PDA

View Full Version : Are humans all born equal ?



Maciamo
06-11-05, 16:44
It is politically correct nowadays to say that all humans are born free and equal in democratic countries. Yet, I believe that this only refers to the legal aspect. Genetically, everybody is different. It can be argued whether intelligence, physical strength or other capabilities are genetical or acquired. It certainly is a bit of both, but I'd say that genes play the most important part of the "potential", which one's education and environment will more or less develop.

Some people argue that no significant differences in intelligence, physical strength or other capabilities exist between human "races". Some insist that men and women are not different because of biological factors, but just because of social expectations and education. I believe that none of this is true. Men and women's brains work differently, and each have abilities in which they excel over the other sex. Physically, men tend to be stronger, but women tend to be more supple.

It is the same for "races". It is no coincidence that Black people excel in some Olympic sports (e.g. sprint), but that East Asians excel in others (e.g. gymnastics) and Caucasians in yet others (e.g. cycling). Physically, the most masculine "race" would be the Blacks, while the most feminine would be the Mongoloids.

The same is true for arts, music or intellectual disciplines. It is probably no coicidence either that the world's 3 big monotheistic religions were invented by Semitic people, and the 3 great pantheistic or polytheist ones (Hindusim, Buddhism, Jainism) by Indian people. Likewise, Black people are better at the more spontaneous rap or jazz music, while "classical" written and directed by a single artist for a big orchestra is almost only Caucasian.

I believe that cultures are what they are partly (but not only) because of the genetic predispositions of their people. Cultural advancement only depend on time and resources. But the orientation or sensitivities present in each culture has a correlation to the majority of its people's genes. That's why genetically similar populations have also similar sensitivities (e.g. modern Japan, Korea and China, regarding their liking for food, material goods, similar type of music, economic systems, etc.).

Maciamo
07-11-05, 05:33
I cannot understand how 3 people so far voted for "Every individual is born with a unique intelligence" and not for "Intelligence varies considerably across races". If each individual has a unique intelligence at birth (because of different genetic makeup), then forcedly there are considerable differences between races, as the genetic differences are even more marked. Same for physical abilities (strength, resitance, suppleness...).

Likewise, if hormones can differentiate men and women's intellectual and physical abilities (and all research have concluded that they do), then intellectual and physical abilities also vary on a racial level, as hormonal levels vary across racial groups (and individuals within each group, but mostly inherited from the parents).

Sensuikan San
07-11-05, 05:40
Are all people born equal .... ?

Manifestly ... NO! Nor are they born with equal opportunity.

.... but now I have to retire to elaborate on this swift reply ... and cover my bum against any comments that may be seen to be politically incorrect or dubious in that regard.

Excellent question, though ... and perhaps as inflammatory as a cigarette in a firework factory! ... Back soon!

W

Mars Man
07-11-05, 05:42
A nice discussion is surely in the potential of this thread; I hope to follow it with interest as well.

As often is the case with the polls, there probably is not really enough room to put all plausible cases, and that sometimes makes it hard. Those which I voted for turned out to be the biggest ones yet, but there was still some hesitation on a few of them.

I go along with research that states that each brain is different at birth, although there is a 'basic set-up' which is practically the same in all. This 'being different' often seems to imply a difference in potential--in that the brain is largely 'plastic'.

The well evidenced differences between the 'male' brain and the 'female' brain total out to become an 'average difference', with a fair degree of overlap between most in any of the two sexes. (That has come up on an earlier thread also--I'm overlap, but, obviously, more of a 'male' brain.)

The term/concept 'culture' has a lot that can be discussed it seems, as can also that of 'race'--the latter being even more uncertain, or lacking, as far as concrete explanations go.

I look forward to watching what goes down here. (Alas, I now have one more thing to keep an eye on in all my busy-ness. . . but I love it, and live for it !!)

Mars Man
07-11-05, 05:50
Nice thread start-up there, Maciamo san !!

I can understand you point in post #2, but my reasoning on that at the moment, is that due to 'overlapping' and 'averaging', it could be said that 'differences' are spread out, kind of making an effectual equalibrium. I will not state that as any final conclusion, though, so I am still open for argument and debate--in otherwords, I don't have my mind made up yet, and I don't think those who study such things have come to any definite consensus on it either.

I look forward to hearing more detail of your understanding and view, as well as to that of others too. Thanks for the input. :cool:

Maciamo
07-11-05, 05:52
Are all people born equal .... ?

Manifestly ... NO! Nor are they born with equal opportunity

Well, opportunities depend on several things. First of all, it is a fact that some people are born in more priviledges milieux than others, and will enjoy a better education, will have easier to create business relations through family and friends, etc. Then, depending on the country, ethnic minorities may encounter more or less discrimination.

I think that nobody will contest that inequalities depend a lot on the soicio-economic background into which one is born. It is more interesting to discuss whether people born within the same family or in similar conditions, can really be equal, not in terms of economic opportunities, but "legal rights" (on paper), "intelligence potential at birth" (regardless of education), and "physical potential at birth" (regarding of experience and training). I think that only legal rights are the same for the entire population. Intellectual and physical potential are decided by 1) the genes and 2) the "quality of pregnancy" (i.e. a well-nourished foetus in a healthy mother will produce a potentially healthier and more intelligent child).

Maciamo
07-11-05, 06:04
I go along with research that states that each brain is different at birth, although there is a 'basic set-up' which is practically the same in all. This 'being different' often seems to imply a difference in potential--in that the brain is largely 'plastic'.

There are at least 2 crucially different factors in every brain at birth, despite a similar "set up" : 1) the number of neurons (unique in every brain) and proportion of white matter vs grey matter (see this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19629) to understand the importance it has), and 2) the hormonal level and neural sensitivity to hormones set by the DNA , also unique to every individual (which determines whether an individual will be more/less hairy, physical stronger/weaker or more masculine/feminine than others).

