Clarification of anthropological terminology - History Forum ~ All Empires

Originally posted by gcle2003

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.

I agree with that, which is why I said 'that's true' at the end of the post
However, as someone said, that human beings (or dogs or cows or horses, as Pinguin has it) do differ has to be acknowledged. The point that most concerns me is that the differences between humans that must be recognised (like some of us are diabetes-prone and some aren't) are recognised in the light of some acceptable purpose.Concentrating on what people look like (eye colour, epicanthic folds, hair colour for instance) is not, as far as I can see, compatible with any acceptable purpose. There are acceptable purposes for distinguishing/discriminating - medical diagnosis and prognosis, picking sports teams, awarding academic degrees, organising a symphony orchestra... Which is why when anyone suggests distinguishing/discriminating/classifying people on some criterion or other my first question is 'why are you doing it?'

The fact is that there are obvious, noticable, and distinguishable things that do exist. Now, people do not need to have ''purposes'' to notice what exists. It is really bigotted to say that something is not valid unless it has a ''purpose''. How about people who are lost or have no ''purposes''. Do you treat them as none persons? According to your logic, any thing that does not have a ''purpose'', does not have a valid existence and therefore is indistinguishable from other things. I would rather not have such a view point because it makes the world so dull and makes you more likely to miss its beauties.
Any way regarding the ''purposes'' of distinguishing physical characrteristics. Anthroplogists, forensic scientists, forensic anthrolpogists, genetic scientists, archaeologists, historians ....etc all have their ''purposes'' to do so.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by omshanti

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.

But it is relatively unimportant whether a car is a Toyota or a BMW or a Jaguar or whatever. What is important is the mileage it gets per gallon, the sturdiness of its springing, whether it's diesel or petrol engined, whether it has air conditioning or not, what it's maximum speed is, how many gears it has, and so on. It's true that some of these things are deliberately marked on the outside of the car, just as the only way you can determine�the marque is by looking at the badge. But no designer puts badges on humans.��And there's no handbook to read.You can of course tell from the outside things like how many seats it has and how big the boot is. But in general the outside look of a car is only important for the purpose of impressing other people, the neighbours or potential girl friends.

Originally posted by Omshanti

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.

I note you only list unimportant characteristics of the car. Or, if you think custom rims are more important than say a five-speed gearbox, then I have to ask 'important in relation to what?'That isn't challenging your definition of 'important', because that is essentially subjective. It simply points to the fact that someone must have some purpose in mind to determine what is important or not.

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.

Wow, gcle. You just can't help it can you? Every thing I post has to be picked at by you. Your very first post in this thread was to call all my writings up to that point ''astray'' and to ''pity'' them, after that you simply pick at almost every post I post in this thread. The extent to which you go to try to disprove the things I write is actually comical. FLOCCINAUCINIHILIPILIFICATION! That is the word for you and your posts!
Where does all that hot air come from?

Originally posted by gcle2003

]But it is relatively unimportant whether a car is a Toyota or a BMW or a Jaguar or whatever. What is important is the mileage it gets per gallon, the sturdiness of its springing, whether it's diesel or petrol engined, whether it has air conditioning or not, what it's maximum speed is, how many gears it has, and so on.

The ''importance'' or unimportance of whether a car is a Toyota or BMW or...etc is not the point, the point is that there ARE different car companies.

Originally posted by gcle2003

It's true that some of these things are deliberately marked on the outside of the car, just as the only way you can determine�the marque is by looking at the badge.

The fact that you can only tell the different car manufacturers vehicles by the badges, does not change the fact that there are people who can tell the company of the cars from the style of the cars. Just as some people are better at telling the origins of people than others.

Originally posted by gcle2003

But no designer puts badges on humans.

Excuse me"? People do that all the time. How about Gucci, Chanel, Versace? To group under an identification is what every body does, even without ''designers''. To start with, What are you? English? Oh, No. Citizen of Ankh Morpork.�

Originally posted by gcle2003

And there's no handbook to read.

There are plenty of handbooks. Handbooks about how to deal with an injured person, handbooks about what to do when you are pregnant, handbooks about bringing up babies, handbooks about mental illness....etc, it is endless.

Originally posted by gcle2003

You can of course tell from the outside things like how many seats it has and how big the boot is.

