 |
conworlds.info
A Community of Worldbuilders
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nugan
Conjurer
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 332
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:39 am Post subject: District 9 |
 |
|
I'm not sure how many of you have seen the film. Fetus, Tharivious and I went to see it opening night. I thought it was fantastic, and I was even willing to forgive it for slights that would have been fatal in other movies (like falling into a very conventional plot arc midway through).
I also think it was a really exceptional example of effective conworlding, for several reasons:
1. Most importantly, its world is grounded in real human social reality (apartheid) and examines real social issues without becoming a simple parable.
2. Many scenes are full of unique details, and these details actually reward the person who notices them, because they are amusing and entertaining instead of masturbatory author excess.
3. It understands that real, fallible human characters are centrally important to creating a compelling world. Instead of having a cookie-cutter protagonist who simply serves as a tool to ferry the audience from one cultural detail or plot device to another, District 9 had a very human (even when he wasn't) protagonist whose decisions were clearly a facet of his personality rather than authorial contrivance. (One small complaint: The same cannot really be said for the main alien protagonist, who was generally portrayed as unequivocally noble.)
4. The social and political relationships between the groups in the film (corporate whites, marginalized aliens, and Nigerians) were thoroughly fleshed out and seemed to operate on real principles of personal necessity, desire, and opportunism. While these groups clearly existed to facilitate the plot, this was never forced to the forefront of my mind as I watched, because the behavior and culture of each was fully fleshed out at the beginning in a way that made they actions they would take later entirely believable. They also had desires that were natural and common--food, social position, profit--rather than the idealized moral (or idealized immoral) pursuits of many groups and cultures in speculative fiction.
OK, I think that's all. But really, see the damn movie. It's brilliant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chiarizio
Wizard
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 801
Location: 1 SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does it seem to anyone else besides me that the whole premise of "District 9" is lifted from the "Transients" of "Angels 8" in "Transmetropolitan", by Warren Ellis?
Even the name of the place: "District 9" is a lot like "Angels 8".
_________________
The mark of a good citizen is that he doesn't believe anything if he can help it.
-- W.B. Yapp
-----------------------------
I am also eldin raigmore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fetus Commander
Sorcerer
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 373
Location: 1 in a wastebasket filled with pizza and prom confetti
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
It seems more like Alien Nation than that Spider Jerusalem comic, but without the overbearing bullshit of AN. I can see where the gonzo thing might be similar because of the film techniques used, but the rest of the story isn't really that similar, nor the protagonist as suave and obviously driven by agenda like Spider
_________________
“Learning would forever spoil the best slave in the world…it would forever unfit him to be a slave." -Hugh Auld |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiarizio
Wizard
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 801
Location: 1 SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fetus Commander wrote: | | It seems more like Alien Nation than that Spider Jerusalem comic, but without the overbearing bullshit of AN. I can see where the gonzo thing might be similar because of the film techniques used, but the rest of the story isn't really that similar, nor the protagonist as suave and obviously driven by agenda like Spider |
But, all things considered, you still don't find "originality" to be one of its main strong points? It improves on ideas that have already been used, more than it embodies any new ones?
_________________
The mark of a good citizen is that he doesn't believe anything if he can help it.
-- W.B. Yapp
-----------------------------
I am also eldin raigmore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jseamus
Conjurer
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 225
Location: in its own little world...
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:38 am Post subject: the half life movie |
|
|
| chiarizio wrote: | | But, all things considered, you still don't find "originality" to be one of its main strong points? It improves on ideas that have already been used, more than it embodies any new ones? |
WARNING: contains spoilers.
I went to see District 9 with my brother and a good friend a few nights after opening. I loved it. When I came out of the theater, I turned to my friend and said "That was the Half Life movie!" I was joking of course, but the feel of the movie was very familiar. All throughout the film I had been thinking "Where have I seen this before?"
The real moment of revelation came when the powered-armored protagonist threw a pig at an attacking soldier using a grav gun in a manor very reminiscent of HL2. It shares some other thematic elements with that franchise, including the grungy urban setting and emphasis on how the aliens have irreversibly altered society.
In many ways, this movie is a natural continuation of the "alien refuges" subgenre. It doesn't have the preachy idealism of Alien Nation or the far-out post-cyberpunk sensibilities of Transmetropolitan, but it shares obvious traits with those other works, and it owes them the same debt any genre work owes to its forebears.
Which is not to say that I think the film failed at originality. District 9 took the conventions of an existing subgenre and did its own thing with them. And it had powered armor. Cool. Very Cool.
_________________
This is the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerne
Wizard
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 863
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not nearly as observant or well-versed in sci-fi works as the other posters on this thread have been but, all the same, I also liked the film. In particular I liked the "reality series" take on many of the scenes, especially those that showed up throughout the first half of the film and at the very end. That candid quality with the interviews and slightly inept field shots made the film look that much more realistic.
On the flipside, I thought the way the Nigerians were represented was a bit unrealistic; they seemed to have tried a bit too hard to produce a good villain (can I say "secondary antagonist?") that they seemed to have stepped - if ever so slightly - over the reality line. The aliens were also a bit too anthropomorphosized for the most part, though there were parts in the movie where they actually did seem 'alien'. I am still wondering if identifying with them was necessarily a good thing or not.
Sorry but, aside from Halo 1 & 2 and Independance Day, I am really at a loss as to what I can compare this film to or use analogies for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fonori
Sorcerer
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cerne wrote: | | On the flipside, I thought the way the Nigerians were represented was a bit unrealistic; they seemed to have tried a bit too hard to produce a good villain (can I say "secondary antagonist?") that they seemed to have stepped - if ever so slightly - over the reality line. The aliens were also a bit too anthropomorphosized for the most part, though there were parts in the movie where they actually did seem 'alien'. I am still wondering if identifying with them was necessarily a good thing or not. |
Nigerians: did not like. They were Voodoo-Worshiping Evil Black People, not a stereotype that I'd like to promote, especially to the extent that movie did.
"Anthromophization": I found the prawns refreshingly alien for a protagonist species. They have level of non-humanness usually reserved for villains, Only thing that struck me as odd was that there was a father-son relationship in the movie, even though these creatures lay eggs into big masses of nastyness that pop like popcorn when you fry them. (Seriously WTF? At least they could have explored whether there actually IS a biological relationship between them or whether prawns just "nurse" whatever hatchlings pop out in the community.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nugan
Conjurer
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fonori wrote: |
Nigerians: did not like. They were Voodoo-Worshiping Evil Black People, not a stereotype that I'd like to promote, especially to the extent that movie did.
|
This surprised me a bit also. Although I don't think they were Evil Black People anymore than MNU's businessmen and soldiers were Evil White People. Given that this movie is pretty explicitly anti-prejudice and anti-apartheid and that the cast spreads both good and evil around pretty evenly between races, I don't think the depiction of the Nigerians was racist. I think it was more an attempt to depict a type paramilitary organized crime that occurs in the region. Still, the Nigerians, particularly in their occultism, were rather cartoonish and did steer dangerously close to Ooga Booga territory.
(If you really want to see shameless "How the fuck did they not see this?" racism in a contemporary film, check out Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong. It may actually be less ethnically sensitive than the flamboyantly racist original.)
_________________
| Hugo Dyson wrote: | | Oh fuck, not another elf! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fetus Commander
Sorcerer
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 373
Location: 1 in a wastebasket filled with pizza and prom confetti
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought the Nigerians were hilarious, but i don't care about racial sensitivity/consciousness. In fact i'd rather the opposite- some older stuff that's obviously racist is really funny, and i can admire what amounts to an honest depiction of Western fears (if not necessarily reality) in a modern movie like this.
The movie was pretty original as far as the mix of setting and message, although i see what you mean with the HL2 comparison. The second half of the movie that has him actively fighting the MNU reminded me a lot of Freeman leading the uprising against Combine leadership (although i wish HL2 had given you an alien companion, like a Vortigaunt or something, instead of Alyx). All that was great though, since it was good to have that mix- especially the visual "techno-third world" aesthetic, which was pretty unique when HL2 did it in collapsed Eastern Europe- transplanted to the big screen. In a lot of ways, i think the setting/premise eliminated some of the hokey shit that made the last 30 minutes or so of Enemy Mine really choking
_________________
“Learning would forever spoil the best slave in the world…it would forever unfit him to be a slave." -Hugh Auld
Last edited by Fetus Commander on Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fonori
Sorcerer
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nugan wrote: | | Fonori wrote: |
Nigerians: did not like. They were Voodoo-Worshiping Evil Black People, not a stereotype that I'd like to promote, especially to the extent that movie did.
|
This surprised me a bit also. Although I don't think they were Evil Black People anymore than MNU's businessmen and soldiers were Evil White People. Given that this movie is pretty explicitly anti-prejudice and anti-apartheid and that the cast spreads both good and evil around pretty evenly between races, I don't think the depiction of the Nigerians was racist. I think it was more an attempt to depict a type paramilitary organized crime that occurs in the region. Still, the Nigerians, particularly in their occultism, were rather cartoonish and did steer dangerously close to Ooga Booga territory. |
Yeah, there were evil people all over, with aliens and Afrikaners in the middle not being very nice to each other either. But the voodoo crap was too much -- especially the bizzare cannibalism scene.
| Quote: | | (If you really want to see shameless "How the fuck did they not see this?" racism in a contemporary film, check out Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong. It may actually be less ethnically sensitive than the flamboyantly racist original.) |
Oh, yeah, those people scared me. Didn't really connect them to a specific race though. And the movie wasn't very serious, anyway (why are frikkin dinosaurs chasing puny little humans halfway accross the island!?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerne
Wizard
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 863
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fonori wrote: | | "Anthromophization": I found the prawns refreshingly alien for a protagonist species. They have level of non-humanness usually reserved for villains, Only thing that struck me as odd was that there was a father-son relationship in the movie, even though these creatures lay eggs into big masses of nastyness that pop like popcorn when you fry them. (Seriously WTF? At least they could have explored whether there actually IS a biological relationship between them or whether prawns just "nurse" whatever hatchlings pop out in the community.) |
 You mean they actually had that in the film!?
But yeah, that sounds like a surefire contradiction to me too. I really didn't buy the human-like relationship between the aliens and their offspring. If they really were that precocial, you would think they wouldn't put that much attention into looking after their offspring. It wasn't just the parent-child relationship that struck me as odd though. The whole family structure was too anthropomorphosized. As I recall, there were even 'women' aliens, though I didn't see them play a "mother" role that much. Maybe the males of this species takes care of the offspring?
