#121
|
|||
|
|||
Black pro riders?
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
Interestingly, there is a historian that speaks about bikes, and one of the effects of the bike in the late 1800s, early 1900s was to widen the marriage pool available. Cultures that are primarily 'afoot' tend to intermarry more than those that have a wider range (in several senses) of choice. I'm a fan of the transformative role that bicycles can play in society; still, it's hard for me to believe that many serious historians think this. I suspect that increasing population density (and all the things that came from that) are more important. One branch of social network analysis traces its roots to Sauvy's theory of "marriage pools" or "marriage circles;" Sauvy was also the guy who coined the term "Third World." |
Ads |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Black pro riders?
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
Interestingly, there is a historian that speaks about bikes, and one of the effects of the bike in the late 1800s, early 1900s was to widen the marriage pool available. Cultures that are primarily 'afoot' tend to intermarry more than those that have a wider range (in several senses) of choice. I'm a fan of the transformative role that bicycles can play in society; still, it's hard for me to believe that many serious historians think this. I suspect that increasing population density (and all the things that came from that) are more important. One branch of social network analysis traces its roots to Sauvy's theory of "marriage pools" or "marriage circles;" Sauvy was also the guy who coined the term "Third World." |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Black pro riders?
"Robert Chung" wrote in message ...
gwhite wrote: The most common marriage pattern world-wide is still today first cousin, I'm not sure this is true, nor am I sure that this has applied for quite a while. I don't know. I'm repeating what a professor in a human sexuality course explicitly said in lecture and later tested us upon. The "ideal" or preferred marriage pattern may be cross-cousin, but there's a fair amount of research that suggests that in the real world the demographic rates are such that these preferred marriage types are limited by the supply of appropriately aged, appropriately crossed, unmarried, first-cousin targets (of the appropriate sex). The supply of such appropriate targets is determined in part by high fertility rates in your parent's generation combined with low mortality rates in your generation, so it's only during periods with high population growth rates when this preferred marriage type could be "most common." Okay, then why wouldn't, or perhaps I should say "couldn't," it be true? High population growth -- implying fertile first cousin availability -- would seem to be in the non-Western culture, exactly what the prof said. (He said it was *not* the most common pattern in Western culture, which means "somewhere else" was making up the difference.) although not as common in Western culture. In earlier pre-history times, some anthropologists state that bands of humans got about as large as 150 or so, and that was it. Yes, but that is part of a fissioning story. Bands of that size were almost surely not in stable equilibrium. I don't know. Maybe large bands were bands formed in less scarce times, which would tend to "fission" as you say, in bumper years. Maybe harder times "made" smaller bands and the penalty for breaking away larger, or certainly more risky. It's probably time for me to stop speculating and read what a few specialists in the field has to say about it. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Black pro riders?
"Robert Chung" wrote in message ...
gwhite wrote: The most common marriage pattern world-wide is still today first cousin, I'm not sure this is true, nor am I sure that this has applied for quite a while. I don't know. I'm repeating what a professor in a human sexuality course explicitly said in lecture and later tested us upon. The "ideal" or preferred marriage pattern may be cross-cousin, but there's a fair amount of research that suggests that in the real world the demographic rates are such that these preferred marriage types are limited by the supply of appropriately aged, appropriately crossed, unmarried, first-cousin targets (of the appropriate sex). The supply of such appropriate targets is determined in part by high fertility rates in your parent's generation combined with low mortality rates in your generation, so it's only during periods with high population growth rates when this preferred marriage type could be "most common." Okay, then why wouldn't, or perhaps I should say "couldn't," it be true? High population growth -- implying fertile first cousin availability -- would seem to be in the non-Western culture, exactly what the prof said. (He said it was *not* the most common pattern in Western culture, which means "somewhere else" was making up the difference.) although not as common in Western culture. In earlier pre-history times, some anthropologists state that bands of humans got about as large as 150 or so, and that was it. Yes, but that is part of a fissioning story. Bands of that size were almost surely not in stable equilibrium. I don't know. Maybe large bands were bands formed in less scarce times, which would tend to "fission" as you say, in bumper years. Maybe harder times "made" smaller bands and the penalty for breaking away larger, or certainly more risky. It's probably time for me to stop speculating and read what a few specialists in the field has to say about it. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Black pro riders?