Like for the "white vs grey matter proportion", each nerve cell has a different sensitivity to hormones, which is also determined genetically. That is why, some men will have more facial hair at the chin, while others will have more on the cheeks, or why some will go bald above the forehead, while others will lose their hair only around the tonsure. All this (number of neurons, grey/white matter proportion, sensitivity of each neuron in the brain and body to hormones..) is set genetically for every individual, and can be partly inherited. That makes every humans fundamentally unequal from birth, although the closest people are genetically, the the closest their "properties" will be.

Silverbackman
07-11-05, 09:58
I think all human's life worth is the same regardless of race or gender. Each race is pretty much the same, but there maybe slightly different mental abilities that we can't detect.

Men and women on the other hand, although equal in life worth, are more different than any feminist wants to believe. I think in general women are better at communcation as well as doing multiple tasks at once, while men are stronger and may have a better sense or direction. Physically men and women are quite different, although if you compare it to the differences between a male gorilla and a female gorilla the physical differences are not as much ;)..

Kinsao
07-11-05, 11:53
I think that people are not born "equal". But, I think everyone has equal value. Which is a different thing, I know. Obviously people don't all have the same intelligence, health, strength, abilities and luck. Everyone can see that people are not the same, and I think most people would agree that when they say people are "equal" they actually mean equal in value and that ideally everyone should have equal rights.

I think I can see why not so many people chose the option "intelligence varies considerably across races". Of course, different races have different characteristics, which could be the result of an inextricable mixture of genetic factors and social/cultural factors (although we're thinking of genetics here). For example Maciamo pointed out the various sports at which certain races excel. But, differences in racial characteristics do not necessarily translate to "more" or "less" intelligent. So, you could say that, genetically, certain races are more likely to contain a much higher proportion of people whose brains work in a certain way (as suggested by the examples of the types of music), but, you can't say that makes these people - on average - any more or less intelligent than those of another race. It's just... difference.

I believe that intelligence does not vary across races, although mental and physical "characteristic traits" obviously do.

Hehe - as regards men and women... differences... I've always been good at direction finding and map reading, and RIGHT LOUSY at multi-tasking! :blush: And I'm anti-feminist... :giggle:

Maciamo
07-11-05, 12:03
I think I can see why not so many people chose the option "intelligence varies considerably across races". Of course, different races have different characteristics, which could be the result of an inextricable mixture of genetic factors and social/cultural factors (although we're thinking of genetics here). For example Maciamo pointed out the various sports at which certain races excel. But, differences in racial characteristics do not necessarily translate to "more" or "less" intelligent. So, you could say that, genetically, certain races are more likely to contain a much higher proportion of people whose brains work in a certain way (as suggested by the examples of the types of music), but, you can't say that makes these people - on average - any more or less intelligent than those of another race. It's just... difference.

Yes. As in my examples, and as with differences between men and women, some races are better at some types of intellectual activities (in the broad sense, i.e. anything from arts to logics to 3D skills, to creativity, to language or communication skills), while other races at stronger at other intellectual activities. It's the same way that it is difficult to be very muscular and very supple at the same time, it's difficult to be good at every intellectual activity (e.g. one cannot concentrate on details and see the big picture at one and same time).

cursore
07-11-05, 12:31
Everybody is different, is unique, however is equal in rights and duties.

Kinsao
07-11-05, 12:43
Yup yup, I agree. Different people have different types of intelligence, and some races have more prevalent certain intelligences.
(Sorry, that is a bad sentence I know... I can't figure out how to put it together properly... I don't have much of any type of intelligence today! :bluush: )

It's very interesting to look at different types of intelligences and capabilities of the brain, I often wish I had specialised in science so that I could have had the opportunity to study the brain scientifically.

Sometimes, different types of intelligence combine in unexpected ways. (I get tired of the "scatterbrained artist" stereotype!) For instance, in my mind there is a kind of distinction between "intellectual activity" and "practical activity", and my brain works differently for those two functions - divergent for one, and focused for the other.

Tsuyoiko
07-11-05, 14:01
I voted for:

Some individual have more rights than others

Every individual is born with a unique intelligence

Men and women have considerably different physical strength and abilities

Every individual is born with unique physical strength and abilities

I didn't generally vote for differences in gender and race as I am not completely decided that it is that simple. I know there is a lot of evidence supporting differences, but I have seen evidence against it too, so I can't be 100% sure. I also don't think we know enough about the brain yet. Basically, I believe that every individual is physically and intellectually unique, but I think it's much more complicated than race and gender. And since I am an exception to the rule I am suspicious of the rule!

Kinsao
07-11-05, 14:12
Some individual have more rights than others

Seriously?!? :shock: Why did you vote for that one? :worried:

Maciamo
07-11-05, 14:19
Some individual have more rights than others

Let us not forget that this is at birth. It's true that some individuals do obtain special rights from their function (e.g. diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity), but I am not quite sure of who enjoy more rights at birth. Oh I get it now ! You are obviously referring the the lords' rights to sit in the House of Lords in the UK (hasn't it been abolished recently by Tony Blair ?), or the monarchs' priviledges in the remaining monarchies around the world.

Tsuyoiko
07-11-05, 14:36
I knew I had forgotten to explain something in that previous post! Of course I don't think some people should have more rights than others, but depending on where you are born you might not have the same rights as someone born elsewhere, right? Independent of government everyone has the same rights, but we are not independent of government - for example, if you are born in the UK you have the right to free health care from birth. This is not true everywhere.

Maciamo
07-11-05, 16:01
I knew I had forgotten to explain something in that previous post! Of course I don't think some people should have more rights than others, but depending on where you are born you might not have the same rights as someone born elsewhere, right? Independent of government everyone has the same rights, but we are not independent of government - for example, if you are born in the UK you have the right to free health care from birth. This is not true everywhere.

