Re: (partly for phil) Latest historical readings....



On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, phil scott wrote:

On Nov 22, 10:49 pm, d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (DK) wrote:
Straydog <a...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, DK wrote:

Straydog <a...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As far as people not being able to count, I'm sure if you taught them,
then they could.

And you are sure because of ...?

I have not heard about any intellectual incapacity of particular genes
carried by the offspring of parental lineages except from a minority
viewpoint.

Care to translate the sentence? I don't think it makes any sense
whatsoever biologically.

But I get your drift - you are sure it is so because have not heard
otherwise. Induction pushed to the brink of absurdity, in other
words.

Now, that you asked me a question and I answered it, are you
going to answer me by revealing that you follow or do not follow some
minority viewpoint?

Unlike you, I am very much not sure. To me, it's more like 50/50.
Yes, chances are almost 100% that you can get babies and raise
them in the environment where counting is normal and then the
kids will count just fine.

But to take adults that likely have very low IQ to begin with
and have been raised and developed in the environment that
required no basic abstraction - in this case the outcome is far
from obvious. This might end up like having your mother
fall in love with grunge rock - possible in theory, impossible
in practice.

Do you know how to make a bow and arrow? Could you, if
you had to, go out and bring down a buffalo with a bow and arrow?

I don't but if I had to, I likely would devise more efficient ways
of killing buffalos.

This looks to me like an answer that utilizes the assumtion that
hypothetical possibilities will be successful.

You claimed that primitive tribes are as successful as
civilized ones. I claim that it is a rubbish thought. E.g., firearms
are far more successful. If you think for a second, it's not about
me knowing how to make a bow and arrow but about some tribes
inventing counting and lotsa other things and other tribes failing
it. Given that the former live 2X longer and enforced their
technologies on easily 99% of the world population, while the
latter populations are quite literally dying out, it is quite obvious
that one is more successful than another.


that was not the claim... the claim and facts are that primitive man
is vastly more successful in a primitive environment that he has
developed within...than some *** from new york city with a laptop
and a jar of fake hot sauce.

Bingo.

and visa versa... the primitive man is really really bad with spread
sheets... however many over the spread of history have transplated
themselves into advanced cultures and equaled or in many cases
exceeded that advance. quanna parker an american indian native,
became a vastly successful business man for instance... and a wide
range of blacks across the entire spectrum of endeavor from music to
advanced science.... were these exceptions? and the rest of the race
backward? I dont think so. I think its a matter of logistical
difficulty moving from one background and way of looking at things to
another.... i see that in my life...I have developed an 'engneer/
tradesman' way of earning a living... my brain structure has developed
along those lines.. investment is something I understand but do not
relate that well to... has nothing to do with intelligence...and
everything to do with habituation.

Bingo.


same with IQ tests.

slightly different with the slobbering idiots one can find endemic to
some racial groups...all these mix, to certain outcomes. .. and yes
IQ is affected all along the liine...and we have seen that it can be
raised, and indeed is affected in anyone by his upbrining.

which leaves us with the individual....

I have worked with a lot of people over the years who sought my
advice...some that would appear to be retarded, after a longer
involvement proved to me that they had insight in areas of life that i
did not.... all of it is an individual thing imo...and yes with
considerable genetic predispositions between racial and cultural
groups.

This is what I was getting at. And, all this came out of my report from a book on Latin American history on some 150+ years of unending dictatorships, repression, povery and a comment by a guy who wrote about African history who wrote a couple of pages on how some 2/3 of the countries that got their independence managed to set up, within about one decade, stable democracies that are still stable several decades later. Its a result worth studying for its lessons.

detesting any of that, in any direction imo is the mark of someone
with only a part of a clue about life...when backed with action or
force that becomes destructive to all it touches... and separates its
host from the rest of life.


re such separation... imo its a natural immune function... alien
aspects are rejected internally and externally it seems. is it
wrong? i dont think so... can it be a problem with humanity given so
many different races etc... it obviously is.


I think its worth listening to other opinions and try to think for a little while before deciding.


===== no change to below, included for reference and context =====

Phil Scott


Phil Scott

And, given resources available at the time, you are sure of success
because...?

Except that I never said I am sure... I wrote "likely" - recognizing
that a single person may very well die before finding a successful
solution. Now, maybe you still want to ask why I still wrote
"likely"? - Easy. Too many damn books. Many centuries of
documented human genius perfectly validated in practical use
has to carry some weight and inspire some optimism.

That's a classic situation described by Twain
in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court".

OK, I will relate to you that I have heard of many stories where "white
people" found themselves in primitive situations and considered that their
"advanced" intelligence would save them from starvation and oblivion but
it did not. Some stories showed that primitive people, with their
"inferrior" intelligence, were able to save the day.

Anecdotal evidence all the way.

Now, just where could you find a few of these stories? Try Jarred
Diamond's recent book "Collapse."

He is a clown. Stories are good but none of them supports the
ideology he pushes. I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and it's
a total waste of time - life is short and there are 100,000 books
that are more worth reading.

Used copies are very cheap on
Amazon.com. Shall I give you the chapter numbers and titles of what I'm
thinking about? Oh, yes, there were examples of European colonies on the
east coast shortly after Columbus, where with their superior intelligence,
tools, and organization...they ended up starving themselves because they
did not have "inferior" indian (Native American) primitive "technology".

Thank you for providing an easy example of how you and Jared
Diamond are totally wrong (and it's too bad that it came on a Birdday):
In the end, Europeans pretty much obliterated natives. That's all
that counts. Discard your anecdotal evidence stories - the real
historical evidence unequivocally proves that Europeans' technology
was superior (in a Darwinian sense at least). If you doubt it, look
up USA population for Whites and Native Americans today and
compare it to the starting values.

And, I can think of scenarios where all of our advanced devices will not
save us. I remember one book review in _Science_ where all of the
accidental near nuclear World War III nearly happened and from what I can
see, it was an accident that we did not have this war. And, where would
the advantage be if this happened?

Woulda, shoulda, you "can think"... Wow. That surely outweighs the
fact that your "successful" tribal societies that can't count live on
average 2-3 times less! Lotsa empirical evidence on your side :-)

If you need to find food to live, the ability to count is worthless.

Coming from a former scientist, this is rather shocking sentiment.
You know, Art, I am starting to think that it is not just a bad luck
that you were not a good scientist. There is a logic in here.

And, if you want to go into this in a little more detail, I'll drag out my
books. Fine, I like central heating, running water, plumbing, and some
modern medicine. Agriculture has been around for a long time. In ancient
times they memorized tens of thousands of lines of stories before books
came into existence.

You can rant all you want but you can't deny that books offer
a hell of an advantage over "memorized tens of thousands of lines
of stories".

They also did not have giant garbage dumps of
throw-away mechanical products that will never be cleaned
up no matter how long the planet exists.

Everything comes at a price. This too will have to be solved
(and hopefully can be).

DK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.