.....
And I echo everything said about the racist depictions of the Nigerians in this film and the tribal people in King Kong. I'm wondering in the latter film, however, whether the director's intention was to emulate a real human society or intentionally bring back the stereotypes they had in the earlier days for the sake of authenticity. I did read that Tim Burton deliberately re-introduced the racist depictions of the Oompa-loompas that were in Rould Dahl's original book rather than smoothing it over the way the first film did with Gene Wilder(?). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fonori
Sorcerer
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cerne wrote: | | You mean they actually had that in the film!? |
Sorry, did I spoil something? 
| Quote: | | And I echo everything said about the racist depictions of the Nigerians in this film and the tribal people in King Kong. I'm wondering in the latter film, however, whether the director's intention was to emulate a real human society or intentionally bring back the stereotypes they had in the earlier days for the sake of authenticity. I did read that Tim Burton deliberately re-introduced the racist depictions of the Oompa-loompas that were in Rould Dahl's original book rather than smoothing it over the way the first film did with Gene Wilder(?). |
Hmm, considering the "Loompa Land" story and the fact that they literally all looked the same (one actor for all Oompa Loompas), it sounds plausible. I'm usually not so sensitive to racism when it's a fictional group of people in the "real" world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerne
Wizard
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 863
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fonori wrote: | | Cerne wrote: | | You mean they actually had that in the film!? |
Sorry, did I spoil something? |
Nah, I just didn't remember that being in the film. It's been a while since I saw it. The The documentary-ish style they used to show most of the film doesn't help very much, either.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | And I echo everything said about the racist depictions of the Nigerians in this film and the tribal people in King Kong. I'm wondering in the latter film, however, whether the director's intention was to emulate a real human society or intentionally bring back the stereotypes they had in the earlier days for the sake of authenticity. I did read that Tim Burton deliberately re-introduced the racist depictions of the Oompa-loompas that were in Rould Dahl's original book rather than smoothing it over the way the first film did with Gene Wilder(?). |
Hmm, considering the "Loompa Land" story and the fact that they literally all looked the same (one actor for all Oompa Loompas), it sounds plausible. I'm usually not so sensitive to racism when it's a fictional group of people in the "real" world. |
That was probably why Dahl changed the original version of his book, and why Wilder's version of the film depicted the Oompa-loompas like short clowns instead of Pacific Islanders. Once you disconnect the physical connection by changing the people themselves, then you make the association with racist ideology a lot more blurry. Take one of those early black and white films or cartoons that depicted real life tribal societies and change the people into something less human-like and you get the same effect. Disney used to do this a lot, even well into the 1990's (e.g. The Lion King) and they got away with it at the time, though we are criticizing them for it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blake
Planewalker
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 2157
Location: 1 Vagrant- currently Shanghai, China
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cerne wrote: |
But yeah, that sounds like a surefire contradiction to me too. I really didn't buy the human-like relationship between the aliens and their offspring. If they really were that precocial, you would think they wouldn't put that much attention into looking after their offspring. |
If they were socially complex enough to have language and be space faring, they would have to, to preserve the memes across generations. *unless* they had a form of genetic memory.
Maybe it's something else that was bothering you about it, rather than the teaching relationship?
_________________
I never disallow civil discussion, and I don't even have the authority to if I wanted to (which I don't want to). If discussion were made impossible just because of a contrary stance, nobody would ever discuss anything. Don't let my disagreement, however strong, stop you from speaking your minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fonori
Sorcerer
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Blake wrote: | | Cerne wrote: |
But yeah, that sounds like a surefire contradiction to me too. I really didn't buy the human-like relationship between the aliens and their offspring. If they really were that precocial, you would think they wouldn't put that much attention into looking after their offspring. |
If they were socially complex enough to have language and be space faring, they would have to, to preserve the memes across generations. *unless* they had a form of genetic memory.
Maybe it's something else that was bothering you about it, rather than the teaching relationship? |
Not necessarily in the same way human families would work, though. Children could be raised in a communal way, with the actual parents being unimportant.
Of course, it's difficult to justify an intelligent species with that sort of reproduction strategy. In our own world, intelligence has a fairly strong relationship with development time and parental involvement (which causes an inverse relationship with number of offspring). It's doable, but I'm thinking it would have to require a secondary development stage that most hatchlings don't make it too, at least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bloodb4roses
Archmage
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 1580
Location: Off on the side
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fonori wrote: |
Not necessarily in the same way human families would work, though. Children could be raised in a communal way, with the actual parents being unimportant. |
Well it's even said here on Earth, "It takes a village to raise a child."
_________________
   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blake
Planewalker
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 2157
Location: 1 Vagrant- currently Shanghai, China
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fonori wrote: |
Not necessarily in the same way human families would work, though. Children could be raised in a communal way, with the actual parents being unimportant. |
That is how some humans work- more than would be expected, I think. Either way, it isn't fundamentally different from the same spectrum found in human societies, but rather solidly within.
| Quote: | | It's doable, but I'm thinking it would have to require a secondary development stage that most hatchlings don't make it too, at least. |
This is likely the case, yes. They're probably larval, to a point, and then become babies.
Actually, the difference in rearing could itself account for the intellectual differences found in the prawns themselves, from the upper class to the workers. Remember, the parent/child relationship was from one of the brilliant intellectual class of prawns hiding among the rabble.
This *could* have been a brilliant political statement on the Flynn effect, and the lower IQs of the black Africans as caused by correctable social factors (particularly early childhood), rather than genetic ones. (Not saying I endorse it one way or another- I'm agnostic to whether the difference is genetic or purely social)
We can compare the Human parent/child relationship as seen between the wife and her father- if only there had been more focus on early human childhoods to highlight the difference, and somebody had gone into the differences in the Prawns' intellect as being caused by different rearing habits.
This could explain the 'racist' depictions people are seeing- they may in fact be noble in intention.
_________________
I never disallow civil discussion, and I don't even have the authority to if I wanted to (which I don't want to). If discussion were made impossible just because of a contrary stance, nobody would ever discuss anything. Don't let my disagreement, however strong, stop you from speaking your minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerne
Wizard
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 863
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Blake wrote: | | Cerne wrote: |
But yeah, that sounds like a surefire contradiction to me too. I really didn't buy the human-like relationship between the aliens and their offspring. If they really were that precocial, you would think they wouldn't put that much attention into looking after their offspring. |
If they were socially complex enough to have language and be space faring, they would have to, to preserve the memes across generations. *unless* they had a form of genetic memory. |
Maybe, but the parent-child relationship still wouldn't need to be very strong. Being precocial means that you value the success of the greater whole over the one individual. If you have a lot of offspring all at once like that, you can't possibly devote the amount of time and attention raising every single one of them in the same way we raise our children. Precocial parents get past the lack of care with numbers. If one dies - and there is a much greater chance it will - then you still have more offspring to become the next generation. In order to teach all of those offspring, you need to think of ways to teach them all at once instead of teaching them individually, which would take more time and effort to do. I.e. you need to sit every single one of them down, drill them on what they need to know, and hope that it will stick to atleast some of them. Yes, there will be a greater number of offspring that learn differently. But these learning styles will also be weeded out faster. Those who don't learn fast enough and keep up with the rest of the offspring will not have a good future and will not be considered favourable mates. Thus the next generation is less likely to learn that way.
What I meant by contradictory in my last post was that, for a species that seemed to have so many offspring at one time, the aliens seemed to devote a lot of effort into making sure every one of them survived. Even as a community you couldn't take so much care of that many offspring. The way the offspring were being treated mimicked the way humans raise their children and that lack of imagination and consideration cost the creators of the film a very noticeable contradiction with the precocial reproductive strategy I think they were aiming for with the aliens.
| Quote: | | Maybe it's something else that was bothering you about it, rather than the teaching relationship? |
Not really. The parent-child relationship has to reflect the reproductive strategy of the species in question and the teaching style needs to reflect the parent-child relationship. That was what bothered me about the aliens in the film.
| Fonori wrote: | | Of course, it's difficult to justify an intelligent species with that sort of reproduction strategy. In our own world, intelligence has a fairly strong relationship with development time and parental involvement (which causes an inverse relationship with number of offspring). |
The length of development doesn't necessarily have to coincide with reproductive strategy. If you had a strong communal effort protecting each individual together as a group, you could possibly allow for a longer developmental period in a precocial species. All you need to do is increase the chance of survival into adulthood. If increased length of development was ensured biologically, the species would eventually become altricial. But sociality can and does work inversely and social dependency could work in place of biology. I.e. producing one well-developed offspring.
| Blake wrote: | | Fonori wrote: |
Not necessarily in the same way human families would work, though. Children could be raised in a communal way, with the actual parents being unimportant. |
That is how some humans work- more than would be expected, I think. Either way, it isn't fundamentally different from the same spectrum found in human societies, but rather solidly within. |
Except that humans tend to place more emphasis on the child, hence the communal effort. More people needed to ensure that more children are learning and less children are left behind. A more precocial species would have more offspring learning together, which I think was what Fonori was trying to say. But yes, I agree that communal teaching is very human. The line isn't being drawn at the level of community involved but rather the importance of teaching the child, and if you have a larger population, you don't need to make sure every single child is just as successful as the rest. You could, but that is where school funding and other matters tend to become more of a problem. More kids means more equiptment to teach them with, which in turn requires more money to invest.
| Quote: | | Actually, the difference in rearing could itself account for the intellectual differences found in the prawns themselves, from the upper class to the workers. Remember, the parent/child relationship was from one of the brilliant intellectual class of prawns hiding among the rabble. |
Are you sure? My memory could be dying on me but I don't recall there being a difference between the offspring that survived the crash.
| Quote: | | This could explain the 'racist' depictions people are seeing- they may in fact be noble in intention. |
And how exactly is saying that one group of people has a higher I.Q. than another supposed to be noble in intention? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fonori
Sorcerer
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blake wrote: | | This *could* have been a brilliant political statement on the Flynn effect, and the lower IQs of the black Africans as caused by correctable social factors (particularly early childhood), rather than genetic ones. (Not saying I endorse it one way or another- I'm agnostic to whether the difference is genetic or purely social). |
Just as an aside, I'm betting on social/cultural variables on that. From what I understand of it, it's not clear genetics has all that much effect on IQ in the first place, and the IQ test isn't really a perfectly objective measure of intelligence -- it favors people who grew up in a modern urban society.