I see. I presupposed that the equal rights where for a same country, otherwise they are obviously different in every country. The same goes for legal obligations. Some countries have compulsory conscription, others don't. The legal age for various things (right of drinking, getting married, driving, voting...) varies between countries too. A country like Belgium has compulsory voting for everyone, but most countries don't. In some countries some people have the right of abortion or euthanasia, but many also don't. So, just the country of one's nationality AND the country of one's residence affect our legal rights. Being a foreigner also gives different rights depending on the country (some countries allow them to vote, others don't). So, let's say that for the poll's purpose we will only consider citizens of the same country in living their home country. I know that some immigrants who cannot or don't want to take on the nationality of the country where they live are exceptions...

Kinsao
07-11-05, 16:27
I knew I had forgotten to explain something in that previous post! Of course I don't think some people should have more rights than others, but depending on where you are born you might not have the same rights as someone born elsewhere, right? Independent of government everyone has the same rights, but we are not independent of government - for example, if you are born in the UK you have the right to free health care from birth. This is not true everywhere.

Ah - I see where you're coming from now! Thanks for explaining! :p

Mars Man
08-11-05, 12:50
Let us not forget that this is at birth.

Some good statements have come in, nice reading. I'll have to admit I had a little bit of a problem with the 'at birth' element. Of course, as I had written, in a kind of 'thinking outloud' fashion, it's hard to get all the factors so precise in these polls, but this one element did give me a hard time--"at birth."

I agree with the information you carefully pointed out in your #7 post, Maciamo san--in fact, a recent article in the magazine Science atested to how that can make a difference in a persons having a tendency to be an habitual lier. That grey and white does work out to present a difference as the brain grows, yet at birth how can that translate into intelligence?

Well, that word will always come up with the helping modifier, 'ability to', when checked in most dicitonaries, so then, that 'set-up' that I had mentioned before would likely be something that comes before the actual major brain development before birth. Now I do have some information on this which I will share later--it's at home; but I feel there is no disagreement here.

Now there may be something on my voting for 1.4 (although that is counter balanced by my vote for 1.1) and here I will again have to admit that I broke the rules. I didn't take this as being an at birth thing, 1.1 did that, but rather I took this as applying to some who--be it right or wrong, and I'm not saying 'should'--are not given certain rights by society at large, such as the right to drive a car, to have children, or in somecases, perhaps, marry. I think you all may be able to see what I'm getting at here. I have known of one person in my life who was legally prevented from having the right to father children, and genelogically, it was understandable, I think, but right? who knows really.

I like the styles Silverbackman and Kinsao used: "life worth" and "value", respectively. These are things that humankind needs to work on for sure. I am not big on being Political Correct (notice 'not big on' does not equal totally against) and thus reason that we all have to open up to just how the genetic factors play in a lot of these things. I go along with Maciamo on that as science shows that to most correctly, for now at least, to be the case. OH no...this got that long? :p :sorry:

Index
08-11-05, 14:24
In some societies men and women are not equal at birth. For example, under the One Child Policy in China, there were many reported cases of female infanticide due to the perception that a boy is more valuable in economic and societal terms than a girl.

In terms of rights of individuals at birth, there may be some semblance of this within certain idealised states, but as soon as you consider the differences in conditions (economic, societal, legal) across countries, the idea goes out the window. Everybody has the right to life, one may say, but then how can this be justified when comparing things like access to food, water, medication, safe conditions for birth etc. between developed and developing countries. One can be disadvantaged prior to being born in a country which does not have hospitals with proper sanitation, drugs, or appropriately trained professionals for example. Or what about children who are born with HIV and are immediately discriminated against, or children whose mothers were raped and are treated not as victims but blamed for their misfortune, with the children as unwanted pariahs. In this context rights seem like just a luxury for the privileged...

Maciamo
08-11-05, 14:52
In some societies men and women are not equal at birth. For example, under the One Child Policy in China, there were many reported cases of female infanticide due to the perception that a boy is more valuable in economic and societal terms than a girl.
...
Or what about children who are born with HIV and are immediately discriminated against, or children whose mothers were raped and are treated not as victims but blamed for their misfortune, with the children as unwanted pariahs. In this context rights seem like just a luxury for the privileged...

In the poll, I have only 3 categories : legal rights (set by law), intelligence and physical abilities. I completely understand your points, but I think that discrimination, be it against women or on racial grounds, does not fit in the category of legal rights, except if the law specifically give unequal rights to men and women or different ethnic groups. Men and women may have different rights (e.g. different retirement age), but I am not sure whether all the combined differences are always unequal. Now that I think about it, women may enjoy more rights in some Western countries, as they avoid conscription (in some countries also men), and can often retire a few years earlier. Yet, I can't think of any law favouring men only in Western countries.

Maciamo
08-11-05, 14:55
I agree with the information you carefully pointed out in your #7 post, Maciamo san--in fact, a recent article in the magazine Science atested to how that can make a difference in a persons having a tendency to be an habitual lier. That grey and white does work out to present a difference as the brain grows, yet at birth how can that translate into intelligence?

I am not 100% sure, but I think that the proportion of grey vs white matter is set genetically and does not change after birth (or at least once the brain has been completely formed a few months later).

Index
08-11-05, 15:15
In the poll, I have only 3 categories : legal rights (set by law), intelligence and physical abilities. I completely understand your points, but I think that discrimination, be it against women or on racial grounds, does not fit in the category of legal rights, except if the law specifically give unequal rights to men and women or different ethnic groups. Men and women may have different rights (e.g. different retirement age), but I am not sure whether all the combined differences are always unequal.

I was approaching the idea from another angle. In other words, not what things should be like, but what they are like. Therefore I was suggesting that legal instruments can be conceived as unable to protect the rights of individuals because such inequalities do in fact exist.

Alternatively, if you look at it from the perspective of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) then discrimination is covered by the law, asuming one respects international law.

In regards to domestic laws which are disriminatory, consider Syria, where a man is entitled by law to kill his wife in the case of infidelity, but a woman has no such rights.

