I'm sorry I brought up The Bell Curve. I don't know what's wrong with The Bell Curve; you guys insist there is something wrong with it, yet nobody explains precisely what its problems are. They just give me links to critics who purportedly "refuted" the book. Then other critics refute the refuters' refutations and it goes back and forth and it becomes clear that people will find ways to justify exactly what they want to believe. So forget The Bell Curve. What's wrong with my initial two premises?
I'd love to. But first - just so that we are on the same page to begin with - can you tell me at what point on the chart below homo sapiens sapiens begin? (Surely you can, since you obviously have the knowledge to label all humanity so). The skulls are labeled for your convenience (skull A is a chimpanzee skull, I believe - for reference). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
All the branches of the homo genus below could conceivably have reproduced with homo sapien sapien. Perhaps other, earlier branches too. Homo sapien sapien is an arbitrary designation, created by an 18th century European (Linnaeus) and open to modification.
You are on very thin ice there. Most biologists would say that they probably could not have produced vertile offspring. Rather like donkeys and horses can reproduce but cannot produce vertile offspring.
Enmos, Linnaeus' system of taxonomy was based upon shared physical characteristics, not ability to reproduce. Hence, for S.A.M to claim that reproducibility determines these classifications is just absurd. Furthermore, how do you explain the physical similitude between certain human populations alive today and that of homo neanderthalis? Denser bones, stronger bodies, prognathism, but not, alas, large craniums. Were Neanderthals our enemies or lovers?
It seems to me that beautiful people have been mating with other beautiful people, and ugly people with other ugly people, for a while in human history, and yet I see no evidence of certain groups becoming more and more beautiful (or increasingly ugly) over the generations. More over, even if smart people tend to mate with other smart people, many smart and successful men go out of their way to mate with beautiful women (smart or not). High intellect is just as likely to be one factor amongst many (including beauty, kindness, wealth, degrees of extroversion, etc.) in the decision to get married, making me wonder whether the selection pressure on that trait is as great as you suggest. As for the "stark[] difference between the elite and the downtrodden" you foresee in the future, the term "downtrodden" suggests "poor" rather than intellectually inferior, and I still deny that higher intellect leads to higher salary in the way that suggests. Intelligence opens up more career options that idiocy does, but the truly intelligent generally look for something more than just salary in picking a position.
Good stuff to think about Pandaemoni. As always your posts are thoughtful and well put. I'll be back with a response to that later.
It's not at all arbitrary, it has always been open to modification (such as adding the subspecies "sapiens" long after Linneaus was dead), and it's kept because it's useful and it works and it fits the facts.