gwhite wrote:
"Robert Chung" wrote in message ... gwhite wrote: The most common marriage pattern world-wide is still today first cousin, I'm not sure this is true, nor am I sure that this has applied for quite a while. I don't know. I'm repeating what a professor in a human sexuality course explicitly said in lecture and later tested us upon. The "ideal" or preferred marriage pattern may be cross-cousin, but there's a fair amount of research that suggests that in the real world the demographic rates are such that these preferred marriage types are limited by the supply of appropriately aged, appropriately crossed, unmarried, first-cousin targets (of the appropriate sex). The supply of such appropriate targets is determined in part by high fertility rates in your parent's generation combined with low mortality rates in your generation, so it's only during periods with high population growth rates when this preferred marriage type could be "most common." Okay, then why wouldn't, or perhaps I should say "couldn't," it be true? High population growth -- implying fertile first cousin availability -- would seem to be in the non-Western culture, exactly what the prof said. (He said it was *not* the most common pattern in Western culture, which means "somewhere else" was making up the difference.) Well, the places with the highest growth rates would also have to have the right kind of inheritance system -- so what we're talking about, basically, is the Indian sub-continent and a few parts of sub-Saharan Africa (other areas of the world either have the right growth rates but the wrong inheritance system or the right inheritance system but the wrong growth rates--at least, now they do). In order for cross-first cousin marriage to be the most common type "world-wide" means that there have got to be a *lot* of cross-first cousin marriages in India and Africa, and that doesn't appear to be happening. In certain areas of India and Africa cross-first cousin marriage is clearly the *ideal* type--but that's like saying that the ideal living arrangement is owning your own home. Not everyone is able to attain it, and the window of potential acquisition for one's home is a lot wider than the window of opportunity for acquiring a spouse. BTW, you can sort of see an indicator of consanguinity in the marriage market by looking at spousal age differences: when cross-cousin marriage is an important condition for mate selection, spousal age differences tend to be larger, which is why you see, on average, the largest spousal age differences in India and Africa (well, largest next to Hollywood) and even then the consanguinous link appears to be attentuated beyond cousins of the first degree. although not as common in Western culture. In earlier pre-history times, some anthropologists state that bands of humans got about as large as 150 or so, and that was it. Yes, but that is part of a fissioning story. Bands of that size were almost surely not in stable equilibrium. I don't know. Maybe large bands were bands formed in less scarce times, which would tend to "fission" as you say, in bumper years. Maybe harder times "made" smaller bands and the penalty for breaking away larger, or certainly more risky. It's probably time for me to stop speculating and read what a few specialists in the field has to say about it. The fissioning story is about the supportable population density in neolithic (pre-agricultural, hunter-gatherer) times. Bands of that size (or smaller) are not in long-term stable equilbrium, so they must either grow and fission when the supportable density gets exceeded, or else they die out (e.g., merge or get absorbed). The mathematics of growth and extinction of populations was developed in the middle of the 19th C. by Bienayme and subsequently and independently by Galton (the developer of regression and Darwin's first cousin (!)) and Watson; sadly, its most well-known usage occurred some decades later when it was used to describe, model, and plan the chain reactions in the fissioning of the atomic bomb. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Black pro riders?
gwhite wrote:
"Robert Chung" wrote in message ... gwhite wrote: The most common marriage pattern world-wide is still today first cousin, I'm not sure this is true, nor am I sure that this has applied for quite a while. I don't know. I'm repeating what a professor in a human sexuality course explicitly said in lecture and later tested us upon. The "ideal" or preferred marriage pattern may be cross-cousin, but there's a fair amount of research that suggests that in the real world the demographic rates are such that these preferred marriage types are limited by the supply of appropriately aged, appropriately crossed, unmarried, first-cousin targets (of the appropriate sex). The supply of such appropriate targets is determined in part by high fertility rates in your parent's generation combined with low mortality rates in your generation, so it's only during periods with high population growth rates when this preferred marriage type could be "most common." Okay, then why wouldn't, or perhaps I should say "couldn't," it be true? High population growth -- implying fertile first cousin availability -- would seem to be in the non-Western culture, exactly what the prof said. (He said it was *not* the most common pattern in Western culture, which means "somewhere else" was making up the difference.) Well, the places with the highest growth rates would also have to have the right kind of inheritance system -- so what we're talking about, basically, is the Indian sub-continent and a few parts of sub-Saharan Africa (other areas of the world either have the right growth rates but the wrong inheritance system or the right inheritance system but the wrong growth rates--at least, now they do). In order for cross-first cousin marriage to be the most common type "world-wide" means that there have got to be a *lot* of cross-first cousin marriages in India and Africa, and that doesn't appear to be happening. In certain areas of India and Africa cross-first cousin marriage is clearly the *ideal* type--but that's like saying that the ideal living arrangement is owning your own home. Not everyone is able to attain it, and the window of potential acquisition for one's home is a lot wider than the window of opportunity for acquiring a spouse. BTW, you can sort of see an indicator of consanguinity in the marriage market by looking at spousal age differences: when cross-cousin marriage is an important condition for mate selection, spousal age differences tend to be larger, which is why you see, on average, the largest spousal age differences in India and Africa (well, largest next to Hollywood) and even then the consanguinous link appears to be attentuated beyond cousins of the first degree. although not as common in Western culture. In earlier pre-history times, some anthropologists state that bands of humans got about as large as 150 or so, and that was it. Yes, but that is part of a fissioning story. Bands of that size were almost surely not in stable equilibrium. I don't know. Maybe large bands were bands formed in less scarce times, which would tend to "fission" as you say, in bumper years. Maybe harder times "made" smaller bands and the penalty for breaking away larger, or certainly more risky. It's probably time for me to stop speculating and read what a few specialists in the field has to say about it. The fissioning story is about the supportable population density in neolithic (pre-agricultural, hunter-gatherer) times. Bands of that size (or smaller) are not in long-term stable equilbrium, so they must either grow and fission when the supportable density gets exceeded, or else they die out (e.g., merge or get absorbed). The mathematics of growth and extinction of populations was developed in the middle of the 19th C. by Bienayme and subsequently and independently by Galton (the developer of regression and Darwin's first cousin (!)) and Watson; sadly, its most well-known usage occurred some decades later when it was used to describe, model, and plan the chain reactions in the fissioning of the atomic bomb. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Black pro riders?