I can't think of any law favouring men only in Western countries.
That's what I meant in saying "idealised states", but I tried to avoid the terms 'democracy' or 'Western'.

Would you consider the glass ceilings in pay scale existent in most Western countries a discriminatory law? Perhaps not a law per se but a regulation ?


Now that I think about it, women may enjoy more rights in some Western countries, as they avoid conscription
Do you mean women have more rights in this case because they have the right to not be in the military? I daresay that in most countries where there is conscription, women generally do not on the other hand have the right to serve in combat military roles, so one right is traded for another. A good deal, I wonder?

Maciamo
08-11-05, 16:01
I was approaching the idea from another angle. In other words, not what things should be like, but what they are like. Therefore I was suggesting that legal instruments can be conceived as unable to protect the rights of individuals because such inequalities do in fact exist.

If we look at the rights of someone at birth, it is unlikely that they will face discrimination at that time, and unsure whether they will actually face discrimination in their life. This is a matter of "chance", while law is imposed on everyone and does not depend on chance.


Would you consider the glass ceilings in pay scale existent in most Western countries a discriminatory law? Perhaps not a law per se but a regulation ?

It is obviously discrimination. But that's not a right someone get from birth or is sure to be confronted to. My poll is about certain, unavoidable things. We cannot say that all men and women in "idealised states" will certainly have different rights. Yet, it is undeniable that male and female brains think differently, and that men and women have clearly different bodies. With the same training, you cannot expect a woman to be a strong as a man, because the hormones are just different (muscles need testosterones, and men have much more of it).


Do you mean women have more rights in this case because they have the right to not be in the military? I daresay that in most countries where there is conscription, women generally do not on the other hand have the right to serve in combat military roles, so one right is traded for another. A good deal, I wonder?

In most/all Western countries where there is male conscription, women have the right to serve in the army if they want to (as career soliders). Men are forced to join the army for a certain period of time (like in France), while women have the right not to join.

Jack
08-11-05, 16:06
freedom is a choice that one can always differentiate away from others, so i believe not one human is of equal situation.-my 2 cents

Index
09-11-05, 05:02
In most/all Western countries where there is male conscription, women have the right to serve in the army if they want to (as career soliders). Men are forced to join the army for a certain period of time (like in France), while women have the right not to join.

I don't see this train of thought going any further than it has so I won't make any more comments, except to point out that the above statement you have made seems to me to be missing the point-I stated that women do not have the right to take part in combat roles in the military, not that women do not have the right to join the military. In any case, in your example, men also have the right not to join, thought they do not have the right to ignore conscription. To talk about women having the right to avoid consription is a moot point by the way, since they are not conscripted in the first place.

Carlson
09-11-05, 05:38
well thats f*cked up im only 1 to pick All humans are born intellectually equal (only education and experience differenciate them)

and its true..

every person on this earth was born the same.. sperm of a father and egg of a mother... when you young the only thing you care about is eating, sleeping, and going number 2...

when you start adding education and experience... things change... im going to up to strech the meaning of experience a little.. basicaly opportunity..

Maciamo
09-11-05, 06:23
well thats f*cked up im only 1 to pick All humans are born intellectually equal (only education and experience differenciate them)

and its true..

every person on this earth was born the same.. sperm of a father and egg of a mother... when you young the only thing you care about is eating, sleeping, and going number 2...

You are obviously forgetting that no every brain at birth has the same potential (number of neurons, proportion of grey matter to white matter, etc.)

Carlson
09-11-05, 16:45
You are obviously forgetting that no every brain at birth has the same potential (number of neurons, proportion of grey matter to white matter, etc.)

but they are all equal.. say a child has 200% neurons then another child.. it dont matter only thing they can do is be a blob on the floor.. no child is self sufficient at birth. the topic asks if all humans are born equal... not post birth.. :-)

i just like to argue for the sake of argueing...

Tsuyoiko
09-11-05, 17:12
but they are all equal.. say a child has 200% neurons then another child.. it dont matter only thing they can do is be a blob on the floor.. no child is self sufficient at birth. the topic asks if all humans are born equal... not post birth.. :-)

i just like to argue for the sake of argueing...I can see where you are coming from with this argument - I think you are saying that since all babies can do virtually nothing they are all intellectually equal. But I think even at birth babies can do slightly more than nothing, and that what they can do differs between individuals. I can't think of an example though, because as you imply, it is hard to see what a newborn can do intellectually. Still, Maciamo is right that each individual's brain physiology is different, so I think his argument gets my vote. :sorry:

Kinsao
09-11-05, 17:39
Well, for example, some babies show more "activity" of their brain shortly after birth than others. Like, some would react to a noise, turn their head in the direction of the noise, others maybe not (if their brain/hearing wasn't so sensitive to it). But it's hard to tell without measuring their brain waves because it might just be their physical reactions that are fewer (i.e. not turning their head) and no difference in the way the brain received and processed the sound (they heard it just as clearly).

Also, development speed changes... a baby who is slow at learning things for 2 years (for instance), might learn very quickly from ages 5 to 7... it's difficult to predict... :mad:

Carlson
10-11-05, 02:08
Well, for example, some babies show more "activity" of their brain shortly after birth than others.

does it really matter?


what were we talking about again... :souka:

ragedaddy
10-11-05, 03:30
well thats f*cked up im only 1 to pick All humans are born intellectually equal (only education and experience differenciate them)

and its true..

every person on this earth was born the same.. sperm of a father and egg of a mother... when you young the only thing you care about is eating, sleeping, and going number 2...

when you start adding education and experience... things change... im going to up to strech the meaning of experience a little.. basicaly opportunity..


Are you are saying that you are intellectually equal to someone who is born with a mental handicap at birth? There are numerous diseases that already affect one's mental capacity at the time of birth. Also, look at geniuses, the majority of these people inherit their intelligence through genes as opposed to studying hardcore. I don't think one can say that everyone is born intellectually equally, but that's just my opinion.

