h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

hi Hoovooloo,

You missed one very important point - that all good stories need bad guys in them.

az

I see your point, Hoovooloo. I believe that my values are solid and correct. No doubt PYT (and whoever else I might happen to disagree with) feels just the same.

As long as people express themselves within the boundaries of the house rules, they can bring up whatever issues they want, regardless of how repugnant others may find their ideas. Reasoned argument, not thoughtless flaming in return, is the best response.

Part of my point, Hoo, was that I recognize the potential in myself to be like Purdy. I wasn't very clear about it, I'll admit. But I've mentioned in another conversation around here that I figure that pretty much anybody in certain contexts would end up being a Nazi. We've all got the potential for great evil, I think. It is education, both formal and otherwise, which makes us who we are in this sense. Purdy's education has been radically different from mine.

My "different species" comment was rhetoric both appropriate and inappropriate to the context of this thread. It pointed out the huge gap between the thought processes involved in terms drawn from the vocabulary of the thread and so was appropriate. It was inappropriate in that it seemed to be echoing the attitude it was criticizing.

I have looked into the Abyss. I know the monster I could become. That is why it is so important to respond to the thoughts that come from that monster, to at once acknowledge the monster and distance oneself from it. My previous posts, I hope, did the distancing. Now I'm acknowledging the monster. I should have acknowledged the monster first.

Thanks Hoo.

A quote from one of my favorite hippie liberal mutts.

It has been my experience that I am always true from my point of view, and often wrong from the point of view of my honest critics. I know that we are both right from our respective points of view. The seven blind men who gave seven different descriptions of the elephant were all right from their respective points of view. I very much like this doctrine of the manyness of reality. It has taught me to judge a Mussulman from his own standpoint and a Christian from his. Formerly I used to resent the ignorance of my opponents. Today I can love them because I am gifted with the eye to see myself as others see me and vice versa." Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948) 'Young India'

Aha! Good thing I read as far as post 20 before playing the 'hybrid vigour' card.

I see there appear to have been a vast number of posts to this thread in the 3 days since it started. Should make interesting reading (if I ever have the time ).

So - tell me - did anyone ever discover whether Purdy Young Thing is a troll? Hir page looks rather as though it could be that of a current researcher's alter ego. (Not making any guesses or owt, but those sort of pages do tend to look like that (minimal but experienced) don't they?)

Speaking as a mongrel born of a vastly well-travelled family, who appear to have gone out of their way to marry as many different nationalities as possible and have, in the main, subsequently turned out highly intelligent, successful, healthy and long-lived, I thik there's a lot to be said for hybrid vigour.

Besides, Purdy Young Thing, don't you realise we're all ultimately descended from Adam and Eve anyway? In which case surely breeding at all constitutes incest and should be frowned upon.

Heinz 57

I like the Ghandi, Hypatia.

I just discovered something even more frightening to me. Thanks to Hoovooloo, I went back and looked at my posts with what I intended to be separate species rhetoric and they read quite differently than I intended them. I really thought I had written things like "sometimes it seems" and "sometimes I feel" but I was actually much more catagorical than that. I almost want to myself. But I think the posts being different from what I intended and what I remembered may serve a purpose in demonstrating what Hoo points out and what I tried to elaborate in my later post: We have to be inconceivably careful with the rhetoric, we have to watch within ourselves for the monster we're fighting (he really sneaks up), and we also need to be careful to "judge not lest we be judged ourselves."

Thanks again, Hoo.

Another thought:

Eysenck, the inventor of IQ tests, was branded a racist, and I think I'm right in saying he more or less agreed: there are racially different IQ averages.

Interesting point is that the top race in Eysenck's IQ league was not his own race but (I think) the Japanese. Gosh, I should have checked these quotes before posting them on such a delicate site. But even if I'm wrong, consider such a possibility.

The question is, what sort of racist would that make Eysenck? And what does it say about racism?

My own : I agree with Steve Jones, genetic differences are hugely outweighed by culture (education). So hugely as not to count.

If a "race" (rotten term) is able to speak, that makes it human; and humanity is levelled in language.

The reason there are racially different IQ averages is that IQ tests are all unavoidably biased. It isn't genetic, but cultural.