Also, though this doesn't argue against it directly, in the past that genetic theory has been associated with racist scientists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blake
Planewalker
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 2157
Location: 1 Vagrant- currently Shanghai, China
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cerne wrote: |
Are you sure? My memory could be dying on me but I don't recall there being a difference between the offspring that survived the crash. |
There was a difference in the prawns themselves- a measure of intelligence and education. I wasn't talking about offspring.
| Quote: |
And how exactly is saying that one group of people has a higher I.Q. than another supposed to be noble in intention? |
I was talking about the social explanation of that difference. The difference itself is a matter of fact (see Flynn effect: a single population- such as a European country- can increase in IQ over generations- there's no reason to think otherwise of countries who haven't experienced the social change Europe saw).
Even just saying there's a difference, provided it's true, can have noble intentions, as long as you're not using it as justification to do something "bad". Knowledge in itself can help us help people.
See: Dr. James Watson
The political correctness of repressing the idea that some population groups could behave differently, and thus that behavior needs to be addressed in different ways, due to IQ difference is particularly hurting people.
_________________
I never disallow civil discussion, and I don't even have the authority to if I wanted to (which I don't want to). If discussion were made impossible just because of a contrary stance, nobody would ever discuss anything. Don't let my disagreement, however strong, stop you from speaking your minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blake
Planewalker
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 2157
Location: 1 Vagrant- currently Shanghai, China
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fonori wrote: |
Just as an aside, I'm betting on social/cultural variables on that. From what I understand of it, it's not clear genetics has all that much effect on IQ in the first place, and the IQ test isn't really a perfectly objective measure of intelligence -- it favors people who grew up in a modern urban society. |
Genetics has *everything* to do with potential intelligence, and it varies from person to person- that we know. It's the difference in IQ between a human and chimp raised in the same setting (and chimps and other apes taught language and raised as humans would tend to have higher IQs than those not).
Whether different gene pools by locality have different potential intelligences is yet to be seen.
The Fylnn effect is likely somewhere between 15 and 20 points of IQ. The difference in "racial" average IQ between Australian aborigines and East Asians is only slightly higher than that (maybe within the margin of error).
If the difference was *much* higher than the Flynn effect likely is, then I would be fairly certain that those "races" had different average IQs. As it stands, the results aren't determinate.
A good study on the matter would be to take a child from an average family (average IQ- some families have higher IQs than others- because within the same general social/nutritional stimulus, IQ is clearly and exclusively genetic, even with adopted children) from the East Asian gene pool, and average child from Australian Aboriginee gene pool, and switch them.
In order for this to be a blind trial, though, one would have to perform plastic surgery and certain skin colouring practices on the children- probably against standard ethical practice in any country.
So, really, unless we do that, or succeed in identifying genetic markers for intelligence, we won't know for another couple generations- if the social situation evens out a bit.
Regarding IQ tests- that's *what* IQ is. The tests in question show a greater difference in IQ, the more fluid they are. More abstract reasoning, etc. The tests referenced in the trials that determine this are made to be culturally neutral.
There's a deviation of around 15 points for individuals, but that evens out for a population average- the only thing we can honestly point to is the Flynn effect.
| Quote: |
Also, though this doesn't argue against it directly, in the past that genetic theory has been associated with racist scientists. |
Usually because anybody who isn't racist is too politically correct to dare mention it. I'm neither racist nor politically correct- and a few others are getting to that point too.
I'm agnostic to whether the difference in our populations is actually genetic- but potential intelligence is certainly, and beyond a doubt, genetic. Unless a housefly can be taught rocket science with a proper upbringing 
_________________
I never disallow civil discussion, and I don't even have the authority to if I wanted to (which I don't want to). If discussion were made impossible just because of a contrary stance, nobody would ever discuss anything. Don't let my disagreement, however strong, stop you from speaking your minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fonori
Sorcerer
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blake wrote: | | Genetics has *everything* to do with potential intelligence, and it varies from person to person- that we know. It's the difference in IQ between a human and chimp raised in the same setting (and chimps and other apes taught language and raised as humans would tend to have higher IQs than those not). |
Yes, intelligence varies incredibly *between species*, but I have not heard of anything indicating that it has more than a very small effect among humans (Maybe just a few points of IQ). And as you point out in your post with scare quotes, human "races" are not genetic races at all -- there is not enough genetic difference between them to count as such, and the traits often used to differentiate them are mostly polygenetic traits that have enormous variation within populations as well as between them.
That's not to say that race can't be useful as a variable. Various medical conditions that were initially noted to be prevalent in certain racial groups were later found to be genetic in cause. Of course, when genes are tracked later the reasons are more complex, but treated as a starting point apparent "racial" traits can sometimes lead somewhere.
| Quote: | | Whether different gene pools by locality have different potential intelligences is yet to be seen. |
This is true.
| Quote: | A good study on the matter would be to take a child from an average family (average IQ- some families have higher IQs than others- because within the same general social/nutritional stimulus, IQ is clearly and exclusively genetic, even with adopted children) from the East Asian gene pool, and average child from Australian Aboriginee gene pool, and switch them.
In order for this to be a blind trial, though, one would have to perform plastic surgery and certain skin colouring practices on the children- probably against standard ethical practice in any country.
So, really, unless we do that, or succeed in identifying genetic markers for intelligence, we won't know for another couple generations- if the social situation evens out a bit. |
Of course, you need a much bigger sample than that, and a control group. Another thing to do would be to continue collecting data as various societies change, find appropriate variables to serve as proxies for social development and analyze the data again in another 50 or 100 years.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Also, though this doesn't argue against it directly, in the past that genetic theory has been associated with racist scientists. |
Usually because anybody who isn't racist is too politically correct to dare mention it. I'm neither racist nor politically correct- and a few others are getting to that point too. |
It definitely should not be prohibited to study, and there may be some genetic differences. It's just something people need to be very careful not to let racial perceptions affect the analysis.
| Quote: | | I'm agnostic to whether the difference in our populations is actually genetic- but potential intelligence is certainly, and beyond a doubt, genetic. Unless a housefly can be taught rocket science with a proper upbringing |
Again, the question is about variation of intelligence and IQ *among humans*. It would be absurd to think a housefly would have anything close to the capacity of a human. (Yes, I know it was a joke, it's still reductio ad absurdum.)
| Blake wrote: | Even just saying there's a difference, provided it's true, can have noble intentions, as long as you're not using it as justification to do something "bad". Knowledge in itself can help us help people.
See: Dr. James Watson |
IIRC, Watson's comments were extremely inflammatory in the scientific community, and also not evidence based. I saw a good number of blog reactions to the effect of "Yeah, he helped discover DNA, but he's also a bigoted dumass".
| Quote: | | The political correctness of repressing the idea that some population groups could behave differently, and thus that behavior needs to be addressed in different ways, due to IQ difference is particularly hurting people. |
Could be true, but it's a subject that has to be handled with great care. Intelligence (yes, that's not necessarily IQ, but it's what most people think it measures) is one of the things humans use to label people as superior or inferior. Information on the average IQ of a group could have practical applications, but then if it is applied it would have to be in a way that doesn't involve a statement like "These people don't tend to be intelligent, so we have to work with them this way." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blake
Planewalker
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 2157
Location: 1 Vagrant- currently Shanghai, China
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fonori wrote: |
Yes, intelligence varies incredibly *between species*, but I have not heard of anything indicating that it has more than a very small effect among humans (Maybe just a few points of IQ). |
Well, the effect ranges between profound retardation and genius among humans-- though retardation isn't always genetic.
Anyway, in general, the variance between human families, and even within the family, can be higher than that between "race" groups. The average may be off by 20~ish points, but the variance within the group itself is a bell curve such that the overlap is predominant, and it's just the outliers that make a real difference.
While this isn't a large effect on an interpersonal level, I believe even a small difference can have social consequences- particularly in regards to how public education needs to be managed.
| Quote: |
Of course, you need a much bigger sample than that, and a control group. Another thing to do would be to continue collecting data as various societies change, find appropriate variables to serve as proxies for social development and analyze the data again in another 50 or 100 years. |
Of course. However, in a span of 50 years, the genetic IQ potential of the "race" could actually change very drastically with only slightly preferential reproduction (this extremely fast pace of evolution, I believe, partially accounts for the Flynn effect, along with early childhood stimulation).
| Quote: | | It's just something people need to be very careful not to let racial perceptions affect the analysis. |
That is, of course, the whole point of the scientific method.
| Quote: |
IIRC, Watson's comments were extremely inflammatory in the scientific community, and also not evidence based. I saw a good number of blog reactions to the effect of "Yeah, he helped discover DNA, but he's also a bigoted dumass". |
Most of those blog reactions are biased themselves- people assume that anybody who says anything not politically correct is a bigot. He was not being unreasonable in that assertion- and when he made it, he was expressing concern for the African people with regards to how our policies could potentially better help them.
I do not believe that he is a bigot in any sense of the word; though I don't know him personally.
He has said some things about Sex drive that are not supported by evidence (they may or may not be true)- more or less the same as any proclamation that men have stronger sex drives than women; not necessarily true. There's also a degree of learned control, which involves education- while the statistics suggest correlation (rape, etc.), there isn't necessarily causation there (it may just come from poor education).
_________________
I never disallow civil discussion, and I don't even have the authority to if I wanted to (which I don't want to). If discussion were made impossible just because of a contrary stance, nobody would ever discuss anything. Don't let my disagreement, however strong, stop you from speaking your minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fonori
Sorcerer
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Blake wrote: | I do not believe that he is a bigot in any sense of the word; though I don't know him personally.
He has said some things about Sex drive that are not supported by evidence (they may or may not be true)- more or less the same as any proclamation that men have stronger sex drives than women; not necessarily true. There's also a degree of learned control, which involves education- while the statistics suggest correlation (rape, etc.), there isn't necessarily causation there (it may just come from poor education). |
| http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2630748.ece wrote: | | He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really” |
That sounds like what your saying ... but ...
| Quote: | | His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true” |
He later backpedaled on those remarks, claimed he was misquoted (possible).
Since you mentioned sex, he's also been cited belittling and downplaying the work of a woman who assisted his team significantly in discovering DNA structure.
Anyway, a question I have: What should we change about our education efforts if certain populations are more intelligent than others (or have a different kind of "intelligence")? I'll agree that any education effort should have some tailoring to the location -- at the very least you have to consider the local culture*. But what changes are we to do with education? It seems to me that it would very easily cause people to discourage individuals from these "less intelligent" populations from trying to pursue higher education and professional careers.