Tsuyoiko
10-11-05, 15:01
I don't think one can say that everyone is born intellectually equally, but that's just my opinion.I would go further and say it's a well-established fact. :cool:

Reinaert
19-02-11, 18:33
Hmm.. The man/woman discussion is not relevant. Statistically, women are more social in their behaviour, and that is natural. If you say man are better in maths, I know some women who are very clever in maths too.

Every human being has a unique set of talents. By education you can learn to use these talents in a useful way.

And of course children may have an advantage in the genes from their parents, but without a good education that advantage doesn't develop.

So I only voted for..
All humans are equal in rights.

Every human being deserves a shelter, food, drink, teaching, freedom, and safety.

It isn't hard to do.
Just Imagine..
A world without religion, without war.

John Lennon, thank you.
I may be a dreamer too..
But I detest the piggies who abuse this world, just like you did.

rotunjere
25-11-11, 16:36
ok here is my humble opinion, very afraid to voice out really, you guys here really seem to know your stuff. and my internet-forum experience has been absolutely horrifying thus far, filled with ******, flamers and the likes. i can't believe such a polite and open minded forum like this exists!!! this is only my 2nd post here, and coming from a ***** filled background, please pardon me if don't live up to the standards. anyway, here goes.

i believe the human mind is inherently incapable of quantifying and appreciating the concept of "equality". let me elaborate. we all know 1=1. and a=a, b=b. but is 1 apple = 1 orange? or we need not go that far even, we can't even say for certain if ANY apple is equivalent to ANY OTHER apple in absolute terms. if i were to task anyone, to find 2 apples of equal value, can anyone do it? ok here comes my opinion, i DO believe that there ARE 2 apples of equal value, just that we lack the ability to make that judgement. because we cannot quantify the value of ANY apple in the first place. so how are we to find another apple (or orange) of equal value? in short, we cannot place an absolute value to objects. not because there isn't a value, but we are INCAPABLE. what we ARE capable of, is placing a RELATIVE value to objects, and if i have myself clear, i think my point is obvious now already.

Humans can ONLY place value to objects, subjects, situations, in RELATIVE terms. It is hardwired into us. If i ask u, how important is your watch, or your father, how do you answer? On the other hand, if i ask you which is MORE important, watch or your father, the answer is plainly obvious and without a single doubt. The habit of prioritizing, organizing and arranging based on RELATIVE value is simply ingrained into us. We simply HAVE to do it. It is human nature. And also a human flaw. I believe a computer for eg, if intelligent enough, would be able to place absolute values, maybe. but definitely NOT humans. and for this reason, humans can NEVER be equal, at least not in each others' eyes. I think i have a theory as to why we are so incapable, but this post is long enough already i think.

Please critique. I can take any criticism, even flaming; what i cant take is being ignored lol.

Antigone
25-11-11, 18:13
Welcome rotunjere, I think it is a bit of a silly topic actually. It goes without saying that all humans should have equal rights and opportunities under law but on an individual basis, are all humans born with equal talents and abilities? No. If that were the case we'd all be millionairs, or great artists, or mathmaticians, or scientists, or electricians or even just toilet cleaners. But we are not, each and every one of us is different.

LeBrok
25-11-11, 21:54
Welcome rotunjere, I think it is a bit of a silly topic actually. It goes without saying that all humans should have equal rights and opportunities under law but on an individual basis, are all humans born with equal talents and abilities? No. If that were the case we'd all be millionairs, or great artists, or mathmaticians, or scientists, or electricians or even just toilet cleaners.

We are lucky we are not born equal morons. We would have been stuck in caves or on trees for ever, lol.

LeBrok
25-11-11, 22:24
Humans can ONLY place value to objects, subjects, situations, in RELATIVE terms. It is hardwired into us. If i ask u, how important is your watch, or your father, how do you answer? On the other hand, if i ask you which is MORE important, watch or your father, the answer is plainly obvious and without a single doubt. The habit of prioritizing, organizing and arranging based on RELATIVE value is simply ingrained into us. We simply HAVE to do it. It is human nature. And also a human flaw. I believe a computer for eg, if intelligent enough, would be able to place absolute values, maybe. but definitely NOT humans..


Values as hierarchy for classifications are only a human and other mammals, or birds and some other animals. They don't exist in physics, or let's say beyond life. As you said it is hardwired into our brains by millions of years of evolution. Surely it is important to life on earth, and probably is related to making choices or more precisely the right choices to survive, find food and make offspring.
If it come to AI/computers, any values would need to be set by humans. Otherwise for (not caring - from lack of emotions) computer there is no need for values, values or priorities wouldn't exist. For AI all things are equal, and it wouldn't even care for its own existence, unless people created value for AI life and programed it in. For AI the value of human life is the same as value of bacteria, or existence of grain of sand.
However, one can argue that lack of values in AI would give any value value of 0, therefore making them all equal, as 0=0 and make all values absolute. But who would care if it doesn't exist, lol.

edao
25-11-11, 23:05
Humans can ONLY place value to objects, subjects, situations, in RELATIVE terms. The habit of prioritizing, organizing and arranging based on RELATIVE value is simply ingrained into us. We simply HAVE to do it. It is human nature.

I agree as soon as you attribute value you create hierarchy as values are compared to each other. This is why socialist ideas of a removal of hierachy have never worked because it opposes our fundamental human nature. Capatalism on the other hand accepts hierachy. Even in our democratic systems we still create the one leader the king, emperor, lord, prime minister, president, we change the rules, the system, the name but our fundamental animal nature comes through every time.

You will never remove the hierarchy unless to change the beast itself, perhaps genetic engineering will allow us to create pure equality, but we would cease to be human as we know it. The best human society can hope for is to make the hierarchy fairer with less of gap between the top and the bottom.

PonosBosne
11-02-12, 01:43
2.1 All humans are born intellectually equal (only education and experience differenciate them)



Totally agree with this.

