Author
|
Topic: virus: Race and creation (Read 1145 times) |
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
  
|
 |
virus: Race and creation
« on: 2004-09-26 13:10:03 » |
 |
and rhino posted this gem in irc today as well. (I guess it's my day to
pass along other people's irc gems to the main list 
Walter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a chapter from Dawkins' "The ancestor's tale"
titled "Race and creation"
<snip>
Fourth, there is high interobserver agreement in our racial
categorisations. A man
such as Colin Powell, of mixed race and intermediate physical
characteristics, is
not described as white by some observers and black by others. A small
minority will
describe him as mixed. All others will without fail describe Powell as
black - and
the same goes for anybody who shows the slightest trace of African
ancestry, even if
their percentage of European ancestry is high.
There is a useful technique in science called "interobserver
correlation." It is a
measure that is often used to establish that there really is a reliable
basis for a
judgement, even if nobody can pin down what that basis is. The
rationale, in the
present case, is this. We may not know how people decide whether
somebody is "black"
or "white," but there must be some sort of reliable criterion lurking
there because
any two randomly chosen judges will, with a small exception, say they
are either
black or white, and not mixed.
The fact that the interobserver correlation remains high, even over a
huge spectrum
of inter-races, is testimony to something deep-seated in human
psychology. (It is
reminiscent of the anthropologists' finding about perception of hue.
Physicists tell
us that the rainbow is a simple continuum of wavelength. It is biology
and/or
psychology, not physics, that singles out particular landmark
wavelengths along the
physical spectrum for naming.
Blue has a name. Green has a name. Blue-green does not. The interesting
finding of
anthropologists' experiments is that there is substantial agreement over
such
namings across different cultures. We seem to have the same kind of
agreement over
judgements of race. It may prove to be even stronger and clearer than
for the
rainbow.)
and then he goes on to find some merit in the use of racial terms
Now to the question of race. If I tell you Suzy is Chinese, how much is
your prior
uncertainty reduced? You now are pretty certain that her hair is
straight and black
(or was black), that her eyes have an epicanthic fold, and one or two
other things
about her.
If I tell you Colin is "black," this does not, as we have seen, tell you
he is
black. Nevertheless, it is not uninformative. The high interobserver
correlation
suggests that there is a constellation of characteristics that most people
recognise, such that the statement "Colin is black" really does reduce prior
uncertainty about Colin.
It works the other way around to some extent. If I tell you Carl is an
Olympic
sprinting champion, your prior uncertainty about his "race" is, as a
matter of
statistical fact, reduced. Indeed, you can have a fairly confident bet
that he is
"black."
<snip>
In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin wrong. Nevertheless, I
strongly
support Lewontin's statement that racial classification can be actively
destructive
of social and human relations - especially when people use racial
classification as
a way of treating people differently, whether through negative or positive
discrimination. To tie a racial label to somebody is informative in the
sense that
it tells you more than one thing about them.
later
07:13:09 rhino
rhino (rhino@[death to spam].ppp9-adsl-71.ath.forthnet.gr) has quit IRC
[Quit:
There's a crack in the floorboards near the rhinoceros' exit point]
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.37
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:virus: Race and creation
« Reply #1 on: 2004-09-26 15:57:21 » |
|
[Walter] and rhino posted this gem in irc today as well. (I guess it's my day to
pass along other people's irc gems to the main list
Walter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a chapter from Dawkins' "The ancestor's tale"
titled "Race and creation"
<snip>
[rhinoceros] Thanks for the publicity, Walter
Now, because the selection of the snips from Dawkins which I posted in IRC was rather hasty and arbitrary, here is the whole chapter where he argues that there is a point in talking about races.
