people). You never even suggested it? All you did was ask ''why you have any interest''? let me quote it for you. Originally posted by gcle2003 Which brings me back to what I said: first determine WHY you need to discriminate. The fact that you write ''brings me back to what I said'', shows that you have been suggesting it even from before that. ]We're confusing two meanings of 'discriminate' here. I only meant it in the sense of 'distinguish'. It's quite evident from what you write that you want to distinguish between people (on the basis of their antecedent 'evolutionary events'). That doesn't mean you want to treat some better than others: that is it doesn't mean you want to 'discriminate' against people.

If you meant ''distinguish'' by ''discriminate'', perhaps you should have written ''distinguish'' instead of it. When used in terms of humans, 'discriminate' usually has negative connotations.

Originally posted by gcle2003 You're also mistaking my use of 'you' here. I was laying down a general rule (I thought that was obvious), and 'you' here was meant to mean the universal 'you' - French 'on' or German 'Man'. So, read a little less prejudicially, what I intended� could be fully rephrased as 'People should first determine why they need to distinguish before deciding what basis to distinguish on.'

Hmmm, sounds like back pedaling here.

Originally posted by gcle2003 So, read a little less prejudicially

Ditto.

Originally posted by gcle2003 I notice you didn't answer the question. It seems to me such a pointless thing to be interested in. Originally posted by Omshanti I did answer the question many times, Please read my posts. It maybe pointless to you, but not to me. If we all shared exactly the same interests life would be dull indeed. I don't think you've answered it at all. You said something like you just do it, you don't have any desire to do it. That, at face value, would just make you some kind of automaton. People usually have some kind of reason for doing what they do.

Let me ask you a question, When a person notices the difference and distinguishes between a rainy yesterday and a sunny today, does he have to have a personal reason to do that, other than the obvious reason that the difference is simply there? When a person says 'today is sunny compared to yesterday', do you tell/ask the person

Originally posted by gcle2003 The important thing is first to determine the reason why you should want to consider differences

Originally posted by gcle2003 You appear to want to distinguish

Originally posted by gcle2003 determine WHY you need to discriminate

Originally posted by gcle2003 take into account for what purpose? In making what decisions? In affecting your behaviour to them? if it doesn't affect your behaviour, why bother?

Originally posted by gcle2003 Why do you want to take into account

Originally posted by gcle2003 What important difference is there

Originally posted by gcle2003 It seems to me such a pointless thing to be interested in.

so persistently as you are doing here? (by the way notice your usage of ''you'' in these quotes)

Edited by omshanti - 19-Sep-2007 at 18:50

Rakasnumberone, I am so glad that finally another member posted in this thread again.
I think that your analogy of the Toyota car is a very good one, but do you mind if I added my own touch to the analogy and fixed it a little? It would be only based on my own perspective, so I would not be suggesting which is right or wrong.

Edited by omshanti - 19-Sep-2007 at 20:09

Thank you Rakasnumberone. Here is my version of the analogy.
A car/automobile is a four (or very rarely three)-wheeled motor vehicle designed for transporting a small number of people and typically propelled by an internal-combustion engine.
In my opinion, if we are going to use cars in the analogy, human species are the equivalent of all cars rather than the cars of only one company (Toyota), in which case other biological species can be the equivalents of other machines/methods of transportation such as aeroplanes, helicopters, boats, ships, motorbikes, bicycles, trains, trucks.
All cars can probably trace their origins to a car/automobile invented by an inventor sometime in the 17th~19th century, just as the human species can trace its origins to Africa.   
After the initial invention, many car companies sprang in different parts of the world with distinct styles, just as humans spread to the whole world and developed distinct physical characteristics.
We can tell whether a car is a Toyota, a BMW, a Mercedes, a Volvo, a Fiat, a Jaguar or a Cadillac ...etc by observing the style of the car, just as we can tell whether a person is European, African, East Asian, Polynesian, Australian aboriginal ...etc from observing the physical chatracteristics of the person.
Different models of cars within a car company can be different subgroups within groups of humans. Different options within a model of car within a company, such as the colours, sun roof, leather seats , upholstered seats, tinted windows, custom rims....etc, can be personal characteristics of each individual person/human.
Just as the car companies in the world are merging and colaborating with each other more and more, and their distinct styles are becoming little by little less and less distinguishable due to the globalization, different groups of humans have mixed, and are mixing with each other more and more as the world becomes smaller.

Edited by omshanti - 21-Sep-2007 at 19:48

Think in terms of dogs. There are many breeds of dogs: Doberman, German Sheppard, Coolie, Chihuahua , Pekinesse, etc.

Edited by pinguin - 22-Sep-2007 at 09:25

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by gcle2003   Originally posted by omshanti Just as the car companies in the world are merging and colaborating with each other more and more, and their distinct styles are becoming little by little less and less distinguishable due to the globalization, different groups of humans have mixed, and are mixing with each other more and more as the world becomes smaller. That's true.   You're missing the general point. He's only making an analogy, not implying what is important or not important. The basic idea he's trying to get across is that just as all cars are the same basic machine with a common origin of design, humans are the same animal with a common point of origin, not many different types of unrelated animals as many people believed when the concept of racial classification was conceived between the 16th and 19th centuries.