*- Just to note, I do not consider "evolution vs. creationism" as something that needs to respect local culture. I'm thinking more of what history, languages, etc should be relevant to various people, or perhaps what examples would be best to use when teaching science and math. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fetus Commander
Sorcerer
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 373
Location: 1 in a wastebasket filled with pizza and prom confetti
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Neat battle going on here 
But Blake- what specific forms of "abstract reasoning" (or other arbitrary IQ test variables) do you consider universally beneficial to people? Why are they beneficial in all societies? I'm assuming you're talking about these as they relate to the integration of people into Western-like societies, but what's the objective benefit of that, especially if you're interested in preserving some of the integrated peoples' culture?
I basically agree about political correctness eating a dick, but i get stuck at the point in these arguments where people mention "intelligence" as some kind of universal and objective benefit
_________________
“Learning would forever spoil the best slave in the world…it would forever unfit him to be a slave." -Hugh Auld |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blake
Planewalker
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 2157
Location: 1 Vagrant- currently Shanghai, China
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fetus Commander wrote: | | [I] get stuck at the point in these arguments where people mention "intelligence" as some kind of universal and objective benefit |
I believe Fonori implied that; not me.
*I* prefer intelligent people, but stupid people can be socially useful too, in certain contexts. Particularly in tribal contexts, over thinking everything could be dangerous- fidelity to tribal leaders can be essential for group cohesion and survival.
| Quote: | | especially if you're interested in preserving some of the integrated peoples' culture? |
I'm not concerned with that, outside of possible museum-like preservation.
That is, if people are to follow medieval mindsets, shouldn't we have a reserve or something where there's only medieval technology to properly preserve the culture?
The Amish do this to an extent.
_________________
I never disallow civil discussion, and I don't even have the authority to if I wanted to (which I don't want to). If discussion were made impossible just because of a contrary stance, nobody would ever discuss anything. Don't let my disagreement, however strong, stop you from speaking your minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blake
Planewalker
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 2157
Location: 1 Vagrant- currently Shanghai, China
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fonori wrote: |
Since you mentioned sex, he's also been cited belittling and downplaying the work of a woman who assisted his team significantly in discovering DNA structure. |
Everybody has dirt thrown on them for something; I didn't say he was a saint. I don't believe that he's a bigot, though- particularly, I don't believe that he's racist.
Einstein has also been accused of the same- really, anybody who has been successful. It may be true, and a means to success, or it may be bitterness and envy. We don't know, and may never- really, I don't care that much.
| Quote: |
Anyway, a question I have: What should we change about our education efforts if certain populations are more intelligent than others (or have a different kind of "intelligence")? |
Not just education, but policies in particular. For example: We should NOT be pushing for "democracy" in Africa where powerful leaders can make much more a significant difference in the short run if they have our support and incentives rather than feeling that their regimes are challenged.
_________________
I never disallow civil discussion, and I don't even have the authority to if I wanted to (which I don't want to). If discussion were made impossible just because of a contrary stance, nobody would ever discuss anything. Don't let my disagreement, however strong, stop you from speaking your minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fonori
Sorcerer
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blake wrote: | | Fetus Commander wrote: | | [I] get stuck at the point in these arguments where people mention "intelligence" as some kind of universal and objective benefit |
I believe Fonori implied that; not me.
*I* prefer intelligent people, but stupid people can be socially useful too, in certain contexts. Particularly in tribal contexts, over thinking everything could be dangerous- fidelity to tribal leaders can be essential for group cohesion and survival. |
Main thing is, neither of us has actually defined "intelligence" and how it's different from IQ. The fact is "intelligence" is one of those fuzzy terms we use that is attached to scientific research even though no experiment could really test everything that that term means. IQ measures some facets of it, but it's a proxy at best.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | especially if you're interested in preserving some of the integrated peoples' culture? |
I'm not concerned with that, outside of possible museum-like preservation.
That is, if people are to follow medieval mindsets, shouldn't we have a reserve or something where there's only medieval technology to properly preserve the culture?
The Amish do this to an extent. |
I would never suggest holding people back technologically, but culture has to be considered when aiding people. Plus, you have to talk to people about what the need and want, as well as give some education. (there's a famous case where a group went to a remote village in Mexico and set up electricity only for the villagers to start getting TVs, rather than the other useful applications the group had intended to bring.)
| Blake wrote: | | Quote: | | Anyway, a question I have: What should we change about our education efforts if certain populations are more intelligent than others (or have a different kind of "intelligence")? |
Not just education, but policies in particular. For example: We should NOT be pushing for "democracy" in Africa where powerful leaders can make much more a significant difference in the short run if they have our support and incentives rather than feeling that their regimes are challenged. |
"They're not smart enough for democracy." I agree that effective representative government is easier to create when the populous has a certain level of education and ability to inform themselves on the issues. My objection to pushing "democracy" everywhere, though, is more of a "they need to do it themselves" sort of deal. There's no reason to believe that American liberal democracy, or even one of the Western models, is ideal -- and it would be best in any case for people to develop their societies based on their own ideals as well as borrowing from other cultures. That said, I think popular participation in government at some level is a good thing, at the very least to enhance stability (of course if the government is already stable under an autocracy, it's not so easy to establish that participation). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerne
Wizard
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 863
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Blake wrote: | | Cerne wrote: |
Are you sure? My memory could be dying on me but I don't recall there being a difference between the offspring that survived the crash. |
There was a difference in the prawns themselves- a measure of intelligence and education. I wasn't talking about offspring. |
...THAT was the name they gave to the alien species??? The only times I heard it used was when they were referring to the offspring so I thought that was what the offspring were.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
And how exactly is saying that one group of people has a higher I.Q. than another supposed to be noble in intention? |
I was talking about the social explanation of that difference. |
Then you mean the insider explanation by the upper-class Afrikaaners? Because the social explanation is poverty and that goes beyond race, which doesn't seem to be what you are trying to say here. I know you mentioned biases in your subsequent posts with Fonori but there seems to be a sampling bias here that only includes lower class Africans.
| Quote: | | The difference itself is a matter of fact (see Flynn effect: a single population- such as a European country- can increase in IQ over generations- there's no reason to think otherwise of countries who haven't experienced the social change Europe saw). |
The Flynn Effect itself is a matter of fact. Extending it to include nationality and race is not.
| Quote: | | Even just saying there's a difference, provided it's true, can have noble intentions, as long as you're not using it as justification to do something "bad". Knowledge in itself can help us help people. |
How is telling someone they are different when they don't measure up to a standard like I.Q. supposed to help them? That is like saying someone with lower muscle tone should not be expected to lift as much weight because their muscles are different. It doesn't help them. It just provides an excuse for us to discriminate against them by lowering our expectations toward them. Muscle tone, BTW, is different than muscle strength. Someone can be just as strong with a lower muscle tone if they are given the chance but that won't happen if they are told they shouldn't have to because they are different. They will never be all that they can be, they will only be what they already are and that doesn't help them at all.
| Quote: | | The political correctness of repressing the idea that some population groups could behave differently, and thus that behavior needs to be addressed in different ways, due to IQ difference is particularly hurting people. |
Maybe, but trying to prove that there is a difference - especially when you do not yet have any evidence to support it - is still awfully subjective. Putting aside the possibility that such a notion could be true, the suggestion that it might be true is what poltical correctness tries to avoid. In particular, looking for a reason to treat people differently based on what they look like and/or what they do, because that is discrimination and it is understandable why people would want to avoid it.
As Fonori has already mentioned, measuring I.Q. differences can be used as an excuse to label people as being superior or inferior to you. The intent to uncover something like that is already partial to unequal thinking as it is; telling someone that an inferior standard is the best they can do puts a mental limit on how much they think they are capable of doing and, subsequently, how much they are willing to do. If someone is convinced that their I.Q. needs to be set at a lower standard because they are a member of a certain group of people, they will never place themselves alongside those who are held at a higher standard. Their proficiency will never increase and they will never rise to their full potential. It might seem noble to think that people shouldn't have to reach a standard they aren't capable of reaching but "shouldn't" can translate into "can't" which will close up a lot of potential opportunities. That is what hurts them more than anything else.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Also, though this doesn't argue against it directly, in the past that genetic theory has been associated with racist scientists. |
Usually because anybody who isn't racist is too politically correct to dare mention it. |
In this case it is a lot like the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" and its counter-argument "guilty until proven innocent." You could say either, but one does a lot more unnecessary damage than the other. We avoid saying someone is guilty until proven innocent because a lot of unjust things can happen to them until - or if - we find out that they are really innocent. We avoid making racist assumptions because it hurts people so we might as well not make them until they can atleast be validated. Or hopefully not at all, if we want to remain considerate and respectable people ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blake
Planewalker
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 2157
Location: 1 Vagrant- currently Shanghai, China
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cerne wrote: |
The Flynn Effect itself is a matter of fact. Extending it to include nationality and race is not. |
What are you talking about? Are you saying you think it's impossible for Africans to ever increase in IQ score?
Without evidence, that seems like a racist proposition to me.
The Flynn effect is fact for the populations is has been proved to have occurred in- namely Europe, where the same IQ tests have been given over extended periods of time to find generational improvement.
Just because it hasn't been proved to happen in Africa yet doesn't mean it won't. There's no good reason to believe Africans are different from Europeans in this regard.
| Quote: | | How is telling someone they are different when they don't measure up to a standard like I.Q. supposed to help them? That is like saying someone with lower muscle tone should not be expected to lift as much weight because their muscles are different. |
Which could bloody well save them a broken back.
I.Q. is a personal issue, varying greatly from person to person within a population- telling all Africans, individually, that they have lower I.Q.s and shouldn't attempt certain things would be stupid and simply incorrect- some of them have very high I.Q.s.
The "suggestion" would be a social suggestion, applying to matters of politics and statistics, not to individuals.
| Quote: | | Muscle tone, BTW, is different than muscle strength. Someone can be just as strong with a lower muscle tone if they are given the chance but that won't happen if they are told they shouldn't have to because they are different. They will never be all that they can be, they will only be what they already are and that doesn't help them at all. |
Which is different from IQ, because it can only change drastically if the change occurs in pregnancy and early Childhood.