Templar
11-02-12, 12:22
It is no coincidence that Black people excel in some Olympic sports (e.g. sprint)

West African Bantus excel at sprinting, but are horrible at long-distance/endurance running, while East Africans excel at long-distance/endurance running and are pretty bad at sprinting. I think it is important to separate these two groups because they are different in far too many ways to be considered members of the same race. Just because they both have the same skin color doesn't justify it. Physiology is much more important when categorizing humans into races, rather than mere skin color.

Riccardo
02-04-12, 17:06
I'd rather say that we are all equal at death. That's why I find power-obsessed people ridiculous, they are just living bad their life after their hidden pathology. And so worse people that envy them.
Some kind of hierarchy is normal, of course. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the same opportunities and the same basical rights. I think it's stupid not to accept differences, but I think it's more stupid to use these differences to discriminate other people.

Cotys
03-04-12, 06:47
No, people are not born equal, nor live as equal. There are several types of un-equalities we are subjects to:
- biological - people are born with different physical capabilities, plus some are born with deficiencies, medical conditions etc that influence their whole lives and their performance.
- social - peopel are born in different social conditions, in families that can range from rich and functional to very poor and disfunctional, with myriads of combinations and levels of functionality and standard of life.
- political - people are born in a different political situations, in minorities or majorities, with myriad combinations of unequalities and different abilities to give chances to the kids born in them.

Lastly, there are myriads of combinations between those 3 types of unequalities, that affect the life of each one of us. Being equal is a dream, not a reality, and most probably will always be only a dream. But this is what makes us human, no - that we dream and try to counter in some way those inequalities and level them a bit 0 but this is just human effort, not how we are born. We are born in random-ness, unequal, unpredictable, unknown - and most unfair.

superhorn
05-07-12, 00:19
All people DESERVE equal rights, though unfortunately this has never been the case anywhere in the world because of prejudice and bias, which are universal phenomena .
Not all people have equal intelligence, but intelligence is a very difficult thing to measure as far as I am
concerned . I'm very skeptical about IQ measurements and don't believe you can measure intelligence
with numbers . Some people have mental retardation , and others are geniuses who are brilliant in science, mathematics , music and other fields .
One person can show brilliant intellectual ability in one field yet foolishness and stupidity in other areas .
Intelligence has nothing to do with skin color . Brilliant intellects have come from all races and ethnic groups , as well as mediocre or stupid people . Nor does it have anything to do with gender .

JFWR
06-07-12, 06:57
Allow me to explain my rationale for my choices:

I decided to vote for every choice excepting the egalitaria 1.1., 2.1, and 3.1.

For questions of rights: Rights (as politically protected liberties) are exclusive to the given legal framework in which they are formed. As such, it is only natural the rights will differ based on race on a world wide scale, as well as by sex, and amongst individuals. In a given society, however, one could imagine a pure state of legal equality, although the ontological differences between men and women, for instance, ought to be recognized in differing roles in society and rights. Likewise, I see no reason why a nation ought to be compelled to accept diversity of races, excepting when they so choose to.

For questions regarding intelligence: It is empirically justifiable to say that men are smarter than women and that some races are smarter than others on average. However, each individual does have a unique intelligence, and exceptions are found across the globe.

For questions regarding strengths and abilities: The same as intelligence.

hope
06-07-12, 14:58
Allow me to explain my rationale for my choices:

I decided to vote for every choice excepting the egalitaria 1.1., 2.1, and 3.1.

For questions of rights: Rights (as politically protected liberties) are exclusive to the given legal framework in which they are formed. As such, it is only natural the rights will differ based on race on a world wide scale, as well as by sex, and amongst individuals. In a given society, however, one could imagine a pure state of legal equality, although the ontological differences between men and women, for instance, ought to be recognized in differing roles in society and rights. Likewise, I see no reason why a nation ought to be compelled to accept diversity of races, excepting when they so choose to.

For questions regarding intelligence: It is empirically justifiable to say that men are smarter than women and that some races are smarter than others on average. However, each individual does have a unique intelligence, and exceptions are found across the globe.

For questions regarding strengths and abilities: The same as intelligence.

I am not sure what you mean by some "races" are smarter than others. Certainly some people in lesser developed countries may not have such easy access to education that we
take for granted and this may effect their level of knowledge, but that is quite different from intelligence.
Also in regards to men being smarter than women, mmmm.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200901/why-men-are-more-intelligent-women

JFWR
06-07-12, 16:02
I am not sure what you mean by some "races" are smarter than others. Certainly some people in lesser developed countries may not have such easy access to education that we
take for granted and this may effect their level of knowledge, but that is quite different from intelligence.
Also in regards to men being smarter than women, mmmm.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200901/why-men-are-more-intelligent-women

It is a matter of empirical science that the races are disparately intelligent. See the Bell Curve and also the work of Dr. Michael Levin of CUNY Grad (whom, to note, I studied under at one time).

As for men v. women, your link speaks to the fact that men are more intelligent in IQ. As it notes, though, men also are more variably intelligent, with more imbeciles and geniuses than the more consistently average female.

The talk about "height", however, is probably wrong in more ways than one. It does not at all correlate to racial studies, for instance. East Asians and Jews rank highest in average IQ, but are often short. Contrariwise, Sub-Saharan Africans have statistically the lowest intelligence on a whole and are widely noted as a very tall people. This seems to me like the study did not adequately address a potential correlation does not equal causation confusion, or else another reasonable issue.

As a historical point, we can also point to the fact that men have a monopoly over intellectual and political achievements in all cultures and all times.

hope
06-07-12, 17:42
It is a matter of empirical science that the races are disparately intelligent. See the Bell Curve and also the work of Dr. Michael Levin of CUNY Grad (whom, to note, I studied under at one time).

As for men v. women, your link speaks to the fact that men are more intelligent in IQ. As it notes, though, men also are more variably intelligent, with more imbeciles and geniuses than the more consistently average female.

