waluk at earthlink.net
Sun May 15 02:39:56 UTC 2005
Thanks for your cogent reply to the question of race. This term is
certainly controversial, isn't it? I think that the word "race" is no
different from the following terms: "class", "ethnicity", "wealth",
"social status", "I. Q." etc. If one examines a cluster of people (or
group) they are able to view similarity. If they then examine
individuals, then they should view the differences, one to another.
I prefer examining the above vocabulary in terms of "yes there is; no
there is not" definitions that accompany the above words. Or to use a
more moronic expression "both" when one looks at group as well as
individual. Taking an international profile, all people fall within the
basic three races: white, black, Asian. Yet to place a geographic
position for these three races, all whites no longer live in Europe or
America and blacks are not the only inhabitants of Africa. Asians live
in Asia but they also find homeland in Europe, Russia and America et. al.
Because our world has become so mobile within the past century,
determining a person's race has become very difficult. Our world is
melding into a giant pot and so have our individual ethnicities.
Whether or not this is a positive circumstance continues being
debatable. Many of us are favorably disposed to a multi-ethnic blend
for the new millennium; others are not.
Michael Christopher wrote:
>Regarding race, testing (IQ or other) and income...
>why are we regarding human beings purely as numers in
>the FIRST place? Isn't that a bit reductionist,
>considering the trend of science is toward context and
>I'm sure there are uses for correlating race, income
>and IQ. I'm not against compiling statistics. But I'd
>hate to see that way of thinking about human beings
>replace the actual human reality. If it turned out
>that one racial group was simply not as good at
>testing as another, what would the civilized response
>I think a good response would be to evolve beyond the
>concept of slotting people by numbers and earning
>potential, and toward companies and communities where
>everyone is valued. Not just as a number, but as a
>many-faceted person who contributes non-quantifiable
>value. Improving test-taking skills and coming up with
>new exercises to improve IQ (video games, maybe) is a
>good idea, but I think the underlying paradigm that
>people are numbers is the real problem.
>On the race/IQ issue, one group is saying "Look at
>this information, we believe it's accurate, and it's
>political correctness to avoid looking at it". Another
>says "That's all explained by stress from income
>disparity, life span, etc." I tend to go with that
>explanation. Howard has mentioned in his books how
>being on the bottom of the pecking order stresses the
>body and brain and affects mood and intellect. Some
>feel strongly that it has to do with innate ability,
>not poverty or social exclusion. But *either way* you
>have to ask, "Why are we classifying people by IQ or
>income in the first place?"
>Modern thinkers are aware of systems theory. In a
>system with many variables, it's simpler to focus on
>one (favors tidy explanations that fit on
>bumperstickers), but then you can lose the magic of a
>multivariable system where emergent patterns are
>possible. Think of the emergent patterns we could grow
>in schools, corporations and neighborhoods if we
>thought about not one variable like income or IQ, but
>about the full complexity of human experience and
>learning, individually and in groups? Would that bring
>up fears of socialism? No reason that can't be
>resolved with self-owned businesses where each person
>gets a share according to his value to the group.
>Yahoo! Mail Mobile
>Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
More information about the paleopsych