Even so, while somebody who is 90 years old with low muscle tone could very well still become strong, it should still be only fair to let them know that achieving this strength will be more difficult than it would be for somebody with high muscle tone.
| Quote: |
Maybe, but trying to prove that there is a difference - especially when you do not yet have any evidence to support it - is still awfully subjective. |
What? IQ differences are well evidenced-- as are the behavioral differences correlated with them.
| Quote: | | In particular, looking for a reason to treat people differently based on what they look like and/or what they do, because that is discrimination and it is understandable why people would want to avoid it. |
The world doesn't work that way, although it's a nice ideal. Sometimes we have to go by looks, because we can't exactly test everybody. Someday, I hope we can treat everybody individually to the exact education that they want and need, etc.
| Quote: | | telling someone that an inferior standard is the best they can do puts a mental limit on how much they think they are capable of doing and, subsequently, how much they are willing to do. |
However, doing research and finding out that poor diet during pregnancy and early childhood, and poor stimulation during these times (and what kind), could solve the problem!
But nobody will do the research until we admit that there is a problem...
And if we did do it? Well now, their children wouldn't ever have to worry about that "inferior" standard.
| Quote: | | If someone is convinced that their I.Q. needs to be set at a lower standard because they are a member of a certain group of people, they will never place themselves alongside those who are held at a higher standard. |
That's silly; like I said, it's a population issue, not an individual one. The statistical probability is such, but if you did have a higher potential intelligence, you could still realize that fact as long as it was understood as such.
| Quote: | | It might seem noble to think that people shouldn't have to reach a standard they aren't capable of reaching but "shouldn't" can translate into "can't" which will close up a lot of potential opportunities. That is what hurts them more than anything else. |
I would not suggest that, and it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
| Quote: | | We avoid making racist assumptions because it hurts people so we might as well not make them until they can atleast be validated. Or hopefully not at all, if we want to remain considerate and respectable people ourselves. |
Yes, and let them destroy themselves because we had our heads too far up our own political ***es to bother to acknowledge one of the roots of the problem and help fix it.
No thank you. I care about the well being of humanity as a whole, and I don't see lower IQ of a population as an uncorrectable problem IF we would acknowledge it.
_________________
I never disallow civil discussion, and I don't even have the authority to if I wanted to (which I don't want to). If discussion were made impossible just because of a contrary stance, nobody would ever discuss anything. Don't let my disagreement, however strong, stop you from speaking your minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bloodb4roses
Archmage
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 1580
Location: Off on the side
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This i kind of like say, "Men (in general) are stronger than women," but then someone reading the statement and leaving out the parenthesized portion. While it is true that the average Joe is stronger than the average Jane, I've known plenty of women who are stronger than most men I knew.
Also, research has shown that it may be the West's ideas that women with muscle are unattractive and that women should worry about being attractive above all, while men are expected to be competent above all, that causes women to not be as physically strong as most men. with the same amount of strength training from an early age, the gap between the averages gets smaller. Also women tend to naturally be better endurance athletes, so taking that into consideration it may simply be that a man and a woman can have the same "Strength Quotient", but it show in different ways.
So I agree that because it had been shown that black Africans have ON AVERAGE lower IQs than white Africans, this does not mean that the situation is impossible to correct. And saying "LALALALA! I can't hear you!" definitely won't help the matter.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fonori
Sorcerer
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no problem acknowledging differences in IQ between populations and I hope I didn't give that impression. I also don't have a problem with people taking this information (along with others, I'm not quite certain about IQ standing on it's own), to diagnose problems and help those populations.
One thing that needs to be addressed is communication. The idea needs to be conveyed in a way as to not frame it as "an essential difference between groups" as the folks at Language Log. It's a statistical variation that isn't evenly distributed across the group (I don't know the effect sizes, so I don't know whether you would notice it among the group casually observing -- most cognitive differences between the sexes aren't large enough to be noticed casually).
But going along with the commucation route. Yes, do the research, don't completely ignore it. But you also shouldn't stride into a village in lab coats and proclaim "You people are ignorant and dumb and we're here to fix that." It's absolutely necessary for the research to inspire action, but it's also necessary for the activists to respect the people they are helping.
Recognizing different levels of intelligence in different populations isn't racist. Labeling a population inferior because of it would be, Offering possible genetic causes wouldn't even necessarily racist, but you should then be willing to find the data to back it up.
What I would absolutely oppose would be using the data to discourage certain avenues in societal development. I think positive encouragement of certain social avenues is good, but as long as it's not threatening us, a society has the right to choose it's own direction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blake
Planewalker
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 2157
Location: 1 Vagrant- currently Shanghai, China
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fonori, bloodb4roses,
I just want to reply to say I agree with you, and I don't really have anything more to add.
(Didn't want to leave you hanging)
I'll be going out of town for a bit, so I'll probably be AFK.
GDC ^_^
_________________
I never disallow civil discussion, and I don't even have the authority to if I wanted to (which I don't want to). If discussion were made impossible just because of a contrary stance, nobody would ever discuss anything. Don't let my disagreement, however strong, stop you from speaking your minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerne
Wizard
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 863
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Blake wrote: | | Cerne wrote: |
The Flynn Effect itself is a matter of fact. Extending it to include nationality and race is not. |
What are you talking about? Are you saying you think it's impossible for Africans to ever increase in IQ score? |
I meant on a comparative level. There is no evidence whatsoever saying that the average black African population is any lower than the white African population. Or any other white population in the world, for that matter.
| Quote: | | Without evidence, that seems like a racist proposition to me. |
Oh yeah, I agree. Saying that the black African I.Q. average is lower than the white African I.Q. average, without evidence, is definately a racist preposition.
| Quote: | | The Flynn effect is fact for the populations is has been proved to have occurred in- namely Europe, where the same IQ tests have been given over extended periods of time to find generational improvement. |
The Flynn Effect does occur within the European population exclusively among individuals. That I won't attest. And never did to begin with.
| Quote: | | Just because it hasn't been proved to happen in Africa yet doesn't mean it won't. |
I never said it wouldn't. I didn't even say it hadn't already.
| Quote: | | There's no good reason to believe Africans are different from Europeans in this regard. |
I agree.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | How is telling someone they are different when they don't measure up to a standard like I.Q. supposed to help them? That is like saying someone with lower muscle tone should not be expected to lift as much weight because their muscles are different. |
Which could bloody well save them a broken back. |
If they had never exercised a day in their life, of course it would. If they had been held back from exercising as much as someone with regular muscle tone had because their reduced muscle tone erroneously indicated that they couldn't lift as much and therefore shouldn't have to lift as much, then yes, they would suffer from something like a broken back. That would happen to anyone who didn't exercise.
| Quote: | | I.Q. is a personal issue, varying greatly from person to person within a population- |
Are we talking about individuals or averages here? Because if you were going to say that Europe had a high I.Q. average then there are quite a few individuals who have a long way to go. But hey, if averages no longer matter, that is fine with me. For all we know, the next Einstein could very well be living in Zimbabwe.
| Quote: | | telling all Africans, individually, that they have lower I.Q.s and shouldn't attempt certain things would be stupid and simply incorrect- |
Likewise, telling all Europeans individually that they have higher I.Q.'s, and that they can do certain things that other populations in other parts of the world can't, would be stupid and simply incorrect. Take that as you will.
| Quote: | | some of them have very high I.Q.s. |
Oh I agree. Why, then, are we not considering this when we assign relative standards like I.Q. to an entire population?
| Quote: | | The "suggestion" would be a social suggestion, applying to matters of politics and statistics, not to individuals. |
The first problem with this suggestion being the individuals who are exceptions to the average. Giving these individuals a standard based on an average doesn't allow them to rise to what they themselves are capable of.
The second problem being that it doesn't allow those who fall within the average to improve. Denying that people from one country or continent can - and therefore should be able to - do as well as people from another country or continent are capable of doing maintains that difference in average and hence in standard.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Muscle tone, BTW, is different than muscle strength. Someone can be just as strong with a lower muscle tone if they are given the chance but that won't happen if they are told they shouldn't have to because they are different. They will never be all that they can be, they will only be what they already are and that doesn't help them at all. |
Which is different from IQ, because it can only change drastically if the change occurs in pregnancy and early Childhood. |
Muscle tone can also change with the onset of certain hormones like testosterone, as well as by certain types of exercises. And through genetics, though not solely. Someone who has genes for bigger muscle tone will still not develop their muscle tone if they don't exercise. There are also certain disorders that can decrease muscle tone for some people who might otherwise be born with it.
In this regard muscle tone still serves as a good analogy. You can increase it with genes just as much as you can increase it within a single individual.
| Quote: | | Even so, while somebody who is 90 years old with low muscle tone could very well still become strong, it should still be only fair to let them know that achieving this strength will be more difficult than it would be for somebody with high muscle tone. |
I could agree with this. But then what do you say when someone wants to be put at a higher standard? Likewise, what if they actually do fulfill a higher standard? What message do you then give to other people who are in the same situation that one person used to be in?
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Maybe, but trying to prove that there is a difference - especially when you do not yet have any evidence to support it - is still awfully subjective. |
What? IQ differences are well evidenced-- as are the behavioral differences correlated with them. |
Not in comparison between different countries, continents, or racial and/or cultural groups.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | In particular, looking for a reason to treat people differently based on what they look like and/or what they do, because that is discrimination and it is understandable why people would want to avoid it. |
The world doesn't work that way, although it's a nice ideal. Sometimes we have to go by looks, because we can't exactly test everybody. Someday, I hope we can treat everybody individually to the exact education that they want and need, etc. |
Actually, going by looks reveals many more false results than testing someone regardless of their looks. If those who do such testing knew this - and I think they do - then the world would not only be a more ideal place, it would be a much more practical one too. Which probably explains why evidence for differences in I.Q. averages between different racial groups simply does not exist.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | telling someone that an inferior standard is the best they can do puts a mental limit on how much they think they are capable of doing and, subsequently, how much they are willing to do. |
However, doing research and finding out that poor diet during pregnancy and early childhood, and poor stimulation during these times (and what kind), could solve the problem! |
Yeah, and that problem would turn out to be poverty. Like I said before, sampling bias is mostly to blame. Not the racial or cultural group you belong to.
| Quote: | | But nobody will do the research until we admit that there is a problem... |
That is called being objective. Nobody wants to make an assumption if it will harm certain groups of people. It is OK to assume the opposite, even if it is just an assumption, because it doesn't hurt anyone. In these circumstances we need to rely solely on evidence, and the only way you are going to find evidence for something like inter-racial I.Q. averages without sounding like a bigot is if it comes indirectly or accidentally.
| Quote: | | And if we did do it? Well now, their children wouldn't ever have to worry about that "inferior" standard. |
They never needed to worry about it in the first place. Not until the European colonists came along anyway.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | If someone is convinced that their I.Q. needs to be set at a lower standard because they are a member of a certain group of people, they will never place themselves alongside those who are held at a higher standard. |
That's silly; like I said, it's a population issue, not an individual one. The statistical probability is such, but if you did have a higher potential intelligence, you could still realize that fact as long as it was understood as such. |
If you go by population average, which makes it a population issue, then individuals are still confined to that because the individual instances are not accounted for. If you were abnormally smart, you would still have to be put into a standard that is below you. People trust averages more than they trust exceptions because of the statistic factor involved, as well as peoples' own tendencies to generalize. Like you seem to imply, average entails probability. It wouldn't matter if someone was a genius. The probability factor counts it out as something you can expect, so no one will expect you to be a genius right away. Exceptions tend to be disregarded, even when it is acknowledged that they can still exist, until they are revealed as such. You would have to step up and prove that you were a genius for people to acknowledge it. Otherwise they would assume your I.Q. was average.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | It might seem noble to think that people shouldn't have to reach a standard they aren't capable of reaching but "shouldn't" can translate into "can't" which will close up a lot of potential opportunities. That is what hurts them more than anything else. |
I would not suggest that, and it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. |
| Earlier Blake wrote: | Even just saying there's a difference, provided it's true, can have noble intentions, as long as you're not using it as justification to do something "bad". Knowledge in itself can help us help people.