Those are only the things that you can tell. Remember, every body is not you.

Originally posted by gcle2003

But in general the outside look of a car is only important for the purpose of impressing other people, the neighbours or potential girl friends.

As I wrote, the ''importance'', unimportance or the ''purpose'' are neither here nor there. Furthermore just because the only ''purpose'' you could think of was to ''impress other people, the neighbours or potential girl friends'', does not mean that other people's ''purpose'' would or should be that.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by omshanti

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.

I note you only list unimportant characteristics of the car. Or, if you think custom rims are more important than say a five-speed gearbox, then I have to ask 'important in relation to what?

You did not ''note'' that 1. my post was a reply to Rakasnumberone 2. therefore I used the characteristics he mentioned. Just read back his post and my post, before going on and on with your theories of ''importance''.

Originally posted by gcle2003

That isn't challenging your definition of 'important', because that is essentially subjective.

Oh, so you know it. Than stop pushing your standards of ''importance'' to other people.

Originally posted by gcle2003

It simply points to the fact that someone must have some purpose in mind to determine what is important or not.

That is only what you think. There are many things that are simply important to a person, without a reason or a ''purpose''. Neverthless, perhaps it is none of your business what other people's ''purposes'' are. And any way, As I have been saying many times, the ''importance'' or ''purpose'' of an existing fact does not affect its existence.

Originally posted by gcle2003

That's true.

Interesting , so that you agreed with the fact that distinct styles are becoming less and less distinguishable, shows that you do actually acknowledge that there were distinct styles in the first place.
This actually makes all your efforts to deny every thing I wrote before this, a meaningless rant.

Finally, I simply responded to Rakasnumberone and provided my version of the car analogy he had (very nicely) created. It is an analogy for god's sake. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, you are free to keep going on picking at superficial things and about how cars are. But remember, this is not a place to disscuss cars, nor a place to prove your superiority in petty matters.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by omshanti

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?

I read it then.

Wow, You finally read it after I repeated it three times. This really shows well how you pick at and quote other people's posts without even reading them properly.

Originally posted by gcle2003

It still seems to me that all those events lead to genetic differences: if they didn't, I don't see how you could call them 'evolutionary'.

That is exactly what I wrote, which you conveniently ignored. Let me quote it for you.

Originally posted by Omshanti

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.

You keep ignoring points in what I have been writing, only to bring them up later to use them against me.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Moreover I would have thought such events were only relevant to defining a group of people if they shared a common genetic heritage.

Same as above.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by omshanti

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by omshanti

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by omshanti

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,

Can you READ it now?

I read it then. It still seems to me that all those events lead to genetic differences: if they didn't, I don't see how you could call them 'evolutionary'. Moreover I would have thought such events were only relevant to defining a group of people if they shared a common genetic heritage.Sothe answer is yes I can read it but no I don't understand it.

I explained very clearly here

Originally posted by Omshanti

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.

the relation between the genetic traits and the evolutionary events. And I explained very clearly here

Originally posted by omshanti

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.

why I would not bring up genetic traits.
You simply had two options in your mind for what I wrote to ''take to mean'', and when I say that its neither, you simply can not accept it, and try so hard to prove that what I meant fits one of your own options by putting words into my mouth, twisting the argument, and ignoring my explanations. In short, instead of trying to understand openly what other people are saying, you appear to simply try to fit what they say into your own set ideas. No wonder you just don't understand it.

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.

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.

Not to me. There are many good reasons for discriminating between men and women, or between children and adults, or between coronary patients and cancer patients. There are good reasons for discriminating between doctors and nurses, between soldiers and civilians, between police and criminals. It doesn't seem to me unreasonable to discriminate between tall and short people when picking a basketball team. Picking a baseball team, is there some reason not to discriminate between pitchers, catchers, infielders and outfielders?

Interesting, you have such an issue with the loaded past of the word ''race'', while being completely unaware of the loaded implications of the word ''discriminate''? Not to mention that ''implication'' is your favourite word. Very tricky Mr Cleverley.
First determine WHY you wanted to use the word 'discriminate' instead of 'distinguish', when you actually meant distingush.

Originally posted by gcle2003

You seem to be obsessed with certain kinds of discrimination. (To avoid misunderstanding I should point out that you can be obsessed with something you abhor.)

