
It Makes No Sense to Judge Groups of People by Their Histories of Invention - Petiver
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/07/20/why_white_supremacists_who_defend_racism_by_tallying_numbers_of_white_inventions.html
======
elevensies
1\. By which crieria _is_ it acceptable to judge groups of people? This is a
question that has to be answered whether you want to promote a positive or
negative view. Even something as seemingly innocuous as "celebrating heritage"
implies a judgement of the accomplishments of a group.

2\. Lack of opportunity and recognition: I would accept this as an excuse for
an individual, but not a large group. Resource allocation is a task of the
group. Still, it is possible to attribute to the wrong group. It wasn't the
slave's race that failed to recognize him.

~~~
thomasahle
When is it useful to have a good way of judging a people?

~~~
CamonZ
Always, it's human beings way of making sense of the infinite complexity of
other human beings.

~~~
thomasahle
I find in most situations where I find myself, I only have r to try and judge
one or a few persons. Judging a whole people seems to be a much harder, if
even possible task.

In either case, wouldn't the acceptable judging criteria have to depend on the
particular use case? Or might there be some universally good criteria?

~~~
CamonZ
There shouldn't be any criteria other than your own.

Human beings evolved to make sense of chaos through stories, judging others is
a way to create a story for them, stereotypes are stories over groups of
people. It's not wrong, it's how we're wired.

In the receiving end of a judgment, it's a fools errand to hope everyone
thinks of you in the way you want them to, thinking that way is probably one
of the hallmarks of narcissism.

On the giving end of judgments, I think there's an overwhelming sense of guilt
for not judging everyone positively, in the hopes to be an unattainable goal
of "goodness" that's part of our culture because of liberalism which itself
grew out of Christianity.

As a culture, we've metastasized into these behaviors, nowadays everybody is
worried of being perceived "positively" because of narcissism and perceiving
others as "good" because of guilt of having the wrong feelings.

------
youngButEager
Ignoring genetic dispositions and innate traits because they're socially
'inconvenient' is foolish.

Assume for a moment that all humans have the exact same innate, instinctive
traits and tendencies. Same degree of curiosity, ingenuity, cleverness. We'll
all the same.

Then look at Bonobos and Chimpanzees. These two primate groups look so similar
they're often confused. Bonobos and Chimps differ by only 0.4% genetically.
They reside in the same part of the world, in Africa.

Yet their behavior is quite different. Bonobos tend to be less violent than
Chimps, and intimate relations play a much larger social role in Bonobo
groups.

You can't ignore stuff like that. "Bonobos are sluts! At least chimps have
some modesty about these things!"

Or "Bonobos are more intelligent than chimps! They settle things more
peacefully and are not as readily violent!"

Can you _say_ stuff like that in mixed company? Sure. Go to any social
gathering and bring it up.

But try switching "Chimp, Bonobo" for "Caucasians, Blacks" when discussing
professional sports accomplishments and you might be asked to leave the party.

There are innate differences and feeling 'sorry' and 'embarrassed' or 'guilty'
or 'judgmental' for assessing the differences between groups with historically
different innate strengths and weaknesses -- is a social norm, that's all.

"German Shepherd dogs are better than Golden Retrievers for police work."
FINE.

"Perhaps for environmental/survival factors, some groups of humans developed
more prominent problem-solving ability and curiosity and became more
inventive." FINE so far! Until you identify the groups you mean by 'some
groups' then you're being asked to leave the party.

Saying "It Makes No Sense to Judge Groups of People by Their Histories of
Invention" reflects a modern social norm. But has zero effect on the facts.

Bonobos and Chimps have been studied. They're only 0.4% different,
genetically. But their innate tendencies and behaviors are _different._

There's nothing wrong with that! It's NATURE.

For now though, Social Norms are limiting dialog about differences in groups
of humans.

~~~
clort
Well, except that Bonobos and Chimpanzees are different species (most recent
common ancestor about 2million years ago[1]) whereas Humans are still a single
species (most distant common ancestor less than 200,000 years ago[2])

Social differences in (and within) groups of humans are of clearly massive,
but 'genetic dispositions' and 'innate traits' not so much. The difference
between nature and nurture is difficult to discern, when nurture is so
obviously an overwhelming influence.

Your comment about police dogs is interesting, because police dogs undergo
intensive training and many breeds are used[3]

[1]
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature11128.html)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_dog_breeds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_dog_breeds)

~~~
thomasahle
200,000 years is for female unbroken lines. The "mixing time" of human DNA is
expected to be much shorter, with the most recent common ancestor being as
little as 2000-4000 years ago
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor)

------
jgalt212
Slate finds it very hard to publish anything but negative pieces about white
people.

It's basically become Huffington Post for people who can read.

------
Nomentatus
Human beings herd cognitively very, very well (by which I mean very tightly.)
Human culture couldn't have survived and grown amongst relatively small groups
in prehistory if it weren't so.

Only unusual, and not in every respect nice circumstances and cultural
practices shake that herding up enough to allow consistent innovation. (See
Kerr, How to Write a Bad Play re the history of playwriting; which shows how
rare periods when great plays were written are in human history a bit of an
illustration.) Otherwise the other crabs in the bucket make sure norms are
maintained, and novelty is supressed by the immune system that is human
culture.

Normal, well organized, stable societies that are highly integrated and
provide calm peaceful lives to their citizens under clear, concise, consistent
and sensible rules systems... don't innovate. Because cognitive herding is the
norm of humans. Innovation at anything other than a glacial pace is what's
bizarre; not consistency.

Dynamically unstable societies on the other hand, have the chance to develop
much better weapons systems and tactics and take over the world, from
societies which worked much, much better at providing happy and smooth lives
for their citizens. Which is what happened to get us here. Free speech
disrupts. Free movement disrupts. Choice of belief systems disrupts. Choice of
lifestyle disrupts. Etc. Disrupts physical health. Disrupts mental health.
Disrupts marriages and friendships. But to get to a steam engine and then an
aircraft carrier with steam catapults, also requires, as a necessary
condition, the unconscious acceptance of disruption as part of life.

Therefore, it makes sense to judge (ethically, morally, etc) societies that DO
produce innovations - they have wildly higher divorce rates, substance abuse,
chronic illnesses, stress, PTSD, mental illness and on and on. Terrific
weapons though. And toys. Gotta love the toys.

To live right AFTER a golden age of human progress is wonderful. To live
DURING such an age, pretty much totally sux, if you read any history.

------
sixbrx
Consider me in the group "likes Stoke's theorem" or some such.

Seriously, it only enriches the soil for such judgments to grow, when _by
default_ , the crucial and elemetary word "group" is taken to mean "racial
group". That's starting out with a big wrong, IMO.

------
CurtHagenlocher
Steve King hasn't invented anything, so I'm not sure what he is proud about. I
think the main value in the narrative "people X accomplished Y" is to counter
a narrative of "people X accomplished nothing" \-- whether explicit or
implied.

