Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This being said one would have to separate GENETIC from CULTURAL invasions.
Imagine a portal opens up to 15th century Spain, do we really want a couple million of them coming to our country? That would be a big no from me for certain.
This.
I'm so tired of people confusing culture and genetic.
When Greeks fell, Romans acquired their culture. When Rome Empire fell, invaders (Germans and others) acquired Roman culture. In last 5000 years invaders in Europe were continuously assimilated - not genetically, but culturally. That's the difference between what's happening today and what was happening multiple times before.
Who cares about genetics (or races)? Culture - that what makes all the difference.
Who cares about genetics (or races)? Culture - that what makes all the difference.
Culture is the aggregate behavior of a large group of individuals who often interact with and influence each other. But why do people behave as they do in the first place? When AIs become advanced enough to have cultures, you won't be arguing that the code in their programs is irrelevant, will you?
Culture is the aggregate behavior of a large group of individuals who often interact with and influence each other. But why do people behave as they do in the first place? When AIs become advanced enough to have cultures, you won't be arguing that the code in their programs is irrelevant, will you?
There are 2 questions, let me answer both. Let's start with easy one:
1) "When AIs become advanced enough to have cultures, you won't be arguing that the code in their programs is irrelevant, will you?"
As one who programs neural networks , I will. Internals do not matter "on the big scale", as they all build on one single principle. Internals are relevant to how fast you'll get the answer, and they are relevant with regards to what structure fits what problem the best. As of right now, though, all approaches are starting to converge. But what does matter a lot - is the quality of training input ("culture"). NN trained on low input volume is useless; NN trained on large input volume will give about same answer without regard of inner structure (provided that inner structures are advanced enough).
2) "why do people behave as they do in the first place". This is broad topic, but in short I can answer this way - nature environment, where culture is formed. And yes, surrounding tribes/countries/civilizations also count as part of "nature environment".
There are 2 questions, let me answer both. Let's start with easy one:
1) "When AIs become advanced enough to have cultures, you won't be arguing that the code in their programs is irrelevant, will you?"
As one who programs neural networks , I will. Internals do not matter "on the big scale", as they all build on one single principle. Internals are relevant to how fast you'll get the answer, and they are relevant with regards to what structure fits what problem the best. As of right now, though, all approaches are starting to converge. But what does matter a lot - is the quality of training input ("culture"). NN trained on low input volume is useless; NN trained on large input volume will give about same answer without regard of inner structure (provided that inner structures are advanced enough).
Interesting.
Quote:
2) "why do people behave as they do in the first place". This is broad topic, but in short I can answer this way - nature environment, where culture is formed. And yes, surrounding tribes/countries/civilizations also count as part of "nature environment".
And genes don't?? What is the "nature" component if not genetics?
And genes don't?? What is the "nature" component if not genetics?
Genes do matter, but not to the scale you imply. To give you an idea: eyesight of different people is slightly different, but for all of them it works using very same principle. So, while there are genetic differences, but, unless we are talking about functional damage (i.e. sickness), they are on about same scale.
I.e. if you'll take two-weeks old baby from a cannibal tribe, and raise him in another society, he will grow up totally conforming rules of that society.
Although, we are hitting an interesting, but totally prohibited ground here. Remember what I said about AI? I said "on a big scale". But there are always subtle differences. Note "subtle", but also note "differences". So, any human can fit any culture (if grown there from the very beginning), but level of success of him in the particular society will be different (to some extent - statistically. Note word "statistically".). One example is well known: lactose intolerance. It is now believed that gene responsible for lactose digestion is relatively new one - about 6,000-7,000 years, and is related to domestication of milking animals. So, if person roots come from "hunters" tribes compared to settled one, he/she has higher chances to not have this gene. Another example is much less known: some northern nations have gene that can process dead body poisons. This is related to how they preserve food: dead deer is buried in the nearly-frost-land (that turns to swamp quite easily); then, when needed, they dig it out and eat. This will kill any European in a few hours. And so on.
As for the case you are shooting for, AFAIK, I recall only one study where they tried to compare IQ between races. The results were such that they were put to oblivion. That's the part I don't like: PC should not affect science. Problem with that study was that all current IQ tests are heavily culture-influenced. Besides, it's very hard to come up with truly randomized representative selection. But instead of trying to improve methodology, they just halted it altogether. On another hand, what is practical application of such a study other that non-zero potential for racial wars?
Yes, clearly they do, in my own field of oncology, and in myriad other aspects. And I don't believe I have implied any particular scale.
Quote:
So, any human can fit any culture (if grown there from the very beginning), but level of success of him in the particular society will be different (to some extent - statistically.
We really can't say anything that applies to "any human" but yes, at the group average level that is true. We are similar enough that members of any group can, as a rule, function in any other group. But there are differences that show up in group average outcomes.
Quote:
As for the case you are shooting for, AFAIK, I recall only one study where they tried to compare IQ between races.
Hmmm... not sure why you would think that comparing IQ among racial groups is difficult or rarely done. Any large IQ study can be broken down and analyzed by racial subgroups. And of course this has been done many, many times, and the results are well established. Despite it being a taboo topic, many papers have been published and books written.
Quote:
On another hand, what is practical application of such a study other that non-zero potential for racial wars?
It's important for society to accept the reality of group average differences because, when outcomes inevitably differ, these differences are touted falsely as proof of wrongdoing by the more successful groups.
I liked National Geographic better when it focused on geography.
Used to read it cover to cover as a kid. I recall lots of anthropology, archaeology, biology...back when it *focused on geography. But then again all of those sciences tend to intermingle.
This.
I'm so tired of people confusing culture and genetic.
When Greeks fell, Romans acquired their culture. When Rome Empire fell, invaders (Germans and others) acquired Roman culture. In last 5000 years invaders in Europe were continuously assimilated - not genetically, but culturally. That's the difference between what's happening today and what was happening multiple times before.
Who cares about genetics (or races)? Culture - that what makes all the difference.
I read a great book on this and the Romans fell in large part to the Germans and others after committing near genocide on parts of Europe. The ones that worked with the Romans, learned to fight better, be better organized...they worked with the Romans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, I will. Internals do not matter "on the big scale", as they all build on one single principle. Internals are relevant to how fast you'll get the answer, and they are relevant with regards to what structure fits what problem the best. As of right now, though, all approaches are starting to converge. But what does matter a lot - is the quality of training input ("culture"). NN trained on low input volume is useless; NN trained on large input volume will give about same answer without regard of inner structure (provided that inner structures are advanced enough).
