More Scientific Nonsense

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Atom, Oct 17, 2007.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    No its not which is why not all members of a group are endogamous; that's not to say some aren't. The Parsis in India for example, have almost disappeared, a small group to begin with, and highly highly endogamous. All rebels instantly excommunicated. Today, they would be considered racists. Strangely, although Persian in origin and strongly identity conscious, they consider themselves Indians. India being what it is, they were permitted their exclusive behaviour, now after 1000 years, they have (slowly) abandoned it and marry non-Parsis.

    The key of course, is the perception of acceptance. I don't know any Parsi who, inspite of 1000 years of exclusion from Indians within India, consider themselves anything but Indian.

    IMO, their tribalism and exclusiveness was a reflection of their persecution; their assimilation is a reflection of their identification with the tribe (which has nothing to do with any of their tribal aspects)

    I mean, look at Farrokh Dhondy (better known as Freddie Mercury); who woulda thunk he is pure Iranian?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Yet also look at the success of largely exclusive groups, like Jews. They retain their wealth from generation to generation, often occupy influential positions, and have kept alive really, really old culture. They share a lot of genes.

    ....
    You know, it's not like anything in the West faces a fitness problem from lack of resources, anyway. But as a cultural and racial unit, Jews have done really well in the group think thing.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Evolutionarily speaking, who cares?

    It was their shared persecution that made them homogeneous, ironically, they have, themselves erased it in one generation.

    If you think there will be "pure" Jews after another 200 years, like there have been in the last 2000, you're not paying attention.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Because protection of the group has ensured that they survived like 10 different empires all trying to crush them?

    Alternatively, they could have just put down there spears and said "let's fuck."


    Another question- why don't more wars go that way? If we're not so hard wired for group think, why don't more of us just stop fighting and assimilate? Maybe because there's an enormous fitness disadvantage if you lack the ability to cooperate with a group to compete against another group?
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Mostly because we don't fight for need, we fight for greed.

    Its like the M&Ms. They all taste the same, but if you color them differently, it makes you eat more.

    The triumph of intellect over instinct.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    You actually look at food before you shovel it your mouth? Way to reduce your energy consumption per unit time!


    So are you saying that our tendency towards group think is a mistake? A problem created by big brains? I can see the issue with fighting- animals rarely fight unless necessary. Too costly, otherwise.
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    I think we overestimate our ability to adapt our environment to ourselves. We tend to forget we live in a closed system and what we affect ultimately affects us.
     
  11. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, the behavior still exists it is only an incorrect term from a biological viewpoint.
     
  12. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Because of ignorance ?
     
  13. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
  14. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    This is true. And it also explains for instance hooligans, one group against another. Groups tend to be anti 'other-groups', and it's probably evolutionary.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Evolutionary is a much misused term. Is greed evolutionary?
     
  16. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I don't know :shrug:
    But eventually all behavior is directly or indirectly related to genes and thus evolutionary.
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Only if you ignore the fact that a significant proportion of variance is attributable to environmental factors.
     
  18. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    The genetic makeup of a creature allows for these environmental factors to influence it's behavior no ? That's what I mean by 'eventually'.
     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Does it? If you separate Finnish twins, one grows up in China with Chinese parents and the other in Africa with African parents, what do you predict their behaviour will be like?
     
  20. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Different, but the genetic makeup allows for these differences.
     
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Hmm so if they are similar its genetics, if they are different, its genetics.

    IOW, a non falsifiable argument and hence, non scientific.
     
  22. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Do you know anything about genetics ?

    The body is build up through gene expression, they hold the building plan of the body. Why are some people better at something than others while receiving exactly the same training ? Genetics..
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    I know what is science. Your argument is not falsifiable, hence it is not science.

    Unless you can provide a testable hypothesis to verify your claim?
     

Share This Page