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleView.asp?P_Article=12850
|
|
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.01
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
 
|
|
RE: virus: Race and creation
« Reply #2 on: 2004-09-27 03:32:14 » |
|
well, maybe it's just the german inside me that writes these lines, but
"race" has, of course, a negative connotation. i don't want to argue that
its semantics are useless, but the form is politically difficult at least.
of course, virions should probably not be bothered by that - the
communicative value is paramount.
but apart from that, it is a biologically (in general) as well as
anthropologically (in particular) obsolete expression - nowadays
anthropologists would talk about "populations" rather, while as far as i
know (would have to look for the sources, though), biologists still argue
about the validity of the concept.
<snip>To tie a racial label to somebody is informative in the sense that it
tells you more than one thing about them.</snip>
true, but it tells you not a LOT more. in terms of one's appearance it is
most informative - regarding psychological variables such as personality, it
MIGHT be informative as far as personality is related to culture as far as
culture is related to, err, race. it's a heuristic which leads to no more
than probabilities - a prejudice. prejudice is, of course, necessary in this
high-information-world, but should we not - wherever possible - seek to
become judicious?
somewhat moralistic - not to the point - even prejudiced?,
björn
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von Walter Watts
Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. September 2004 19:10
An: undisclosed-recipients:
Betreff: virus: Race and creation
and rhino posted this gem in irc today as well. (I guess it's my day to
pass along other people's irc gems to the main list
Walter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
a chapter from Dawkins' "The ancestor's tale"
titled "Race and creation"
<snip>
Fourth, there is high interobserver agreement in our racial
categorisations. A man
such as Colin Powell, of mixed race and intermediate physical
characteristics, is
not described as white by some observers and black by others. A small
minority will
describe him as mixed. All others will without fail describe Powell as
black - and
the same goes for anybody who shows the slightest trace of African
ancestry, even if
their percentage of European ancestry is high.
There is a useful technique in science called "interobserver
correlation." It is a
measure that is often used to establish that there really is a reliable
basis for a
judgement, even if nobody can pin down what that basis is. The
rationale, in the
present case, is this. We may not know how people decide whether
somebody is "black"
or "white," but there must be some sort of reliable criterion lurking
there because
any two randomly chosen judges will, with a small exception, say they
are either
black or white, and not mixed.
The fact that the interobserver correlation remains high, even over a
huge spectrum
of inter-races, is testimony to something deep-seated in human
psychology. (It is
reminiscent of the anthropologists' finding about perception of hue.
Physicists tell
us that the rainbow is a simple continuum of wavelength. It is biology
and/or
psychology, not physics, that singles out particular landmark
wavelengths along the
physical spectrum for naming.
Blue has a name. Green has a name. Blue-green does not. The interesting
finding of
anthropologists' experiments is that there is substantial agreement over
such
namings across different cultures. We seem to have the same kind of
agreement over
judgements of race. It may prove to be even stronger and clearer than
for the
rainbow.)
and then he goes on to find some merit in the use of racial terms
Now to the question of race. If I tell you Suzy is Chinese, how much is
your prior
uncertainty reduced? You now are pretty certain that her hair is
straight and black
(or was black), that her eyes have an epicanthic fold, and one or two
other things
about her.
If I tell you Colin is "black," this does not, as we have seen, tell you
he is
black. Nevertheless, it is not uninformative. The high interobserver
correlation
suggests that there is a constellation of characteristics that most people
recognise, such that the statement "Colin is black" really does reduce prior
uncertainty about Colin.
It works the other way around to some extent. If I tell you Carl is an
Olympic
sprinting champion, your prior uncertainty about his "race" is, as a
matter of
statistical fact, reduced. Indeed, you can have a fairly confident bet
that he is
"black."
<snip>
In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin wrong. Nevertheless, I
strongly
support Lewontin's statement that racial classification can be actively
destructive
of social and human relations - especially when people use racial
classification as
a way of treating people differently, whether through negative or positive
discrimination. To tie a racial label to somebody is informative in the
sense that
it tells you more than one thing about them.
later
07:13:09 rhino
rhino (rhino@[death to spam].ppp9-adsl-71.ath.forthnet.gr) has quit IRC
[Quit:
There's a crack in the floorboards near the rhinoceros' exit point]
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Logged
