Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,562
From a secular/atheist/"rational" point of view the answer is obviously "yes". For centuries most people would have had a more religious/spiritual view that humans and animals are discrete and separate categories of "thing", where humans are above animals in some way, possess souls etc etc.
Most people seem a lot happier with the idea that we're just animals like all the other animals these days, at least superficially. But often this seems to break down if we're forced to think about what this might actually mean in too much depth.
I'm thinking specifically of studies that show (or purport to show) inherent, innate differences between races, or between genders, in things like intelligence or behaviours. I don't want to talk about any particular studies in general because I'm not really talking about the veracity of any individual claims, more the reaction they usually garner. It seems no-one ever has any problem if, for example, someone claims to have evidence that grey squirrels are more intelligent than red squirrels, or that Bengal tigers are more aggressive than Siberian tigers, or that female marmosets tend to avoid risks and have smaller territories than male marmosets. Or even that different breeds of dog, which are all exactly the same species, exhibit wildly different temperaments, behaviours and perhaps even intelligence.
To me it would seem the natural assumption, given that we see these sorts of differences in practically every other animal species you'd care to mention, that we are very likely to possess such differences ourselves. Or at the very least it's not an unreasonable idea to concieve of. Yet whenever such subjects are raised they're often met with outright hostility, incredibly emotional responses, and more often than not the word "Nazi". So why are people so unable to approach such ideas as rationally as they would when discussing any other animal species?
Again, I'm not addressing any specific studies here, and if any individual study is found to be based on faulty or poor data, or flawed reasoning, then obviously it should be dismissed. But even in such cases, the logical dismissal is usually delivered wrapped in a very emotive "this is offensive" coating. But why should such ideas be offensive? On the one hand I understand how it's different when it's "us" and not "them", but on the other I can't see how a supposedly rational mind can't overcome that difference.
So to me it seems that a lot of people, despite taking the rational stance of "yes we are animals", still have this inherent belief that we're still somehow in a different, special class. Where, despite our messy animalistic origins, we've somehow evolved to the point where we've attained some sort of sublime intelligence or spiritual purity where we are able to entirely rise above any innate animalistic differences or tendencies to the point where they no longer influence us at all. Indeed, just looking at intelligence, not only is the idea that different races may (on average) display different levels of intelligence generally considered to be an unnacceptable proposition, but the idea of intelligence itself often seems to be treated with mistrust (in humans that is). Despite the fact that we've all obviously met stupid people and intelligent people and can clearly see the difference, there's very often a general denial that things like the results of IQ tests even mean anything at all, as if intelligence is some entirely nebulous and immeasurable concept and that we can all be as intelligent as we want if we just choose to do so. Perhaps I'm wrong on that one and perhaps it really is just the tests themselves that people have problems with, but often it seems to me that the objection is born out of some resentment over not being one of the top scorers and not wanting to feel limited.
That last point suggest another another possible motivation - the desire to hold on to the concept of free will. We like to think that our beliefs, our interests, our behaviours, our morals, are all entirely our choice, that we can choose to be anything we want, or behave any way we like, that we are entirely our own masters. We can accept restrictions and rules for anything else in nature, but if they are applied to humans then we have to accept that we are included in that and perhaps this is simply not acceptable to a lot of people, not necessarily (or even likely) on a conscious level.
An example on CFC recently was the thread where some company claimed that they had a system for detecting if people were (or would become) paedophiles or terrorists or geniuses. Again, the claims might well be complete rubbish, and a lot of other criticisms were along the lines of "even if this is possible, we shouldn't persue technologies like this for moral reasons". But also I saw a number of responses that seemed to be just immediately dismissive of the idea, seemingly on the grounds that people just can't be predicted in this sort of way.
Anyway, discuss?
Most people seem a lot happier with the idea that we're just animals like all the other animals these days, at least superficially. But often this seems to break down if we're forced to think about what this might actually mean in too much depth.
I'm thinking specifically of studies that show (or purport to show) inherent, innate differences between races, or between genders, in things like intelligence or behaviours. I don't want to talk about any particular studies in general because I'm not really talking about the veracity of any individual claims, more the reaction they usually garner. It seems no-one ever has any problem if, for example, someone claims to have evidence that grey squirrels are more intelligent than red squirrels, or that Bengal tigers are more aggressive than Siberian tigers, or that female marmosets tend to avoid risks and have smaller territories than male marmosets. Or even that different breeds of dog, which are all exactly the same species, exhibit wildly different temperaments, behaviours and perhaps even intelligence.
To me it would seem the natural assumption, given that we see these sorts of differences in practically every other animal species you'd care to mention, that we are very likely to possess such differences ourselves. Or at the very least it's not an unreasonable idea to concieve of. Yet whenever such subjects are raised they're often met with outright hostility, incredibly emotional responses, and more often than not the word "Nazi". So why are people so unable to approach such ideas as rationally as they would when discussing any other animal species?
Again, I'm not addressing any specific studies here, and if any individual study is found to be based on faulty or poor data, or flawed reasoning, then obviously it should be dismissed. But even in such cases, the logical dismissal is usually delivered wrapped in a very emotive "this is offensive" coating. But why should such ideas be offensive? On the one hand I understand how it's different when it's "us" and not "them", but on the other I can't see how a supposedly rational mind can't overcome that difference.
So to me it seems that a lot of people, despite taking the rational stance of "yes we are animals", still have this inherent belief that we're still somehow in a different, special class. Where, despite our messy animalistic origins, we've somehow evolved to the point where we've attained some sort of sublime intelligence or spiritual purity where we are able to entirely rise above any innate animalistic differences or tendencies to the point where they no longer influence us at all. Indeed, just looking at intelligence, not only is the idea that different races may (on average) display different levels of intelligence generally considered to be an unnacceptable proposition, but the idea of intelligence itself often seems to be treated with mistrust (in humans that is). Despite the fact that we've all obviously met stupid people and intelligent people and can clearly see the difference, there's very often a general denial that things like the results of IQ tests even mean anything at all, as if intelligence is some entirely nebulous and immeasurable concept and that we can all be as intelligent as we want if we just choose to do so. Perhaps I'm wrong on that one and perhaps it really is just the tests themselves that people have problems with, but often it seems to me that the objection is born out of some resentment over not being one of the top scorers and not wanting to feel limited.
That last point suggest another another possible motivation - the desire to hold on to the concept of free will. We like to think that our beliefs, our interests, our behaviours, our morals, are all entirely our choice, that we can choose to be anything we want, or behave any way we like, that we are entirely our own masters. We can accept restrictions and rules for anything else in nature, but if they are applied to humans then we have to accept that we are included in that and perhaps this is simply not acceptable to a lot of people, not necessarily (or even likely) on a conscious level.
An example on CFC recently was the thread where some company claimed that they had a system for detecting if people were (or would become) paedophiles or terrorists or geniuses. Again, the claims might well be complete rubbish, and a lot of other criticisms were along the lines of "even if this is possible, we shouldn't persue technologies like this for moral reasons". But also I saw a number of responses that seemed to be just immediately dismissive of the idea, seemingly on the grounds that people just can't be predicted in this sort of way.
Anyway, discuss?