I am not ''obsessed with certain kind of discrimination'' at all. You are the one who brought it up in the first place.
On the other hand, You don't just seem to be obssessed with not only ''discrimination'' but with racial matters too. You OBVIOUSLY ARE 1.obssessed with them 2. have an issue with them 3. hung up on them.
The fact that you simply can not accept what is there, and that you keep judging, questioning and denying other people's interests (which are none of your business) with a ridiculous persistence, when you have absolutely no right to do so, show that very well.
Or unless you are simply blinded by your Ego.

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.'

Originally posted by Omshanti

Hmmm, sounds like back pedaling here.

Just explanation.

''Explanation'' or justification?

Originally posted by gcle2003

So, read a little less prejudicially

Originally posted by Omshanti

Ditto.

You seem to be taking that as an injunction to you again to read it that way. It wasn't. It's common shorthand for saying 'if the statement is read a little less prejudicially'.

That is disputable.

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.

Originally posted by Omshanti

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

In fact I might. Generally speaking however I don't need to, because people make the observation in order to make decisions about for example whether to go out or stay in, what clothes to wear, whether to walk or drive, and so on. Or they are just trying to make conversation.
Otherwise I would agree that people's comments on the weather are frequently just mindless. I'd also agree that the eyes see�that one person is taller than another as they see (or your skin feels) that it is raining. That's involuntary. But to go any further and comment on it is mindless unless one has�some purpose in mind.

Hmmm ''mindless''.
First of all, You are completely missing the point (or twisting the argument on purpose). The point is that, obvious, noticable, and distinguishable differences exist. Whether a person ''comments'' on them, or whether his/her ''comments'' are ''mindless'' or not, have nothing to do with it and are therefore irrelevant.
Now, regarding ''mindless''. I am afraid I am beginning to feel that about your posts, and the thing is, the more you post the more I feel it. That's your posts for you (or any one else) , I can't help it.

Originally posted by gcle2003

It seems to me such a pointless thing to be interested in

Originally posted by Omshanti

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

It varies according to context. I can't help that. That's English for you (or anyone else).

It is not English, It is you. If you really meant ''people generally'' by ''you'', you could have easily written in English 'people generally'', instead of 'you'. So don't blame English (or other things and other people) for what you are responsible. The point is that, those quotes are your persistent questions directed at me.

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

You kept asking me about my desire by constantly saying that I ''want to do'' what I do. It is quite obvious from this that you were directing me by ''you''.

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.

Originally posted by gcle2003

People usually have some kind of reason for doing what they do.

Since you are SO persistently commenting on and asking questions on personal matters, I guess I am entitled to do the same.

Determine why you need to be so unreasonably and persistently intrusive?
Why do you need to be SO persistent?
Why do you have the need to try to control other people's interests and push your perspective as if the world revolves around you?
You appear to think that the world revolves around you, as if your perspective is the only one that matters, and as if you have the right to judge other people's personal interests. Determine WHY you think this way.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by omshanti

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by omshanti

Originally posted by gcle2003

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.

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.

Determine WHY you wanted to use the word 'discriminate' instead of 'distinguish', when you actually meant distingush. WHY did you need to use 'discriminate' when there was 'distinguish'' which obviously had much less chance to be misunderstood?

Originally posted by Omshanti

Hmmm, sounds like back pedaling here.

Originally posted by Omshanti

(by the way notice your usage of ''you'' in these quotes)

Originally posted by gcle2003

It varies according to context. I can't help that. That's English for you (or anyone else).

It is not English, It is you. If you really meant ''people generally'' by ''you'', you could have easily written in English 'people generally'', instead of you. So don't blame English (or other things and other people) for what you are responsible. The point is that, those quotes are your persistent questions directed at me.

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

You kept asking me about my desire by constantly saying that I ''want to do'' what I do. It is quite obvious that you were directing me by ''you''.

Determine why you wanted to use ''you'' instead of ''people generally'' if what you meant was ''people generally''.
Determine why you need to blame other things (English in this case) or other people for what is your own responsibility.
Also from the fact that you always bring them up, you appear to want to let people know that you speak French and German. Determine why you want people to see that you speak those languages.

Originally posted by Omshanti

Originally posted by Omshanti

Hmmm, sounds like back pedaling here.

