For some reason my reply to Mike Gurstein's last posting refuses to
be sent by my software. I think it may be Mike's typefafce or colour.
So I'm sending my reply by itself. It's in answer to Mike's first paragraph.
Keith
Yes, status is hard to define but we all know what the pecking order
is within any particular group, at least at the top end before it
merges downwards into a middling sort of equality. Of course, status
can shift somewhat in some situations requiring special skills but
social status levels in any fairly permanent group can also be given
more precisely by hormonal levels. (In a voluntary group, the
hormonal levels and correlated traits give rise to the status level;
in an imposed hierarchy, say in a multi-ranked bureaucracy, hormone
levels will adjust to the ranks that have been chosen for them.)
Intelligence is similar to status (that is, within the context of a
particular group). In fact, they are highly correlated.
Race is quite different. Races differ for reasons of different
distinctive bunches of gene mutations within the standard set of
genes (of which all races have precisely the same number and main
functions -- thus making all races inter-fertile). (It is for this
reason that geneticists have been able to trace the various migration
routes of man since we left Africa.) The differences lead to
different abilities in some highly specialized activities (such as
running 100 metres) but they are, of course, quite trivial in
comparison to the overwhelming commonalities of all races.
Keith
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2012/08/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