"If a "race" ... is able to speak, that makes it human"

Equal rights for parrots!

H.

and computer with text to voice!

Parrots don't 'speak' Silly () - they just 'parrot'!

Chimpanzees on the other hand...

http://www.santafe.edu/~johnson/articles.chimp.html

Indeed, there was an interesting examination of the innate cultural bias of IQ tests years ago ( I forget where ) which showed the absurdity of showing diagrams ( in an IQ test ) that a western eye would read as symbolic of three-D perspective, but that to an eye from, say, Australian Aboriginal culture would simply be seen as converging lines. And vice versa. A Westerner would not understand the symbolic story-telling of Australian Aboriginal "abstract art."Nothing whatever to do with intelligence per se. Everything to do with cultural conditioning.

Furthermore, recent studies have proclaimed the limited value of IQ tests anyway, referring to "emotional IQ" as more meaningful. Now, however that was tested, would the deeper, emotive/intuitive values prove to be more trans-cultural/racial than IQ? Anyone informed on that front?

I love this thread.

PYT coming back and starting to talk about God's will in a thread containing HVL was like that bit towards the end of Men in Black where Will Smith crunches a cockroach underfoot.

this thread just goes from the sublime to the ridiculous.

J'au-æmne, mongrel child

Chaiwallah! Yay!
On abused persons:
""The majority become carers, cause-supporters, and hyper-achievers, amongst other "compensatory mechanisms." We need a new thread on the topic, perhaps we could enter the discussion following "The Dichotomous Thought Patterns of Abuse Survivors"." (a front page article)

YAY! I have been the only one I've seen stress this.
It worries me that a new prejudice is being born. Too many people hear abuse & think you are doomed. The fact it is discussed more is good. Saying dangerdanger they been abused! Pointing finger & fearful warnings can be a self fullfilling prophecy to young victims hearing this over & over!

I have gained as many good as bad qualities from surviving abusive situations a child.


Thank you very much for explaining a confusing situation to me ,Dalai Lama. It is ironic as you said "China's abusive treatment of Tibet is an ironic link between racism and abuse, on a national scale of institutionalised horror."

There is an excellant program on PBS (US)today. There's a website by that name and the program. http://www.pbs.org or http://www.rmpbs.org (Rocky Mountain PBs)
The program is "Race. The Power of an illusion" in Us history.
Facinating & disturbing history.I have never seen such a program go decade by deacde through our race history. Students are not taught this in elemtary school! It is from the perspective ;government social institutions ,Presidential actions ,and science influences.

About IQ and bias:-- what's to be made of the 'bias' that makes another "race" win? Eysenck was measuring *one form* of intelligence, and he found and reported (let's say) an unpalatable (to his friends and relations) result. Quite apart from that, the fact that there are other and better kinds of intelligence doesn't devalue his experiment as science.

The interesting thing from the point of view of This Thread:-- this story suggests that racism isn't what it's cracked up to be.

Or, as a previous reseracher (excuse laziness) implied, angry reactions to racism are . . . more racism.

Dear Abbi,

Thanks for the kind thoughts and for the websites, which I will check out when I've had my evening fix of hootoo threads. Yes indeed, I already thought we might take abuse to the Front Page article. I have to say I found the article rather heavy going, but then, it's quite a heavy subject.

In the meantime, come on PYT, fess up and tell us a bit more about yourself, or are you running scared of all us "hippie nerdo mutts?"

Sorry to digress a bit here. Isn't the only thing an "IQ" test really does is test the ability of the person to take tests? In which case, countries with better (stricter standards) schools would of course do better than those that don't put as much pressure on the students.

One thing I suspect IQ tests test for is cognitive style, with people with decontextualised styles being favoured over those with contextual styles (approximately abstract vs concrete thinking)

Noggin

Yes Clio! Well said! Noggin too!

Despite all of which, Eysenck's stuff is still good science! And the finding that Japanese people did best may well reflect Japanese education priorities and/or efficiency, and *still it counts* as a racial characteristic! Race isn't what it's cracked up to be!

That's why Steve Jones says the way to give your children a genetic advantage is to send them to Eton!