Just explanation.

''Explanation'' or justification?

Determine why you need to justify yourself.
Determine why you want to cover your justification by saying that it is an ''explanation''.

Originally posted by Omshanti

Originally posted by gcle2003

You seem to be obsessed with certain kinds of discrimination. (To avoid misunderstanding I should point out that you can be obsessed with something you abhor.)

I am not ''obsessed with certain kind of discrimination'' at all. You are the one who brought it up in the first place.

Determine why you are ''obssessed with certain kind of discrimination''.
Determine why you want to blame others for your own ''obssessions'' in order to cover your own issues?
Determine why you need to project your own ''obssessions'' on to others.

Originally posted by Omshanti

Originally posted by gcle2003

I read it then.

Wow, You finally read it after I repeated it three times. This really shows well how you pick and quote other people's posts without even reading them

Determine why you need to pick at and quote other people's posts without even reading them properly.

Originally posted by omshanti

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 Omshanti

Originally posted by gcle2003

It still seems to me that all those events lead to genetic differences: if they didn't, I don't see how you could call them 'evolutionary'. Moreover I would have thought such events were only relevant to defining a group of people if they shared a common genetic heritage.

That is exactly what I wrote, which you conveniently ignored. Let me quote it for you.

You keep ignoring points in what I wrote only to bring them up later in order to use them aganst me.

Determine why you need to keep ignoring points in what other people have already written, only to bring them up later in order to use them aganist those people, as if you are telling them something that they did not take in to account.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by omshanti

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by omshanti

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by omshanti

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,

Can you READ it now?

You appear to either 1.pretend that you don't understand or 2. be not wanting to understand at all. Or maybe 3.it is simply beyond your inteligence so you really don't understand.
First determine which one of the numbers 1. 2. 3. it is.
If it is number 1, determine why you need to pretend you don't understand.
If it is number 2, determine why you do not want to understand. Also
If you do not want to understand what other people are saying, determine why you are in a disscussion forum any way?
If it is number 3, then as I already wrote, don't feel bad about it, and just leave the disscussion for people who understand it, instead of disturbing the disscussion with your ego.

Originally posted by omshanti

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

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

Determine why you need so persistently to ignore people's answers to your questions (which are very presumptive , judgemental and intrusive any way) unless the answers only fit in your own perceptions and experience.

Originally posted by omshanti

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. 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.

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.

Determine why you want to ignore every single explanation another member has given and still persistently ask the same question over and over.

Originally posted by omshanti

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'',

Determine why you need to take 'the ability to recognise and remember people' to mean ''the ability to treat differently people who look different''.
Determine why you need to always take what is written to mean something else instead of taking it as it was written.

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. The most basic indicator of consciousness, not just human, is the ability to distinguish between self and non-self.

Originally posted by gcle2003

why you have any interest in who people's ancestors were (apart I guess from your own, which is something that interests most people). It seems to me such a pointless thing to be interested in.

Determine why you need to call somebody ''odd' or say that their interests are pointless when they simply have different perspectives and interests from you. Determine why you have such a difficulty accepting that people all have different perspectives and interests, and that your own perspectives and interests are not the only veiw-points. Determine why you want your perspectives and interests to matter more than other poeple's.

Originally posted by gcle2003

What important difference is there

Originally posted by gcle2003

What it looks like is only sometimes an important factor.

Determine why you have such a difficulty accepting the subjectivity of ''importance''. Just to make sure you understand it since you have a tendency not to understand things, subjectivity of importance means that, the importance of something is different to different people, that one thing might be important to one person, another thing might be imporant to another person. Determine why you don't want to or can not accept that what is not important to you, might be important to another person. Determine why you need to push what is important to you to others and deny what is important to others based only on your own perspective.
Determine why you can not accept that things have a valid existence regardless of their ''purposes'' or ''imporatnce''.
Determine why you are so obssessed with ''purposes'' and ''imporatnce'' in this thread.
Determine why you are so narrow minded.
Determine why you need to control what is important to others.
Determine why you need to be so intrusive in other people's rights.
Determine why need to control other people.
Determine why you need to ignore what is so obviously there. Also determine why you so desperately want to spread and push your ignorance to others.
Determine why you need to push and knock down what other people write.
Determine why you need to prove your righteousness so badly.
Determine whom you are proving yourself to.

