|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 59 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 59:
| 
Jul 17 21:28 UTC 2003 |
In my view, you are what you and your genes make of you. Ancestry is otherwise
irrelevent.
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 59:
|
Jul 17 21:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 27 of 59:
|
Jul 17 22:15 UTC 2003 |
So are you Yon or Jan?
|
novomit
|
|
response 28 of 59:
|
Jul 17 23:31 UTC 2003 |
If you are what your genes make you, then how is ancestry irrelevant?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 29 of 59:
|
Jul 18 00:41 UTC 2003 |
Genes are biology, not social ancestry. People from any genetic background
can aculture to any cultural norms. There are no genes for any of our
mental constructs, cultures, religions, ethnicities....just for biological
structures.
|
janc
|
|
response 30 of 59:
|
Jul 18 04:21 UTC 2003 |
Re 27: In English, my name is usually pronounced "Yon Walter". This is the
pronounciation assigned by the other kids in my elementary school. I use it,
and I like it, but I don't insist on it.
In German, my name is pronounced, approximately "Yun Voilta". I like that
too, but only use it when speaking German.
The name "Jan" is a contraction of "Johannes" (as are "Johan", "John", "Han"
"Hans", and possibly "Ian"). It is unrelated to "Jon" (which comes from
"Jonathan").
|
polygon
|
|
response 31 of 59:
|
Jul 18 05:15 UTC 2003 |
Add "Ivan" to that list -- another form of "John".
|
tod
|
|
response 32 of 59:
|
Jul 18 05:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 33 of 59:
|
Jul 18 13:33 UTC 2003 |
Beats me. I suppose I could do a web search for the answer, but so could you.
I think "Johannes" comes from some Latin/Hebrew things vaguely like
"Ioannes" which is where things like "Ian" and "Ivan" come from. Probably
"Joan" too.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 34 of 59:
|
Jul 18 18:22 UTC 2003 |
Re: #30: OK. I was seeing if you were called using the "German J" (as in
ja (yes) = ya) or the "English J" (as in Jan short for Janet).
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 59:
|
Jul 18 18:29 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
goose
|
|
response 36 of 59:
|
Jul 19 03:16 UTC 2003 |
Jan can cook.
|
sabre
|
|
response 37 of 59:
|
Jul 19 11:23 UTC 2003 |
I don't care what your name is janc. You still look like a goober.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 38 of 59:
|
Jul 19 15:30 UTC 2003 |
WHAT? !?! goober'sZZ? the word I use, sabre.
|
novomit
|
|
response 39 of 59:
|
Jul 22 19:33 UTC 2003 |
Re 29: Are you sure about that? Culture could possbily be genetically encoded,
although probably not in 100% detail.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 40 of 59:
|
Jul 22 21:30 UTC 2003 |
If you can give an example of such, we could discuss it. Humans have
evolved to have a variety of sensory and communication structures and the
mental apparatus to use them, but I have never heard of any genetic
cultural traits. For example, if humans are not exposed to language, they
fail to develop any language ability, so the most basic of cultural
features, language, is not "encoded", despite the fact that genetics rule
possible language structures.
|
bru
|
|
response 41 of 59:
|
Jul 22 23:58 UTC 2003 |
language would change to much in time to be effected.
But perhaps gestures? Nod the head, shake the fist, toss of the head...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 42 of 59:
|
Jul 23 00:25 UTC 2003 |
I do know that in Bulgaria that the nod and shake of the head have the
opposite meaning of ours. I'm not sure what "shake the fist" or "toss the
head" mean even in our society. I don't think I *can* even "toss" my head.
I expect that all gestures are cultural. After all, they convey a meaning
and all meanings have to be learned.
Darwin did a pretty thorough analysis of this in his "The Expression of
the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872)". It's on my pile of books to read.
There is a partial list of meanings of gestures at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3544/gestures.htm. Even smiling has
different meanings in different cultures.
I don't know of any gesture with universal meaning - do you? (If there was
one, I wouldn't be surprised if it were universal because those using it
for something else were in a vanished culture - like the ancient
Egyptians.)
|
russ
|
|
response 43 of 59:
|
Jul 23 03:06 UTC 2003 |
Re #39: If that were true, Brits would have trouble getting to like
African rhythms, people of African descent would have had a difficult
time growing up with the French language, and the oriental love affair
with American culture and the American love affair with oriental food
would have broken up acrimoniously a long time ago.
It is unethical to perform controlled experiments of the type which
could conclusively settle the question. This is probably a good thing.
|
novomit
|
|
response 44 of 59:
|
Jul 23 11:32 UTC 2003 |
Re 41. Well, that's kind of what I was talking about . . . I didn't mean that
any one culture was totally encoded in one's brain, but that the structures
that make one susceptible to human culture as we know it might be . . .
language may not be totally natural in that someone raised by wolves probably
wouldn't learn human languages very well, but unlike chimps or cats, humans
did somehow manage to create their own language (by language I mean spokem
language). Can't give any concrete examples of this since I don't know much
abotu the subject, but I don't think that its that improbable. Have heard that
some social deviants may have had bad genes . . . that is social behaviour
of a sort, right? Again, don't know how much research has been done into the
subject but was just speculating.
|
keesan
|
|
response 45 of 59:
|
Jul 23 14:49 UTC 2003 |
The Greeks also turn their head from side to side to mean 'yes.' The ancient
Greeks used to sprinkle their sacrificial cows with holy water and if the cows
shook their heads from side to side they interpreted this as the cows agreeing
to be sacrificed to the gods (yes). I have not seen a cow shake off water
by nodding up and down.
|
klg
|
|
response 46 of 59:
|
Jul 23 16:18 UTC 2003 |
re: "#42 (rcurl): ... Even smiling has different meanings in ifferent
cultures...."
For example??
|
rcurl
|
|
response 47 of 59:
|
Jul 23 16:38 UTC 2003 |
Re #44: certainly the "structures that make one susceptible to human
culture" are genetic, or there would be no human cultures.
Lots of research has gone into the subject. Mental abberations, both
genetic or congenital, do influence human behavior. But it is very
difficult to identify a specific *cultural* trait that is universal.
Laughter and crying are of this nature. I think people of all cultures
have responses to amusement that consists of exposing one's teeth and
gasping for breath (laughter), and lacrimating is common for despair
(weeping), and there are similar behavior in animals. Darwin (1872) has
extensive citations for these in his index.
Darwin, by the way, had a special motivation for exploring this subject in
depth. By recognizing similar "cultural" traits of expression in humans
and animals the case for a common origin for both is supported.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 48 of 59:
|
Jul 23 16:45 UTC 2003 |
Re #46: the fact is cited in the url I gave, although specific nationalities
are not mentioned. There are more specific examples at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/8229/icihcc.html
Say, I'm sure you know how to use Google. Why don't you look these things up
- you might find a counterargument.
|
klg
|
|
response 49 of 59:
|
Jul 23 17:07 UTC 2003 |
We attempted a Google search for Smile and Anger; however, did not have
time to explore all but the initial references - which did not support
your assertion.
|