See: Dr. James Watson
The political correctness of repressing the idea that some population groups could behave differently, and thus that behavior needs to be addressed in different ways, due to IQ difference is particularly hurting people. |
What's this about, then? How else can saying there is a difference among groups of people be noble? And how is it going to help someone?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | We avoid making racist assumptions because it hurts people so we might as well not make them until they can atleast be validated. Or hopefully not at all, if we want to remain considerate and respectable people ourselves. |
Yes, and let them destroy themselves because we had our heads too far up our own political ***es to bother to acknowledge one of the roots of the problem and help fix it. |
That is assuming they will destroy themselves. Assuming they need our help. It is a nice idea to want to help someone but we are not the heroes we so often make ourselves out to be Hearing things like that brings me back to the ideas brought up in the old British poem The White Man's Burden. Ideas that should have died out when its writer did.
| Quote: | | No thank you. I care about the well being of humanity as a whole, and I don't see lower IQ of a population as an uncorrectable problem IF we would acknowledge it. |
Nice of you to say so but I don't recall any populations needing any "correcting" in average I.Q. levels in the first place. If I.Q. levels need to be raised, the people in those populations would probably do a far better job raising it than we could. The fact that it hasn't risen should not suggest that the people aren't capable of raising it, but rather that they just don't need to. So if they don't need to, why should we take it upon ourselves to try and help them?
EDIT: Had to remove the link in the second last paragraph. Is there a reason why URL tags won't work sometimes?
Last edited by Cerne on Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:14 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fonori
Sorcerer
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, dear. I forgot about this. Someone will need to bring Cerne down now. i don't think I can do it.
I'll just say, I appreciate your fervor against ethnocentrism, but I have a feeling it is somewhat misplaced. There is nothing wrong with providing funding and programs to help people achieve modern standards of living and bring them out of poverty ... including modern educational achievement. The important thing is that those people are co-opted as partners in their own development, and that we listen to them as much as we expect them to listen to us. Other wise you get mosquito nets being used for fishing and whatnot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rik
Apprentice
Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 113
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyways ... back on topic.
I think a way around the problem of a K-type parent-child relationship arising from a seemingly r-type breeding strategy might be to see the breeding/egg-laying as a seasonal, communal affair - adults only supply one or two eggs to the heap and then once the brooding/hatching stage is out of the way the adult can establish a more meaningful relationship with its offspring.
From what I remember of the film, the brood of eggs/larva that the humans uncover isn't just dumped in a shed and left; there was an awful lot of pipework in that shed, and the carcass of at least one cow suspended in the midst of it all to act as a food source. That strikes me as quite a sophisticated gestation strategy, and quite probably not something that a single alien, or a breeding pair, could knock up overnight. It all needs planning and time, and some degree of secrecy given humanity's apparent delight in torching nests - which makes me think that the aliens are more likely K-types whose breeding solution on Earth just looks like an r-type strategy during its early stages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerne
Wizard
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 863
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bloodb4roses wrote: | | This i kind of like say, "Men (in general) are stronger than women," but then someone reading the statement and leaving out the parenthesized portion. While it is true that the average Joe is stronger than the average Jane, I've known plenty of women who are stronger than most men I knew. |
Agreed. Exceptions should never be ignored. But can it stick if, say, the men in your personal comparison - the ones you knew - suddenly started exercising just as much as those women you knew then? Just an inquery, not trying to refute you. I don't think "in general" is quite the word we are looking for but I'll still take it.
| Quote: | | Also, research has shown that it may be the West's ideas that women with muscle are unattractive and that women should worry about being attractive above all, while men are expected to be competent above all, that causes women to not be as physically strong as most men. with the same amount of strength training from an early age, the gap between the averages gets smaller. Also women tend to naturally be better endurance athletes, so taking that into consideration it may simply be that a man and a woman can have the same "Strength Quotient", but it show in different ways. |
I also agree with this. Just to add, though, I think you are referring to a mix of muscle tone and hormone-induced muscle strength. Men and women start out with the same amount of strength as well as the same muscle tone and this continues up until puberty. Men recieve much higher doses of testosterone from their pituitary afterward and this does two things: first, it gives them more energy so that they are able to exercise more than the average woman is willing to do; second, the onset of testosterone increases muscle tone (I.e. muscle size) so that even if a man in his early 20's didn't exercise a day in his life, his muscles would still look bigger than an average woman's would. Especially if she had not exercized a day in her life either. Of course, if she did, she may easily be able to surpass him. Therefore, I do not think men are stronger than women are simply because they are men. They are given the capability to, and they may look like it even if they ignore this capability, but that is where the sexual dimorphism ends in regards to actual strength.
| Quote: | | So I agree that because it had been shown that black Africans have ON AVERAGE lower IQs than white Africans, this does not mean that the situation is impossible to correct. And saying "LALALALA! I can't hear you!" definitely won't help the matter. |
As you will see in my last post, I was definately not saying that lower I.Q. was impossible to correct. It can be corrected, but whether it needs to be corrected is another matter. I will personally say that I don't think the black African population needs to raise their I.Q. average because it is already equal to that of the white African population. But then if it was lower, and the reason for it was a racial issue rather than a social one (which I very much doubt), then I would suggest that the black African population obviously doesn't need to raise it. It would have been the white population's fault for putting them into this mess and they shouldn't have to get out of it by raising their I.Q. to be more like the white African population. IMO this idea in itself is ethnocentrism, which is the whole reason why I am criticizing it.
_________________
| Fonori wrote: | | I have no problem acknowledging differences in IQ between populations and I hope I didn't give that impression. I also don't have a problem with people taking this information (along with others, I'm not quite certain about IQ standing on it's own), to diagnose problems and help those populations. |
I would actually agree with this, but I would need to see some pretty concrete and objective evidence toward the matter to do so.
| Quote: | | One thing that needs to be addressed is communication. The idea needs to be conveyed in a way as to not frame it as "an essential difference between groups" as the folks at Language Log. It's a statistical variation that isn't evenly distributed across the group (I don't know the effect sizes, so I don't know whether you would notice it among the group casually observing -- most cognitive differences between the sexes aren't large enough to be noticed casually). |
Emphasis underlined. This is the primary reason why the communication issue isn't even possible without implying some racist or ethnocentric intent underneath it. I am not saying it would imply that, but avoiding the wrong motive would be extremely difficult. So I would ask: why do it at all? It is just as easy and a lot more efficient just to treat it as a social issue.
| Quote: | | But going along with the commucation route. Yes, do the research, don't completely ignore it. But you also shouldn't stride into a village in lab coats and proclaim "You people are ignorant and dumb and we're here to fix that." It's absolutely necessary for the research to inspire action, but it's also necessary for the activists to respect the people they are helping. |
Agreed.
| Quote: | | Recognizing different levels of intelligence in different populations isn't racist. |
Agreed in part. The different levels of intelligence should really be validated beforehand, but afterward - and only afterward - could I agree to something like this.
| Quote: | | Labeling a population inferior because of it would be, |
Agreed.
| Quote: | | Offering possible genetic causes wouldn't even necessarily racist, but you should then be willing to find the data to back it up. |
This I don't agree with. Going out to validate an assumption is different from using information that has already - and in this case, preferrably indirectly - been validated. You not only need to ask yourself what you are trying to prove, but also why you are trying to prove it. That is where racist intentions could potentially come in, and hence the political correctness of the issue. I am not suggesting you hide actual data that has been solidly and thoroughly supported, I am only saying that we use political correction to avoid potentially racist intentions, and that making assumptions before you validate them can either reveal or give the false impression that this is what you are trying to substantiate.
| Quote: | | What I would absolutely oppose would be using the data to discourage certain avenues in societal development. I think positive encouragement of certain social avenues is good, but as long as it's not threatening us, a society has the right to choose it's own direction. |
Agreed.
_________________
| Fonori wrote: | | Oh, dear. I forgot about this. Someone will need to bring Cerne down now. i don't think I can do it. |
I don't see why I need to be brought down at all. Everyone on this board has their own oppinions, mine just happen to be a bit stronger than they need to be. That, and I get into the habit of typing a lot and picking apart other members' posts line by line  What you typed could abbly to Blake but the two of you still did quite well debating the topic.
| Quote: | | I'll just say, I appreciate your fervor against ethnocentrism, |
Thank you.
| Quote: | | but I have a feeling it is somewhat misplaced. There is nothing wrong with providing funding and programs to help people achieve modern standards of living and bring them out of poverty ... including modern educational achievement. |
If we are talking purely about a social issue and not about a racial or cultural issue, then I probably was. If not, I don't think so.
| Quote: | | The important thing is that those people are co-opted as partners in their own development, and that we listen to them as much as we expect them to listen to us. |
More importantly, we should know whether they really want and/or need our help or not, and if they do, what exactly they need help with. Not what we think they need help with. I recommend you look into the causes of the Rwandan genocide, and in particular, its European connection.
| Quote: | | Other wise you get mosquito nets being used for fishing and whatnot. |
What is wrong with using mosquito nets? Apparently they work quite well for fishing.
_________________
@ Fonori & bloodb4roses: Although I could possibly be wrong about this, I think the very notion that the difference in I.Q. average between some white and black African populations is not a racial difference at all, but rather a social one. I mention sampling bias because you could probably find the same levels of lower I.Q. as an average among North Americans and Europeans living in poverty too. Regardless, there is no substantial evidence I am aware of that shows the differences in I.Q. average between black African and white African populations as having anything to do with race or culture. And until we have such evidence, I won't be in favour of trying to get ot or continuing the topic any further. Sorry, that is just how I feel.