Finally, I think I have found a very appropriate article that explains why this thread has gone ''astray''.

LAST WORD BY C.B . LIDDELL

Last Word
By C.B. Liddell

The Democracy of the Dysfunctional
Internet comment boards are a swamp of venom and abuse

The good thing about the internet is that it�s democratizing culture. That�s the theory anyway. First, there was Amazon.com, where anybody�even high school dropouts�could post their opinion on anything from classical CDs to books on quantum physics. Then there was Wikipedia, where the same anybodies could post and edit accounts of everything from Zen Buddhism to String Theory. Now, in an attempt to compete with the swarms of bloggers, practically all major publications have websites that allow readers to comment directly on their articles.

In the small pond of English journalism in Japan, Metropolis magazine has nobly blazed a trail by supporting an active online community of commentators on news stories and other articles. This is an effective strategy for encouraging reader loyalty because it turns readers into stakeholders (if you don�t know what it means, just google it�another great leveler). The result of all this is that the people who never had a voice now have several, as the distinction between writer and reader becomes increasingly blurred.

This is definitely a positive trend, as it weakens the hold of the big corporations and their profit-driven obsession with political correctness. The internet has opened up free and frank discussion, and although the ride promises to be bumpy, it is certainly invigorating.

Some people decry this development, saying it has given wings to taboos and extremist ideologies, but surely in an open society, any political ideology or sexual practice should be openly discussed rather than swept under the carpet to fester and reemerge in more noxious form. This has certainly been the case in Europe, where the �far right� ideas on nationalism and identity brokered by Jean-Marie Le Pen were co-opted by the more moderate mainstream contenders in the recent French presidential election.

But, unfortunately all too often, the voice given to the common man and woman by the internet merely becomes a vehicle for spite and resentful egoism. I personally became aware of this after writing a few Last Word articles for Metropolis and then reading the comments left by readers. Having tested all the ideas presented in my articles in conversations with friends, who generally responded positively, I was surprised at the almost 100 percent negative comments.

Although some of the criticisms were valid, many of them could be characterized as simple carping, as sentences were quoted out of context, meanings overstated, or ad hominems launched. In case anyone thinks it bothered me, sorry to disappoint: I rather enjoyed the display of petty-minded stupidity that most of the comments revealed. In fact, that�s why I�m writing this�to yank the same chain.

Anyway, this got me to cast my anthropological eye onto other internet comment sections, where I noticed roughly similar patterns, even with more experienced journalists adept at placating the mob of online commentators.

It occurred to me that what was really going on was that the internet was facilitating the democracy of the dysfunctional and the dyslexic. Although I would never dare to characterize all people commenting on web articles in this way, it seems clear that well-adjusted people, able to vent steam and express themselves through normal relationships, are a lot less likely to find themselves commenting on articles like this one on internet forums.

The type of people who do comment often seem to feel some resentment towards the writer, no matter what the opinions expressed are. This is because the writer, by being an intelligent, eloquent person, able to sustain an argument over several paragraphs�and get paid for it�unwittingly gives the commentator some kind of inferiority complex.

This effect is even more pronounced among the foreign community here in Japan. That�s because most foreigners who have been in the country longer than a couple of weeks like to see themselves as experts on Japan in particular and the human condition in general. This, despite the fact that they seldom have anything informed or interesting to say. An article by a writer expressing an opinion on Japan is therefore like waving a red rag at a bull.

While the normal, healthy, well-adjusted person is happy to read any article and think �hmmm interesting� or �what a load of b*ll*cks� before returning to his or her busy schedule, the vox populi internet commentator seeks to boost his ego by making whatever negative and carping comments he can in a desperate attempt to feel superior to the writer. This is the reason why at least 90 percent of comments turn out to be negative and small-minded: a secret army of dysfunctional dyslexics is beavering away at their keyboards, salving their delicate egos with the bile of kneejerk quibbling and petty sniping.

To all those commenting on articles on the internet, unless you have something original, balanced, or illuminating to say, I would advise you to bear the words of the great Dr. Samuel Johnson in mind:
�No one but a fool ever wrote, except for money.�

Edited by omshanti - 24-Sep-2007 at 01:37