I have started reading Critical Mass, by Philip Ball, which is about the physics of society (application of physical and statistical laws to the behaviour of masses of people).
The second chapter relates the first attempts to understand society through mathematical laws, in particular of "social physics" of Belgian astronomer and mathematician Adolphe Quetelet (1796-1874). Quetelet realised that the bell-shaped error curve in probability could be applied to demography. The 1:1 ratio between newborn boys and girls followed the statistical error curve and the law of large numbers. The higher the number of births, the closer the male-to-female ratio would approach 1:1, just like the natural evening out of heads and tails when tossing a coin.
Quetelet noticed that physical characteristics, such as height or girth, were distributed along the same bell-shaped curve. Quoting from pages 77 and 78 : "Instead of regarding height differences as a characteristic feature of nature, he saw them as departures from an ideal form. These 'errors' become less prominent as greater numbers of people are taken into account. [...] This is true, Quetelet decided, not only for physical characteristics but for behaviour, since the foibles of the individual temperament average out among the tendencies of the mass. [...] Since it was clearly a desirable thing that society should 'exist and be conserved', this implied that average behaviour was the right behaviour. And so Quetelet's social physics became founded on the concept of the 'average man' (l'homme moyen), whose dimensions and physical features and also moral and aesthetic attributes represented a perfect mean to which all should aspire. To be great was to be average. [...] The idea of physical and moral perfection of humankind which is reflected in the conformity to a mathematical ideal dates back to the Renaissance; but now there existed the tools to quantify what perfection was."
It is hard for me to agree with the idea that perfection is to be found among averages. Populations aren't uniform. Averages in different countries will give different average physical features and traits of character. This is obvious enough from facial averages (usually from football players) often posted on this website or by Dienekes Pontikos on his blog. You can't expect a average Finn to look like an average Italian. So where does perfection lie ? The geographic boundaries of countries are also somewhat artificial (although some populations did evolve in isolation from others for longer periods of time).
Regarding character, averages will also diverge between countries. The average character of a national or ethnic group is the basis for cultural studies. It is ludicrous to think that the perfect character results from the average of all humanity. Both physical and neuro-psychological differences between ethnicities reflect in part an adaptation to the local geography and life style. Comparing ancestral populations, hunter-gatherers will need to be taller, more robust, more aggressive and have better vision and athletic abilities than farmers. Agricultural population being denser, they require people to be tamer, more sociable, but also more organised than hunter-gatherers.
There isn't one perfect average. Some differences are "errors", due to undesirable genetic mutations. But most differences have been preserved to this day through natural selection because they served a purpose, or gave its carrier an advantage over others in some situation or some milieu. This is the principle of evolution. That's why I think it is wrong to think that all humanity should aspire to the average of all of its members. Some traits of character have become dominant because they were selected during this specific population's history. And indeed new positive or desirable features often start as a minority, often as a single new mutation in one individual.
The second chapter relates the first attempts to understand society through mathematical laws, in particular of "social physics" of Belgian astronomer and mathematician Adolphe Quetelet (1796-1874). Quetelet realised that the bell-shaped error curve in probability could be applied to demography. The 1:1 ratio between newborn boys and girls followed the statistical error curve and the law of large numbers. The higher the number of births, the closer the male-to-female ratio would approach 1:1, just like the natural evening out of heads and tails when tossing a coin.
Quetelet noticed that physical characteristics, such as height or girth, were distributed along the same bell-shaped curve. Quoting from pages 77 and 78 : "Instead of regarding height differences as a characteristic feature of nature, he saw them as departures from an ideal form. These 'errors' become less prominent as greater numbers of people are taken into account. [...] This is true, Quetelet decided, not only for physical characteristics but for behaviour, since the foibles of the individual temperament average out among the tendencies of the mass. [...] Since it was clearly a desirable thing that society should 'exist and be conserved', this implied that average behaviour was the right behaviour. And so Quetelet's social physics became founded on the concept of the 'average man' (l'homme moyen), whose dimensions and physical features and also moral and aesthetic attributes represented a perfect mean to which all should aspire. To be great was to be average. [...] The idea of physical and moral perfection of humankind which is reflected in the conformity to a mathematical ideal dates back to the Renaissance; but now there existed the tools to quantify what perfection was."
It is hard for me to agree with the idea that perfection is to be found among averages. Populations aren't uniform. Averages in different countries will give different average physical features and traits of character. This is obvious enough from facial averages (usually from football players) often posted on this website or by Dienekes Pontikos on his blog. You can't expect a average Finn to look like an average Italian. So where does perfection lie ? The geographic boundaries of countries are also somewhat artificial (although some populations did evolve in isolation from others for longer periods of time).
Regarding character, averages will also diverge between countries. The average character of a national or ethnic group is the basis for cultural studies. It is ludicrous to think that the perfect character results from the average of all humanity. Both physical and neuro-psychological differences between ethnicities reflect in part an adaptation to the local geography and life style. Comparing ancestral populations, hunter-gatherers will need to be taller, more robust, more aggressive and have better vision and athletic abilities than farmers. Agricultural population being denser, they require people to be tamer, more sociable, but also more organised than hunter-gatherers.
There isn't one perfect average. Some differences are "errors", due to undesirable genetic mutations. But most differences have been preserved to this day through natural selection because they served a purpose, or gave its carrier an advantage over others in some situation or some milieu. This is the principle of evolution. That's why I think it is wrong to think that all humanity should aspire to the average of all of its members. Some traits of character have become dominant because they were selected during this specific population's history. And indeed new positive or desirable features often start as a minority, often as a single new mutation in one individual.