The talk about "height", however, is probably wrong in more ways than one. It does not at all correlate to racial studies, for instance. East Asians and Jews rank highest in average IQ, but are often short. Contrariwise, Sub-Saharan Africans have statistically the lowest intelligence on a whole and are widely noted as a very tall people. This seems to me like the study did not adequately address a potential correlation does not equal causation confusion, or else another reasonable issue.

As a historical point, we can also point to the fact that men have a monopoly over intellectual and political achievements in all cultures and all times.
You will forgive me as , for now, my reply must be brief.
Firstly I am not a great lover of the Bell Curve, and I believe it was a study based mainly within Americas populations. It also stated, correct me if I am wrong, "whether" and "how" genes and environment had on ethnic differences remained "unsolved".
As for dominion of men in politics, this is a completely different study more I feel inclined to the differences in society of the sexes rather than intelligence between
the sexes. As we know women in history have never been urged on to be politically engaged. In fact women have had to struggle to be "engaged"
in many power positions.
As for sub-saharans lower intelligence, as you state, let us remember these countries have for a very long time been either under colonial dictatorship, capitalist abuse , poverty and disease. None of these factors make for good education.

JFWR
06-07-12, 18:01
You will forgive me as , for now, my reply must be brief.
Firstly I am not a great lover of the Bell Curve, and I believe it was a study based mainly within Americas populations. It also stated, correct me if I am wrong, "whether" and "how" genes and environment had on ethnic differences remained "unsolved".
As for dominion of men in politics, this is a completely different study more I feel inclined to the differences in society of the sexes rather than intelligence between
the sexes. As we know women in history have never been urged on to be politically engaged. In fact women have had to struggle to be "engaged"
in many power positions.
As for sub-saharans lower intelligence, as you state, let us remember these countries have for a very long time been either under colonial dictatorship, capitalist abuse , poverty and disease. None of these factors make for good education.

Your reply was hardly brief and it is quite okay. I am busy, too! A brief one before I go for a while.

I do not believe the Bell Curve study was able to address the precise mechanisms of why the races have disparate intelligence, only that it was seen to be the case. Joining that study (which as you said was American-focused in large part) with more broad studies, however, makes the findings even more convincing. IQ and the Wealth of Nations, for instance, finds that the lowest IQ nations are predictably in the areas from which the less intelligent races derive from.

Also: As a note for the Bell Curve, the American focus on the test actually is really useful as it allows one to bypass arguments that there is a different culture, different backgrounds, et cetera. Americans of different races are more alike than different.

In regards to women: Yes, women have never been encouraged, and have even had to fight for the ability to be, politically engaged. But this doesn't address the deeper issue of how this is almost universally found in populations. The predominance of male-dominance is a historical fact across cultures and times, to such an extent that it is impossible to conceive that there is not in some sense a "natural" cause for this. Matriarchies are few and far between (in fact: there are no pure matriarchies on record, though matrinlineal societies are found in some areas).

I agree that Sub-Saharan African countries have faced a slew of problems, but this does not change the genetic aspects of intelligence. There is an improvement when conditions are better, but not a complete one.

hope
09-07-12, 23:32
No all humans are not born equal and it is naive to think otherwise.
For example a child born in a sub-saharan country will for the greater part be born into poverty, hunger, lack of healthcare, disease, sometimes poor or no education,bad housing, perhaps war, basic things as clean water ..the list goes on and on. The infant mortality rate is high and in Ethiopia as an eg. a child is thirty times more likely to die by five than their counterpart in Western Europe.
Furthermore these children are unlikely to reach the academic level they more than likely could unless the above mentioned changes (despite what Murray and Herrnstein would attempt to tell us)
A child born in, say Europe, will have a distinct advantage over those above . Health care in the West despite some reforms in some countries or lack of funding at times to keep up with ever increasing costs are for the greater part very good. Most women will have access to pre -natal care and deliver in a hospital with midwives or doctors. These children will go on to state funded education and the chance of further and higher education if so wished. This makes for good footing for the future, in general.
So no, not everyone is born equal, unfortunately.

JFWR
10-07-12, 08:47
No all humans are not born equal and it is naive to think otherwise.
For example a child born in a sub-saharan country will for the greater part be born into poverty, hunger, lack of healthcare, disease, sometimes poor or no education,bad housing, perhaps war, basic things as clean water ..the list goes on and on. The infant mortality rate is high and in Ethiopia as an eg. a child is thirty times more likely to die by five than their counterpart in Western Europe.
Furthermore these children are unlikely to reach the academic level they more than likely could unless the above mentioned changes (despite what Murray and Herrnstein would attempt to tell us)
A child born in, say Europe, will have a distinct advantage over those above . Health care in the West despite some reforms in some countries or lack of funding at times to keep up with ever increasing costs are for the greater part very good. Most women will have access to pre -natal care and deliver in a hospital with midwives or doctors. These children will go on to state funded education and the chance of further and higher education if so wished. This makes for good footing for the future, in general.
So no, not everyone is born equal, unfortunately.

Yet these same sub-Saharan African children, when raised in wealth and plenty in the West (not just in the US, but also Canada and Europe) never intellectually match their peers from other races. The gap DOES shrink, but the gap itself remains. There's a point at which it seems that the African capacity for intelligence is limited by inheritable faculties. This doesn't make them inferior people in all regards by any means, but it does place their inequality of ability within a framework of partial inheritance.

There's even a quick evolutionary reason this might be so: Races that come from tropical and other Southern areas may not require as much active need for intellect by their easier lifestyle which does not have to cope with scarcity of food and climate as acutely as those in Northern climes. The Earth gives more plentifully and easily in Southern climates (in a low-population society such as was previously the case, rather than in the overpopulated/underdeveloped nightmare which is Africa now) than it does in Northern ones.

However, I do not know what the baseline for EXTREME northern populations are. I don't know how intelligent Eskimo or Saami populations are in general. Has there been any tests on this?