@ Rik: Thank you for getting this thread back on topic. I can't reply to your post right now but I will later. Either by editing this post or by posting again if someone else posts after this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bloodb4roses
Archmage
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 1580
Location: Off on the side
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cerne wrote: |
As you will see in my last post, I was definately not saying that lower I.Q. was impossible to correct. It can be corrected, but whether it needs to be corrected is another matter. I will personally say that I don't think the black African population needs to raise their I.Q. average because it is already equal to that of the white African population. But then if it was lower, and the reason for it was a racial issue rather than a social one (which I very much doubt), then I would suggest that the black African population obviously doesn't need to raise it. It would have been the white population's fault for putting them into this mess and they shouldn't have to get out of it by raising their I.Q. to be more like the white African population. IMO this idea in itself is ethnocentrism, which is the whole reason why I am criticizing it. |
I'd like to quickly mention that if black Africans, especially those who still have a more traditional lifestyle, where to create an IQ test based on the type of things they would feel need to be known, I'm sure many white Africans would do very poorly on it. Even if we used a "multiple intelligences" model. So who is writing the exam matters as much as who is taking it.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fonori
Sorcerer
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cerne wrote: | | Quote: | | Recognizing different levels of intelligence in different populations isn't racist. |
Agreed in part. The different levels of intelligence should really be validated beforehand, but afterward - and only afterward - could I agree to something like this.
| Quote: | | Offering possible genetic causes wouldn't even necessarily racist, but you should then be willing to find the data to back it up. |
This I don't agree with. Going out to validate an assumption is different from using information that has already - and in this case, preferrably indirectly - been validated. You not only need to ask yourself what you are trying to prove, but also why you are trying to prove it. That is where racist intentions could potentially come in, and hence the political correctness of the issue. I am not suggesting you hide actual data that has been solidly and thoroughly supported, I am only saying that we use political correction to avoid potentially racist intentions, and that making assumptions before you validate them can either reveal or give the false impression that this is what you are trying to substantiate. |
I was merely thinking of it as a hypothesis to test, I didn't mean anyone should go out of their way to prove their assumptions -- that would be bad science.
Also, the widely understood view among anthropologists is that humans cannot be divided into genetic "races", so if someone is going to go into this sort of research because of racist intentions, he's already on the fringe of the community.
Besides that, ulterior motives aside, research is research. It should be judged on the quality of the methods used and the results obtained. I revile racism and racist rhetoric to the point that I will be deliberately rude and walk away from people who spew it, but they have the right to believe what they believe.
| Quote: | | Fonori wrote: | | Oh, dear. I forgot about this. Someone will need to bring Cerne down now. i don't think I can do it. |
I don't see why I need to be brought down at all. Everyone on this board has their own oppinions, mine just happen to be a bit stronger than they need to be. That, and I get into the habit of typing a lot and picking apart other members' posts line by line What you typed could abbly to Blake but the two of you still did quite well debating the topic. |
Ah, i was just reacting that way because the argument with Blake was winding down (and, well, he kind of left it). It's kind of like thinking a battle is over and then having a bomb explode behind you (thankfully I've never been in that situation.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | The important thing is that those people are co-opted as partners in their own development, and that we listen to them as much as we expect them to listen to us. |
More importantly, we should know whether they really want and/or need our help or not, and if they do, what exactly they need help with. Not what we think they need help with. I recommend you look into the causes of the Rwandan genocide, and in particular, its European connection. |
Of course. I said before that societies should be allowed to develop the way they will as long as it's not a threat to other societies. If someone doesn't want your help. then go away and find someone who wants it.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Other wise you get mosquito nets being used for fishing and whatnot. |
What is wrong with using mosquito nets? Apparently they work quite well for fishing. |
I apologize for not looking up a link right away. There was a recent case where mosquito nets distributed for malaria prevention were used as fishing nets instead, as the village these were distributed to relied on fishing for their livelihood and had lost their equipment. I'm not sure if it could have been forseen, but if it had I'm sure it would have been better to try to get some proper fishing equipment to those people along with the mosquito nets (which I don't think are really built for the kind of work).
| bloodb4roses wrote: | | I'd like to quickly mention that if black Africans, especially those who still have a more traditional lifestyle, where to create an IQ test based on the type of things they would feel need to be known, I'm sure many white Africans would do very poorly on it. Even if we used a "multiple intelligences" model. So who is writing the exam matters as much as who is taking it. |
I might be inclined to agree with that sentiment. I have heard arguments for and against IQ testing, and I'm really not sure if it's truly culturally neutral. That said, abstract reasoning is quite valuable in a lot of ways.
___________________
| Rik wrote: | | From what I remember of the film, the brood of eggs/larva that the humans uncover isn't just dumped in a shed and left; there was an awful lot of pipework in that shed, and the carcass of at least one cow suspended in the midst of it all to act as a food source. That strikes me as quite a sophisticated gestation strategy, and quite probably not something that a single alien, or a breeding pair, could knock up overnight. It all needs planning and time, and some degree of secrecy given humanity's apparent delight in torching nests - which makes me think that the aliens are more likely K-types whose breeding solution on Earth just looks like an r-type strategy during its early stages. |
One of my own conworlds actually has an r-type species (thanks for reminding me on the terms) where a single male fertilizes a communal breeding pool full of eggs (this species is amphibious). In order to prevent a population explosion and a serious problem in providing child care, adults have a strong (and usually culturally-reinforced) aversion to interfering in competition between the "tadpoles" until they are at the stage where they can walk on land (and leave the breeding pool). As such, healthier tadpoles will be able to hog food and even kill and eat their weaker bretheren -- significantly reducing the number of young that need to be raised and educated the way an intelligent species must.
I don't think that's anything like how the prawns work, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerne
Wizard
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 863
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rik wrote: | | I think a way around the problem of a K-type parent-child relationship arising from a seemingly r-type breeding strategy might be to see the breeding/egg-laying as a seasonal, communal affair - adults only supply one or two eggs to the heap and then once the brooding/hatching stage is out of the way the adult can establish a more meaningful relationship with its offspring. |
You mean by spacing out the breeding rate instead of all at once? Yeah, that could work. It would, in effect, be turning the r-selection breeding pattern into a K-selection breeding strategy but there is nothing wrong with that. I am curious as to how the capability to reproduce via r-selection could be maintained after that. Or if it could be maintained at all. Interesting idea.
| Quote: | | From what I remember of the film, the brood of eggs/larva that the humans uncover isn't just dumped in a shed and left; there was an awful lot of pipework in that shed, and the carcass of at least one cow suspended in the midst of it all to act as a food source. That strikes me as quite a sophisticated gestation strategy, and quite probably not something that a single alien, or a breeding pair, could knock up overnight. |
I guess so. But remember, it also depends on how many offspring the aliens have at a given time and how often they have them. Sea turtles are still considered r-selected even though they take measures to protect all offspring at the same time. There are also movements toward K-selection, like that taken by the sand wasp when it leaves spiders behind for its offspring, even though the breeding pattern alone is still essentially r-selected. Leaving the dead cow in there was a good move toward a K-selected breeding strategy but I am not sure if it would be enough to change the r-selected breeding pattern.
That said, the notion of them raising the offspring communally takes out the need to switch over to a K-selected breeding pattern so we might be seeing a combination of both strategies somewhat.
| Quote: | | It all needs planning and time, and some degree of secrecy given humanity's apparent delight in torching nests - which makes me think that the aliens are more likely K-types whose breeding solution on Earth just looks like an r-type strategy during its early stages. |
I think I agree with you on this. We might just need to change the way we see K-selection.
_________________
| bloodb4roses wrote: | | Cerne wrote: |
As you will see in my last post, I was definately not saying that lower I.Q. was impossible to correct. It can be corrected, but whether it needs to be corrected is another matter. I will personally say that I don't think the black African population needs to raise their I.Q. average because it is already equal to that of the white African population. But then if it was lower, and the reason for it was a racial issue rather than a social one (which I very much doubt), then I would suggest that the black African population obviously doesn't need to raise it. It would have been the white population's fault for putting them into this mess and they shouldn't have to get out of it by raising their I.Q. to be more like the white African population. IMO this idea in itself is ethnocentrism, which is the whole reason why I am criticizing it. |
I'd like to quickly mention that if black Africans, especially those who still have a more traditional lifestyle, where to create an IQ test based on the type of things they would feel need to be known, I'm sure many white Africans would do very poorly on it. Even if we used a "multiple intelligences" model. So who is writing the exam matters as much as who is taking it. |
And I completely agree with this.
_________________
@ Fonori: You posted after I clicked on the reply button but before I saw your reply prior to clicking on the Submit button. I read it, but instead of prolonging this current post further, I think I am just going to say I agree with everything you said for the time being. If you want a more thorough reply, I can do that later tonight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blake
Planewalker
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 2157
Location: 1 Vagrant- currently Shanghai, China
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah Cerne, the argument is over.
Prescription: Chill pill
You did seem to misinterpret most of what I said, though; I would encourage you to go back and re-read my post more carefully, as I answered most of those questions you asked and I don't have time now.
| Fonori wrote: |
| bloodb4roses wrote: | | I'd like to quickly mention that if black Africans, especially those who still have a more traditional lifestyle, where to create an IQ test based on the type of things they would feel need to be known, I'm sure many white Africans would do very poorly on it. Even if we used a "multiple intelligences" model. So who is writing the exam matters as much as who is taking it. |
I might be inclined to agree with that sentiment. I have heard arguments for and against IQ testing, and I'm really not sure if it's truly culturally neutral. That said, abstract reasoning is quite valuable in a lot of ways.
|
What each culture values may be different- and what is more or less useful in various situations is different. But IQ tests have an idea of abstract reasoning (such as logic, and spatial reasoning), which is pretty objective. If it wasn't testing that, it would be testing something else (like creative problem solving, perhaps?)- but it wouldn't be the same as IQ if it were a different sort of test.
See Fluid IQ tests for the epitome of that.
That is, of course, not to say other things are not also useful.
The evidence has borne out far too many correlations with forethought, though- as related to potential gain and loss, particularly in regards to criminal activity and game theory- to not believe that IQ is one of the most essential qualities to a large, stable society.
For small ones [small societies], it can be different- where anonymity is not available, something like 'the ability to make friends with everyone' could be more valuable than IQ.