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:33:22 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
Sonarrat wrote: In article , Top Sirloin wrote: Sonarrat wrote: The fact that the second definition of each word is the same speaks to how thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am calling it racist to be on the safe side and to put out a warning flag. Why, are you the Usenet police? It's well known that different races have many differences physiologically besides skin color, some of which accounts for the dominance of certain racial groups in specific sports. Does the recognition of reality make me a racist? "Race" is entirely a social construct, which has nothing to do with physiology whatsoever. Consider this: the dove and the pigeon are identical, the exact same species with the same biology, and they can produce fertile offspring. But they segregate themselves, just like we humans do, because they look different... We're going to segregate you from the smart peopele b/c you are a ****ing moron. Race is entirely a social construct? Take your PC bull**** and cram it up your socially constructed bung. Lyle Ive head this too - on a program that was definitely NOT trying to be PC. At the genetic level the various traits are relatively independant. They generally get propogated together because of demographics and cultural bonding. On a social level if a white and a black person have a child. They are very likely referred to as mixed-race or black but hardly ever white. [Arguments about dominant genes here] If that person had a child with a white person again - there would be reluctance for their offspring to be considered white unless the clearly had NO external genetic traits commonly associated with "black" people. This is the social aspect. I've seen news reports in the BBC where some people are described as black when they are clearly and visibly ""mixed-raced"" and then they cut to the mother who is white. Sounds like the ole "one-drop" rule. Even going back to the original argument It's well known that different races have many differences physiologically besides skin color, some of which accounts for the dominance of certain racial groups in specific sports. We'll weve discuseed almost every year now - but these are not "racial" differences. Genetic trails certainly - but often limited to a small subset (demographically) of the "race". For white people I think the Danes(?) are routinely very tall and good middle distance runners. To contine the argument you would have to define "race". Maybe list them. It will be easier to do "socially" than "genetically". Lordy |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Black pro riders?
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:33:22 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
Sonarrat wrote: In article , Top Sirloin wrote: Sonarrat wrote: The fact that the second definition of each word is the same speaks to how thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am calling it racist to be on the safe side and to put out a warning flag. Why, are you the Usenet police? It's well known that different races have many differences physiologically besides skin color, some of which accounts for the dominance of certain racial groups in specific sports. Does the recognition of reality make me a racist? "Race" is entirely a social construct, which has nothing to do with physiology whatsoever. Consider this: the dove and the pigeon are identical, the exact same species with the same biology, and they can produce fertile offspring. But they segregate themselves, just like we humans do, because they look different... We're going to segregate you from the smart peopele b/c you are a ****ing moron. Race is entirely a social construct? Take your PC bull**** and cram it up your socially constructed bung. Lyle Ive head this too - on a program that was definitely NOT trying to be PC. At the genetic level the various traits are relatively independant. They generally get propogated together because of demographics and cultural bonding. On a social level if a white and a black person have a child. They are very likely referred to as mixed-race or black but hardly ever white. [Arguments about dominant genes here] If that person had a child with a white person again - there would be reluctance for their offspring to be considered white unless the clearly had NO external genetic traits commonly associated with "black" people. This is the social aspect. I've seen news reports in the BBC where some people are described as black when they are clearly and visibly ""mixed-raced"" and then they cut to the mother who is white. Sounds like the ole "one-drop" rule. Even going back to the original argument It's well known that different races have many differences physiologically besides skin color, some of which accounts for the dominance of certain racial groups in specific sports. We'll weve discuseed almost every year now - but these are not "racial" differences. Genetic trails certainly - but often limited to a small subset (demographically) of the "race". For white people I think the Danes(?) are routinely very tall and good middle distance runners. To contine the argument you would have to define "race". Maybe list them. It will be easier to do "socially" than "genetically". Lordy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Riders Amaze, Pittsburgh Astonishes, Omaha & Columbus Next | Cycle America | General | 1 | July 14th 04 10:31 AM |
Ghent Six Day Excursion | Ilan Vardi | Racing | 8 | November 30th 03 09:03 PM |
Doping or not? Read this: | never_doped | Racing | 0 | August 4th 03 01:46 AM |