Yetos
10-07-12, 11:23
Equality is an idea that expressed by ancient civilizations

Historically the first equality was NOT in Christians BUT in Doric comunities especially Spartians

the term is ΟΜΟΙΟΙ means shame and equals.

now lets put some limits in equality and some criteria,
woman and man can never be equal since their role is different, even in Christians Paul say that a womqn can be saved if at least born a child.
a black African and a blonde N European can never be equal since their genes are suitable for some climates,
what nature saved and deposit for centuries today we overpass it due modern city comfort, but that is against 'mother nature winsdom love and grace'

a child that is born in Patagonia, in Australia's originals and in New York can not be equal since the information that receives from its enviroment are different,

a man that manages to live >100 years due to some conditions can be equal (in life terms) with the one that does not?
a man that works in a mine can have equal life with one that breeds animals in open country side?


so then what is equality that people demand?

I believe mainly has to do with inside a community, a group, an area etc,
equality at least as expressed in Sparta was class rights and obligations and judging system.

when I ask for equality in my community I ask for fair chances, fair judges, fair rulling system, in comparison to provide my obligation to the community.

you can not compare a New York child with a child in lake Titikaka and a child in Bombay, asking for equality in the standards of living, but you can ask for equality in New York children to have different chances and judgement treaty

that is the main Hypocricy of today's philosophy movements and Religion rullers.

giving an example
at the Greece of crisis IMF manager christine Langarde dare to compare Greece with Nigeria and Latvia,
but she oversee that IMF put Taxation in homelles people 170 E, and ask same taxation no matter the income of the family,
so family that has 15 000 E income/year payed Xtra 700 E + 400-800 E
a family that has 30 000 E payed 920 +400-800 E
and a family of 60 000 E payed 820 +400-800 E
That is not equality, cause lacks of fair chances.
and you can not compare Nigeria with Greece to say about equality.

other example of equality is the Lehman brother case,
By what I know when Lehman brother close, chief and haed managers took their salaries, but simple workers did not,
That is an hypocricy, cause if we consider USA as a group-a community, and even the corporation as a community, simple workers were not judged fair neither had their fair chances,

And believe me I don't care about equality among Sub-Sahara and Helvetia, I care mostly about equality among Sub-Sahara and Helvetia communities.

The Hypocricy that Religious guiders and some Bankers via media provide about equality among some poor African and some rich North is just a stupidity,

remember that in a community, a short man and a tall one can co-exist, but do we judge them different?
do we say that only the tall ones must go to universities?
surely not.

hope
10-07-12, 17:16
Yet these same sub-Saharan African children, when raised in wealth and plenty in the West (not just in the US, but also Canada and Europe) never intellectually match their peers from other races.

I have read that African immigrants coming to America for education purposes have went on to do very well. I believe it was something estimated at 48.9
per cent holding diplomas, more than double the rate of native born Americans and four times the rate of fellow American born Africans. If these figures are correct
then I would say they are not only matching their peers from other races but out-stripping them. (J. Logan and 2000 census) In fact is this not the African Brain Drain debate?
As for Canada sociological literature reports something similar (but to a lesser degree).Boyd 2002.
Within the U.K. the Centre of Economic Performance noted that 21% of those of African origin hold university diplomas against 14% of native born British.
Among ethnic minorities in Britain black males over the age of thirty hold more educational achievements than other minority groups.
I still believe that if the environment is right all can achieve( of course there will always be those who will do less well across all ethnic cultures).
You will excuse me if I decline from further on this topic as it may be seen to deviate from original thread and into something less favourable.

As for studies regarding Inuits there are some that may be found on-line, but I don`t think they are very detailed, unless I have missed them.

JFWR
10-07-12, 18:14
I have read that African immigrants coming to America for education purposes have went on to do very well. I believe it was something estimated at 48.9
per cent holding diplomas, more than double the rate of native born Americans and four times the rate of fellow American born Africans.

If these figures are correct
then I would say they are not only matching their peers from other races but out-stripping them. (J. Logan and 2000 census) In fact is this not the African Drain Brain debate?
As for Canada sociological literature reports something similar (but to a lesser degree).Boyd 2002.
[quote]

It woudn't shock me. One would think that with limited spaces and the expenses associated with travel, that those who come here to study would be amongst the very best in order to secure their positions. Moreover, I wouldn't put much by a college education (at least on a BA level) in the US. It's not especially difficult, even in good schools, and there have been plenty of problems with favourable grading schemes, et cetera.

If we say that these Africans represent the top 10 percent of intelligence in Africa, would it be that surprising that the top 10 percent will do especially well in America v. the average? Or in Canada? Or any country, for that matter? If these weren't particularly bright students, that'd be another thing. There's always going to be superior intelligences in any race, and those who would immigrate to a country SPECIFICALLY to study would probably be amongst them.

[quote]Within the U.K. the Centre of Economic Performance noted that 21% of those of African origin hold university diplomas against 14% of native born British.
Among ethnic minorities in Britain black males over the age of thirty hold more educational achievements than other minority groups.
I still believe that if the environment is right all can achieve( of course there will always be those who will do less well across all ethnic cultures).
You will excuse me if I decline from further on this topic as it may be seen to deviate from original thread and into something less favorable.

Wasn't the majority of Britons discouraged from higher-education until very recently? Likewise, is the situation with Africans similar to that of immigrants to the US?

That's perfectly fine. We could continue elsewhere if you want.


As for studies regarding Inuits there are some that may be found on-line, but I don`t think they are very detailed, unless I have missed them.


If you know of any especially good ones that I could access via JSTOR or something, I'd be most obliged.

hope
10-07-12, 18:24
If you know of any especially good ones that I could access via JSTOR or something, I'd be most obliged.

Unfortunately I don`t, but perhaps some-one on the forum might.

Gurka atla
14-07-13, 09:26
Well obviously not. If they were born equal than were some born rich and some very poor?