Either way, having the information is essential if we want to even begin to consider solutions (however, and even whether or not, we impose or suggest them).
Anyway, I shouldn't be posting here now! Off to bed with me.
_________________
I never disallow civil discussion, and I don't even have the authority to if I wanted to (which I don't want to). If discussion were made impossible just because of a contrary stance, nobody would ever discuss anything. Don't let my disagreement, however strong, stop you from speaking your minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerne
Wizard
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 863
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blake wrote: | | You did seem to misinterpret most of what I said, though; I would encourage you to go back and re-read my post more carefully, as I answered most of those questions you asked and I don't have time now. |
I don't think I did. Maybe you would like to show me what I misinterpreted because it was perfectly understandable when I replied to it.
| Quote: | | But IQ tests have an idea of abstract reasoning (such as logic, and spatial reasoning), which is pretty objective. |
Those criteria can be used in more than one way. The problem is, they aren't. Hence the criticism behind it.
| Quote: | | The evidence has borne out far too many correlations with forethought, though- as related to potential gain and loss, particularly in regards to criminal activity and game theory- to not believe that IQ is one of the most essential qualities to a large, stable society. |
Ironically, all of these societies are either western - I.e. European and North American - or western-influenced societies. As far as I know, there have been no I.Q. tests designed specifically for countries like India, Egypt, Korea, etc., that are approaching first-world status (or are already there) but that are not as strongly influenced by the west. So what determines a stable society in terms of I.Q. can not be universally decided.
| Quote: | | Either way, having the information is essential if we want to even begin to consider solutions (however, and even whether or not, we impose or suggest them). |
Yeah, it can be very useful in solving our own problems. I won't argue with that. However, when geared toward a foreign population, maybe it would help if we used local determinants of high I.Q. Language could also be a big factor in this.
See the criticisms of I.Q. testing in this article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jseamus
Conjurer
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 225
Location: in its own little world...
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
My Two Cents, mostly a response to Blake:
I was on the train the other day when I found an article from Time from 1999 by Stephen Jay Gould. The article is here.
Anyway, the point of the article was that intelligence is not a thing that can be pinned down or attribute to any one gene or even to any small set of genes, partially because the definition of intelligence is nearly irreparably murky and cultural.
And even assuming that we can pin down what "intelligence" is, there would still be a great deal of difference between (supposedly) innate/genetic potential intelligence, the somewhat more malleable and fluid actual intelligence, and the rather socially constructed IQ.
Not to mention the fact that race doesn't actually exist on a biological level in modern humans.
[end of two cents]
_________________
This is the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerne
Wizard
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 863
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fonori wrote: | | Cerne wrote: | | Quote: | | Recognizing different levels of intelligence in different populations isn't racist. |
Agreed in part. The different levels of intelligence should really be validated beforehand, but afterward - and only afterward - could I agree to something like this.
| Quote: | | Offering possible genetic causes wouldn't even necessarily racist, but you should then be willing to find the data to back it up. |
This I don't agree with. Going out to validate an assumption is different from using information that has already - and in this case, preferrably indirectly - been validated. You not only need to ask yourself what you are trying to prove, but also why you are trying to prove it. That is where racist intentions could potentially come in, and hence the political correctness of the issue. I am not suggesting you hide actual data that has been solidly and thoroughly supported, I am only saying that we use political correction to avoid potentially racist intentions, and that making assumptions before you validate them can either reveal or give the false impression that this is what you are trying to substantiate. |
I was merely thinking of it as a hypothesis to test, I didn't mean anyone should go out of their way to prove their assumptions -- that would be bad science. |
I see.
More like an optimistic objectivism, then? I can understand that. I would just hope no one gets caught with such a hypothesis.
Peoples' sensitivity toward the issue can waive everything out of proportion, which is one thing the scientific community tries to avoid because then it comes down to favouritism. Unless you were actually there, as a third party you wouldn't know what to think. You could risk persecuting an innocent person OR denying a possibly prejudiced intention behind the hypothesis. Either or, you would still need to pick a side because - at that point - one of those scenarios will happen. Objectivity would no longer be in the picture.
Here the problem becomes not only the intention of the first party but also the participation of the third party. Then there is that second party - the people protesting against the motive behind the hypothesis - but if they didn't have a problem with it then there would be no political correction issue to deal with, would there?
I actually do agree with you but objectivity becomes very difficult to maintain in topics like this one. I wanted to illustrate that in a way that didn't look like I was forbidding you to talk about it but that still expressed how difficult and complicated the topic really is. Making a hypothesis that concerns race is not as simple as making a hypothesis about something in our natural world, like "Why are rocks hard?" because you can't just go out and find the answer like that. It has implications.
Sorry if it seemed like I took what you said the wrong way because I really didn't 
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Fonori wrote: | | Oh, dear. I forgot about this. Someone will need to bring Cerne down now. i don't think I can do it. |
I don't see why I need to be brought down at all. Everyone on this board has their own oppinions, mine just happen to be a bit stronger than they need to be. That, and I get into the habit of typing a lot and picking apart other members' posts line by line What you typed could abbly to Blake but the two of you still did quite well debating the topic. |
Ah, i was just reacting that way because the argument with Blake was winding down (and, well, he kind of left it). It's kind of like thinking a battle is over and then having a bomb explode behind you (thankfully I've never been in that situation. |
I know what you mean and I had hoped this debate wouldn't have that effect. I went into it with a neutral stance and nothing I typed here (with possible exception to the first quote in my last post) was meant to be taken negatively, so it shouldn't degrade into an actual argument because of that (hopefully).
| Quote: | | In order to prevent a population explosion and a serious problem in providing child care, adults have a strong (and usually culturally-reinforced) aversion to interfering in competition between the "tadpoles" until they are at the stage where they can walk on land (and leave the breeding pool). As such, healthier tadpoles will be able to hog food and even kill and eat their weaker bretheren -- significantly reducing the number of young that need to be raised and educated the way an intelligent species must. |
This sounds like something that could go into the Disgusting... thread 
| jseamus wrote: | I was on the train the other day when I found an article from Time from 1999 by Stephen Jay Gould. The article is here.
Anyway, the point of the article was that intelligence is not a thing that can be pinned down or attribute to any one gene or even to any small set of genes, partially because the definition of intelligence is nearly irreparably murky and cultural.
And even assuming that we can pin down what "intelligence" is, there would still be a great deal of difference between (supposedly) innate/genetic potential intelligence, the somewhat more malleable and fluid actual intelligence, and the rather socially constructed IQ. |
Thanks for pointing that out, James. The article was interesting and I bet it will be useful in the discussion of this topic if it ever picks up again.
| Quote: | | Not to mention the fact that race doesn't actually exist on a biological level in modern humans. |
This is also very true. I was using the term to mean a socially constructed concept of a biological differentiation between human populations based on minor physical attributes and I am certain Fonori was using it in the same way. It is nontheless something important to keep in mind. Thanks
.....
Now, I am waiting for Rik to answer the questions/comments that Fonori and I asked him so that we can continue discussing the prawns' breeding strategy. I find it considerably more interesting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rik
Apprentice
Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 113
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cerne wrote: | | Now, I am waiting for Rik to answer the questions/comments that Fonori and I asked him so that we can continue discussing the prawns' breeding strategy. I find it considerably more interesting :D |
Sorry - didn't realise there were question raised. I was just speculating on how we could square that mass of eggs with a clear adult-juvenile bonding.
Maybe on their home planet prawn-adults form pair-bonds and every couple of years or so go breeding - constructing a nest, finding a food source for the incubation, laying one or two eggs and then keeping an eye on things until they hatch into minature adults needing further nurture - ie K-type breeding. Only on earth have the adults been forced into building communal nests, mainly because of the difficulties of sourcing materials for the nest, and the need to hide them from pyromaniac humans - still K-type breeding which looks like an r-type spawning to the casual observer.
An alternative scenario may be an r-type breeding strategy where the majority of eggs turn into worker prawns (fed on cows), while a select few get fed the equivalent of royal jelly (or milk from a high-intelligence prawn's mandible) which helps establish a parent-child bond for future tutelage. This would be r-type breeding with the occasional semblance of K-type aftercare.
Either scenario would work for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerne
Wizard
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 863
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Rik. Sorry this took so long. No, there weren't any actual questions. I just wanted to change the topic of the thread back to breeding patterns. Thanks for replying.
| Rik wrote: | | Maybe on their home planet prawn-adults form pair-bonds and every couple of years or so go breeding - constructing a nest, finding a food source for the incubation, laying one or two eggs and then keeping an eye on things until they hatch into minature adults needing further nurture - ie K-type breeding. Only on earth have the adults been forced into building communal nests, mainly because of the difficulties of sourcing materials for the nest, and the need to hide them from pyromaniac humans - still K-type breeding which looks like an r-type spawning to the casual observer. |
That could be a good possibility. What we are looking at may indeed be a K-selected breeding pattern that involves raising the offspring communally to make it look like r-selection. There is a lot of incentive for them to do this, including - as you say - keeping the offspring hidden from the humans, as well as taking advantage of the prawns' sociality to raise the offspring comunally and make sure they are all being taught the same things. This may even have been an incentive for the prawns' own sociality. So yeah, we shouldn't overlook K-selection as the underlying factor to an otherwise precocial-looking breeding strategy.
| Quote: | | An alternative scenario may be an r-type breeding strategy where the majority of eggs turn into worker prawns (fed on cows), while a select few get fed the equivalent of royal jelly (or milk from a high-intelligence prawn's mandible) which helps establish a parent-child bond for future tutelage. This would be r-type breeding with the occasional semblance of K-type aftercare. |
So essentially the way the offspring are raised reflects their class and/or caste? This is a good possibility too. It would explain why most of the offspring appeared to be educated later on in the film: if none of the lowerclass offspring were able to survive the initial crash or what happened afterward with the humans, only the higher class would be left. It also explains the close bond between parent and offspring... Though if each parent has offspring of both classes, how is class then decided? I am assuming it would be inherited then, given this consideration. If so, that had to be a big blow to their society to have the lower class almost gone like that. The lower class may have been the ones who did most of the physical/menial work back on the prawn homeworld. Maybe they were even physiologically different. They could even have been the difference in the prawns' success in warding off the humans. With them gone, the higher class may have been unable to fight back. I'm not discounting the crash and the illnesses the prawns on the ship seemed to haave but if, say, it was one of the lower classes that partook in most of the actual combat on the prawn homeworld, wiping them out may have made a huge difference in the upper class's resistence efforts against the humans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
